Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Multi-Fam Parking Regor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL September 3, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' CITY CLERK File #450 -20 SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Related to Multi - Family Parking Regulations Prepared by Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 7, 2012, the City Council received an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch and directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi - family parking regulations. Staff presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning Commission on July 10, 2012; the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the amendments, with modifications. Based on feedback received from the development community, the City Council directed Staff to enter into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), to prepare an economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments on future residential projects. The economic impact analysis is complete and Staff is reporting back to the City Council on the findings and seeking direction related to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: During FY 2012 -2013 a budget transfer from the General Fund Contingent Reserve line item was approved to cover the cost to engage Economic & Planning Systems to conduct the economic impact analysis. The not -to- exceed contract amount is $48,500 and to date $29,688.75 has been expended. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and provide direction on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi - family parking regulations. Submitted By Director of Community Development Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1 DESCRIPTION: Background At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2) require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and 3) eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. On July 10, 2012, Staff presented proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission received input from a local developer who expressed concerns regarding the proposed multi - family accessory storage requirement (Attachment 3). The Planning Commission weighed the developer's concerns and recommended City Council approval of the Amendments with modifications. Following the Planning Commission meeting, two additional local developers expressed concerns over the increased parking requirements for condominiums and the inability to use tandem parking as required parking (Attachment 4). One of the concerns expressed was that the proposed changes to the parking ordinance would limit the developer's ability to construct for -sale residential projects on in -fill sites as well as limit their ability to achieve residential densities greater than 15 -18 dwelling units per acre on in -fill sites. As a result, fewer units would be constructed, thereby lowering land values and limiting opportunities for first -time homebuyers. Another concern expressed was that the increase in required parking is contrary to Senate Bill 375 and parking trends in surrounding jurisdictions. The City of Livermore was cited as requiring 1 guest parking space for every 4 units in contrast to Dublin's proposed 1 guest parking space per unit. The developers also expressed concerns over eliminating tandem parking especially for smaller, 1- bedroom units. They believe that maintaining flexibility with the use of tandem parking on in -fill sites could produce affordable by- design for -sale housing for first -time homebuyers. Ultimately, the developers foresee the changes to the parking regulations as inhibiting the development of for -sale housing on in -fill sites and facilitating the development of higher density rental housing. As a result, representatives of the development community felt that the proposed changes to the parking regulations would result in unintended consequences that should be further evaluated. On November 20, 2012 the City entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems to assist Staff in preparing an economic impact analysis of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The purpose of this Staff Report is to present the findings of the economic impact analysis and seek direction from the City Council on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. ANALYSIS: The economic impact analysis (Attachment 5) evaluates the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments that would: 1. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage per unit for multi - family projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units; Page 2 of 5 2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from .5 space per unit to one space per unit; and, 3. Eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects. As part of the economic impact analysis, EPS researched residential parking policies in neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri- Valley area; evaluated the use of tandem parking in residential projects throughout Dublin; interviewed stakeholders and planning professionals; and prepared a case study to illustrate the difference in residential densities with and without the use of tandem parking. Accessory Storage The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of accessory storage be provided per unit in multi - family projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units. This requirement is intended to provide residents with an alternative to storing their personal effects in their private garages thereby freeing up the garage for the parking of personal vehicles. Interviews conducted with developers confirmed that the provision of some additional interior storage space would not create a financial burden for residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential products without a significant impact on the product format. Guest Parking The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would increase the guest parking requirement for condominiums from .5 space per unit to one space per unit consistent with the current guest parking requirement for apartments. Based on the economic impact analysis, most project sites offer sufficient surplus land to provide the additional guest parking without impacting project densities or creating a financial burden to developers; however, landscaping, open space and other common areas are likely to be reduced in size in order to accommodate the additional guest parking. In -fill development and other projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a greater burden associated with the increased parking requirement, as these sites are less likely to accommodate additional surface parking without an impact on density. Tandem Parking The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects. According to the economic impact analysis, the elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial burden for residential project developers; however, the resulting product type is more likely to be lower density, larger units with a lower price per square foot. The demand for this larger product type may or may not be absorbed by the market thereby constraining developers in the type of residential product that would be delivered to the community. Additionally, development sites that are constrained due to their size or other natural or topographic features would produce fewer units thereby increasing the potential for financial impacts to the project. Furthermore, this constraint on product type would limit the diversity of housing types and sizes to meet the various needs of the community. As a result, the economic impact analysis suggests that some allowance of tandem parking may be appropriate under certain circumstances and recommends allowing tandem parking for up to 25% of the units in a project. Page 3 of 5 According to the economic impact analysis, the primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban -sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential unit can "fill out" a site where side -by -side parking formats will not fit. Based on interviews with representatives in the development community, an allowance of tandem parking for up to 25% of the units in a project would allow for significantly better efficiency in site development. The economic impact analysis further suggests that in those portions of the City where higher density development is desired (i.e. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area) that tandem parking be permitted in order to maximize densities and facilitate the redevelopment of smaller in -fill sites. Options for Consideration Related to Tandem Parking Based on the conclusions of the economic impact analysis, Staff is presenting the following options for the City Council's consideration: Option 1 • Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area; • Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, by- right; and • Allow more than 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Under Option 1, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem parking would be permitted by -right for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with the option to increase the amount of tandem parking with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This option would provide maximum flexibility for residential projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area to facilitate development including development on small or constrained sites, achieve higher densities in an area where higher density is currently encouraged, and foster greater economic development opportunities within the Specific Plan area. Option 2 • Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area; and, • Allow 25% of the units in a residential project to have tandem parking in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Under Option 2, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects with the exception of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area where tandem parking would be conditionally permitted for up to 25% of the units in a residential project with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This option would provide some flexibility for residential Page 4 of 5 projects in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area to achieve higher densities but would be subject to a discretionary review process to determine appropriateness of the tandem parking and certain findings would need to be made in order to approve the tandem parking. Option 3 • Amend the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations (Chapter 8.76) to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements City -wide, including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. Under Option 3, the Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance would be amended to prohibit tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements in residential projects City -wide including the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area. This option has the potential to slightly reduce residential densities and increase the potential for financial impacts in projects that are proposed on constrained sites due to the parcel size, configuration or other natural or topographic feature. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A public notice is not required to seek direction from the City Council. However, City Staff did send a letter to the development community and interested persons who were previously notified that the City was undertaking Zoning Ordinance Amendments related to multi - family parking regulations. Additionally, the Staff report was made available to the public on the City's website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 10, 2012 3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2012 4. Letters from the development community regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments 5. Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems dated June 4, 2013 Page 5 of 5 or sir wti� 19 82 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL February 7, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager`x ° °r Area G Parking Report Prepared by Mike Porto, Consulting Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #570 -20 The City Council will receive information on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and /or provide Staff with direction on whether or not to research steps that could be taken to minimize parking challenges in Area G and in future unentitled higher density residential neighborhoods. Submitted By Reviewed By Planning Manager Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: At the City Council meeting on October 18, 2011, Councilmember Biddle requested that an item be placed on a future City Council Agenda to discuss the status of the parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (see Attachment 1). Area G, commonly referred to as "Dublin Ranch Villages," is bounded by Central Parkway to the North, Dublin Boulevard to the South, Keegan Street to the East and Brannigan Street to the West. The overall area is comprised of 1,396 approved and constructed medium -high and high density for sale condominiums (the Villas, the Cottages, the Courtyards and the Terraces), a 5 acre Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons), a 2 acre Neighborhood Square (Devaney Square), and a 23 acre neighborhood retail commercial property (commonly referred to as "The Promenade ") bisects the area and is as yet undeveloped. Three of the projects are constructed and completely occupied and the fourth neighborhood (the Terraces) is still selling. Page 1 of 8 ITEM NO. 7.1 The four residential projects located within Area G comply and exceed the parking requirements that are established in the City of Dublin Zoning Code (Section 8.76.080). The required parking for condominiums is shown below. Condominiums: - 1 Bedroom Units: One (1) covered or garage space per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per unit - 2+ Bedrooms: Two (2) covered or garage spaces per dwelling plus 0.5 guest space per unit The Cottages and The Villas Two neighborhoods comprise the westerly half of Area G: "The Cottages" is designated as a Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 200 side -by -side and stacked flat condominium units. "The Villas" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised of 289 stacked flat and side -by -side condominium units. The following table illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for these two projects. Page 2 of 8 Table 1: "The Cottages" and "The Villas" Garage Required Provided Excess Parking One bedroom units 0 0 0 (23 units @ 1 space /unit) 23 23 0 Two bedroom+ units 562 562* 0 (177 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 354 354* 0 Guest Parking 141 1 146 1 +5 0.5 space /unit 100 108 ** +8 Garage Required Provided Excess Parking One bedroom units 0 0 0 (112 units @ 1 space /unit) 112 112 0 Two bedroom+ units 562 562* 0 (177 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 354 354 0 Guest Parking 141 1 146 1 +5 0.5 space /unit 