Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attmt 1 Reso Denying CUP Parking Reduction RequestRESOLUTION NO. 09-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A PARKING REDUCTION AND OFF-SITE PARKING FOR A PROPOSED HEALTH CLUB FACILITY AT 6705 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD (APN 941-1500-038-03) PA 08-044 WHEREAS, Mike Feeney, a representative of New Evolution Fitness Company, has submitted an application requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a proposed health club facility at an existing building located at 6705 Amador Plaza Road (Parcel A); and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a complete application which is on file and available for review in the Community Development Department, for a Conditional Use Permit for the above described project; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8.76, Section 8.76.050.E of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that when a reduction of off-street parking is proposed because an applicant for a proposed use believes the number of parking spaces required for their use as specified in Section 8.76.080 is not applicable, because the use would function differently than the generic use type and also dated parking standards established in Chapter 8.76, the Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in off-street parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit, if. 1) Conditiona. Use Permit Findings can be made; 2) The Applicant submits a parkin; study prepared by a qualified consultant analyzing the parking demands of the proposed use and the parking demands of similar uses in similar situations, demonstrating that the required parking standards are excessive, and proposing alternate parking standards which are appropriate and ensure that there will not be a parking deficiency; and 3) Overflow parking will not impact any adjacent use; and WHEREAS, Chapter 8.76, Section 8.76.050.C of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that where required parking for a use type cannot be feasibly provided on the same site as an approved use, the Zoning Administrator may allow the required parking to be located on an adjacent parcel pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit subject to all of the following requirements: 1) Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made; 2) The most distant parking space from a non-residential use type is not more than 400 feet from the use and the most distant parking space from a residential use type is not more than 150 feet from the use; 3) Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development are executed to assure that the required parking spaces are provided to the principal use for the life of the documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements; 4) The parking lot site is not located in a residential zone unless the principal use requiring the parking is also allowed in a residential zone; and 5) The parking lot site is not within a road easement or private street; and WHEREAS, Omni Means, a traffic consultant, conducted a parking study dated February 2009 ("the Omni-Means Report"); and WHEREAS, The City of Dublin Traffic Engineer prepared a parking evaluation on April 28, 2009 ("the Traffic Engineer's Report") outlining parking and safety concerns for the proposed health club use; and ATTACHMENT 1 WHEREAS, Staff believes that the requirements to grant a parking reduction for an individual use on Parcel A as set forth in Section 8.76.050.E cannot be met, because a parking deficiency will exist; and WHEREAS, Staff believes that the requirements for authorizing off-site parking as set forth in Section 8.76.050.C of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance cannot be met for this project because of several safety concerns with respect to pedestrian circulation; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report dated May 12, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference was submitted recommending the Planning Commission deny a Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction for a health club facility at the existing building at 6705 Amador Plaza Road; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Article 18, Statutory Exemptions, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects in which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on May 12, 2009; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used their independent judgment to evaluate the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find, with regard to the request under Section 8.76.050.C and E of the Dublin Municipal Code for an individual use parking reduction and off-site parking, that A. The proposed health club facility use is not compatible with surrounding retail/office land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity because: 1) the size and intensity of the proposed health club use creates impacts to surrounding uses; 2) surrounding uses will be greatly impacted due to the high parking demand for the proposed health club during peak hours resulting in parking deficiencies; 3) existing uses on Parcel A will be impacted in that there will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces to accommodate both the health club and existing tenant parking demand during peak health club hours on Parcel A; 4) existing tenants will be impacted by the significant health club parking demand because there are not designated parking spaces in Parcel A for existing tenants; and 5) a signalized crossing is available at the Amador Plaza Road/St. Patrick Way intersection, however, the eastern leg of the intersection is the I-680 freeway off-ramp, so motorists are often traveling at higher speeds as they approach the intersection and most motorists exiting the freeway turn right onto northbound Amador Plaza Road and would travel