PC 120915 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Beaudin stated that a lot of zoning codes did not anticipate tandem parking because when these zoning codes were written, land was not at a premium; there was enough room to build side -by -side two -car garages, or the parking requirements were lower such that one -car parking garage was enough. He added that people who had two cars might park in the driveway and were using it as a tandem situation; but the reality is there was only a one -car parking requirement or there was enough land to do side -by -side garages, which is much more typical for Pleasanton's residential development when it took off in the late 1970's through the 1980's: the standard development framework was to have a big garage right in front of the house. Mr. Beaudin stated that the situation today for smaller infill projects today is that cities, including Pleasanton, have not updated their zoning code and do not have the tools to really accommodate the parking requirements that are imposed on these sites, and the current development is not able to mesh with the expectations for these sites with the parking requirement that exists in the base zoning. He added that because projects get too small, cities are using tandem parking as a way to allow development to continue to occur. Commissioner Ritter inquired if tandem parking currently exists at some locations in Downtown Pleasanton. Mr. Beaudin said yes, through the zoning flexibility that comes through the PUD process. He noted that this is not the first; there is another example, not precedent, in the Downtown. Chair Allen stated that the other example cited is Kimberly Commons, located across from the Chamber of Commerce building on Peters Avenue, which was approved ten years ago with a tandem - parking arrangement; it has an open - garage with a long driveway that has plenty of space for a third vehicle for a third occupant of the building or for a guest. She noted that the plans presented at the Work Session included a two -car garage with a driveway that could accommodate two additional vehicles for guests. She recalled that the discussion did not address guest parking for that reason. She inquired where guests would park with the proposed tandem parking. Mr. Weinstein replied that generally speaking, there are two options: One option which probably is not going to happen is that the household who lives on the site has one car which is parking in the garage, and a guest can park in a space in front of the garage; and the second is that it is likely that the people who live here will have at least two cars which would likely be parked on -site, so, guests would park on the street. Mr. Weinstein indicated that the provision for parking on the site, including guest parking, was a clear direction from the Commission at the Work Session, and Mr. Luchini talked in detail about all these different competing objectives that staff sought to work through on the site, including building setback, architecture, massing, and so forth. He pointed out that the provision of residential parking to the extent that the Planning Commission asked for was something that was not achieved in this current design. He noted that staff looked at the entire project holistically, and in the context of the entire project, staff felt it was a given fact that guests of these residents are likely to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 9, 2015 Page 11 of 40