Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission declines to expand approved parking at 401 Grove after lengthy debate
Summary
After a detailed debate over whether tandem parking spaces counted toward permitted parking totals, commissioners declined proposed amendments and left the previously-approved parking limit (32 independently accessible residential spaces) in place.
The Planning Commission on Feb. 16 considered a request to amend prior conditions for the 401 Grove Street mixed-use project (case 2011.1327C) to allow additional tandem parking spaces and increase the total number of residential parking spaces.
Staff recommended denying the amendment because project plans and the written approval did not clearly support the requested increase. Project architect/developer David Baker and Pocket Development representatives said they had relied on earlier approvals and drawings that showed tandem spaces; Baker argued the project team and previous approvals had counted tandem spaces differently and that an internal change in the definition of "tandem" created confusion.
Commissioners scrutinized the difference between the written motion (which controls approvals) and the schematic drawings and debated whether the project sponsor could rely on the drawings or should be constrained by the written conditions. Several compromise motions proposing intermediate parking totals were proposed and failed on close votes. The commission ultimately failed to adopt a substitute motion that would alter the parking limits; absent a new motion, staff said the original approval (32 residential off-street parking spaces plus designated commercial and car-share spaces) stood.
Commissioner Moore emphasized that the written motion governs project approvals and that drawings are schematic. Commissioner Antonini argued the commission had previously approved a reflected parking count and favored honoring the prior approvals. The outcome leaves the prior conditional use approval in force and the parking limit unchanged; the project sponsor indicated frustration with the definition change and said they would seek guidance on next steps.
"I totally support the idea of 0.5 parking, and it's, you know, some places it's 0.65," one supporter told the commission, reflecting the policy tensions between Market-Octavia's parking goals and project feasibility.
The Commission did not approve the requested amendment; staff will process the project according to the previously approved conditions unless the sponsor seeks additional discretionary authorization.
