Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Exceptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff flags reduction at 45 Beakman and questions about a 1964 exemption
Summary
Staff identified two exceptions to the general finding that most projects matched previous parking requirements: 45 Beakman (reduced from 109 required to 88 provided) and a project invoking a 1964 exemption that provided 0 where 43 would have been required.
Staff told the board that while most tracked applications provided parking levels close to what the old code would have required, there were notable exceptions. "There's 2 exceptions, which was this got which was 45 Beakman, which had a reduction from 109 would have been required. They provided 88," the staff member said, and noted another case where the 1964 exemption raised interpretive questions about how many spaces should have been required.
Board members asked for clarification on the 1964 exemption and whether staff should explicitly track withdrawals and exemptions in the final summary. Staff said they will follow up to clarify how the 1964 exemption has been applied and to resolve the outstanding comparison for 300 Main Street.
