Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears competing views on structured‑parking amendment; staff recommends conditional approval tied to inclusionary zoning offsets
Summary
The City Commission reviewed a text amendment that would let some multifamily projects outside transect zones avoid structured parking; staff recommended approval only if projects use the exemption as an offset to voluntarily comply with the city’s inclusionary‑zoning set‑aside.
The commission on May 1 reviewed a privately initiated text amendment (LD 24‑0114) that would exempt multifamily developments outside the city’s transect zones from the city’s structured‑parking requirement if the projects provide fewer than the code’s maximum number of parking spaces.
Applicant representatives said the change is necessary to allow “garden‑style” multifamily development — typically lower-rise, family‑oriented apartments on larger parcels — to be financially viable. Nicole McInnis, land‑use counsel for the applicant, illustrated the difference in construction cost, citing an industry estimate: “about $23,000 per space for structured parking, and … $2,500 per space for surface parking,” and argued that the added cost would increase rents and undermine the ability to build attainable family housing outside downtown.
City staff recommended a modification that would limit the exemption’s scope: developments that seek the structured‑parking exemption outside transects would be able to use it as an additional offset only if they voluntarily comply with the city’s inclusionary zoning (IZ) requirement (Section 30‑4.31) by setting aside at least 10% of units at 80% of area median income (AMI). Staff said the modification balances land‑use and climate goals — compact, transit‑supportive development and reduced sprawl — with the policy goal of increasing affordable housing supply.
The Plan Board had recommended denial of the petition after a discussion that included a request to defer to allow applicants and staff to craft stronger design standards for surface parking; the applicant declined a deferral to preserve project timelines. Commissioners debated the trade‑offs: proponents focused on housing supply and development feasibility in non‑transect areas; opponents and staff cited the city’s goals for compact growth, transit ridership and environmental impacts of large surface parking areas.
After debate commissioners voted to approve the staff‑recommended approach to the amendment and — separately — unanimously directed staff to return with parking design standards for non‑transect garden‑style developments. Commissioners also asked staff to prepare any required revisions to the inclusionary zoning offsets so the structured‑parking exemption could function as an offset where used.
Staff will incorporate the commission’s direction into draft ordinance language and return the amendment for formal readings; the commission noted the issue is complex and emphasized the need for careful conditions and design standards to avoid large surface parking expanses that undermine compact development goals.
