Council reviews revised apartment plan; staff says parking and intensity meet code

City planning staff outlined revisions to a previously approved apartment project and answered council questions about unit counts, parking and site constraints.

Staff said earlier submittals showed larger unit counts (references in the packet included numbers such as 239 and 171) but that the developer's revised submittal reduces some massing and results in a plan with roughly "203" units on a tight 2.2-acre site. Planning staff explained that the project uses pylon (stilt) parking—parking supplied under the structure—so the actual number of parking spaces provided did not change even though the building footprint was altered. "The actual parking that they're supplying didn't change at all. They just put buildings over the top of it," one staff member said.

The council and staff discussed parking ratio guidance. Staff described commonly used urban/suburban ratios and said the developer's plan met code minimums: "We allow them the minimum, drop dead minimum at 1 unit per acre... They meet 1.25," staff said when explaining the compromise between a 1.5 suburban ratio and the town-center standard. Councilmembers asked about legal exposure if denial is based strictly on parking; staff cautioned that citing only parking can create vulnerability to appeals.

What happens next: staff said because the revised plan reduces intensity in places, the project can come to the council for final decision without returning to the planning commission; council members were instructed on how to phrase a motion to approve or deny if action is taken at a future meeting.