The developers of a major apartment/retail complex east of Memorial Stadium are facing some parking problems, and the solutions they are proposing aren’t acceptable.

When HERE @ Kansas gained city approval of tax incentives for its $75 million project, plans called for a robotic parking system that would squeeze more parking spaces into less space than a traditional parking garage would occupy in the complex. Unfortunately, the company that had agreed to install that system later filed for bankruptcy, leaving HERE looking for an alternative solution.

That solution now includes building a separate parking structure just south of the complex. The garage may be an acceptable plan but it will take some extra time, so HERE is asking the city to approve some temporary alternatives. The developers’ first choice is to simply obtain a waiver that will allow the 624-bedroom apartment complex to be fully occupied before the adjacent parking structure is available. That would leave the complex with 69 fewer parking places than in the approved plan, which is simply unacceptable in a neighborhood where parking already is at a premium.

The developers’ other idea is to work with Kansas University to obtain 25 dedicated parking spaces in KU lots near the complex, which would meet the city’s minimum parking requirement for the complex. The previous City Commission rejected a similar plan after hearing from neighbors that KU parking already was spilling over into the neighborhood. This idea also is a non-starter.

The city’s planning staff recommends that neither of these options be accepted and offers a compromise that would allow the complex to open if at least 23 bedrooms remain empty until additional parking is complete.

As city commissioners consider these requests tonight, they should keep in mind that this is the developer’s problem to solve. The city should work with the developer, but it is not the one who decided to work with a contractor that now cannot deliver what was promised.

One question commissioners might ask is exactly what steps the developer took to find another contractor that could complete the robotic parking system. A HERE representative initially indicated that would be the strategy, but for some reason, that plan later was rejected. Was the system simply faulty? Could no alternative contractors be found? Was the robotic system ditched because of financial concerns? The robotic system was a relatively key element to the project approved by the city, and officials should be convinced that plan no longer is feasible.

Assuming that is the case, city commissioners should keep their focus on minimizing the impact of this project on already-tight parking in the neighborhood. Neither option favored by the developers does that. Even the planners’ proposed compromise seems barely sufficient.

This is an unfortunate situation for HERE, but sometimes a developer has to pay a price for a bad business decision. The city’s first obligation in this case is to the public and the neighborhood, not the developer.