[Vision2020] Re: Parking Downtown Moscow

Tue Jun 27 15:05:56 PDT 2006

There are several threads to this conversation. The V2020 spin and
polarization is interesting to watch.

I don't believe I characterized Beebe's departure from the meeting as a
"huff," but it was sudden and unusual. Mark Solomon's answer comes close to
his rationale

>>>  I'm assuming that he pulled it because he was specifically asking for
>>>  rezone to CBD which is the only zone that does not have an off-street
>>>  parking requirement, a likely factor in his decision to ask for that
>>>  specific zoning designation.

Maybe others who attended the meeting can clarify, but my recollection is:
1. Beebe indicated he had a buyer for the two white grain elevators (6th &
Jackson, 8th & Jackson) and, that the buyer put a contingency on the sale
where Beebe was obligated to get the CBD zone, because it does not have an
off-street parking requirement. He indicated that any additional
requirements were a deal breaker for his buyer.
2. Beebe indicated that his buyer wanted to retain and convert the 6th &
Jackson elevator into mixed use commercial & residential. I speculate that
since it is a small parcel, and given the location of the grain elevator on
the site, it might be difficult to fit parking. Since it was a rezone, Beebe
did not present plans, so we don't know if any parking was in the plan, if
it would be "enough," etc.
3. He indicated that the 8th St elevator has structural problems, and would
need to come down.
4. Beebe also said something to the effect "do what you want with me" for
parking on the 3rd parcel (the grain elevators off Railroad St, closest to
the creek.) He indicated that those structures (wooden) would come down but
he hoped to use some of the timbers in his replacement project.

P&Z seemed to be heading toward CBD zoning but also requiring a "parking
mitigation" plan, to be accepted before obtaining a building permit.

Here I speculate -- Beebe had a lot riding on the rezone, and feared that
what the P&Z was proposing could trap the parcel in a zoning requirement
that he could not sell. I don't think he knew if he could pull the
application after the P&Z (but before Council), which would have been a
quieter way to stand down.

I also speculate that a parking mitigation plan, while flexible sounding,
might introduce more uncertainty to the process than a flat-out requirement,
as stipulated in a zoning code.

I attended the hearing to speak in favor of redevelopment of the industrial
district -- it seems favorable to the alternative proposed by the Thompson's
earlier this year.

What became clear to me in this process, and, what I was hoping to discuss
here is, What is the parking problem and how might we think about it? If we
are going to get redevelopment near downtown, we need to get an answer about
parking that is clear and predictable. That answer could be that CBD zone,
as written, is undesirable, and it should be re-written with a parking
requirement. To help thinking about changing the zone's definition, read
Idaho Smart Growth Commercial Scorecard.
http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/projects/scorecards/index.htm

For starters thinking about parking, consider this. At a dinner party the
other night, Bill Parks outlined his thinking-- there are three problems not
one. "Impulse" (his term) parking for shoppers, employee parking, and
downtown resident parking. Is Bill right about 3 problems? Do the three
problems have different solutions?

On 6/27/06 1:08 PM, "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:

> It certainly becomes an interesting issue as on-street parking at
> that end of town is already highly limited by street design and
> hospital/medical office use. As I understand the withdrawn proposal,
> it would have included some element of residential use. Seeing as the
> downtown no overnight parking rules apply to the streets in that
> area, the development (without off-street parking) could either:
> displace the parking problem for residents to side streets on the
> east side of Washington, or; encourage non-vehicle owners to reside
> in a pedestrian friendly area. Although I like to think
> optimistically, in the absence of covenants supporting the pedestrian
> friendly approach, the first result is the most likely.
> 
> m.
> 
> 
> At 12:56 PM -0700 6/27/06, Bill London wrote:
>> In other words, in the spirit of free enterprise, the developer was rebuffed
>> in his effort to create a situation where his problem (providing adequate
>> parking for his development) would become a city problem and therefore all
>> of us would bear the cost of solving that problem?????
>> BL
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com>
>> To: "Bill London" <london at moscow.com>; "Nils Peterson"
>> <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Parking Downtown Moscow
>> 
>> 
>>>  I'm assuming that he pulled it because he was specifically asking for
>>>  rezone to CBD which is the only zone that does not have an off-street
>>>  parking requirement, a likely factor in his decision to ask for that
>>>  specific zoning designation.
>>> 
>>>  m.
>>> 
>>>  At 10:04 AM -0700 6/27/06, Bill London wrote:
>>>> N-
>>>> I just do not get it.
>>>> Why did Beebe pull his development when asked about off-street parking?
>>>> what is the big deal?
>>>> Off-street parking places are regularly included within urban
>> developments.
>>>> P&Z was right to bring it up.
>>>> Why would a developer quit in a huff over that issue?
>>>> BL
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Nils Peterson" <nils_peterson at wsu.edu>
>>>> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 6:32 AM
>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Parking Downtown Moscow
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>  A couple weeks ago or so, Rick Beebe pulled a rezone application for
>> the
>>>>>  south end of downtown -- the issue that came to a head in P&Z was
>> related
>>>> to
>>>>>  parking. Shortly after Murph wrote an editorial along the lines that
>> we
>>>>>  can'd use parking as a weapon to bludgeon would-be development
>> downtown.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  But I just lost a few hours sleep over the issue (blame hot weather
>> for
>>>>>  sleeping with the windows open and listening to the Jake brakes on
>> trucks
>>>>>  coming in from Troy.)
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Lets take parking as a serious issue. Lets take the abandoned (or
>>>>>  abandoning) area along the railroads as a real issue, and think about
>>>>>  NewCities recommendation to grow inward (ie the railroad lands).
>>>>> 
>>>>>  How can we think about parking, and about the changes in that area of
>>>>>  downtown? How can they help one another? How are they not connected?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  =====================================================
>>>>>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>                 http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>  ====================================================
>>>>> 
>>> 
> 