Blogs » Paradigm Shifter » Riverside Pork 2½: The Smell of Fear (UPDATED)

Subscribe



Upon closer inspection, it's obvious the Pumphouse Restaurant has ample space for parking north of the buildings if the storage tank is removed, but it was revealed by Lynn Short at the last City Council meeting that the cost of demolishing the in-ground storage tank was estimated at $250k.

Considering this, one must ask:
• Is the City bailing out the developers by allowing them to not make their property suitable for a parking lot in order to meet their codified legal requirements?
• How far in advance did the developers know they wouldn't be able (or forced) to provide their own legally-required parking, and when did the City Council and Planning Commission know about it?
• Does a private business' financial hurdles justify public assistance?
• What plans might the developers have for the land on which they could otherwise build parking, and will that require even more parking on public land?

—UPDATE—

I've taken the time to estimate the areas of proposed parking versus the capacity for parking on the developer's private property. The totals are rough (±2,000ft²) and are meant to grossly compare the relative sizes. I think it shows that even without the expense of removing the tank, a little creative parking lot design could make their remaining land accommodate the required 67 parking spots. There is slightly less than twice as much area for parking around the tank and within property boundaries than the planned developer-funded parking on public property across/along Stayton. Why are concessions, handouts, and/or variances being made when they have sufficient land on which to build parking?

Bird's Eye View (blogger's additions in yellow)

(click image for larger view)