My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 032316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:30:13 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/23/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Deutscher: Correct <br />Commissioner Allen: Can I ask a question since we're all on parking, can you refresh us <br />on apartments? You had asked what the standard was for guest parking. We have a <br />standard for apartments and what is that ratio? This is not to say this is an apartment, <br />but just for apartments, what is our standard that we have? <br />Amos: Again, it depends. It's based on the number of bedrooms. So if you have two <br />bedrooms then you have to have one and one -half parking space in a core overlay <br />district. It'd be something like one space and one and one -half space if you're having a <br />guest. <br />Weinstein: Just to clarify too, small projects in the core area overlay, or less than ten <br />units in the core area overlay, have no guest parking requirement if you're talking about <br />apartments. So I just wanted to clarify that. <br />Commissioner Nagler: But it's actually an interesting question, thank you. So if the <br />apartment standard wasn't in the overlay district, we'd be talking about two guest <br />parking spots, right? <br />Commissioner O'Connor: One per seven units, so it would require two spaces. <br />Deutscher: The other design solution just to throw it out there is just the current parking <br />requirement is one covered and one uncovered. You could do a one -car garage <br />enclosed and then have the other space next to the garage as kind of a carport and that <br />could be open for the residents' guests to park there versus the residents parking two <br />spaces in the garages. It's one garage space, one carport for their guest to park on their <br />lot and each lot would have one guest space and one enclosed garage. <br />Commissioner Allen: That's an interesting concept and it's a little bit along the lines of <br />what Kimberly Commons did. I don't know that it's right or wrong, but Kimberly <br />Commons when it was approved, they specifically said they weren't going to have a <br />closed garage. That was agreed upon during deliberations because they wanted to <br />make sure people wouldn't be putting all their stuff there. And they thought if it was <br />more of a carport design it would reduce the likelihood people would use a garage for <br />storage. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: You could stuff your garage and always park outside and <br />your spouse would be on the street. <br />Commissioner Allen: Yes, but we should hope one that would use it. <br />Deutscher: I'd like to reiterate for the Commissioners that we will put it in our CC &Rs <br />with regard to the concern that you raised. I think trying to have one uncovered... excuse <br />me, one carport and one garage, it probably would have an adverse aesthetic as well as <br />marketability and economic characteristic for the project. Again, we are losing a couple <br />of curb cuts and we are doing two covers versus one cover, so I would prefer to do this <br />as we move forward from the buyer expectation and control standpoint than try to <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 30 of 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.