Let’s have the conversation again. What are your thoughts ?
Responsibility
To ensure correct decision-making, adherence to State Law and the City Charter, and to avoid placing the City and its inhabitants and taxpayers at risk. While we are going to discuss parking for consensus, we’d like to add the three other items, PD’s; Heights/Grades; & final language approval of the ARC.
- Reason to Re-Examine Parking Minimums in Downtown
On March 20, 2025, the Planning Consultant introduced what was described as a “radical idea”: eliminating parking restrictions in the Central Business District (CBD). Consultant John Iacoangeli suggested removing parking standards entirely, noting that the downtown area is largely built out and that minimum parking requirements are land-consumptive and tax-inefficient.
Zoning Administrator Jeff Grimm noted that historically high parking minimums in the CBD had prevented new businesses from opening. Commissioners considered fundamental changes to parking policy, including whether minimum parking requirements were necessary at all.
Influenced by the consultant’s analysis, the Commission tentatively agreed to eliminate minimum parking requirements in the CBD while retaining controls to avoid unintended consequences. This discussion occurred as a straw-man exercise, and no further substantive discussion of parking followed.
The Commission ultimately reached consensus to remove minimum parking requirements in the CBD, allowing the market to determine parking supply, while establishing parking maximums to prevent excessive paving. Minimum parking requirements were retained in residential areas to prevent street congestion.
Study / Research
Eliminating Downtown Parking Minimums: Effects on Small-Town Character and History
- When It Supports Historic Character
In many small towns, eliminating parking minimums has helped preserve historic fabric by:
- Allowing reuse of older buildings that cannot meet modern parking ratios
- Preventing demolition of historic storefronts or cottages for parking
- Encouraging compact, walkable downtowns reflecting pre-automobile patterns
Common outcome:
Historic main streets remain intact, with businesses relying on shared parking, time-limited street parking, and walkability rather than surface lots.
- When It Undermines Character
In some towns, removing minimums without safeguards has worked against historic character by:
- Incentivizing surface parking as the least expensive land use
- Allowing buildings to be replaced by parking for off-site uses
- Increasing pavement, curb cuts, and vehicle dominance in historic cores
Common problem:
Absent parking maximums or land-use protections, market forces favor asphalt over architecture.
- Why Small Towns Are More Sensitive Than Cities
Small towns differ from large cities because:
- A single parcel or block can materially alter town character
- Parking impacts are magnified in compact historic districts
- There is often limited transit capacity to absorb spillover effects
Key lesson:
What works in a large city can overwhelm a small town if not carefully scaled.
- What Successful Small Towns Pair with No Minimums
Towns that protect character while eliminating minimums typically adopt:
- Parking maximums to prevent over-paving
- Lot-coverage or impervious-surface caps
- Design standards for parking placement (rear, side, screened)
- Demolition controls or historic overlays in core areas
Result: Flexibility for businesses without sacrificing historic scale or identity.
Bottom Line. Eliminating downtown parking minimums is neither inherently pro-growth nor anti-preservation. In small towns, it supports historic character when paired with clear limits and design controls and undermines character when left solely to market forces. For this reason, many historic small towns adopt a “no minimums plus strong guardrails” approach rather than an all-or-nothing policy.