145 161 ** +16 *103 tandem garages = 206 parking spaces (described below) *There are an additional 22 on- street parking spaces along the Chancery and Finnian frontages of Devaney Square. "The Cottages" and "The Villas" comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with respect to parking and, due to restriping of Brannigan Street before occupancies, excess guest parking was achieved adjacent to DeVaney Square. Tandem Parking: There are no tandem garage parking spaces in "The Villas." However, "The Cottages" have 103 garages in a tandem configuration (total of 206 parking spaces allowing for 85 two bedroom units and 18 one bedroom units). The Courtyards and The Terraces Two neighborhoods comprise the easterly half of Area G: "The Courtyards" is designated as a Medium -High Density development and is comprised of 281 side -by -side and stacked townhome condominium units. "The Terraces" is designated as a High Density development and is comprised of 626 stacked flat podium condominium units. Table 2: "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces" Garage Required Provided Excess Parking One bedroom units 0 0 0 Two bedroom+ units (281 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 562 562* 0 Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 141 1 146 1 +5 I Garage I Required I Provided I Excess Parking I Page 3 of 8 One bedroom units (92 units @ 1 space /unit) 92 92 0 Two bedroom+ units (534 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 1068 1068 ** 0 Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 313 1 330 * ** 1 +17 *The Couryards: 258 tandem garages = 516 parking spaces * *The Terraces: 137 tandem parking spaces in parking structure —There are an additional 71 on- street parking spaces along the Maguire and Finnian frontages of Bray Common. There is an excess of 22 guest parking stalls for "The Courtyards" and "The Terraces" The provision of guest parking on the east half of Area G did not take into account any parking adjacent to the Neighborhood Park (Bray Commons). The frontage on Maguire, Finnian and Keegan yields approximately 71 additional on- street parking stalls. Currently these uncounted stalls are being utilized by residents for overnight and guest parking. It should be noted that there would be a total of 93 additional parking spaces (71 on- street spaces, an additional 5 spaces on "the Courtyards, and 17 spaces on "The Terraces. ") beyond those that are required by the Ordinance for the east half of Area G. Tandem Parking: "The Courtyards" have a total of 258 tandem garages accommodating 516 garage parking spaces. "The Terraces" has a total of 137 tandem parking spaces within the parking garage. The Homeowners Association, managed by Massingham Associates, continues to encourage the residents to park both their cars in the designated garage and keep the garages free from storage (see Attachment 2). The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & R's) state "that you must keep your garage clear enough to park the number of vehicles in it that it was designed to hold." Contributing Issues to Parking Concerns While there is a myriad of factors that could contribute to the parking issues in Area G, Staff feels that there are three primary contributing issues that appear to affect the parking conditions in Area G. Tandem Parking: The City of Dublin Parking Ordinance allows tandem parking in multi - family projects. Additionally, the Planning Commission, in review of the projects acknowledged the tandem parking design solutions in the graphics provided for review. In many instances the residents of Area G are using their tandem garages to park two cars however, due to the inconvenience of having to move one car to get to the other, some residents choose to find parking on- street or within private parking courts. Over time, the unused second car space becomes an area for storage. Multiple Cars: Most residents have only one or two cars which can be adequately parked in their garages; however, some residents have a third car, a business truck or recreational vehicle which can displace parking. When this happens, guest parking is used to accommodate the additional vehicles. Page 4 of 8 One - Bedroom Units: In accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.080) Parking Requirements, one - bedroom condominium units (of which we have 227, including 23 in the Cottages, and 112 in the Villas, and 92 in the Terraces) are only required to have one parking stall and 0.5 guest stalls per unit. It is entirely possible that there are two people, with 2 cars living in these one bedroom units. The second car is then relegated to the guest parking stalls located on the private streets, public streets or one of the guest stalls provided on site in designated parking courts. By contrast, the Zoning Ordinance requirements for apartment parking is one covered or garage stall for each unit regardless of bedroom count and one unreserved guest parking stall for each unit resulting in more required spaces per one bedroom unit and less required spaces per two bedroom unit than required for condominiums. It is actually conceivable that an apartment project can provide more parking than a condominium project. Comparative Projects California Highlands: For comparison, Staff reviewed California Highlands, a 246 unit condominium project which was developed over 10 years ago and is located near the Dublin Boulevard extension to Schaefer Ranch. The Planned Development Zoning requirement is to provide 15% of the overall parking for guest parking, resulting in one guest parking stall for approximately each 8 units. However, the guest parking was provided at a ratio of one guest parking stall for each 3 condominium units, thus exceeding the minimum parking requirement as noted in Table 3 below. No known guest parking issues have been raised at California Highlands. As noted above, the ratio in Area G slightly exceeds 1 guest parking stall for every 2 condominium units. Table 3: California Highlands One and two bedroom units (246 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 492 492 0 Guest Parking 246 x 15% 37 84 +47 Sorrento West: Sorrento west is comprised of 5 neighborhoods. Neighborhood 1 is a traditional single - family detached product with a standard 2 car garage. Guest parking is on public and private streets and is provided at the required ratio of 1 guest space for each residential unit. This product does not compare with a product in Area G. The following table illustrates the required and actual number of parking spaces for the remaining 4 neighborhoods in Sorrento West. Table 4: Sorrento West Tro'v[ (117 Uinits Garage Required Provided Excess Parking Two bedroom+ units (117 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 234 234* 0 Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 59 79 +20 *18 tandem garages = 36 parking spaces Firenze (ss Units ...... Page 5 of 8 Garage Required Provided Excess Parking Two bedroom+ units (66 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 132 165 +33* Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 33 42 +9 *An extra 3rd car tandem space provided on 33 units Siena (4 Uni ...... Garage Required Provided Excess Parking Two bedroom+ units (64 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 128 192 +64* Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 32 79 +47 *An extra 2 -car garage space (tandem 4 -car) provided on 32 units MAI (r6 UnitS) Garage Required Provided Excess Parking Two bedroom+ units (96 units @ 2 spaces /unit) 192 192 0 Guest Parking 0.5 space /unit 48 48 0 Excess guest parking in Sorrento West is 78 stalls; however, Sorrento West is developed at a Medium Density land use where the neighborhoods in Area G were developed at a more urban Medium -High and High Density Land use. Sorrento West requires a parking permit to parking in the guest parking spaces overnight. Additionally the additional 3 and 4 car garage spaces in the attached Firenze and Siena product provide uncounted excess resident parking which provides additional parking for homeowners with extra personal vehicles. Currently, the City has not received concerns regarding parking in Sorrento West. The Milano and Amalfi projects are complete but not completely sold and the Firenze and Siena neighborhoods are almost complete with unsold units. Trevi still has two buildings to construct. The CC &R's for Sorrento West have identical language as Area G regarding parking the number of vehicles in the garage and not allowing storage to obstruct vehicle parking. Massingham Associates (the same property manager as Area G) has been issuing Community Bulletins, in a similar manner to Area G, stating these requirements. Potential Options for Area G: The following is a discussion of potential options for the homeowner's association and /or the City to pursue in order to address the parking concerns within Area G. Potential Action by the Homeowner's Association 1. Increase the amount of guest parking. This option would require the HOA to identify locations where it is practical to add additional on -site parking, prepare improvement plans and process an amendment to the existing Site Development Review permit. However, there are limited opportunities to create additional parking spaces because the Page 6 of 8 development is at a relatively high density and the improvements have already been constructed. 2. Require a parking permit for all vehicles that are parked overnight in the on -site guest parking spaces. This would force the residents to park their vehicles in their garages, leaving the guest spaces open to visitors. This would require an amendment to the CC &Rs by vote of the property owners. It would also require enforcement by the HOA, which could include citation or towing of vehicles. However, this could result in additional vehicles parked off -site on public streets. 3. Establish a protocol that residents cannot park company owned vehicles anywhere in Area G. Many companies find it cheaper to have employees drive their company vehicle to and from work rather than provide space to leave company vehicles. This would require a vote of the owners to amend the CC &Rs. The City is limited in its ability to require action by the property owners and their HOA. However, Staff could work with the HOA to try and implement measures as directed by the City Council. Potential Action by the City 1. Enforce the rule prohibiting vehicles to be parked in the public right -of -way for more than 72 hours. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. As a result, this option would help make street parking available for guests and help to ensure that street parking is not used for long vehicle storage. This would require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement. However, this option would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G. 2. Prohibit overnight parking on surrounding streets. This would force the residents to use their garage spaces for their vehicles. This would also help make street parking unattractive to residents thus freeing up spaces for guest parking. This option would require increased Staff time for the Police Department to patrol and enforce this requirement. This would effectively reduce the amount of parking available to the residents and could increase the parking concerns for residents of Area G. 3. Staff could meet with Massingham Associates, the management company for the various homeowner's associations, to discuss the parking issue and methods to address the concerns using existing rules. Staff could evaluate the viability of enforcing these measures as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures and the fiscal impacts. Potential Options for City -Wide consideration: 1. Establish consistency in the Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for condominiums and apartments related to amount of parking provided for one bedroom units and required guest parking. 2. Evaluate a requirement to provide a minimum square foot area for personal storage for all attached products. 3. Evaluate the effectiveness of tandem parking stalls and consider policy alternatives to restrict the amount of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements, or prohibit the use of tandem parking for compliance with required garage parking (additional stalls could be allowed as tandem as long as the required stalls are not). Page 7 of 8 Staff could further evaluate these options as directed by the City Council. In which case, Staff would return to the City Council with a report on the potential effectiveness of these measures and the fiscal impacts. Conclusions Some of the residents of Area G have raised concerns regarding the perceived lack of guest parking within their neighborhoods. The parking provided at the Villages (Area G) is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Area G has more guest parking than a similar project, the California Highlands. There may be reasons beyond the City's regulations for these problems, such as the displacement of the automobile by storage, the inconvenience of tandem parking and households with multiple cars which were detailed above. Without the ability to conduct studies which include going on to private property, it would be difficult to ascertain these reasons. However, the City Council could direct Staff to analyze alternatives to address these issues with future development projects, as outlined in this Staff Report. