Committee approves amendment requiring one parking space per unit for senior housing outside 1/4 mile of transit

The Planning, Housing and Family Development Committee voted 3-0 Thursday to send CB 26-20-25 (draft 2b) to the full council with a favorable recommendation as amended, adopting a rule that requires at least one off-street parking space per dwelling unit in senior-serving developments in RTO and LTO zones when the subject building is located greater than one quarter mile from a transit station platform as measured to the subject building’s front door.

The amendment, moved by Council Member Olson and seconded by Council Member Hawkins, was adopted unanimously by the three members present (Chair DeNoga, Hawkins and Olson). Committee staff said there were no public comments on the most recent draft.

The sponsor, Council Member Ivy, said the bill grew out of visits to newly built senior housing in transit-oriented zones where residents complained about lack of parking. "I have visited senior buildings... one of them is 0.9 miles away from the metro," Ivy said, arguing that the walking distance was not practical for many seniors and that the prior zoning expectation that residents would not rely on cars did not fit older residents’ needs.

Legislative staff explained draft 2b replaces the prior requirement for a parking demand study with a simpler development standard. Eric Irving, legislative staff, said the main insertion is language on page 2 that requires "at least 1 space per dwelling unit for senior-serving developments in RTO and LTO zones." The committee clarified the bill applies only to housing meeting the federal definition of "housing for older persons" under 42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2), interpreted in the discussion as housing restricted to residents age 62 and over.

Committee members pressed staff on measurement and terminology. David Warner, principal counsel for Park and Planning, recommended measuring the quarter-mile distance from the transit platform rather than the edge of a transit property; the committee settled on measuring from the transit station platform to the subject building’s front door. Planning department staff (Natalia Gomez) confirmed the county zoning ordinance did not previously define "senior residents" and that the bill’s reliance on the federal definition would avoid applicability confusion.

The Office of Law initially advised that draft 2b was in improper legislative form; the county executive’s office indicated support. With the amendment adopted, the committee voted to forward the bill with a favorable recommendation as amended.

The committee record shows no public commenters signed up for this item on this meeting date.

What happens next: the committee forwarded CB 26-20-25 draft 2b, as amended, to the full council with a favorable recommendation. The ordinance and the precise code edits referenced (changes from section 27-63-03 to 27-42-04 were discussed in staff remarks) will be available in the council’s formal file for final action and any further technical edits.