People won't want to walk far to go shopping, and may instead head to the big box stores, where they can park closer to the destinations.

That's the opinion of at least one resident who let the city know what she thinks of proposed changes for zoning in the downtown core.

No one addressed council on the changes during a public hearing on the matter at Monday evening's council meeting

However, the city did get a few written comments on the proposal through a letter written by long-time downtown resident Missy Follwell and by way of comment forms returned at an open house.

The parking changes would see the radius where off-street parking is required increased from 100 metres from the site to 300 m. They would also remove the requirement to provide off-street parking in the core commercial zone where a building's use is being changed.

Meanwhile, further changes would see properties in the north end rezoned to commercial mixed 2 (CM2) from commercial service, to allow for more flexibility in how those properties are used.

On Wood Street, properties zoned commercial mixed 1 (CM1) would be rezoned to CM2 to bring some of the houses into conformity with the zone.

The final proposed change put forward to residents Monday night would establish two sites for community signs at the bottom of Two Mile Hill and, though not downtown, at the intersection of Range Road and Mountainview Drive.

While many comments were made favouring the changes, the city did not get a lot for the move to a 300-m radius. The only comment in favour noted that not a lot of people would want to walk.

"I believe that parking will become a major issue in the downtown area within five years, especially with the increase in the mixed residential/commercial buildings that are going up," Follwell wrote.

"If every new development gets a 300-m radius for off-site parking, there will not be enough room for all of the vehicles that need to be parked in the area generally. As a general principle, I don't favour it being expanded, but if it must (be), perhaps 200 m would be a good starting point."

While one writer suggested the other change to parking is a good way to revitalize the downtown core, others suggested adequate parking must be provided.

Follwell suggested the city isn't taking a realistic approach to downtown parking.

"There are those, I know, who think that almost everybody should walk, cycle or take public transit when going to work, play or shop in the downtown area," she wrote.

"Given our harsh climate for many months of the year and given how many seniors are choosing to stay here in Whitehorse because it is such a wonderful place to live, what appears to be the current approach to parking, in my view, is simply not feasible."

The two parking proposals come out of changes approved last year for two developers who had problems finding the parking spaces they were required to have.

The city had little feedback on its proposal for Wood Street outside of two comments supporting it.

There was also support expressed for the changes to the north end of the downtown area.

"I support this amendment," one writer wrote on the comment form.

"Any mixed commercial/residential should be encouraged within the existing commercial zones to encourage people to live downtown and contribute to its vitality after business hours."

Follwell also noted her agreement in general with the change, except for increasing the maximum site coverage from 75 per cent to 90 per cent.

"I think doing that diminishes the visual feeling of an open and friendly community," she wrote.

Having designated sites for community signs also drew support, though one person commented it should be enforced.

Follwell also noted it seems like a good idea, but would need some regulations around the number and quality of signs.

"A hodge podge of 'anything goes' would not likely be very visually appealing," she wrote.

Both Follwell and another writer encouraged the city to keep the four-storey height restriction in the downtown as well.

Finally, Follwell took issue with the notice given of the open house.

"It is somewhat disturbing that so little noise was given of the open house on Monday, June 8, to discuss the downtown zoning amendments," she wrote, going on to state that she learned the city had given notice of it just five days earlier.

"Surely the planning department must have made a decision long before early June as to the date of this open house. If so, why not give public notice of it before June 3? If not, then why the hurry to hold it so soon?" Follwell asked.

A public hearing report will come forward to council next week before members vote on second and third readings of the changes.