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: This is a public meeting item. Although we are not required to notice public meetings, the City Council has previously provided staff with direction to notify the affected neighbors on any issues relative to Area G. In an attempt to implement the City Council's direction, Staff provided a notice of this Public Meeting to Massingham and Associates who are the property managers for all of the Homeowner's Associations in Area G and Sorrento West. Massingham Associates posted the Public Meeting Notice at each of the mail kiosks in each of the projects they manage the week of January 23, 2012, which is the legal posting place for messages in each of the neighborhoods. Additionally the notice was placed in the Board Members' meeting packets and announced at the Homeowner's meetings over the last three weeks. The notice was also published on the HOA web site for each neighborhood. Staff surveyed all of the posting locations on January 31, 2012 and the notices were all clearly visible with the exception of The Terraces. The Notice had not been posted at The Terraces. As a result, the HOA immediately posted the notice at The Terraces. Additionally, a Public Notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from October 18, 2011 City Council meeting 2. Massingham notices distributed to the Cottage and Villas Residents Page 8 of 8 Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan Annual Report 7:25:51 PM 8.2 (920 -10) Director of Parks and Community Service Diane Lowart presented the Staff Report and advised that In November 2008, the City Council adopted the Parks and Community Services Strategic Plan. Staff would present an annual report on the strategic objectives accomplished during Fiscal Year 2010 -2011. This item was first agendized for the October 4, 2011 City Council meeting. By consensus, the City Council moved this item to the October 18, 2011 City Council meeting Mayor Sbranti asked when the connection would be open from the East Bay Regional Park District's ( EBRPD) Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Ms. Lowart stated she would follow up on whether any event was planned by EBRPD for the opening of the connection between its Dublin Hills Regional Park and the City's Martin Canyon Creek Trail. The City Council commented on the growth of the Parks and Community Services' activities. It was vibrant and an asset to the community. The City Council received the report. OTHER BUSINESS Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from Council and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB 1234) 7:38:38 PM Cm. Hildenbrand stated she had nothing to report. Cm. Biddle stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, an Alameda County Transportation Commission meeting, an Alameda County Housing Authority meeting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. Vm. Hart stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7 VOLUME 30 G`�yOFDtjB�,y REGULAR MEETING u, a. OCTOBER 18, 2011 '� -182 ��I���° Cm. Swalwell stated he attended the Dublin High School Homecoming, and the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting. Mayor Sbranti stated he attended the Johnny Garlic's Restaurant ribbon cutting and the School of Imagination ribbon cutting. He stated he attended the City of Dublin — Dublin San Ramon Services District Liaison Committee meeting, the Alameda County Mayor's Conference, and the Residential Realtors Roundtable. He asked Dublin residents to participate in the Dublin Reads event. Cm. Biddle asked Staff to update the parking study done a few years ago regarding the Promenade development. Included should be what did the parking code mean. Also looking into how the parking was managed. What was permitted to park there? Was storage permitted? Were there assigned spaces? In terms of similar complexes, how did they manage their parking and what problems did they have. Also look at solutions how the management of complexes could manage their parking or what the City could do to help resolve the situation there; how much could the City do regarding parking issues versus the how much the management of the complexes could do. Ms. Pattillo asked if Cm. Biddle wanted it as an informational piece to the City Council. She knew something had been done several years ago and it was more of a cursory look at the parking situation as it related to the Promenade. Did he want Staff to look at each Homeowner's Association (HOA) as well? Cm. Biddle stated just those HOAs within Dublin with a similar type of housing as the Promenade. Did they have the same type of parking situational problems? City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could begin with a cursory look at was done with the Promenade. She confirmed that what Cm. Biddle was asking for was to update the study that had been done a few years back as an informational piece, and also understand if there were any comparisons within the City of Dublin as it related to density and types of housing and see if there were any parking issues. Was he also looking for how each HOA managed their parking? Cm. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what was their system. What were their parking rules? What was and was not permitted? City Manager Pattillo asked Cm. Biddle if he wanted to see what role the City had. Mr. Biddle stated, yes, he wanted to know what could the City's role be in solving the parking issue, if any. Cm. Hildenbrand asked if he was asking if there was permitted parking. Cm. Biddle stated he wanted to know what the management of the complexes could do, as well as the City, in solving parking problems. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 VOLUME 30 Of 1D) REGULAR MEETING ti OCTOBER 18, 2011 '���� C'4LIFpR�lD City Manager Pattillo stated Staff could build off what was done before, and how it was planned, including the previous parking study, HOA discussion, looking at the designation, and what role the City had as it related to parking. She might ask for clarification at a later date if needed. ADJOURNMENT 10.1 There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57:39 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops. Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk. j, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9 VOLUME 30 Gl�yoepUB�m REGULAR MEETING n� , � OCTOBER 18, 2011 �� L. • =-4 M121=- iimp Eric Lars Hanson Mary Warren Paul Cardoso HT Astrov F-,T-TTS=. 41,1ST1711117-1 17 Farmers Insurance Cc/ Greg Norris Agency 415-389-8200 (Coverage for main buildings and common area) Unit owners are encouraged to obtain 'H06 coverage to protect inside of unit and owner liability Proudly Managed by 1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300 Concord, CA 94520 1W=1 A I IM I MRTA 141 @1 IONSK8 11 W P1*1 1 ITS 1 IN 1101401 It Dublin Police Dispatch: Report suspicious activity: 925-462-1212 • '. =$. alrslme-14741V Association Insurance Gregg Norris Insurance Co. 415-389-8200 Financial Information 12/31/20 Operating Cash: $112,153.02 1 Proudly Managed by Massin�-��R-NAcg-oc�tes Managementlnc, 1855 Gateway Blvd, Suite 300 Concord, CA 94520 Greg Thibodeaux- Manager Veronica Lewis- Community Assistant Phone: 925-405-4728 Email: VeronicaL(cbMassingham.com Dublin Police Dispatch: Report suspicious activity: 925-462-121 (They WANT You to Call! You May Stay Anonyrnol MARCH 2011 ffel M M 94 0 =0- 4 R 0 1 tp While a compliance campaign was undertaken 2 years ago, due to increasing abuses it is again time to refresh remind everyone of the requirements and penalties: residents • !!, not use their garage be subject ! - Those monetary fines per the Fine Policy of the Community up to $150 per We kindly ask all owners and residents to assure compliance with the community"s CC&Rs and rules to make the community a more livable place, and to void violation atus/ fines. THANK �b � Gds Cottages at Dublin Ranch Garag��.Park na, Requirement ............. To: All Cottages ResideniM ***Keep in mind that parking iti a firehane or across any garage door subjects you to .immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!*** eame N,� J jo in US Often during the hectic nucove in period, individuals don't have time to read all, the paperwork that cartie with die properly, including all the rules a�nd regi,dations. So below iss a reminder t� of some of the most criticat: The Villas at Dublin Ranch Villages Ggage P arking_ Requirement From: Your board of Directors and Massingham & Associates Management mllmmvmlt�- * **Keep in mind that parking in a fire lane or across any garage door subjects you to immediate towing with a minimum charge of $300!*** /9Oz ��LIFOR�l� DATE: TO: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION July 10, 2012 Planning Commission SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Prepared By: Mamie R. Delgado, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City is initiating amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to bring greater clarity and consistency to existing regulations. Amendments are proposed to: 1) Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) to add a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family; 2) Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) to create a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2 (Two - Family), R -M (Multi - Family) and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts; and, 3) Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) to establish a consistent guest parking standard for apartments and condominiums and limit the use of tandem parking for residential uses. The Planning Commission will review the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the public hearing; 3) Take testimony from the public; 4) Close the public hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Dublin Municipal Code. Submitted By v Senior Planner COPIES TO: File t iewed By Planning Manager ITEM NO.: & '?) Page 1 of 7 G:IPAM20121PLPA- 2012 -00028 Off - Street Parking & Loading ZOM07.10.12 PCSR Ch. 8.08, 8.36, 8.76 ZOA. doc DESCRIPTION: At the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the status of parking in Area G of Dublin Ranch (Attachment 1). The City Council received the report and, among other things, directed Staff to prepare Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) establish consistency between the parking standards for apartments and condominiums; 2) require a minimum amount of personal storage for attached residential units; and, 3) eliminate the use of tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed amendments and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) recommending City Council adoption of the proposed amendments (Attachment 2, Exhibit A). Apartment and Condominium Parking Standards Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) sets forth the minimum parking requirements by Use Type. Apartments and Condominiums currently have the following parking requirements: Table 1_ Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Tvoes) RESIDENTIAL USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Residences Apartments Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. 2+ Bedrooms 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 parking space for unreserved and guest parking. Condominiums Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus guest parking (see below) Guest Parking Projects with 10 or more dwellings shall provide one additional guest parking space for every 2 dwelling units which shall be marked as a guest parking space. The guest parking requirement for apartments is one parking space per unit; for condominiums, the guest parking requirement is one parking space for every two units resulting in less guest parking for condominium projects than for apartment projects. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would create a consistent guest parking requirement among both apartments and condominiums as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): 2of7 Table 2. Proposed Amendment to Section 8.76.080.13 (Residential Use Tvnes) RESIDENTIAL USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Residences R -2 Apartments LOT AREA Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved quest parking space per dwelling fer 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved quest parking space per dwellinq far unreserved and g post �nn 2+ Bedrooms 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling for Condominiums 8,000 sq. ft. Studio 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling _ (_°°° "� 1 Bedroom 1 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling (see below) 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered or garaged per dwelling plus 1 unreserved guest parking space per dwelling (see below) ('_`uost ❑arLlnn PFejeGtS with 10 or more dwellin- . .. *de . one additional for 2 dwelling guest parking spaGe every Personal Storage for Attached Residential Units While some existing multi - family residential developments include personal storage areas for residents (commonly provided in closets on patios and balconies), the Zoning Ordinance does not require that personal storage areas be provided thus leaving it to the discretion of the developer whether to include this amenity in a multi - family project. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would require that a minimum of 90 cubic feet of personal storage be provided per unit for all new multi - family developments in the R -2 (Two Family Residential) and R -M (Multi - Family Residential) Zoning Districts and comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts. Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) is proposed to be amended as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): Table 3. Proposed Amendments to Section 8.36.020 (Agricultural and Residential Develooment Reaulations) STANDARD A R -1 R -2 R -M LOT AREA Interior lot 100 acres 4,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Corner lot 100 acres 5,000 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 3 of 7 LOT SQUARE NA 4,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft. and larger FOOTAGE PER DU 100 feet larger as consistent larger as consistent as consistent with MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE NA with General Plan with General Plan. General Plan LOT WIDTH & NA NA NA 30 % of net site area FRONTAGE NA NA 90 cubic feet minimum per unit 90 cubic feet minimum per unit Interior lot 300 feet 50 feet 80 feet 50 feet Corner lot 300 feet 60 feet 90 feet 60 feet LOT DEPTH NA 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet RESIDENTIAL USE 1 du. 1 Second Unit 1 du 1 Second Unit 2 du's 1 du per full 750 sq. (maximum per lot) ft. (and larger as consistent with General Plan) SETBACKS Front 50 feet 20 ft. avg. 18 ft 20 ft. avg. 18 ft. 20 ft. minimum to garage minimum (1) Side 30 feet (2) 10 feet 10 feet (3) Street Side 50 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear 50 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet (1) Living spaces may encroach to 15 ft. from Front Lot Line with Site Development Review on lots up to 6,000 square feet in size. (2) Side Yard setbacks in the R -1 zoning district shall be a minimum of 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which lot width exceeds minimum lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet. (3) Buildings with 4 or more residences in the R -M zoning district shall have a 15 foot Side Yard on one side. STANDARD A R -1 R -2 R -M DISTANCE B ETWEEN RESIDENCES 100 feet 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE NA 40% 1 story, 35% 2 stories 40% 1 story, 35% 2 stories 40% 1 story, 35% 2 stories COMMON USEABLE OUTDOOR SPACE NA NA NA 30 % of net site area ACCESSORY STORAGE- NA NA 90 cubic feet minimum per unit 90 cubic feet minimum per unit MULTI - FAMILY (1) HEIGHT LIMITS (2) (2) (2) (3) (1) Multi - familv accessory storage shall also be provided in comparable PD (Planned Development) Zoning Districts See also Chapter 8.08 (Definitions). (2) West of Dougherty Road 25 feet and 2 stories; may be increased to 35 feet and 2 stories pursuant to a Site Development Review approval by the Zoning Administrator. East of Dougherty Road; 35 feet and 2 stories. (3) 35 feet if 4 or fewer du.; 45 feet if 5 or more du.; 75 feet if 5 or more du. and lot coverage does not exceed 35 %. Staff is proposing a minimum of 90 cubic feet of storage per unit be provided for the storage of personal effects. 