Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City presents land‑use analysis showing substantial undeveloped acreage and housing capacity
Summary
Staff and GIS analysts presented a citywide land‑use analysis April 8 showing roughly 55% of Pullman is developed and about 41% remains undeveloped; staff provided illustrative estimates of potential dwelling‑unit capacity by zoning district.
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff presented a land‑use analysis at the April 8 council meeting that maps current land uses and identifies undeveloped acreage across Pullman’s neighborhoods and zoning districts.
GIS staff compiled the data and assistant planner Ariel summarized results: about 55% of city land is developed and roughly 41.2% is undeveloped; parks represent approximately 2.5% and wetlands about 1% of city area. The report excludes Washington State University property because WSU land is outside city planning jurisdiction.
The presentation broke data down by the city’s four hills and by zoning districts. For example, Military Hill was the most undeveloped neighborhood at about 46% undeveloped; College Hill was about 34.6% undeveloped. Within zoning districts, notable findings included large undeveloped proportions in C‑3 (general commercial) and I‑1 (light industrial). Ariel offered an illustrative conversion example for commercial land: "If you look at the space that Walmart currently takes up ... we can have an additional 18 and a half Walmart sized developments on our current C‑3 undeveloped land."
Staff also translated undeveloped residential acreage into potential dwelling‑unit ranges under current code assumptions: under existing standards and lot requirements staff estimated roughly 3,825 additional units could be accommodated in R‑1, about 9,173 in R‑2, and ranges for R‑3 and R‑4 of roughly 1,116–4,459 and 1,596–7,254 respectively. Staff noted these are illustrative capacity estimates, not development approvals.
Council members discussed implications for parks, trails, food access and utility/service needs as land is developed. Staff said the GIS team can extend the analysis to layer trail locations or other amenities if council requests.

