Item 7: Action: Ordinance on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

bathroom space, this or a similar standard can easily be crafted that is essentially identical in the amount of parking required under the count-the- bedrooms method, but without the confusion and City enforcement expenses and Orwellian bedroom police complications. This does not deny the neighbors what they want, it only structures it in a way that will be simpler, unambiguous, and not fraught with possibilities of abuse or the need for you to come back and fix it at a later date. I am happy to assist with establishing reasonable wording related to this methodology, and can provide information on recent apartment projects relative to types of units, bedroom count and square footage. Otherwise, I wish to clarify that I am on board with the increase in parking in WUN and SUNA. Our recent projects typically provide parking far in excess of basic City requirements. The Sequoia project, which you were kind enough to approve Mupte for, has twice the current requirement, or 1/3 more than will be required under the ICS proposal. The Hilyard Abbey, under construction presently, provides 68 parking spaces (many are tandems) for 66 70 bedrooms. The Waverly, under construction presently on E 17th, provides 50 parking spaces (some are tandems) for 68 bedrooms. Building Height : Councilor Clark asked staff for an explanation of how it was that ICS passed a height recommendation 14 to 1, but then staff and the Planning Commission handed you a preferred Option B that was not the first choice of neighbors. I dont know what answer you will get from staff, but pardon me for pointing out the obvious: ICS was formulated specifically to provide at least a 3 to 1 majority of neighborhood representatives over those of the development community. Builders and architects and developers were needed to maintain the appearance of bipartisanship, but it should be obvious that the conclusions were guaranteed to be neighbor-centric. ICS was put together to assure that bias; this is sort of the mechanics of neighborhood empowerment. I presume I was asked to co-chair more for the appearance of balance than for any skill or insight I would bring to the table; sort of a hood ornament on the ICS Studebaker. Obviously, people are involved, and everyone doesnt fit neatly into little categories. I care about neighborhoods, and Al Couper cares about good planning, and ICS people of good will can be and are arrayed all along the spectrum. However, given recommendations that come from an ICS heavily weighted in favor of the neighborhood interests, I believe such institutions as a Planning Department full of highly educated professional planners, and a Planning Commission full of smart, knowledgeable folks representing a broad range of interests, are only playing the role we ask and expect them to play here. To that end, they have given you if not the