90 cubic feet consists of a space that is 3'x5'x6' (in any configuration of length, width and height). While none of the surrounding Tri- Valley cities (Livermore, Pleasanton or San Ramon) currently have a similar requirement, a number of cities throughout California do have such a requirement. Table 4 below summarizes a survey of cities that was conducted through the League of California Cities Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED) Listserv: 4of7 Table 4. Multi - Familv Accessory Storane Renuirements Survev CITY STANDARD Square Feet (Surface Area) Cubic Feet Volume Sierra Madre 150 square feet/unit 30 -inch min. dimension Lemoore 32 square feet/unit Livingston 30 square feet /unit Paso Robles 250 cubic feet/unit Dana Point 250 cubic feet/unit Lawndale 200 cubic feet/unit San Dimas 150 cubic feet/unit Fontana 125 cubic feet/unit San Gabriel 90 cubic feet /unit Glendale 90 cubic feet /unit (new construction) 60 cubic feet/unit (condo conversion 3 -foot min. dimension 24 square feet min. surface area In evaluating what might be an appropriate size requirement for accessory storage, Staff selected a size that was small enough that the accessory storage area could not be legally converted to a habitable room such as an office or bedroom. The minimum size for a habitable room is 70 square feet with a minimum width of 7 -feet. In addition to adding a minimum requirement for accessory storage in the R -2, R -M and comparable PD Zoning Districts, a new definition for Accessory Storage — Multi - Family is proposed to be added to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions) as follows: Accessory Storage — Multi - Family Residential. The term Accessory Storage — Multi- Family Residential shall mean a dedicated, enclosed and securable space located within an individual dwelling unit, an attached or detached individual garage, or another dedicated space approved by the Community Development Director, in which occupant(s) of the dwelling unit can store their personal effects. Accessory Storage — Multi- Family Residential spaces shall not include bedroom closets, linen closets, pantries or any other areas customarily provided to meet the day to day functions of the dwelling unit. Accessory Storage - Multi - Family Residential spaces may be used to satisfy required bicycle storage space. Tandem Parking The Zoning Ordinance currently allows for the use of tandem parking within single - family dwelling unit attached garages. The Tandem Parking regulation (Section 8.76.0601) reads as follows: L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. Tandem parking is permitted within single - family dwelling unit attached garages. 5 of 7 This may be accomplished by the use of tandem, wedge or other techniques approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would separate the regulations pertaining to the use of tandem parking for commercial /industrial uses from residential uses and would limit the use of tandem parking in residential projects so that it could not be used for required parking. The proposed amendment would read as follows (with proposed new text shown with an underline and strikethrough text proposed to be deleted): L. Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve an off - street parking program by means of a Conditional Use Permit utilizing limited tandem (front to back) parking for commercial and industrial uses under unusual design constraints provided that the development requires 20 or more parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may require that an attendant be on duty during normal business hours. Tandem parking is not permitted to satisfy required parking within single - family dwelling unit attached This may be garages or multi - family ned b the of tandern, dwelling unit attached garages. wedge or other +onhniq e aGn by the Zening use AdmiRistFater. The Zoning Administrator may Fequire approved that be duty during normal business hours. an attendant on CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the Dublin General Plan and all applicable Specific Plans in that the General Plan and applicable Specific Plans include policies that encourage the development of a variety of housing types including multi - family housing and the proposed amendments make provisions to facilitate the on -going enjoyment of residential properties by maintaining adequate parking standards and regulations. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Notice was published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. The Public Notice was provided to all persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of meetings. The Staff Report for this public hearing was also made available on the City's website. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared. Pursuant to the CEQA, Staff is recommending that the proposed Ordinance be found exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) states that CEQA applies only to those projects that have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The adoption of the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction of any building or structure, but it sets forth the regulations that shall be followed if and when a building or structure is proposed to be constructed or a site is proposed to be developed. This Ordinance of itself, therefore, has no potential for resulting in significant physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. 6of7 ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Council Staff Report dated February 7, 2012, without attachments. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council amend Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations) and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the draft Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. 7of7 gg {� g f Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 6:58:57 PM Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair O'Keefe; Commissioners Schaub and Brown; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Bhuthimethee ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Vice Chair Brown, on a vote of 3 -0 -1 (Cm. O'Keefe was absent from that meeting), the Planning Commission approved the minutes of the June 12, 2012 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE CONSENT CALENDAR — NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS -- 8.1 PLPA- 2012 -00002 Dublin Toyota Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the fabric canopies on the south elevation will remain. Ms. Bascom answered that it will be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if any canopies will remain. Ms. Bascom answered there are shade canopies throughout the site and one on the north side of the building will remain. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the new part of the building will extend as far out as the canopies. Ms. Bascom answered that it will extend approximately as far as the canopies, but the new entry portal is set off the building and then ties back in with the columns and the roof structure. Ms. Bascom pointed out on the site plan where the new entry portal will be located. She stated there is an existing driveway that will be removed as part of the construction. ,11(anning Commission Jury 10, 2012 fturar setin 53 Cm. Brown asked to clarify that the existing service check -in area is not changing. Ms. Bascom answered that is correct Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscaping plans were too small to see the details of the elevation on the south side. Ms. Bascom shared a full sized set of plans with the Planning Commission and explained the changes included in the application. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Roxanne Duchaney, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project and explained the area Chair Wehrenberg was asking about. Cm. O'Keefe asked if installing turf instead of grass was more cost effective. Ms. Bascom stated it is not artificial grass but sod. Ms. Duchaney stated they looked at installing artificial grass but decided on sod and mentioned they received approval to install the landscaping so the lot would look better during construction. Cm. Brown asked if any of the signage would change. Ms. Duchaney stated the directional signs will remain the same. Ms. Bascom added that the wall signs will be re- utilized in other areas on the building. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg stated she could make the findings and had no issues with the project. Cm. Schaub stated he could make the findings and felt it is a great update to the building. Cm. Brown stated he can make the findings and felt the project would enhance their business opportunities. Cm. O'Keefe stated he can make the findings and was in support of the project. He suggested removing the other canopy as well. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1, with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 - 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN Tranning Commission July 10, 201,E ufar- Weetin 54 APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR A 3,724 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, FAQADE MODIFICATIONS, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DUBLIN TOYOTA SALES AND SERVICE BUILDINGS AT 4321 TOYOTA DRIVE 8.2 PLPA- 2012 -00001 7 -11 Site Development Review Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. O'Keefe asked about an area marked "pedestrian doors" on the plans. Ms. Bascom answered that those are doors to the trash enclosure. She stated the City requires this type of door on trash enclosures. Cm. Schaub asked if other trees will be planted to replace the trees being removed. Ms. Bascom answered new trees will be planted in a different location to replace the trees that were be removed. Cm. Schaub asked if the windows will be clear glass and if they will be subject to the sign ordinance. Ms. Bascom answered yes, they will be clear glass and must comply with the sign ordinance regarding coverage and will not be blacked out. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the windows will be facing Village Parkway. Ms. Bascom answered no windows will face Village Parkway but there is a trash enclosure between the building and the street so there is not very much street presence on Village Parkway. Chair Wehrenberg asked if this project is within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area Ms. Bascom answered no; it is just outside. Cm. Brown asked if there will be additional AC equipment installed on the roof. Ms. Bascom stated that the Applicant will identify roof mounted equipment on their building permit plans. She stated the roof structure has a good well for roof mounted equipment. She stated the City always has a Condition of Approval that any roof mounted equipment needs to be screened from public view. Cm. Brown asked where the new signs will be located. Ms. Bascom stated the signs will be in the same location as the Carl's Jr. signs. She pointed out the location of the signs on the north, west and south elevations. She commented that the elevation provided in the packet has an error; there will be no signage on the interior (east) elevation facing the shopping center. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the planters that will be installed will hold the new trees. Tlanning Cosa m4uion Jay 103 2012 (Rvgu ar eeting 55 Ms. Bascom pointed out the proposed location of the new trees facing the west frontage Cm. O'Keefe asked if the new trees will be in addition to the existing trees. Ms. Bascom pointed out the existing tree that will not be removed and stated there will be an additional tree planted in the planter areas. Chair, Wehrenberg asked if there will be irrigation for the planters and the screens that are proposed to be installed. Ms. Bascom answered yes; there is a Condition of Approval that ensures sufficient irrigation. She stated that the landscape plan provided is conceptual and Staff will ensure that the final landscape plan has irrigation plans and make sure the landscaping is properly irrigated for the long term. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing Richard LaRowe, Stantec Architecture, spoke in favor of the project. He thanked Staff for their help. He stated that Staff made it clear that it was important to change the entrance to face Dublin Blvd. versus the original design. He stated it was not easy but he was pleased with the way it has turned out. He stated they completely redesigned the interior and moved the entrance to the Dublin Blvd side and felt it was a better project. Chair Wehrenberg asked if his firm was the same as mentioned on the drawings. Mr. LaRowe answered no; he stated 7 -11 uses Harrison French and Associates for all their tenant improvement projects across the country, but they don't present at meetings or coordinate the approvals. Cm. Schaub asked if 7 -11 is still Southland Corp. Mr. LaRowe answered 7 -11 is owned by a Japanese firm that is trying to change the image of the typical 7 -11 with more fresh fruit, sandwiches, salads and healthier, more upscale merchandise. Cm. Schaub was concerned with the image of 7 -11 selling unhealthy foods. Mr. LaRowe distributed pictures of the new items being offered at 7 -11. Cm. Brown felt that, since Village Parkway is part of the downtown area, having the newer, more up -to -date 7 -11 would be a draw. Cm. O'Keefe asked if the 7 -11 organization prefers their monument signs to be a monument sign or a pedestal sign. Mr. LaRowe stated the 7 -11 advancement program is about going into vacant buildings, fixing them up and staying on a long term basis. They have a sign company that does all the signs for 7 -11. He stated they work with the community to determine what will be the best sign for that location which is usually a monument sign. �P(anning Cr mmn )sion Juf 10, 2012 cqurar5 eetin 56 Cm. O'Keefe was concerned about the height of the monument sign and the location on top of the berm and would prefer the sign to be closer to 4 feet tall. He felt that the 6 foot tall sign was not appropriate because, if mounted on the berm, the sign would be 8 -9 feet in height. Cm. Schaub asked if there was an illustration of the monument sign. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, pointed out the monument sign illustration in the packet. Cm. Schaub agreed with Cm. O'Keefe and felt the sign should be no more than 4 -5 feet in height. Cm. Brown mentioned the flat area to the left of the pedestrian walkway and felt the sign could be located there. Cm. O'Keefe felt that the intersection of Dublin Blvd. and Village Parkway is a key location. Mr. LaRowe confirmed that the location of the sign is on the berm area. Cm. Schaub felt the size of the address numbers were too large and suggested eliminating the numbers or putting them on a separate sign. Mr. LaRowe felt that, if the Commission was asking to condition the sign to reduce the height by 1 foot, he would agree. Cm. Schaub suggested reducing the height by 2 feet and removing the address as part of the monument sign. Ms. Bascom stated the City does not have a minimum height for address numbers, but the police department prefers a larger size. Mr. LaRowe stated the height of the address is 10 inches and thought the height was required by the fire department. Mr. Baker suggested the Commission condition the project to reduce the sign by 2 feet and then Staff can work with the Applicant, police and fire to ensure that the sign meets their requirements. Cm. Brown responded that would be assuming the sign is located on the berm, but felt the proposed height would be acceptable if the sign were located on the flat area. Mr. LaRowe stated the site plan shows the sign on the berm and asked that they condition it with the sign on the berm, but if the sign is on the flat area he would like it to remain at 6 feet in height. Ms. Bascom stated that Condition of Approval #9 speaks to the location of the monument sign and the requirement of a field test to ensure that the sign does not block vehicular visibility. She stated the Commission could direct Staff to add language which states: "the overall sign height, including grade, be no higher than 6 feet." 