Forty-four fewer spaces in Parker Harding Plaza. Twenty more in the Imperial Avenue lot.
More greenery and walking paths at Imperial Avenue and Jesup Green — including turning Taylor Place into a pedestrian zone.
No parking garage at the Baldwin lot. At least, not yet.
Redesign of the Imperial Avenue parking lot. View is looking north, toward the pedestrian bridge to the Levitt Pavilion (left).
Those were key takeaways from last night’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Public Works Department director Pete Ratkiewich presented a pre-application to the commissioners, for the long-debated, oft-delayed downtown parking-and-more plan. (Click here for a link to construction and other materials for Parker Harding.)
It was a cordial meeting. Commissioners asked questions. Ratkiewich and Downtown Plan Implementation Committee chair Randy Herbertson answered them.
After nearly 2 hours, a consensus was reached: Officials will continue planning.
And the P&Z will welcome them back for another meeting.
Ratkiewich’s goal, he said, was to show that with a parking management strategy, downtown can withstand the loss of 44 “core” spaces. Meanwhile, he added, improved pedestrian and river access — and compliance (now lacking) with Americans with Disabilities Act standards — will make all of downtown more pleasant, and also more accessible.
Artist’s rendering of more green space by Jesup Green and the Saugatuck River.
The Public Works director’s appearance came a year after the Representative Town Meeting nixed a plan to add parking spaces by cutting into Jesup Green, sending planners back to the drawing board.
Plans on that drawing board now show enhancements to the “non-core” parking areas: Jesup Green and Imperial Avenue. Those include riverfront seating, connectivity between the 2 areas (including a mile-long pedestrian loop), and possible outdoor tables in the short area connecting the lower library parking lot with Post Road East.
Taylor Place could become a pedestrian area. View is from Post Road East, looking to the library. Tonic & Green is on the left.
Two benefits to that proposal: better integration between the “cultural” part of downtown and the shopping district, and better traffic flow on the Post Road, by removing that Taylor Place traffic light.
While the lower library (Taylor) lot would lose 10 parking spots — going from 75 spaces to 65 — those 10 would be reclaimed by reconfiguring parking on Jesup Road.
Renovations to the Imperial Avenue lot would include 16 more parking slots, a bathroom and storage space, a walkway with kayak launch, and bike racks.
Improvements to the Imperial Avenue lot include walkways and (rear) a bathroom.
The third part of Ratkiewich’s presentation involved Parker Harding. A parking study — conducted last year during late summer, mid-fall and the holiday season — showed that downtown parking is most full only during a 2-hour period, Ratkiewich said: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Click here for the parking study.)
That “2-hour parking problem” could be managed, he said, with a “proper parking plan.”
The best option, he noted, is modifying parking times — something that has already been done. Off-street parking is now 3 hours; previously, there were 2- and 3-hour limits. The average shopper spends 2-3 hours downtown, Ratkiewich said.
On-street parking — primarily Main Street — is now 2 hours. “That’s only a small percentage” of all available parking, Ratkiewich said.
The impacts of those changes are being evaluated.
Planned improvements to the lower library (Taylor) parking lot.
There are a few changes proposed for Parker Harding. They include improved entrances and exits; perpendicular parking, and 7 ADA-compliant spots
As for a parking deck: Consultants said the Baldwin lot (off Elm Street) is the only feasible location. A 1-level deck would cost $5 million; the “best bang for the buck” is 3 levels, for $10 million.
But, Ratkiewich said, a deck would address only “the problem of 2 hours, at peak time.”
His and DPIC’s recommendations, following up on the current Phase 1 (adjust parking times, and monitor effects), in this order:
- Metered parking in high-demand areas (to incentivize free parking outside those areas)
- Selling permits to employees, for all-day parking
- A parking structure, only if the above steps do not work.
Parker Harding would be the first priority, followed by the Imperial Avenue lot. Jesup Green would be third.
P&Z commissioners’ comments were muted. Amy Wistreich praised the “holistic approach” and walking paths, but cautioned against lifting previous restrictions until the plan is complete.
Michael Cammeer said, “You’re on to something. Let’s try to mitigate any controversy.”
And Michael Calise noted, “If we can get 30 employees to park outside the core, that will solve the problem.”
Since details no longer matter, I won’t harp on the fact that, last I knew, the Imperial Lot is zoned Residence A, but I will step forward on the proposal to close yet another downtown street. For those of us who actually live downtown it’s already like a roach motel at times. The traffic backups at peak times means you have to get creative when suddenly it’s right turn only out of your street. That wasn’t very funny when I recently had to take my wife to the emergency room. Anyway, please remember that, with gritted teeth, we took one for the team on the seasonal Church Lane closure. And that our roads were built for a reasons which do not necessarily include lounging and sipping coffee.
Any plan that includes closing yet another street and loses ANY spaces in PHP should not even be considered. PHP needs to be spiffed up and paved.
