Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Parking Modernization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners weigh parking code changes after Riverside Flats reapproval clashes with updated standards
Summary
City staff used the Riverside Flats project as a case study for potential revisions to Riverdale’s multifamily parking rules after code changes increased the required parking ratio and left an approved site plan short of meeting the new standard.
Riverdale Planning Commission commissioners on March 25 began a multi‑meeting review of the city’s parking regulations for multifamily development after staff identified a mismatch between an earlier site approval and current parking requirements.
Jared Cooper, director of community development, presented the Riverside Flats project (the former Leslie’s Mobile Home Park site) as a case study. Under the original approval the project was required to provide 263 parking stalls (about a 1.73 ratio per unit) and had received approval to provide 279 stalls. Cooper said the current code requires 342 stalls (a 2.25 ratio), and “there’s no way for them to meet the 3 42 stalls without removing units. And so basically what they’d have to do to meet the current 2.25 ratio is to drop 28 units.”
Why it matters: Meeting the city’s higher parking ratio would materially reduce housing units on a constrained site and could make the approved project infeasible; the commission discussed whether the city’s standard appropriately balances land use, housing density and parking demand.
Cooper reviewed how nearby cities calculate multifamily parking — examples included West Haven’s bedroom‑based approach (one stall for a one‑bedroom, two stalls for two‑ and three‑bedrooms plus a guest allowance) and Layton’s bedroom‑specific ratios — and said Riverdale’s current requirements place it near the higher end of the sample set. Commission members asked staff to consult jurisdictions with recent multifamily projects and to gather operational data (e.g., whether developer‑provided stalls are regularly full or whether on‑street parking is already used for guests). Cooper said he would reach out to comparable developments, including recent projects and transit‑oriented examples, and return with code language options.
Commissioners also raised related operational questions: how retention areas and dog‑park space might be reconfigured to yield more stalls, whether retention could be accommodated under parking, and how the city should treat large commercial vehicles that residents may keep at home. The commission discussed guest parking, the land cost of parking (each stall plus access aisle consumes substantial area) and the trade‑offs between parking supply and other public goals such as walkability and housing density.
No final decision was made. Cooper said staff will prepare draft ordinance language for review in work sessions and public hearings and that the matter will likely remain on the docket for several months. The commission directed staff to gather data from other jurisdictions and specific projects, including recent multifamily developments, to inform a recommended ratio and related standards.
Next steps: Staff will survey nearby cities and recently built multifamily projects for actual usage rates; examine options such as a bedroom‑based ratio, guest allowances, or reduced requirements near transit; and prepare draft code amendments for work‑session review and subsequent public hearings.