'Canning Commission _7u(y 10, 2012 gurur'teeting 57 Mr. LaRowe reminded the Commission that some of the shrubbery they wanted to remain might block the sign. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Commission if they would allow Staff to work with the Applicant to make sure the sign is appropriate. Cm. Schaub agreed. Cm. Brown felt that being able to see the address is not only a convenience to fire and police, but also to the public. He felt it could be a safety issue as well. Mr. LaRowe stated there are accidents caused by drivers looking for an address, and typically the address is on the building, not the sign. Ms. Bascom stated the City requires the address to be over the front door and that is checked during the building permit, plan check process. Cm. O'Keefe suggested having the facade broken up and more trees added. Mr. LaRowe stated the elevations are not depicting all the existing trees. He stated the elevations were intended to show the landscaping requested by Staff and the landscaping that will replace the drive -thru area is shown on the landscaping plan rather than the elevations. Cm. O'Keefe felt there should be more visual relief and more trees added. Ms. Bascom responded there is a large tree in the planter island on the north elevation which will remain. She pointed out two planter islands. Cm. Schaub felt the drive -thru area could include plants that grow higher to cover up the facade. Ms. Bascom stated Staff would review the final landscape plans to ensure the plantings achieve sufficient height as opposed to lower ground plants. Chair Wehrenberg felt the landscape plans are sufficient. She stated this project may not be the within the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan area but it is on Dublin Blvd and the City is trying to improve the look of Dublin Blvd. She stated she would like a nice looking building in that location. Mr. LaRowe had no problem adding landscaping and felt the existing Japanese Maple is a nice tree. He agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plan. Cm. O'Keefe wanted some assurances that the landscaping plans would reflect the Commission's desires. Mr. LaRowe agreed to work with Staff on the landscaping plans. Chair Wehrenberg appreciated their efforts to improve the interior and their merchandise. She agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping and breaking up the walls and the elevations. She would like a softer building on Dublin Blvd. izrnia,q isin jug 1i 2}12 {rrn fturar3feeting 58 Mr. LaRowe felt the Commission wanted to keep the mature landscaping but add to it with accent trees to make the landscaping pop. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the green screen will help soften the building. Mr. LaRowe stated the green screen will be clear on the landscape plans when it is submitted for building permits with the irrigation plan in place. He apologized for not doing a better job on the landscape plans with this submittal. Cm. Schaub stated he supports the Applicant working with Staff to create a landscape plan that the Commission will support. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Commission had been working to improve the look of Dublin Blvd over the years and wanted to ensure this building will enhance Dublin Blvd. Mr. LaRowe stated they were convinced by Staff to change the entrance to the building because of the importance of Dublin Blvd. Ms. Bascom asked to clarify that the landscape enhancements the Commission would like to see are: accent trees in the existing planter areas, and identify the plants that will be in the planters and the green screens against the building. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and felt the Commission would like the building softened. Mr. LaRowe stated that trellises are included but did not show on the landscaping plan that was submitted with the packet. He felt that made it hard for the Commission to visualize the plan. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Brown agreed with Cm. O'Keefe regarding the landscaping plan and the signage. Cm. Schaub stated there are no specific plans or design guidelines for the area on Dublin Blvd between Village Parkway and Scarlett Court. He stated the Commission has tried to ensure that the projects approved on Dublin Blvd are consistent with the various specific plans. He felt the Scarlett Court Specific Plan is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. He didn't feel there was a need for a specific plan for this area at this time. He felt that there was a lot of effort put into making the signage on Dublin Blvd look nice and that this project would be a good addition. Chair Wehrenberg was in support of the project and stated she could make the findings. She felt the parking was adequate with the added spaces and felt it was better than an old empty building. Cm. O'Keefe was happy to hear the new direction 7 -11 was going in with healthier foods and a nicer interior. He was concerned with the landscaping documents that were submitted and hesitated to make the findings for landscaping but trusts Staff to work with the Applicant to create a nice looking building. He felt this is a very important area with a lot of traffic and it's important for it to look good. fanning C'omm"on Ju( 10, 2012 �Rvgufxr Meeting 59 Chair Wehrenberg stated that Staff has the power to withhold occupancy until the Applicant has satisfied all the requirements. Cm. O'Keefe stated he could make the findings. Cm. Brown stated he could make the findings. Ms. Bascom asked for clarification regarding the Commission's direction regarding Condition of Approval #9 which is related to the free standing monument sign. She asked if they prefer a sign that is no more than 4 feet tall. Cm. O'Keefe responded only if the sign is located on the berm. Ms. Bascom felt the overall direction of the Commission would be the sign, plus any grade that it is located on, should be no higher than 6 feet. Cm. Schaub stated it should be no higher than 6 feet from the sidewalk. The Commission agreed the monument sign should be no more than 6 feet from grade to the public sidewalk. Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 which is related to the concept landscape plan and felt that condition captures the Commission's concerns by saying "the landscape plan shall identify the proposed plant palette for the new planters to be installed at the base of the building as well as planting proposed for new landscape islands that are required to be expanded in the parking field." She will add "accent trees added to the planter areas." Cm. Schaub felt the language should direct the Applicant to break up the walls where the glass was removed. Ms. Bascom confirmed the Commission's desire for Condition of Approval #17 to state the plants in the planter areas with the screens need to be able to achieve some height in order to soften and.break up the wall area. The Commission agreed. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, the Planning Commission adopted, with the noted modifications to Conditions of Approval #9 and #17: RESOLUTION NO. 12- 27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR 7 -11, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 2,760 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL 'Canning ('carramk5ion ,buy 10, 2012 ` vgurar3teeting 60 BUILDING, MASTER SIGN PROGRAM, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 7120 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 8.3 PLPA- 2012 -00028 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 8.08 (Definitions), Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), and Chapter 8.76 (Off- Street Parking and Loading Regulations) Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub wanted to make sure the proposed size of the storage area is 3 ft X 5ft X 6ft. Ms. Delgado responded yes; the proposal is 90 cubic feet which is approximately the size of a bathtub with a height of 6 feet for personal storage. Cm. Schaub felt that most garages have wasted space above the cars. He stated there are a lot of people that have added racks in the garage that fit directly above the cars. He asked if the developer installed those types of racks, would that suffice. Ms. Delgado answered yes; the size was only meant to be an example but can be in any configuration that equals 90 cubic feet. Cm. Schaub asked if installing the rack would meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Ms. Delgado answered yes. Cm. Schaub felt that would only address those units that had private parking. He felt in podium parking the developer would need to have the ability to install them and thought that was possible. Chair Wehrenberg stated the Commission has discussed this issue with a developer in the past Cm. Schaub agreed and felt the rack could be an option. Cm. Brown felt the racks are a good idea and recently installed two similar racks in his own home. He recommended adding ceiling storage as an example to include in the definition. Ms. Delgado responded the definition currently allows for the storage to be within an attached or detached individual garage. She stated that whether the storage is provided on the ground or overhead, both would be acceptable options as long as they meet the 90 cubic foot requirement. Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission could eliminate tandem parking. He felt that the Commission is trying to get people to park in their garage properly and allow for guest parking on the street. Mr. Baker stated that this amendment would eliminate tandem parking as part of the required parking. He stated that, in some of the developments with side -by -side garages, the developer provides a third tandem space as extra parking. This amendment would allow developers to continue providing bonus parking. If tandem parking was eliminated completely, the bonus parking would not be allowed. Tfanning Cbmm s ` n -7ufy 10, 2012 ufarWeetir 61 Cm. Schaub felt the bonus parking did not have to be called tandem parking. Mr. Baker responded that the way the amendment is written, whatever the bonus parking is called, it still allows the bonus parking but it would not allow tandem parking as part of the required parking. Cm. Brown stated he is in support of eliminating tandem parking to meet minimum parking requirements. He asked if a study had been done that showed whether a developer would not continue with a project if they were not allowed to include tandem parking as part of the required parking. He asked if eliminating tandem parking would increase their development costs. Cm. Schaub felt it would only take 2 or 3 units out of a project. Cm. Brown asked if there has ever been an objection by a developer. Mr. Baker answered he was not aware of any developer that had backed out of a project over tandem parking. He stated that the format of parking impacts the footprint of buildings. He stated the Jordan project was an example where there was a mix of side -by -side and tandem parking. Eliminating the tandem parking would require some changes to the design which could impact the units and the site plan. Cm. Schaub felt, if the Commission had eliminated the tandem parking from the Jordan project, the developer could have moved two of the buildings and only lost two units. Chair Wehrenberg felt they have eliminated tandem parking because after the City Council review of the Jordan project they did not want to see tandem parking again. Cm. Schaub felt that there were some projects with tandem parking that were approved some time ago but have not yet been built. He asked if there are any projects left in that category. Mr. Baker answered there are a few Cm. Brown asked Ms. Delgado to explain the elimination of the paragraph regarding guest parking in the chart in the Staff Report. Ms. Delgado responded that the row in the parking table Cm. Brown is referring to is the guest parking requirement for condominiums that requires 1 guest parking space for every two units. Staff is proposing to replace that with 1 guest parking space per unit and the language has been added to each row based on bedroom size. Cm. Schaub asked if the result of the change is more parking. Ms. Delgado answered yes. It would increase the condominium parking requirement to match the requirement for apartments. She stated the apartment standards will remain the same. Cm. Schaub asked how condominiums are treated when a condo map is approved but the building is operated as apartments. 01(anning Commission Jufy 10, 2012 &,qular544e =tang 62 Mr. Baker answered if there is a condo map on the project then they are technically condominiums. The proposed parking requirements for condominiums and apartments are the same except for the 2- bedroom condo which has 1 additional space. Cm. Schaub felt 90 cubic feet of storage space is too small. He proposed that it be at least 200 cubic feet especially if the units will be in garages. Chair Wehrenberg felt a 200 cubic foot requirement would make it mandatory for the developers to include the rack in the garage in order to meet the requirement. Cm. Brown felt it would help eliminate using balconies for storage which makes the street look terrible. He agreed with Cm. Schaub that the minimum requirement should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. O'Keefe also agreed the minimum storage space should be larger. