Planners propose high bar for parking exemptions tied to tree retention; commission asks to simplify criteria

Planning staff presented draft criteria for an administrative residential parking exemption that would apply when retaining trees makes on‑site parking infeasible.

Under the draft language staff laid out five review criteria, including a requirement that applicants incorporate all available parking reductions and credits; demonstrate that providing the required parking would reduce units below viability; and show that paying a future tree‑replacement fee would prevent a positive return on investment. Staff explained that the proposed “fee in lieu” program for tree replacement has not yet been established but is included in code to enable future use.

Commissioner Carly Guillory urged removing explicit economic hardship language from the criteria. “I don't know that land‑use codes ought to include criteria that reference economic variables,” she said, and recommended instead a simpler test: an applicant should show with site plans that they cannot meet parking requirements while also meeting tree retention, maximum bulk/height and other dimensional standards. Several commissioners supported focusing the director’s review on a visual demonstration that all other standards cannot be met, rather than requiring financial projections.

Staff said the state legislation that informed this provision allows tree retention considerations to supersede parking requirements in some cases; for Edgewood staff proposed a high bar to ensure exemptions are limited and require clear documentation. The proposed exemption would apply to all parking requirements for a lot only after the director finds the criteria are met.

Next steps: staff will rework the draft criteria to reflect commissioner guidance and present a revised draft at the public hearing packet.