Are development standards no longer needed?

After reading the Oct. article concerning possible mandatory inclusionary zoning, I’m left questioning the legitimacy of our development standards.

It was stated in the article that “as an off-set for providing deed-restricted housing as part of a market-rate development, the program would offer a list of incentives aimed at reducing certain development standards.” Those standards include, among others, reduced building setback, reduced parking requirements, increased building height, and increased impervious area before an engineered stormwater plan would be required. Restricting building height has always been a preference of the City Council, presumably at the bidding of the council’s constituents. There’s no real reason it can’t be changed, unless the city’s residents don’t want it. But when the council changes parking requirements, setbacks, and lot coverage, simply because it considers a project to be a good cause, the council is politicizing its standards. Making a housing development affordable doesn’t mean that there is any less of a need for parking than for any other project, and relaxed stormwater standards won’t achieve the results that the city has always said are necessary for good development. I also have to wonder if increased density will make the developments less livable. Affordability is a great goal, but developments should still be livable.

So I ask, are the development standards that developers have had to adhere to up to this point no longer needed, or is there a double standard based on whether the Council feels the cause is worth it? I suggest that the standards be applied equally and that the City Council decide if the current development standards have validity.

Doug Adams, Whitefish