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Jeff White, Avalon Bay, spoke regarding the amendment. He stated his company developed Elan and Dublin Station which were completed in 2008. Last year, the Planning Commission approved the 2nd phase which is now under construction between Dublin Station and the BART Station. He was speaking on behalf of the other people who want to develop apartments in Dublin. He felt there is an unintended consequence of this amendment. He understands the issue of parking and storage and agrees there is a problem, but apartment projects don't have that problem. He understood the problem to be residents using parking spaces for storage instead of parking. He stated that, in Dublin Station, there is no problem because of the common garage which has no individual, enclosed parking spaces. He stated they handle storage by providing locked storage in dead spaces in the building or in the garage. He mentioned the reference to using balconies for Storage and stated they don't have many of balconies and are very rigorous about not allowing people to store anything on them. He asked what problem the amendment is trying to solve for apartment projects. He stated that storage is not a problem and proposed to exclude from the amendment the projects that do not provide dedicated garages. Cm. Schaub asked if the project that is under construction at the East BART station has a condo map. Mr. White responded that most apartment projects have condo maps. Cm. Schaub stated that, under that condition, they would still have to provide storage. Mr. White felt that it didn't matter whether it was an apartment complex or a condo but what type of building that it is. He felt that in open parking there wasn't the problem of misusing the parking spaces for storage. Cm. Schaub asked if it would be difficult to provide lockers above the cars. Mr. White stated that 10% of the residents at Dublin Station utilize the storage provided and felt requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for every unit is not needed. 0� Vrdng cbmmgMion quay 10, 201' = gjufar5Veeting 63 Cm. Schaub felt that just because they don't have it doesn't mean they don't need it. He stated the Commission is trying to create projects where young people can live and asked how much of a problem it be would to add storage. Mr. White felt it will make the project bigger than it would otherwise be and they would have to provide more space in the garage to access the storage. He felt it wasn't possible to add the storage because everything has to be ADA accessible, even the bike parking must be accessible. He stated that if the City requires storage it will have to be ADA accessible storage. He felt there was no problem with storage whether an apartment or condo. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White what he would like the Commission to do. Mr. White suggested differentiating storage requirements by type of parking; common parking or individual garages. Mr. Baker felt Mr. White was suggesting that storage be required only where there are individual private parking garages. Mr. White agreed. Cm. Brown referred to Mr. White's question about "what problem are they trying to solve." He stated that his vision was to solve the problem by making storage available for units with a dedicated private garage. Cm. Schaub asked, if the storage units are required above the parking spaces, are they required to be accessible. Mr. White answered that 5% of the parking stalls must be accessible and some percentage of the bike storage must be accessible. Cm. Schaub felt that the Commission was trying to find a solution and found an ADA problem. Mr. White felt that the accessibility issue is only part of it and asked again what problem we are trying to solve. Cm. Schaub asked Mr. White if he was suggesting that projects with open /podium parking should be exempted from the amendment. Mr. White stated if it doesn't have dedicated, assigned, enclosed garages then it should be exempt. Mr. Baker stated the intent was to address the issue of residents using their enclosed private garage for storage and this proposed change would require storage for units with enclosed private garages and help to alleviate the parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg agreed with exempting the parking garage. Cm. Schaub agreed and asked Ms. Delgado her opinion of the proposed change. P&nning Cbmnfd�sio ury 10, 2012 fgular5,Veeti 64 Ms. Delgado felt it would be acceptable. Cm. Schaub asked the Commission if they agreed with increasing the amount of storage from 90 to 200 cubic feet minimum. Cm. Schaub felt that if there is a condo map on the project and it has enclosed garage type parking; they should be required to provide 200 cubic feet of storage. Ms. Delgado wanted to clarify that Staff is not distinguishing on this standard between apartments and condos but indicating on multi - family projects, within certain zoning districts, where the higher density units occur. Mr. Baker confirmed that the Commission would like to have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage per unit that has private enclosed garage type parking spaces. He stated Staff could modify the footnote on page 4 of 7 in the second table to address that issue. Cm. O'Keefe appreciated Mr. White coming to the meeting and sharing his concerns. Cm. Schaub also appreciated Mr. White's input. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. O'Keefe, on a vote of 4 -0 -1 with Cm. Bhuthimethee being absent, with the modifications to the chart requiring 200 cubic feet of storage for units with private, enclosed parking spaces, the Planning Commission adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 12 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 8.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 8.36 (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) AND 8.76 (OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and /or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). 10.2 Cm. Schaub stated he walked around the Sorrento development to see how it looked. He mentioned the "alley- loaded" projects; he was concerned to see how little space there was between the units. He was also surprised to see the front of one unit facing the back of another unit. He felt the Commission missed those small details. He suggested that the other Commissioners walk around to see what was built after the Planning Commission approves it. canning Comm s,sion `Juf 10, 2012 ft; urar51fee,ing 65 10.3 Mr. Baker updated the Commission regarding: 1) REI The City has made considerable effort and has now engaged the CEO to move the project forward. The CEO has addressed the issues including the tower and the project should be complete within the next 6 weeks; 2) Montessori Plus — building permits were issued Friday. 10.4 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that the City Council will hold a work session regarding the Economic Development Strategy on July 19th at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 10.5 Mr. Baker mentioned that Jeri Ram, CDD Director, has announced her retirement as of September 4, 2012. 10.6 Mr. Baker advised the Commission that there will be a new group under the Planning Division called Neighborhood Resources. The new group will include existing staff from the Police Department. The new group will focus on outreach to the community and include programs such as Neighborhood Watch. 10.7 Chair Wehrenberg stated she may not be able to attend the July 24, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT — The meeting was adjourned at 8:45:13 PM Res ectfully submitted, oreen Wehrenberg Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Jeff B ke Asst. Community Development Director GWINUTES120121PLANNING COMMISSION107.10.12 FINAL PC MINUTES.domdoc P&nning (' ornm4mion lufy Iii, 2012 �gu r5Veetin# 66 Marnie Delgado From: Kevin Fryer < Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:59 PM To: Marnie Delgado Cc: Mikep; Chris Foss Subject: Response to Parking Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Marnie, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recently proposed Parking Standards. As a developer of properties in East Dublin t am well aware of the history of concerns and problems at certain sites in Dublin. In fact, € believe that our Jordan Ranch project and it's few remaining tandem garage units accelerated the urgency behind parts of this proposed ordinance. While I applaud the effort to provide more certainty and clarity on actual parking standards In Dublin I feet that the proposed standard Is a dramatic overreaction to recent tumult. The proposed requirement of 2 covered plus one guest per dwelling for every condo or townhome with 2 or more bedrooms is an unreasonable standard with consequences that I fear have not been considered. Here are a few thoughts for consideration: 1) Not just an East Dublin Ordinance: Projects like Jordan Ranch have been able to provide significant guest parking (even meeting this proposed standard or exceeding it) because they are large parcel, master plan communities. Much of the land that will allow for attached residential for -sale development in East Dublin is gone. A few sites remain, but this ordinance will Impact all of Dublin Including the downtown. Dublin will soon transition from a town that presses east for all new housing to one, like most core Bay Area cities, that looks to convert old, underutilized sites Into residential and mixed -use opportunities. A parking ordinance like this will ensure that all housing provided In smaller parcels is rental housing as one fewer- stall Is required for similar sized units. The reason for this Is simple math, the percentage of a site that will be dedicated to parking alone will limit the ability to deliver densities In the 15 -17 du /ac range. A loss of units = a loss of land value 2) Density is not always bad. As the City looks to satisfy its required share of housing allocations over the years and looks to add bodies to parts of town where their presence will help retail and office growth and stimulate tax dollar generation for the City this parking ordinance will prove a significant deterrent to having property owner residents. Making it more difficult to deliver for -sale density means that homes that are built will be larger, and more expensive Increasing the difficulty of first time home buyers finding an entry level home in Dublin. 3) Parking Is an Issue not the only Issue. This ordinance will create a sea of guest parking on sites small and large and the result Is more pavement, more impervious surface, more heat reflective surface- less pedestrian oriented, less landscape, less open space, more Impact on the environment. A balance of these Issues (including concerns about providing adequate guest parking) needs to be reached -this is an Imbalance. It is an overreaction. 4) Consider what others are doing in the area. According to their website, the City of Livermore Municipal Code Chapter 3.55 regarding Residential Townhouse Development: refers you to section 3.20 -050 (Minimum off - street parking requirements) to provide their required guest parking (which they call "street parking ") The relevant Section reads: "Townhouse /Condomin €um. Two stalls for each dwelling unit in the townhousetcondominium development, one of each shall be covered. One additional guest parking stall shall be provided for each four dwelling units. These stalls shall be located to provide reasonable utilization for all of the dwelling units within the project. Tandem parking shall not be utilized to meet these requirements. Stalls shall not be located within any required project street frontage yard." That's 1 guest parking stall per 4 units. That is 1/4 the parking you are proposing. Not sure their number is the right one, but It offers an Interesting perspective about what other nearby towns, who have managed to revitalize their downtowns, are doing. This Is only one example and other jurisdictions no doubt have more stringent requirements than Livermore but this is still informative and demonstrative that the proposed requirement is extremely stringent. 5) The elimination of tandem parking Is likely a foregone conclusion here In Dublin... and that too Is an unnecessary overreaction. A smaller, one bedroom condo or studio that has a tandem garage Is a nice alternative to offer first time homebuyers- more affordable, with a large flexible 1 car garage. If you allow the 2 car tandem to count for 1 stall you are ensuring it cannot serve as a garage for anything larger than a 1 bedroom unit. You are eliminating your flexibility as a City and your opportunity to provide varied housing products In unique configurations In locations that will support them. Why do that? it Is not necessary to outlaw tandem parking to achieve your goals. Modify how it can be used and what It can serve and create flexibility for In -fill locations and interesting, affordable by design for -sale housing products. 6) Be careful what you ask for: All of the above reasons /concerns explain why townhome /condo for -sale product ranging from 15 -17 du /ac (typically) will be more difficult to deliver. As the economics of attached for -sale products fail on sites developers will look to rental product as an alternative. With apartment parking standards less stringent that towns /condos, when the market supports It and where appropriate you will likely see apartment densities (28 du /ac MINIMUM as high as 60 du /ac here In Dublin) instead. If reducing density is a goal, or a reason for support by some folks, consider the likelihood that what will actually result from this ordinance Is Increased density on certain sites. I appreciate that there have been legitimate parking issues in certain projects In town and agree that clarity and modification of the parking standard is appropriate. I have found that Council has often been careful to consider "unintended consequences" and I believe that this ordinance has many that should be well considered and studied. am happy to participate and assist In any way possible in that process. Thank you for taking the time to consider these thoughts. Sincerely, Kevin Fryer MVP Development RE: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Residential Tandem Parking Thank you for your letter dated July 26u' asking for input on your proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. I offer the following comments on the Residential Tandem Parking proposed changes: By eliminating the opportunity to utilize tandem parking to satisfy required parking within multi-family dwelling unit allached garages you are severely limiting creative design opportunities for the developerlarGhttect, It I am reading the proposed changes correctly, you could never have a unit less than 21 feet wide because you always need a garage that is 2 cars wide and 20 foot clear. The struggle is that this affects our density solutions. Without the availability of tandem parking, we struggle to achieve densities above 16-18 du/ac. Why would tandem not be allowed for the requirement for a Studio or 1 Bedroom Unit? If only one space is required and 2 are provided in a tandem configuration why is this not acceptable? I suppose the way the language Is written you can enclose only the rear space and have the front space be covered but not enclosed, however, I do not believe that is the intent of the language. I would suggest that Instead of eliminating the ability to use tandem parking you modify the language to read that V Tandem Parking configurations are used, only one of the two spaces will be permitted to satisfy required parking.' Additionally, for 2 bedroom units I would suggest allowing I covered space and one reserved uncovered space rather than requiring 2 covered or garaged spaces. The 2 covered or garaged spaces can then be required for 3+ bedrooms. Below are comments from one of the architects that do business In town: "Under SB375, the State Is looking towards higher density near transit and other service hubs. This effectively files In the face of that as it will severely limit the developer's ability to meet what are at times required densities In the urban area. As noted, we will top out for row town style of housing at 16,18dutac. The other issue Is with condos ... If you require I guest per unit, even studios and I bedrooms, at higher densities or with very tight sites in an urban area, they still take a lot of space. 