Loft District Will Help Develop Standards

By Kurt Helin
Editor

Downtown soon will have a formal loft district, meaning new guidelines designed to make it easier for developers to convert some of the area’s older buildings into modern loft developments.

The council unanimously backed the idea last week after some discussion about parking requirements for these conversions.

“I think it’s important to have a loft district and to have minimum standards for developers,” said First District Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal, who brought the issue forward.

She brought the loft district concept forward late last year and the Planning Commission looked at similar plans in other cities before coming back with a proposal. When it was presented earlier this year, the council asked for more detail — specifically a definition of what a loft was and flexibility within the parking requirements.

While there was general agreement on the final proposal, the parking standards became an issue of debate.

The measure had parking standards for lofts that are more stringent than those for owners converting apartments to condominiums. Not all council members thought that was best for downtown,

”If we’re going to create a loft district, we should not increase parking standards,” said Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, whose district includes a portion of downtown. “A lot of people drawn to these (urban lofts) use alternative transportation as much as possible.”

However, other council members questioned if that strategy would fit what is happening right now.

“We’ve already got a parking problem downtown and now we’re talking about reducing parking standards?” asked Eighth District Councilwoman Rae Gabelich.

Both sides agreed to the current ordinance, however, because it both sets a standard and allows Susan Frick, the director of the Planning and Building Department, to grant leeway on the parking standards on a case-by-case basis.

“I like to think of downtown as a vibrant place where people can rely public transportation, but that’s a vision for the future,” Frick said. “We’re not there yet.”

The issue still has to come back to the council this week for a second reading.

(top) or (home page)