Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)

Home Browse Search

1requirements for multiple family development in the two university neighborhoods. 2Intervenors-respondents contend that the developer’s failure to recognize the continued 3application of EC Table 9.6410 led him to seriously overstate the magnitude of the increase 4in off-street parking requirement for multiple family dwellings in the two university 5neighborhoods. 6Finally, intervenors-respondents contend that there are a number of recent examples 7of multiple family development in the university neighborhoods that comply with or exceed 8the new off-street parking standard. Record 385. We understand intervenors-respondents to 9contend that more attention to design may be required in the future and that in some cases 10parking may need to be constructed underground, but so long as those measures are 11considered there is no reason to expect that the new off-street parking requirements will 12preclude multiple family development at the maximum allowed density in the R-3 or R-4 13zones in the two university neighborhoods. 14We agree with intervenors-respondents that petitioner appears to significantly 15overstate the impact of the disputed amendments. In particular, we agree that the reduced 16maximum building heights in the R-4 step down areas need not result in a direct or 17proportional reduction in development density and need not preclude development that 18achieves the permissible maximum residential density per net acre. As far as we can tell, the 19precise impact of the disputed changes on the ability of a particular applicant to achieve the 20maximum permissible residential development densities will depend on a number of 21variables. However, based on our review of the evidence cited by petitioner and intervenors- 22respondents, while it may be more expensive to construct underground parking and 23achieving the maximum allowed residential density in the R-4 zone may be more difficult, 24particularly where the maximum building height is 35 feet, the record simply does not 25support petitioner’s contention that the disputed amendments necessarily will preclude Page 11