Washougal resident Lowell McCuller can still recall how stunned he felt the day he discovered, in early September, that city workers had installed several “no-parking” signs along the northern side of Z Street, near McCuller’s home.
At first, McCuller thought the signs might be temporary, perhaps something construction workers needed to access the area near eight new homes under construction.
Soon enough, McCuller would learn the signs were a permanent addition. Now, McCuller and several other dissatisfied Z Street residents are reaching out to city officials to express their concerns over the new “no parking” rules.
“The (residents in the) houses on that north side, anytime they have anyone over, (the visitors) have to park on our side of the street,” McCuller said. “My neighbor across the street, they have three kids that drive, and so each day I have cars parked out in front of my house. And, if I have people over, they don’t have access to the front of my house. I can only imagine what’s going to happen on Thanksgiving and Christmas.”
Washougal City Manager David Scott told the Post-Record the city’s traffic engineer “does have the authority to evaluate conditions at specific existing locations and to potentially determine that no-parking areas be provided to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety.”
“Initial research of the situation in response to the complaint indicated that the original approval for the subdivision called for Z Street to have 28-foot-wide pavement with parking allowed on one side and no-parking signs,” Scott said. “There should have been ‘no-parking’ signs on one side of Z Street since the very beginning. When we discover something like that, we are obligated to ensure the situation is in compliance with what was required as a condition of the subdivision approval.”
During a Washougal City Council workshop on Sept. 26, Z Street resident Scott McCoy said the city has “opened a can of worms” with its decision.
“My street is not 28 (feet wide); it’s only 27 feet and 9 inches. Y Street has twice as many people, and it is 27 feet and 7 inches wide, 2 inches shorter than mine,” he said.
After McCoy lodged his complaint, city officials took a closer look at Y Street and determined it also should have no-parking signs.
The city’s street standards require a minimum pavement width of 35 feet to allow for parking on both sides and enough total travel lane for fire apparatus, according to Scott.
McCoy said he’s looking into possible legal action against the city.
“I would never have bought this house if those signs were up,” he told the Post-Record. “This is a (small) matter, but we did nothing wrong. The city did something wrong, and we are paying the price.”
McCuller said he’s hoping that a compromise — such as restricting the no-parking to certain times of the day or year — can be reached.
“Legally, our hands are tied. We’re just at the mercy of the city and what they want to do,” he said.
City officials are not committing to such a compromise, however.
Scott said existing streets that were in compliance with whatever standards, if any, were in effect when they were constructed are “grandfathered.”
“A street that was not in compliance when originally constructed is a different situation, and is not considered to be ‘grandfathered.’ We have a duty to ensure that it is brought into compliance. This is the case for the streets in this subdivision,” he said.