These folks are still just making this stuff up as they go along.
Spiff it up and pave it and move on.
How can you lose 44 spaces and increase accessibility and pleasantness?
You can’t ‼️
Great ideas. I hope we’ll continue on this path toward a more pleasant waterfront, expanded gathering places, and repurposed streets where underutilized.
It will take true leadership to get us there.
Let’s make decisions for the future of our town which prioritize the public good over individuals (a parked car serves one or a few people at a time; it’s an incredibly inefficient use of public space). In the same vein, let’s continue to improve public transit and bike lanes for alternatives to personal vehicles.
We continue to lack a vision of the future. These are bandaids (lipstick on a pig) that never considers the value a parking deck would provide: 1) maybe more people would visit main street if the parking was expanded? 2) maybe a large section of the valuable parking area along the river (behind main street shops) could be converted into green space with access to the river?
Agree totally! Parking deck over Baldwin lot. Redesign PHP without losing downtown parking spaces- then you have a plan. Imperial lot is in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter!!
Seriously? “ Let’s try to mitigate any controversy.”
What about just doing the right thing in a transparent and open manner.
My interpretation of the response was the Commission couldn’t support the loss of another 40+ spaces in the core/commerce-centric area without an equal increase in physical parking inventory this side of Post Road, as beautiful as the plans are for the Jesup side.
I was happy to hear the Commission acknowledge the need to serve all patrons of commerce area- residents, customers, business owners, staff, etc.
Pretty pictures I suppose, but fantasy. People appear to look happy. Keep in mind that all of those imagined parking spaces south of the Post Road, from Jesup Road to Imperial to who knows where, require the walkers to walk across the Post Road and the unspoken assumption is that it will be easily possible and…uh…safe (maybe). Seriously? Have you tried to cross the Post Road in a car let alone on foot? And removing the Taylor Place traffic light will make it safer for pedestrians to bolt across the Post Road while attempting to parse out which driver(s) in either direction will try to beat the light or get an early start anticipating the change from red to green?
We presently don’t budget enough to adequately maintain (what remains of) the landscaping around the town-owned parking lot behind the Library. But never mind. Now we’re going to go crazy on the adjoining parking lot (Imperial) with even more needy landscape stuff. Plus, for some reason, we’re going to bring in sewer and water for a heated public bathroom at this lonely, remote location. What?
Watch out for the specifics for the sizes of each parking spot that is being proposed. These applicants are focusing on the number of spots in PH and elsewhere. What I remember from the last dog and pony show was that the majority of all spots were to be “small car space” size of 8X16 and not the “standard parking space” size of 9×16. This is a clever way to maximize the number of parking spaces, while ensuring generations of westporters can’t park their SUVs downtown.
I trust the P&Z will be on top of this important detail and look beyond the marketing glitz.
Parking Space, Loading Space:
One standard parking space (stall) shall constitute an area nine (9) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in stall length with a vertical clearance to accommodate one (1) automobile. A small car space (stall) shall constitute an area eight (8) feet in width and sixteen (16) feet in stall length with a vertical clearance to accommodate one (1) automobile. A handicapped parking space (stall) shall constitute an area of fifteen (15) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in stall length with a vertical clearance to accommodate one (1) automobile or van. One (1) loading space (stall) shall constitute an area twelve (12) feet in width and thirty (30) feet in stall length with a vertical clearance of fifteen (15) feet.
Excellent point. All one needs to do observe and better yet frequent the Westport Hardware/UPS parking lot. It is constant mayhem. Getting in and out of one of those perpendicular spaces is an extreme sport as you must dodge
other incoming and outgoing cars as well as people continuously crossing the lot on foot all in such a tight space. Certainly not ideal and fraught with danger.
Like Saugatuck PH merely needs a good face lift- paving, restriping, new ADU spaces and a more inviting paving and new landscaping on the current riverwalk we already have and not the ludicrous plan presented, complete with the Orlando like Discover Westport signage, if we are not to have a Baldwin deck. I would also suggest members of our DPIC and Mr. Ratkiewich’s now park in the Imperial lot everyday, and walk to work in all types of weather and light for an extended time to get a better experience themselves walking to and fro the center of town and pay what will be the parking pass price to do so…and perhaps all while also carrying a wrought iron cooking pot, or let’s say a lamp or area rug from one of our downtown stores or better yet a toddler or two.
Seems to me town owned affordable housing
on the Imperial lot would be a better purpose for town owned land zoned residential from what was implied above as the biggest issue facing Westport is to free ourselves from the 8-30 G grip that is literally suffocating us. The general public already has multitudes of access to our riverfront without sacrificing downtown parking.
The parking lot behind Town Hall is paved, but not striped yet. It happens to be marked as slanted parking. I would think its a perfect testing spot. Half the parking is slanted . The other would mimic the proposed PH propsed 90 degree parking with same width of traffic lane. Lets see how it works.