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

Home Browse Search

1 There is evidence in the record that parking is a problem near the university and that 2the old one-space per unit parking standard is likely contributing to that parking problem. 3However, it seems to us that it was entirely foreseeable in 1993 that “reducing the required 4number of parking spaces per unit in the plan area” could either create or exacerbate parking 5problems in the university area, if steps beyond simply reducing the required number of 6parking spaces were not taken. From the decision and the evidence in the record that the 7parties have called to our attention, we cannot tell why a decision to increase off-street 8parking is consistent with a policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Although we 9agree with the city that West University Neighborhood Refinement Plan Policy 3 need not be 10interpreted to preclude the city from adjusting how the city chooses to implement that policy, 11the city needs to explain how a decision to increase off-street parking is consistent with a 12policy that calls for reducing off-street parking. Because there are no findings that provide 13that explanation, we agree with petitioner that remand is required. Citizens Against 14Irresponsible Growth v. Metro. 15 This subassignment of error is sustained. B.Metro Plan Housing Policies 16 17Metro Plan Policy A.2 provides in part that “[r]esidentially designated land within the 18UGB should be zoned consistent with the Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies[.]” 19As previously noted, Metro Plan Policy A.9 calls for residential dwelling densities of 20 20dwelling units per gross acre and 28.56 dwelling units per net acre. Metro Plan Policy A.14 21provides that the city is to “[r]eview local zoning and development regulations periodically 22to remove barriers to higher density housing and to make provision for a full range of 23housing options.” Petitioner argues Ordinance 20418 is inconsistent with these policies 24because it introduces new barriers to higher density and does not allow the density 25envisioned by the Metro Plan. Page 21