I'm having difficulty understanding something. This chain of inquiry implies that it's reasonable to grant a pass to make residences without the capability to

I'm having difficulty understanding something. This chain of inquiry implies that it's reasonable to grant a pass to make residences without the capability to support basic functions of living. Or am I missing the meaning of "Full kitchen" here, which I'd define as as cooking surface, sink, a couple cabinets, and some spots for appliances which if done right can become quite a tight footprint. If the Parking spot is the sticking point here, please consider that it really isn't reasonable to expect someone to be tightly constrained too just their current city, or their general locale. That's what gets you predatory markets and price gouging. I.e. the "convenience tax". The solution to that is accommodating the full spectrum of transit aids a society sports. So... I apologize if I'm being daft... How would one propose that at least 1parking space per household is an unreasonable requirement for urban development in the abscence of other controls/subsidized infrastructure the current residents are willing to foot the bill for?