Doug Compton’s latest project and the debate over downtown parking; high tech traffic solutions presented to City Hall
City Hall watchers are still trying to figure out this new Lawrence City Commission. Those of us who had our City Hall watching gear on last night (the most important piece is an emergency bottle of NoDoz hung around your neck) may have gotten a clue that future economic development incentives are going to be more hotly debated.
Why do I say that? Because last night the City Commission debated whether it should even accept an application for a future economic development incentive. The project in question is the previously reported plan to add four stories to the former Pachamamas building at Eighth and New Hampshire to accommodate a new apartment project.
The development group, which is led by Lawrence businessman Doug Compton, has applied for an economic development incentive that would allow the development group to receive an exemption from paying sales tax on construction materials for the approximately $9 million project.
Normally, accepting an application for an economic development incentive is pretty routine business for the City Commission. The commission formally acknowledges an application has been filed, and then it ships the matter to the Public Incentives Review Commission for a recommendation. That recommendation comes back to the City Commission, and that’s when the debate usually begins in earnest.
But on Tuesday, the application — at the request of East Lawrence resident KT Walsh — was pulled off the consent agenda and commissioners had a debate about whether they even wanted to accept the application for future consideration. Ultimately, commissioners did accept the application, but on a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Leslie Soden voted against it, saying she didn’t see that the proposal was yet worthy for consideration.
The issue will come back to the commission in a few weeks. It looks like the issue is shaping up to be one of parking. The project is proposing to add 55 apartment units but not add any new parking to the site. Residents of the apartment building will be expected to hunt parking spaces in existing public parking lots, parking garages or other parking areas in the downtown area.
That has created consternation among some, which is interesting. I think some members of the public have a mistaken belief that the project is being cut some sort of break by being allowed to build without providing additional parking. But that’s not the case. For decades, city code has allowed downtown development to occur without off-street parking. Downtown is special in that regard. You can build in downtown without providing off-street parking, and that’s been the case for a long time.
It is true that some developers — including Compton — have chosen to build off-street parking with their projects because they have believed they wouldn’t be feasible without additional parking. But at the Pachamama’s site, Compton seems to be making a new type of bet. He’s betting that the Lawrence apartment market has evolved enough that there’s a market of tenants who are less dependent on cars and won’t have a problem parking a few blocks away.
I would think there are some folks in town who are hoping that he’s right. I can’t swing my bottle of NoDoz at City Hall these days without hitting someone who is lobbying for Lawrence to become more pedestrian friendly. Does that mean apartment buildings that place less emphasis on auto usage? I don’t know. During the recent City Commission campaign, there was some talk about whether the city should change its downtown zoning code to require new developments to provide off-street parking.
How does that fit with a city looking to become more pedestrian friendly? How would such a change work? Would downtown become a two-tier system? Businesses that had the good fortune of existing for a long time would get the benefit of having their parking provided by the public, while businesses that are investing new money into downtown would be forced to provide private parking? Perhaps that would work; perhaps it wouldn’t.
What may be interesting is some sort of analysis about how much new development could be supported with the existing public parking system in downtown. I think there is a thought that a new 55-unit apartment building will overwhelm the city’s parking system. Maybe that is the case, but I’m not sure. I’ve driven to the Journal-World’s private parking lot at Seventh and New Hampshire for a long time now. Each day I go through the city-owned long-term lot that is just east of the J-W lot. It is routinely almost empty. The same goes for the dozens of spaces on the ramps leading to the Riverfront Parking garage. They are empty most every day as well, plus finding a spot in the Riverfront Garage is not difficult. Just for fun, I counted this morning as I went through the area. Between the long-term parking lot behind the J-W lot, the ramps on the parking garage, and the spaces in the lower level of the Riverfront Parking garage, there were about 150 empty parking spaces at about 10:30 this morning. That seems pretty typical of what I often see.
Those are spaces the public has paid for. Who did the public intend to use them? What’s the plan for having them used on a more consistent basis?
There may be good reasons why the downtown rules regarding parking should be changed. People smarter than me will figure that out. I’m just trying to create a conversation here, because any change would be a big one.
Don’t expect any parking rule changes to come prior to this Pachamamas project, however. It is further along than people may realize. The project already has won its approvals from the Historic Resources Commission, minus a couple of technical details. The project still needs to receive site plan approval from the city’s planning office, but that isn’t difficult. As it stands now, there won’t be any big City Commission meeting where commissioners have to decide whether this project can move forward. The property is already correctly zoned for an apartment project. The last time I talked with Compton, he said he planned to start construction this summer.
The issue commissioners will get to decide, though, is whether the project is worthy of an incentive. That may be how this parking issue plays out. Perhaps this new commission will make a policy that says if downtown projects want to receive financial incentives of any kind, they need to provide their own off-street parking. I think that’s how some people on the commission view incentives: You offer them to get something over and above what is required.
We’ll see how the commission deals with this one. Commissioners were careful to say on Tuesday that their acceptance of the application wasn’t a sign that they were going to approve the incentive request. Commissioner Matthew Herbert said he certainly had concerns about what’s been proposed. Commissioner Mike Amyx and Mayor Jeremy Farmer indicated the incentive process may lead to negotiations with the developers about how the project could be be changed to better address parking.
If the commission does tie incentives to private parking, it will be quite a shift. The previous commission right before it left office in April approved a large incentives package for an expansion at The Eldridge Hotel. That project is adding a significant number of new rooms to downtown, but is not providing any additional parking. But that was the old commission. Timing at City Hall is important
In other news and notes from around town:
• When it comes to parking and other transportation issues, city commissioners got some high-tech advice on Tuesday. Commissioners approved a new Intelligent Transportation System Plan that lists about $10 million worth of technology projects that could be implemented to improve area transportation in the future. Commissioners approved the plan, but certainly didn’t approve any funding for any of the projects. The plan lists a lot of projects so that the city can apply for federal transportation money in the future. The feds are big on plans, and they often won’t give you grant money unless you have an idea written down in a plan.
So, don’t expect $10 million worth of new intelligent transportation projects in the near future, but there are some interesting ideas that may get future consideration. They include:
• Continued use of traffic cameras and traffic signals that are connected via fiber optic cables. The cameras and the fiber optic cable allows the city to better coordinate those traffic signals. The cameras also may have other uses in the future. But before you get worked up, there isn’t a plan to use them to start issuing red light tickets to motorists. State law doesn’t currently allow that. The city is in the process of installing 12 more traffic cameras in the city. New cameras currently are being installed on parts of western Sixth Street, Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway.
• Digital bus signs at key transit stops that tell transit riders when a bus is expected to arrive at the location.
• Digital message signs posted at key entrances to town that would provide real time traffic information. Planners have said these could be particularly useful on KU game days and other big event days.
• Electronic fare boxes on transit buses that would allow riders to pay in ways other than cash.
• Traffic signal modifications that would allow transit buses to encounter fewer red lights at key areas in town.
• Parking management system that would include digital signs and other devices that would show how many available parking spaces exist in certain parking lots or in the entire downtown area, for example.