more than 3 individual parking courts may be connected by an aisle or <br />driveway. (See Figure 9.5500(12) Multiple-Family Parking and <br />Multiple-Family Parking Continued.) <br />2. Parking Court Width. A parking court of any length shall consist <br />of no more than one 1 double-loaded parking aisle. <br />3. Parking Court Separation. Planting islands shall be placed <br />between parking courts to visually interrupt rows of parked vehicles and to <br />separate individual parking courts. Planting islands between parking <br />courts shall have a minimum width of 20 feet and a minimum area of 360 <br />square feet. Each of these islands shall provide at least I canopy shade <br />tree having a clear trunk height of at least 9 feet. Architectural elements <br />such as trellises, porches, and stairways may extend into planting islands <br />between parking courts. Other parking area landscape standards in EC <br />9.6420 Parking Area Standards also apply. (See Figure 9.5500(12)(b) <br />Multiple-Family Parking Courts)" <br />The City Attorney contends that the very standards that triggered this Application are standards <br />that can be applied to development permits anyway. The only concession from the City Attorney <br />is that the Multi-Family Standards may not be applied to prevent the use. That concession would <br />give the City a powerful discretionary wand to wave in order to reshape the development plan <br />substantially to its liking, contrary to the Needed Housing Statute. It would invite litigation <br />among the City and the neighbors and the developer about how much change in the plans is too <br />much change. <br />Goal 5 Standards: The City included the 2005 Goal 5 Ordinance with its July 8 post- <br />hearing submittal.' The Ordinance would create a "hands off' status for two features on the site. <br />One is a drainage on the site flowing east; this is proposed to be impacted by this project. The <br />other is a drainage in the southwest corner of the site; this is proposed to be piped in connection <br />with utility plans and diversion of storm water. <br />To say that that this ordinance must be applied is to say that the project can't be approved as <br />proposed, due to criteria and standards that were adopted after this application was filed. If the <br />Hearing Official were to agree with the City that this regulation can be applied, who would <br />determine how it is to be applied. Would this whole project be denied later? Would the project <br />have to be amended? Who would be in charge of the changes needed to comply with the Goal 5 <br />regulations? <br />Stormwater Standards: This application is similarly situated with regard to the 2006 <br />Stormwater Ordinance and administrative regulations adopted to implement the ordinance. <br />Those regulations require on site detention and treatment of storm water. Both of those functions <br />consume a lot of real property. If the City requires compliance with these standards, it is not all <br />' The City has included with its Goal 5 submittal (Ex. C) a 8.5x1 I color map titled: "City Goal 5 GIS <br />Layer." PDF page 47. This is not an adopted Goal 5 map. The adopted maps are at PDF pages 42 and <br />45. <br />APPLICANT'S FINAL ARGUMENT - Page 5 <br />Cathedral Park (CU 02-4) Record July 2016 <br />