"Business leaders worried about parking plan; Business owner says plan will negatively affect downtown"

We talked about this a little at today's Palunchitics. It seems that local developers are intent on building more condos downtown and see the proposed parking requirement as an impediment. The general consensus among our lunch group was that having dense residential development downtown would definitely change its character.

Considering that most residents of any downtown housing development would likely be students, and that most students are from somewhere other than here, they are going to have cars. And those cars are going to have be parked somewhere, even if the student uses public transportation to get around Pullman. I agree with Ann Heath that more people downtown is good for business, but that there is an upper limit of how many people can live there simply because of geography. Some desire a "downtown style" living and they should be accomodated, but with respect to existing businesses and surrounding neighborhoods. The residents of Sunnyside Hill and Pioneer Hill no doubt fear their neighborhoods becoming like College Hill.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

John Yates told the Pullman City Council on Tuesday that he and 27 other downtown business leaders believe the city's proposed parking plan will impede growth.

Yates, who owns about 10 properties downtown, provided a letter he said represented several business owners and managers to council members Tuesday afternoon. Council members said they quickly read the letter before their evening meeting began.

The letter detailed "firm opposition to any legislation and code changes (requiring additional parking or otherwise) that could potentially discourage or restrict new businesses and residential growth in Pullman's Downtown District."

The business owners also want the city to provide incentives to encourage new business growth.

Yates said the plan approved by the city planning commission will negatively affect residential growth.

The commission recommended in February that the city require developers to include one parking stall per unit for developments with 10 or more dwelling units. The commission also recommended city off-street parking lots be reviewed in regard to time limits and accessibility. Research regarding the feasibility of a parking structure, the possible creation of a permit process for downtown employees and consistent enforcement of parking time limits also were recommended.

"Don't make business owners shoulder the responsibility for parking," Yates said, adding that downtown needs more people living in it to improve its vitality.

"You're saying, 'Let's facilitate the cars,' " Yates said. "That's what we're seeing all over the country."

Councilwoman Ann Heath agreed with Yates about the need for more downtown residences.

"I am very much for having people live downtown. It's good for business, but you can't have as many as you want down there because it's too small," she said. "I'm willing to pay the price in parking congestion because it will encourage downtown development."

Heath said developers should be required to provide parking for dwellings with more than 10 units. She also told Yates she was frustrated to hear his opposition so late in the process.

"Giving you this at the last moment was not a strategy," Yates said. "Don't reprimand a community member for spending hours polling businesses."

Councilman Keith Bloom reiterated his suggestion the city enforce laws already in place, such as ticketing cars parked downtown beyond the two-hour limit and policing those using service areas and temporary loading spots.

Mayor Glenn Johnson suggested limiting parking near the Spot Shop on NE Kamiaken, where many commuters park their cars to take the bus.

"Pullman commission recommends parking changes; Developments with 10 or more units will require per-unit parking spaces"

Kudos to the Pullman Planning Commission for what I think is a very reasonable solution to a thorny problem. Despite what local "smart growth" advocates may claim, downtown Pullman is not geographically suitable for large-scale commercial or retail development. The commission's proposal still encourages modest development. And you need look no further than River Park Square in Spokane to see how risky a parking garage can be. I'm very leery of that idea.

From yesterday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Pullman Planning Commission says developers who build residential units in the downtown area should be required to provide parking for tenants.

In a special meeting Wednesday, the commission compiled a list of recommendations for the Pullman City Council to consider to combat perceived parking issues downtown. The most controversial item is a suggested zoning change that would require one parking stall per unit when 10 or more dwelling units are proposed for a property.

Commission Chairman Steve Garl said the 10-unit cap is recommended to allow for smaller residential projects, but set consequences for larger developments that may be “out of scale” for the downtown area.

The suggestions will be presented to the council for consideration March 4.

The downtown area — bordered roughly by State Street to the west, Spring Street to the east, Whitman Street to the north and McKenzie Street to the south — is the city’s central business zone. Parking currently is not mandated with downtown development, even if the proposed development includes living space — an issue some have said creates competition for spots between downtown retail customers and residents.

The commission followed recommendations drafted by Planning Director Pete Dickinson on Wednesday and decided that in instances when parking space is necessary, developers must choose from a list of options to fulfill the requirement. Options include providing on-site parking at one space per unit; providing off-site parking within 500 feet of the property through purchase or lease of spaces; a fee payment to the city to be used for future downtown parking improvement projects; or designated spaces within public parking lots, if such an arrangement is approved by the City Council.

If an existing structure is slated to be fully or partially demolished to provide parking space, the developer would need a conditional use permit issued by the board of adjustment to enforce design standards.

The commission also recommended city off-street parking lots be reviewed in regard to time limits and accessibility. Research regarding the feasibility of a parking structure, the possible creation of a permit process for downtown employees and consistent enforcement of parking time limits also are recommended.

“I think we have clearly made a case — over and over again — on the issue of enforcement,” Garl said. More parking patrols could make a significant improvement in downtown parking.

A 50-unit mixed-use development — proposed for the intersection of Paradise and High streets in early 2007 — spawned discussions regarding parking downtown. The proposal, submitted by Paradise Downtown, LLC and H and R Development, LLC, was opposed by neighbors because of potential effects to the Pioneer Hill neighborhood and area parking. H and R Development eventually withdrew its conditional use permit application.

Since then, stakeholders including area residents, developers and business owners have met regularly at commission meetings to discuss the subject and public comment has dominated nearly every meeting.

In November, the City Council was presented with broad recommendations from the commission, which included the possibility of a downtown residential parking permit program, and increased enforcement to discourage long-term parking. The council sent the commission back to the drawing board to conceive more fine-tuned recommendations by March. The council specifically wanted an opinion on whether off-street parking spaces should be required for residential projects downtown.

Rich Scott, a High Street resident, said the commission’s recommendations could keep downtown tenants’ vehicles from commandeering his neighborhood. But he still has reservations, since he would have liked to see a requirement of one parking spot per unit, regardless of the development’s size.

“I walk away with a sense that I’m not really sure if I didn’t communicate our concerns or if they didn’t hear,” he said. “Zero to 10 (units) with no requirement is of some concern to me.”

Scott said he hopes the city pursues more long-term issues, such as researching the possibility of a downtown parking structure.

“I really like that idea,” he said. “I think it’s a very viable option.”