Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies BCS Capital request to reduce multifamily parking requirement
Summary
The commission voted to deny a variance request to reduce required parking to 1.5 spaces per unit for a 312‑unit multifamily development by BCS Capital, citing precedent and concerns about overflow parking; the chair recorded the result as 4–0 in favor of keeping the city ordinance.
The Montgomery Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 2 voted to deny a requested parking variance from BCS Capital for a proposed multifamily development (development number 2415). The developer had requested a reduction to 1.5 parking spaces per unit; the commission recorded the result as 4–0 in favor of keeping the city’s existing parking requirement.
City staff told the commission the Montgomery ordinance requires two parking spaces per unit for multifamily projects. Staff presented the developer’s request and site details, and said the developer and project partners had discussed alternatives including gated access and on‑site management to manage parking demand.
A developer representative described the project as a 312‑unit, class‑A multifamily development that would include 50 garage parking spaces and an on‑site property manager. The representative said the project team anticipated working with Morgan Group (multifamily buyer) and national operators; the presentation noted that a portion of on‑site parking would be garage parking and that the developer considered site efficiency and commercial‑land yield in the proposed plan.
Commissioners voiced concern about precedent. One commissioner noted that all existing multifamily in Montgomery had adhered to the two‑spaces‑per‑unit standard and that approving a reduced requirement could create a new precedent. Other commissioners raised parking overflow and safety concerns, including potential spillover onto Buffalo Springs and the effect on commercial parking in the development.
Action: A motion to deny the variance request (i.e., to keep the city’s parking requirement in place) was made and seconded; the chair recorded the vote as 4–0 in favor of keeping the current ordinance. The meeting record identifies the motion and second as coming from commissioners but does not list individual names.
Staff noted that the development will still pursue required site‑planning steps, and that if the project seeks other variances for commercial portions of the site those would be considered through the normal process.