through the pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing which raises several safety concerns with respect to pedestrian circulation. B. The proposed use will adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity and will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the proposed health club will result in an overflow of parking and will impact adjacent uses in that there are no designated parking spaces for existing tenants on Parcel A and a number of customers and employees of the existing tenants on Parcel A will have to park in adjacent parcels due to the significant health club parkin; demand; 2) due to the existing [nterstate-680 on and off ramps and high traffic volume on Amador Plaza Road, there are significant safety concerns for the large 2 number of pedestrians that will have to cross from Parcels 13, C, and D to Parcel A in order to access the health club facility and existing tenants on Parcel A during health club peak hours; 3) allowing off-site parking will result in a large volume of pe3estrian-vehicle conflicts due to the necessity of pedestrians crossing Amador Plaza Road to reach Parcel A from Parcels B, C, and D and vice versa; and 4) assuming that the total parking duration for patrons is approximately 90 minutes, the expected on-site parking deficit would result in 356 patrons parking off-site, which equates to 712 pedestrian crossings across Amador Plaza Road over the course of one day. C. The proposed project will be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood because: 1) the project site is not adequate to serve a health club facility of the proposed size and intensity; and 2) surrounding properties and businesses would be impacted by the overflow parking as a result of the parking demand generated by the health club. D. There are not adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because: 1) the lack of a safe pedestrian path of travel that connects directly from the sidewalk on Parcel A to the proposed health club facility; and 2) the traffic. signal operates with permissive phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches; that is, St. Patrick Way and I- 680 off-ramp traffic get a green light at the same time without protected left-turn phases (i.e., left- turn arrows), and without protected left-turn phasing, motorists turning from eastbound St. Patrick Way onto northbound Amador Plaza would travel through th,- pedestrian crosswalk in which the gym patrons would be crossing. E. The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and ,ntensity of the use being proposed because: 1) the project site is not adequate to support a health club facility of the proposed size and intensity; 2) there will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces for a health club use of the proposed size and intensity on Parcel A resulting in a significant amount of cars having to park off-site on Parcels B, C, and D throughout various times of the day during weekdays; 3) Amador Plaza Road intersects Parcel A from Parcels B, C, and D w iich presents significant traffic and pedestrian safety concerns for pedestrians that will have to cross from Parcels B, C and D in order to access the proposed health club facility on Parcel A; 4) there is not direct pedestrian access that connects from the sidewalk on Parcel A to the proposed health club facility for those persons parking and crossing over from Parcels B, C, and D; 5) some patrons that park off-site may try to cross mid-block across Amador Plaza Road in order to access i'arcel A; and 6) the proposed health club would result in a parkin; deficiency on Parcel A resulting in a significant amount of off-site parking on Parcels B, C, and I) throughout various times of the day during weekdays. F. The proposed use will be contrary to the specific intent cla.:ises, development regulations, and performance standards established for the PD Zoning Dis,'rict because: 1) there will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces as required by the PD Zoning for the existing and proposed uses on Parcel A; 2) the necessary requirements to allow for a shared parking reduction and off- site parking as stated in Chapter 8.76, Section 8.76.050.C. and E, of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance cannot be met for this project; and 3) there will be a parking deficit on Parcel A throughout various times of the day and overflow parking from the proposed health club use will impact adjacent uses. G. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is not consistent Ivith the General Plan because: 1) a health club facility is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office; 2) the size and intensity of the proposed health club facility exceeds he capacity of the subject property; and 3) there will be an insufficient amount of parking spaces f :)r a health club use of the proposed 3 size and intensity on Parcel A resulting in a significant amount of cars having to park off-site on Parcels B, C, and D; 4) the amount of off-site parking onto Parcels B, C, and D creates health, safety, and welfare concerns that are not consistent with the intent of the General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission, because it is unable to make the necessary findings under Sections 8.76.050.C and 8.76.050.E, as specified above, does hereby deny PA 08-044, a Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility, as generally depicted by the Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations and written statement dated received October 9, 2008 and February 4, 2009, stamped denied and on file with the Dublin Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May 2005 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Acting Planning Manager Planning Commission Chair G: IPAM2008WA 08-044 New Evolution Fitness CUP Parking Reduction WC_5.12.09WC Reso_51209.DOC 4