100 unit condo project would require 100 guest spaces—at 270sf per stall, that could translate to an additional 27,000sf or .62 acres. Depending on the site, that's a lot. Where In an urban area do you have the luxury of an extra half acre? This change Is doubling the required parking— again, directly in conflict with S8375.' Thank you for the opportunity to provide Input. If you have any questions I can be reached at the number above. PCJ Real Estate Advisors, LLC Cell: 408-888-4224 * Email: patcjr@commst.net DATE' August 3, 2012 Delivered via Email TO: Marnle Delgado City of Dublin FROM: Patrick Costanzo, Jr. cc: Jed Rem Chris Foss RE: Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Residential Tandem Parking Thank you for your letter dated July 26u' asking for input on your proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. I offer the following comments on the Residential Tandem Parking proposed changes: By eliminating the opportunity to utilize tandem parking to satisfy required parking within multi-family dwelling unit allached garages you are severely limiting creative design opportunities for the developerlarGhttect, It I am reading the proposed changes correctly, you could never have a unit less than 21 feet wide because you always need a garage that is 2 cars wide and 20 foot clear. The struggle is that this affects our density solutions. Without the availability of tandem parking, we struggle to achieve densities above 16-18 du/ac. Why would tandem not be allowed for the requirement for a Studio or 1 Bedroom Unit? If only one space is required and 2 are provided in a tandem configuration why is this not acceptable? I suppose the way the language Is written you can enclose only the rear space and have the front space be covered but not enclosed, however, I do not believe that is the intent of the language. I would suggest that Instead of eliminating the ability to use tandem parking you modify the language to read that V Tandem Parking configurations are used, only one of the two spaces will be permitted to satisfy required parking.' Additionally, for 2 bedroom units I would suggest allowing I covered space and one reserved uncovered space rather than requiring 2 covered or garaged spaces. The 2 covered or garaged spaces can then be required for 3+ bedrooms. Below are comments from one of the architects that do business In town: "Under SB375, the State Is looking towards higher density near transit and other service hubs. This effectively files In the face of that as it will severely limit the developer's ability to meet what are at times required densities In the urban area. As noted, we will top out for row town style of housing at 16,18dutac. The other issue Is with condos ... If you require I guest per unit, even studios and I bedrooms, at higher densities or with very tight sites in an urban area, they still take a lot of space. 100 unit condo project would require 100 guest spaces—at 270sf per stall, that could translate to an additional 27,000sf or .62 acres. Depending on the site, that's a lot. Where In an urban area do you have the luxury of an extra half acre? This change Is doubling the required parking— again, directly in conflict with S8375.' Thank you for the opportunity to provide Input. If you have any questions I can be reached at the number above. To: Marnie R. Delgado, Senior Planner, City of Dublin From: Economic & Planning Systems, Ino, and Joe DeCredico Studio Subject: Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment, EP5#12211Q Date: June 4,2O13 /lmFf wumi� The City of Dublin (City) engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EP5) and Joe DeCredicu Studio (JDe5) to provide assistance in evaluating a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) that would: 1. Eliminate tandem parking as a means of meeting parking requirements in residential development projects. 2. Increase the guest parking requirement for condominium projects from Yi-space per unit to one space per unit. ]. Require a minimum of 200 cubic feet ofaccessory storage for multifamily projects that have private, enclosed garages assigned to individual units. EPS understands that the City is concerned the tandem parking spaces are being used as in-home storage areas rather than as parking for automobiles. In addition, the City is concerned that tandem parking spaces are inconvenient for residents and are, thus, not utilized. As a result, City streets, as well as private streets and guest parking spaces, are congested with perked cars in areas where tandem parking is prevalent. The policy goal of the ZOA is to require parking in a format that will be used by residents for their cars, thereby minimizing the residential parking overflow to City streets. WWW.epsys.Con? To provide the City guidance concerning the proposed Z0A, EPS and ]De5(1)reviewed relevant policy literature and the parking ordinances a/esaatc�«ziv Oaks Drive, smtoze of nearby municipalities, (2) conducted interviews with stakeholders and sooramepto,cxsraa3'*zzo local real estate/planning experts, and (3) developed a simple test case 91+e49 e010 my y1wawyzomfax to analyze m typical real estate development project that might use tandem parking or traditional side-by-side parking to satisfy the local So, rkoler parking standard. cw^,c, Los Angeles Sacramento WWW.epsys.Con? Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 The elimination of tandem parking is unlikely to create a significant financial burden for residential project developers. Most developers will be able to reposition projects to lower density (DU /Acre) larger units, maintaining or increasing total project square footage. While product price per square foot is likely to fall with the increase in unit size, EPS finds that developers in most cases will be able to maintain total project revenue potential. For projects that suffer from parcel constraints, particularly small sites, financial impacts may occur because of the inability to reconfigure the site for the larger product. Increased guest parking requirements likely will be taken out of landscaping with no financial impact on project developers. Most sites offer sufficient surplus land to provide additional guest parking without a loss of density. However, surface parking for guests will reduce open space and project common areas. Infill development and other projects with limited site flexibility will suffer a greater burden associated with the increased parking requirement, as these sites are less likely to accommodate additional surface parking without an impact on density. ® The proposed storage requirement is not an issue. Developer interviews confirm that the provision of some additional interior storage space will not create a financial burden for residential projects. A modest amount of additional storage can be integrated into residential products without a significant impact on product format. The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban -sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential products can "fill out" a site, where side -by -side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of the units in a residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Interviews and analysis suggest that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be parked in tandem could retain sufficient flexibility in site development. A review of current literature concerning parking policy offers a broad range of recommendations to jurisdictions. In general, current best practices for residential parking policy focus on providing flexibility, managing demand, and connecting alternative modes of transportation, while minimizing impacts on residents. However, these best practices are geared toward parking in urban areas and transit - oriented zones. The ZOA proposed for the City addresses the concern that new suburban residential projects in Dublin are providing impractical (and therefore insufficient) parking. The ZOA would require that parking be developed in a traditional side -by- side format. EPS did not identify literature that addresses this particular policy issue. To evaluate the appropriateness of the ZOA in a regional context, EPS conducted research regarding off - street residential parking policies in neighboring jurisdictions in the greater Tri- Valley area. Specifically, EPS contacted the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek to determine whether these cities allowed tandem parking in residential projects. EPS also identified off- street parking standards for prevalent residential land uses in each city. Of the jurisdictions surveyed, the City of Pleasanton is the only jurisdiction whose municipal code Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -2 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 does not allow for tandem parking. The other jurisdictions surveyed— Livermore, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek —have municipal codes that allow for tandem parking based on bedroom counts. 2C _ i =1 The City of Pleasanton does not explicitly allow tandem parking. However, two multifamily Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential projects —one approved and one under review — contain units with a tandem parking design. If the residential development is contained in a PUD, the city will consider and potentially approve a tandem parking design if the project is in alignment with the city's planning and policy objectives. Because there are a limited number of residential projects in the city with tandem parking, city planning staff did not identify any issues related to this type of parking design (e.g., constrained on- street parking because the garage is not used to capacity). Livermore In the City of Livermore, tandem parking is permitted in all residential and mixed -use zones when two parking spaces are required for a single residential unit. For secondary residential units (i.e., in -law unit) with two or more bedrooms (which requires two parking spaces), the required spaces may be in tandem with each other, but cannot be in tandem with the required parking spaces required for the primary residential unit on the lot.' San Ramon In San Ramon, tandem parking is permitted through the issuance of a Minor Use Permit and must be designed to meet minimum dimension and size standards.z 3 With the exception of one single - family residential project (approved and constructed when it was located in the unincorporated county), tandem parking in single - family residential projects in San Ramon is not permitted. Tandem parking is permitted for multifamily residential projects, although San Ramon planning staff generally discourages tandem parking design in residential projects. While staff acknowledged the shortcomings of tandem parking, they did not identify specific cases where projects with tandem parking created issues for residents. Walnut Creek The City of Walnut Creek's municipal code allows for tandem parking for multifamily and single - family residential projects in the case where housing units require two parking spaces.4 Tandem parking configurations can be utilized but one stall is not counted towards meeting the parking requirement, unless an exception is granted by the city's planning commission. Tandem parking for Second Family Units is permitted if the maximum of two spaces are provided and the City finds that the design and lot configuration precludes placement of the parking spaces elsewhere on the property. ' City of Livermore Development Code § 4.04.010. 2 In San Ramon, tandem parking must be 10 feet wide by 40 feet deep (with a 9 -foot door opening) and have a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area in or adjacent to the garage. 3 City of San Ramon Zoning Ordinance § D3 -35 A.2. 4 City of Walnut Creek Planning and Zoning Municipal Code § 10- 2.3.206 Table A. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -3 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards Multifamily Parking Standards city Source Type Spaces / Unit Tandem Parking Livermore City of Livermore, Studio and One Bdrm 1 space + NA Development Code, 1 guest space / 4 units § 4,04. 010 Two or More Bdrms 2 spaces + Permitted 1 guest space 14 units Downtown [1] City of Livermore Studio 1 covered space + NA Downtown Specific (Includes apartments /flats/ 1 (guest) / 10 units [2] Plan lofts) Chapter 8 One Bdrm 1.5 spaces (1 covered) + Permitted if 2 spaces (Includes apartments /flats/ 1 guest space / 10 units [2] [3] are dedicated to lofts) a single unit Two or More Bdnns 1.75 spaces (1 covered) + Permitted if 2 spaces (Includes apartments /flats/ 1 guest space / 10 units [2] [3] are dedicated to lofts) a single unit Pleasanton [4] City of Pleasanton, Two Bdrms or Less Minimum of 2 spaces for projects Not permitted [5] Municipal Code, with four or fewer units plus § 18.88.030 1.5 spaces for each add'1 unit (at least 1 space must be covered) 1 guest space / 7 units (may be open or covered) Three Bdrms or More Minimum of 2 spaces Not permitted [5] (at least 1 space must be covered) 1 guest space / 7 units (may be open or covered) San Ramon [6] City of San Ramon, Studios and One Bdrm 1 covered space + NA Zoning Ordinance, 1 guest space / 4 units § D335 A.2 Two-Three Bdrms 2 spaces Permitted (w/ (at least 1 space must be covered) Minor Use Permit) 1 guest space / 4 units Four Bdrms or More 3 spaces Permitted (w/ (at least 1 space must be covered) Minor Use Permit) 1 guest space / 4 units Walnut Creek [7] City of Walnut Creek, Studio 1.25 spaces Permited [9] [10] Planning and Zoning (1 covered) [3] [8] Municipal Code, § 10- 2.3.206 Table A One Bdrm 1.50 spaces Permited [9] [10] (1 covered) [3] [8] Two Bdrms 2.00 spaces Permited [9] [10] (1 covered) [3] [8] Three or More Bdrms 2.25 spaces Permited [9] [10] (1 covered) [3] [8] "pkg_summary" Source: Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek municipal code; EPS. NOTE: This table is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of parking standards for all residential types identified in each city's municipal code, only the most prevalent, Also, this table excludes additional standards such as size dimensions and special circumstances that alter the standards shown here (e.g., development within TOD). Please see each city's municipal code for additional details. