Parallel Parking on Pine

Chairman Quam,

I’ve spend some time studying the “parallel parking” option put forth by you with drawings by Gene Aubry at the most recent P&Z and Commission work session.
I expressed my concerns at that meeting regarding the “net effect” of that plan. To restate, how many parallel parking spaces presently exist on Pine and how many will we lose or gain if we institute this plan?

I’m told we have just over 100 parallel parking spaces presently on Pine. I was also told instituting the new plan would provide a total of 198 spaces, or a net gain of approximately 100 spaces.

I beg to differ. Start with driveways. They are not shown on Aubry's drawing. Not even on existing residences.




Let’s assume, with few exceptions, every lot on Pine, even with the new parallel parking plan, will have at least one driveway. There are 63 platted lots that front directly onto Pine, so if you subtract the spaces lost because of driveways, 198-63=135, you have a net gain of only 35 spaces.

Let’s make another assumption. Let’s assume each of those lots will have, or already had, at least two parking spaces allotted or to be allotted on the premises. 63 lots x 2 spaces = 126 spaces. (It’s impossible to have fewer than two; that’s the minimum for a residence.)

Do the math. We had 126 spaces on the lots and 100 on the street. That's 226 spaces before a single lot was ever developed. Now let's assume everyone voluntarily adopts the parallel solution. 198 spaces (Aubry says) less 63 driveways = 135 spaces. We already had 226. Net loss 91 spaces. Do you think the City can afford to give up 91 spaces on Pine Avenue?

Try this. 63 lots x 2,000 sq ft retail on average/lot. That’s 126,000 sq ft. retail. Divide that by 400 sq ft/parking space. Just on Pine we’d need 315 parking spaces. Maybe that’s misleading. Try just 1,500 sq. ft retail/lot. 63 x 1500=94,500 sq ft. Divide by 400=236 parking spaces required. Remember, some of these lots already have residences plus 2,000 plus feet of retail. Remember also, Holmes Beach and Bradenton Beach ask for one parking space for every 250 sq ft of retail. We only require one space/400 sq. ft. We’re already asking considerably less than the norm. Use 63 lots x 1500 sq ft/250=378 parking spaces required. That's before loading zones are factored in.

Forget all the calculations and just look at this fact. A fifty foot lot can only accommodate two parking spaces in front of it, and if there is a driveway, only one space. A hundred foot lot can only accommodate four spaces, and if there’s a driveway, only three. Unless you’re willing to absorb the loss of literally hundreds of parking spaces, you’ve got to re-situate those spaces on the side streets.

The proposed reverse angle parking on the side streets creates another set of problems. First of all, if people actually do back into those spots, they’ll have to approach half of them from the residential sector of town, or do a u-turn on the side street to enter them. For the other half of those reverse angle spaces, their positioning will encourage exiting through the residential areas. Also, there’s no way to enforce that reverse angle parking. It’s on private property, and beyond the sheriffs' reach. We're going to ask Gerry Rathvon to issue citations? Once again, we’re encouraging maneuvering in the right-of-way. And we’re giving away City real estate to accommodate parking spaces necessitated by development. Why?

It was suggested the other night the City is at an impasse and we need a compromise to break the deadlock. What deadlock? Haven’t we accommodated the development of Pine Avenue enough? The developers may be at an impasse, but the City certainly isn’t. We’ve given up owner/occupancy, allowed swimming pools in the ROR, mistakenly approved unsafe parking arrangements, and screwed up the setbacks all over the place. Why should we compromise on parking?

We could adopt a Comp Plan Amendment that says, as a Commission, we’re willing to enforce the policies of the Comp Plan if and only if no developers are inconvenienced and everyone promises not to sue? Seriously, John, it's okay to be flexible and it's okay to encourage commercial development in the ROR, but not to the detriment of the residents. Being flexible doesn't mean we have to compromise on every single issue the developers raise.

Two parking committees, a proposed moratorium, several work sessions with the Commission and P&Z, tens of thousands of dollars of attorney and planner time, and we are no further along resolving the parking on Pine Avenue than we were in November. We should all hang our heads in shame.

John, you hold considerable influence in this matter. I hope you don’t take this personally; I value your friendship a great deal and can look past the policy issues and see the person I’ve always admired. You have many qualities I envy and I promise you I won’t carry my feelings about a difference of opinion we may have regarding city policy beyond the walls of City Hall.

But I think as a Commission, it’s time we resolve the parking issue. I’m hoping you take the lead. But before you get too far along with this parallel parking concept, you should talk to a few residents. They're still the majority here. Anna Maria is still primarily a single-family residential community; we as Commissioners are supposed to be preserving that.

You know where I stand. I think the residents’ concerns come first, always. I think we’ve done more than enough to encourage development on Pine Avenue. The developers don’t need any more accommodation from City Hall. If they can’t make money under the numerous relaxed restrictions the City has given them, they’ve obviously made a major miscalculation. It’s not our job to make them profitable. I hate to see the City making major policy changes to accommodate ill-conceived development. What happens if, as many have predicted, we get stuck with a bunch of empty buildings and meanwhile, we've given away all the parking spaces on Pine?

Which raises another issue. Talk to some of the retail shop managers at Bay View Plaza. They're hurting. More traffic than they've ever had, and sales are horrible. Sit in front of the Olive Outpost for an hour sometime and observe. That stuff isn't exactly flying off the shelves. Anyone who thinks they're going to set up a retail operation on Pine and be profitable better have a damn good widget. Anna Maria is not a retail destination. So we're compromising our parking plan for whose benefit? Not the residents. That was supposed to be the goal: commerce geared to serve the residents.

Chairman Quam, I can’t support the parallel parking concept for all of the reasons mentioned above and more. That said, if you think it’s a viable concept, you should run with it. I’ll express my dissent, cast my vote, and go back to business as usual, if in fact there is such a thing as business as usual here in Anna Maria.

I’m not suggesting we hurry the process. I am suggesting we need to get the job done, no matter which direction you intend to lead. Inaction has become prohibitively expensive.

Cordially,

Harry Stoltzfus
City of Anna Maria Commissioner