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

Home Browse Search

1As we have already explained, the EC allows significantly higher densities in the R-3 2and R-4 zones than is required under Metro Plan Policy A.9, and the challenged decision 3does not change that zoning. We are not persuaded by any of petitioner’s arguments that the 4challenged amendments will leave the city unable to comply with the 28.56 dwelling units 5per net acre standard that is set by Metro Plan Policy A.9. As far as we can tell, Ordinance 620481 is consistent with Metro Plan Policy A.2 or A.9. 7Petitioner appears to interpret Metro Plan Policy A.14 to prohibit the city from 8adopting any land use regulation amendments that might ultimately prove to be “barriers to 9higher density housing [or] provision [of] a full range of housing options.” That is not what 10the policy says. Metro Plan Policy A.14 directs the city to review city land use regulations 11periodically to “remove barriers to higher density housing and to make provision for a full 12range of housing options.” Metro Plan Policy A.14 seems to recognize that the city’s ability 13to predict the ultimate impact of land use regulations on housing density and options at the 14time land use regulations are adopted or amended is imperfect. Metro Plan Policy A.14 15simply requires that the city assess and correct, on a periodic basis, any land use regulations 16that prove to be a barrier to housing density or providing a full range of housing options. 17While Metro Plan Policy A.14 probably would bar a land use regulation that on its face will 18be a barrier to achieving desired housing density or housing options, and petitioner 19apparently believes that is the case with Ordinance 20418, we do not agree. 20This subassignment of error is denied. Page 22