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -4 ......... gv Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Figure 1 Comparison of Multifamily Parking Standards (continued) Multifamlly Parking Standards City Source Type Spaces / Unit Tandem Parking [1] Within a specific geographic area, residential units above retail /commercial and live /work spaces shall provide required parking spaces on -site, off -site through the payment of an in -lieu fee, or through construction of parking facilities in the specific geographic area. [2] Guest parking is only required for projects containing ten or more dwelling units. Guest parking shall be provided on -site, off -site in a dedicated parking lot in the Downtown Specific Plan area that is within 600 feet of the project, or through the payment of in -lieu fees if an identified public parking structure in the Downtown Specific Plan area is located within 600 feet of the project site. [3] A fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number; no additional space shall be required for a fractional unit of less than 0.50. [4] This table does not include reduced parking standards associated with Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites. [5] Tandem parking may be proposed for units within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and would be subject to case -by -case review and approval. [6] This table does not include reduced parking standards for mixed -use development in certain districts within the City of San Ramon. [7] This table does not include parking standards for residential structures that qualify for a density bonus or for structures with five or more residential units and either within 1/2 mile of BART or with lower income units. [8] Guest parking is included within the multifamily parking standards for the City of Walnut Creek. [9] Tandem parking configurations are permitted but one stall is not counted towards meeting the parking requirement, unless an exception is granted by the City of Walnut Creek's planning commission. [10] For projects that qualify for density bonuses, the City of Walnut Creek allows for reduced parking standards, and parking may be provided through tandem parking, uncovered parking, or other parking solution with the exception of on- street parking. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -S usso�p,:sstx, a �ti «m r�> ,vuzz,s w as, -,aa Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 The City of Dublin has identified a number of projects where the tandem parking format has been used by developers. As shown in Figure 2, the use of tandem parking in these projects ranges from 14 percent to 92 percent. However, only one project predominantly comprises tandem - parked units. With the exception of this project (The Courtyards at Dublin Ranch Villages), no project has more than 43 percent of units using the tandem format. The street parking congestion that has been attributed to tandem - parked units is most prevalent in Dublin Ranch Villages, where the greatest use of tandem parking (as a share of project units) is observed. Figure 2 Tandem - Parked Projects in Dublin Project No. of Units Units with Tandem Garages Percent of Units with Tandem Parking Parking Requirement Guest Parking Requirement San Ramon Village The Willows 56 units 8 units 14% 2 /unit .5 /unit Tralee Townhomes 103 units 18 units 17% 2 /unit .5 /unit Dublin Ranch Villages Cottages 200 units 85 units 43% 2 /2 +BR unit .5 /unit 1/1611 unit Courtyards 281 units 258 units 92% 2 /2 +BR unit .5 /unit 1/11311 unit Terraces 626 units 137 units 22% 2 /2 +BR unit .5 /unit 1/1BR unit Jordan Ranch Subareas 2 and 3 109 units 40 units 37% 2 /unit .5 /unit Source: City of Dublin Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-6 P 11-1122111 ­,1,­­­J 1­1 —4-13 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 EPS and ]DeS conducted interviews with stakeholders and local real estate /planning experts to solicit input regarding the proposed ZOA.5 .- The primary stakeholder group that would be affected by the ZOA is the real estate development community. EPS spoke with two developers active in the Tri- Valley, as well as two planning professionals active in designing residential products in the region. Overall, EPS finds that developers rely on small- footprint tandem parking as a tool to increase dwelling units per acre, particularly when site constraints (e.g., parcel size and configuration) do not allow for a traditional side -by -side garage format. In some specific cases, primarily large projects with planning and design flexibility, developers acknowledge the ZOA would have little to no impact on project density. However, developers expressed concerns that small projects planned for constrained sites could suffer density losses attributable to the proposed ZOA. Based on interviews conducted, it seems unlikely that developers would substitute a significantly higher density product (e.g., podium - parked multifamily residential) in cases where the ZOA introduces a development constraint. There are a limited number of high -value sites where a podium product is likely to be financially feasible (e.g., transit - oriented development areas), and these sites are likely to be slated for this format from early -stage predevelopment work onward. Conversations with a developer currently building a 3 -story townhome project in Dublin, who is converting previously approved single -car garages to 2 -car, side -by -side garages, indicate there is the opportunity to reconfigure projects and replace tandem garages with traditional ones. However, the developer emphasized the importance of the site geometry in making this change, particularly on constricted infill sites, and notes that it also requires redesign of the project. Planning Professionals Local planning professionals confirm that tandem parking is an important tool for efficient use of land. Of note, planners contacted suggested that a reduction rather than elimination of tandem parking would be desirable. Small- footprint tandem - parked units help to "fill out" a development program. It was suggested that allowing 25 percent of units to use tandem parking would allow developers to use this format sparingly, fitting it in as needed to take advantage of lots that cannot accommodate the wider, more traditional garage formats. To illustrate the potential effect of the ZOA on a typical residential project in Dublin, EPS and ]DeS agreed on a case study that evaluates a generic townhome project on a rectangular 1.41- net -acre site. The case study includes illustrative planning graphics and a high -level assessment of economic effects. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the case -study planning schemes. 5 Personal communication with Kevin Fryer, Mission Valley Homes, 12/21/12; Patrick Castonzo, PC] Real Estate Advisors, 1/8/13; Don Ruthroff, The Dahlin Group, 1/8/13; Steve Otto, City of Pleasanton, 2/15/13; Lauren Barr, City of San Ramon, 2/15/13; and Carlson Yin Chan, Ronsdale Management LLC, 2/21/13. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -7 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 LE UNITA - tUNITS UNIT B-3UNITS UNIT C-21UNITS MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.6 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF MAX LIVING AREA 1,387.5 SF �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� .��� "�� �� �� �� �� �� �� MAXIMUM GARxGETOWMHOMES W/10% ADA ACCESSIBLE UNITS 2 CAR GARAGE UNIT TYPE &:15�51K401 UNIT FOOTPRINT VNTANDEMGARAGE UNIT TYPE B: 23'X4V UNIT FOOTPRINT VV/S|DEBY SIDE GARAGE UNIT TYPE C:1VX40'VN|T FOOTPRINT W/TAMDEM GARAGE FRONT SETBACK: 101 SIDE SETBACK: 51 ALLEY WIDTH: aZ YIELD: 27 UNITS OR19.15du/ACRE Thetownhume product that ro|iao on tandem parking is a three-level unit with approximately 1,280 to 1,390 square feet of living space. The garage uses most of the ground-level space in the unit, though there is sufficient space on the ground level for some storage. Living room, dining room, kitchen, bathrooms, and bedrooms are on the 2nd and Pf|ours. In this test, a density of roughly 19 units per acre is achieved, fora total of 27 units on the 1.41-acre case- study site, including three traditionally-parked units that satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) target for ground-level living space. Based on the size and configuration of the tandem-parked units, EPS assumes current market pricing of about $390,800 to $416,000 ($300 to $305 per square foot). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A-8 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix lune 4, 2013 ,-igure 4 Townhorne Product with Traditional Garages (Scenario 2) TRADITIONAL SIDE BY SIDE G&RAGET0VVNHOMES 2 CAR GARAGE 23'X 40'UNIT FOOTPRINT FRONT SETBACK: 10! SIDE SETBACK: 51 ALLEY WIDTH: 32' YIELD: 20 UNITS OR14.18du/ACRE UNIT D-2VUNITS MAX LIVING AREA 2,254SF �� �� �� ���� ��� ��� 606 $F The townhome product with a traditional side-by-side garage includes about 2,250 square feet of living space. In this configuration, there is sufficient living area on the ground level to accommodate a bedroom and bathroom. Additional bathrooms and bedrooms, as well as the living room, dining room, and kitchen, are upstairs. The product achieves a density of roughly 14 units per acre, for atotal of 20 units on the 1.41-acre case-study site. Based on the size and configuration of this unit, EPS assumes current market pricing of about $586,000 ($260 per square foot). ' Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are illustrative of how a developer might plan a site for residential development with tandem parking versus traditional parking (with the ZOA), respectively. As demonstrated in the case study, a project composed uf about 9O-peroenttandem-parked units on a land-constrained site would likely lose units as a result of the ZOA. In this case, 7 units are lost (26 percent) when the developer switches from tandem parking to traditional parking. However, with the wider traditional garage, the developer is likely to transition to larger units. In this case study, e townhome with a traditional garage is 62 to 76 percent larger than a townhome with a tandem garage. The traditional garage necessitates a wider unit footprint; the Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A'9 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 building height remains unchanged. Overall, despite having fewer units, Scenario 2 includes roughly 5,300 more square feet of living space. Residential market data reveal that unit values increase with unit size at a decreasing rate. While the smaller tandem - parked unit is likely to sell for less than the larger, traditionally parked unit, the per- square -foot value of the smaller unit will be higher. EPS evaluated several residential projects in Dublin to assess pricing for various unit sizes. Interestingly, current residential real estate market values indicate that the total finished value of Scenarios 1 and 2 may not be very different. Figure 5 presents the economic assessment of Scenario 1 versus Scenario 2. Figure 5 Case Study Economic Assumptions Unit Size Price Per Units (Square Feet) Square Foot Unit Price Scenario 1 Tandem Garage Townhome Product Unit A 3 1,279 $305 $389,943 Unit B 3 2,254 $260 $586,040 Unit C 21 1,388 $300 $416,250 Project Square Feet 39,735 Project Revenue $11,669,198 Profit Margin 15% Developer Profit $1,750,380 Scenario 2 Traditional Garage Townhome Product Unit A 0 1,279 $305 $389,943 Unit B 20 2,254 $260 $586,040 Unit C 0 1,388 $300 $416,250 Project Square Feet 45,080 Project Revenue $11,720,800 Profit Margin 15% Developer Profit $1,758,120 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -10 Economic Impacts of Proposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 Assuming the rate of return (profit margin) for a developer is similar across the two product types, this case -study example reveals that, in situations where parcel configuration and other site constraints are not present, there may be little financial impact from the ZOA. However, it is important to note the developer would be delivering a different product at a different price point, and market absorption (i.e., quantity of demand for the larger residential product) may or may not be the same. In addition, for projects that have planned on a tandem configuration, there will be significant planning and design costs associated with reconfiguring the project. Policy Recommendation The primary benefit of tandem parking is planning and design flexibility that improves site efficiency. Tandem parking provides a means by which developers are able to meet suburban parking standards without using traditional wide, suburban -sized house lots. In certain situations, the narrow -lot tandem - parked residential products can "fill out" a site, where side -by- side parking formats will not fit. A parking policy that allows a fraction of the units in a residential project to use tandem parking may be appropriate. Based on a recommendation received during the research process, EPS suggests that allowing up to 25 percent of units to be parked in tandem would allow significantly better efficiency in site development. Figure & illustrates the application of this policy recommendation (with the same site assumptions that are used the case study analysis, above). In addition to recommending that the ZOA allow a fraction of units to be tandem - parked, EPS suggests that it may be appropriate to exempt from the ZOA portions of the City where high - density development is most desired. While developers may opt for podium - parked projects in certain "premium" locations (e.g., near BART or retail amenities) with sufficiently large sites, narrow and other small or challenged infill sites will likely benefit from the tandem parking option to achieve the desired densities. It is notable that the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan encourages density and parking flexibility. To maximize the potential for development at higher densities, the tandem parking format could be permitted there. Developers seeking to redevelop smaller infill sites may benefit from the use of tandem parking. In addition, these developments are most likely to suffer from the proposed guest parking requirement. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. A -11 Economic Impacts mProposed Parking Zoning Ordinance Amendment Appendix June 4, 2013 F 11111111� !1111 111 101111 11,111 111 1,111 1 11:111 F ;� .7: UNTA - GUNTS UNIT -16 UNITS MAX LIVING AREA 1,278.5 SF MAX LIVING AREA 2,254 SF �� �� �� LM Fa Flo' �� �� "��� �� �� �� !A0 58.6 23'x2 iA SF 500 9F 25% TANDEM GARAGE /75%SIDE BY SIDE GARAGE TVWNHOME 2 CAR GARAGE UNIT TYPE 8:15.25'X40'UN|T FOOTPRINT VV8ANDEW4GARAGE UNIT TYPE B:23'X40'UN|T FOOTPRINT VWS|OEBY SIDE GARAGE FRONT SETBACK: 10' SIDE SETBACK: 51 ALLEY WIDTH: 32 YIELD: 22 UNITS oR15.GQdu/ACRE Given the relatively high value of land proximate to BART, some developers in the Downtown will opt to develop structured parking, which likely moderates the potential negative effects from allowing tandem-parked units. However, in general, increasing development densities Downtown and other areas of Dublin inevitably will necessitate increased attention to parking management policies within the City. If the City chooses to continue to a||ovv tandem-parked projects in strategic locations where density is desired, EP5 recommends that the City consider additional alternative parking policies, potentially including a parking in-lieu fee program, street parking permitting, and flexible parking ratios. Economic 8 Planning Systems, Inc. A-12