Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2009 PC Minutes~~,~0~ DU~~t !!I ~ 111 , `l -~-'" ~ Planning Commission Minutes ~r ~~ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Vice Chair King; Commissioners Schaub and Swalwell; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Jamie Lynn Rojo, Assistant Planner; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Brown ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Schaub, seconded by Cm. Swalwell, the minutes of the Apri128, 2009 meeting were approved with one modification. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - 6.1 PA 08-006 -Rescinding Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-40 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Parcel 5 of the Promenade, the Club Sport project in Area G of Dublin Ranch. On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~C ~C i~C~~: ~:~X:F k~C ~: X72 RESCINDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.08-40 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR PARCEL 5 OF THE PROMENADE, THE CLUB SPORT PROJECT, IN AREA G OF DUBLIN RANCH PA 08-006 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - ~'lanning commission stay 12, 2009 1~gularMeeting 95 8.1 Draft 2009-2014 Housing Element. Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Veronica Tam, Planning Consultant also presented a portion of the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Ellen Dektar, Alameda County Child Care Planning Council, asked the Commission to consider flagging child care in the Housing Element as something to consider along with housing and planning. She stated that a number of cities have included child care in their Housing Element and proactively plan for child care with other uses. She suggested that the City mention child care as an illustration of services in the Mixed Use component of the Housing Element or when housing with supportive services for the homeless and single parents is discussed. She stated that child care is also needed for families with children of all income levels and all housing types. She felt that there is a child care gap in Dublin and with more residents being added she felt there is a serious need for child care. Cm. King mentioned that there have been a number of child care facility applications that caused concern with neighbors. He asked if Ms. Dektar felt it is feasible to promote child care facilities in residential areas. Ms. Dektar responded that is the key reason she is asking that child care be incorporated into the City's broader planning policies. She felt that if the City plans for child care in areas with a lot of traffic circulation or at community centers then the City could minimize the pressure on those quiet neighborhoods or places that may not be ideal for child care. She stated there are ways to work with providers so neighbors are not surprised by an application for a family daycare facility and to provide assurances of some safeguards relating to noise, parking and traffic. Cm. Swalwell asked Ms. Dektar where in the Housing Element she would suggest adding her proposed language. Ms. Dektar stated that Page 7, Policy D.4 of the Housing Element mentions promoting housing with supportive services for homeless and single parents; she suggested breaking out child care as an example of supportive services, or within a discussion of child care and health care. She also suggested including child care on Page 10, Program 5 that discusses mixed use and the different services that residents should have access to. Melissa Span, Child Care Links representative, spoke regarding the Housing Element and the need for child care in the City of Dublin. She stated that while there are available slots in centers for child care in Dublin that number fails to address the needs of the community, which is infant care and school aged care willing to transport to and from local schools. 4'lanning Commission flay 12, 2009 ~guCar~Yfeetircg 96 Cm. Swalwell asked Ms. Tam how it would effect the City's application for the Housing Element if the Commission added "promote housing that supports the need for additional child care facilities" to D.4. Ms. Tam answered there would be no negative impact on the Housing Element and it would be a positive thing to include. Chair Wehrenberg asked for the definition of supportive services in D.2 of the Housing Element. Ms. Tam answered that supportive services is a broad definition. She stated that when dealing with CDBG funds and mentioning support services they include: youth services, senior services, disabled services, child care, recreation and whatever helps a special needs group function or enjoy their living environment. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the broad definition of supportive services encompasses what the previous speakers were concerned about. Ms. Tam agreed and pointed out that the definition of public services under CDBG funds includes the services mentioned above. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg felt the Housing Element could be presented to City Council as is. She also felt that the definition of supportive services addresses the child care requirements which she felt is important. Cm. Schaub agreed that the Housing Element could be presented to City Council as is and suggested that the speakers attend the City Council meeting. He felt it was more appropriate for the City Council to approve adding the child care issue to the Housing Element because it is asocial issue, not a land use issue. He stated that he agrees with the speakers regarding child care and mentioned that the Planning Commission has supported child care issues in the past. Cm. King was concerned with water conservation. He mentioned that Page C-54 in the Appendix refers to the issue of water conservation. He felt that lawns use a lot of water and would like to see some kind of model for residential neighborhoods that de-emphasizes front lawns. He suggested that on Page 6 of the Housing Element, Section 3, Maintain and Enhance Residential Neighborhoods, Goal C; he would like to add: "...characteristics consistent with efficient use of resources and energy." Cm. Schaub agreed that the City will look different in the future and that the Commission would make those changes as appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Goal C addresses infrastructure, foundations, deck work, etc. She continued that the Green Guide for Housing is included in the Housing Element. Planning Commirsion .`Nfay 12, 2009 ~gular ~Yteeting 97 Cm. King felt that the Green Guide did not address resource management, it only refers to energy. Cm. Schaub felt that the City's Goals and Objectives addresses the resource management issue more specifically than the Housing Element. He felt resource management was not required in the Housing Element. Chair Wehrenberg stated that Goal C addresses energy and water resources and stated she felt the Housing Element addresses CM. King's concerns regarding water resources. Cm. King agreed. Cm. Swalwell stated that since the child care advocates felt child care was an issue that it would be helpful to have it called out. Cm. Swalwell moved that Policy D.2 be amended to state: "Promote housing along with supportive services to meet the special housing needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, child care seeking parents, and the homeless." He felt that by adding this it did not appear that the Commission was playing a social role and that Ms. Tam felt it would not negatively impact the Housing Element but could be a good thing. He felt that the Commission should be proud of their support for child care and should include it in Policy D.2, Section 4, Promoting Equal Housing Opportunities. Cm. Schaub asked if Staff agreed. Ms. Waffle felt it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to make that recommendation to the City Council. Chair Wehrenberg felt that the Commission should recommend that the City Council consider modifying the language to add it to the section or consider the supportive services definition to be sufficient. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. King, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission approved the Resolution with the following recommendation: the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the change that was read into the minutes regarding Section 4, Policy D.2: "Promote housing along with supportive services to meet the special housing needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, single parents, child care seeking parents and the homeless." RESOLUTION NO. 09-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~Pfanning Commission fay 12, 2009 ~guCarMeeting 98 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT THE DRAFT 2009-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR REVIEW 8.2 PA 09-010 Multi-Modal General Plan Circulation Map and Amendments to the General Plan related to the creation of the Multi-Modal Map. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. King asked which maps show the proposed bike lanes. Ms. Fraser answered the bicycle circulation maps are Maps 5-3A and 5-3B. She continued those maps relay the information from the Bikeways Master Plan. She mentioned that the Multi- Modal Map also shows the bike paths in the City. Cm. King asked if there are bike paths going south from Dublin Blvd. towards the West Dublin BART station. Ms. Fraser answered that there is a bike path on the map, shown in orange as a proposed Class 3 bike route. Cm. King felt that was not an appropriate place for a Class 3 bike route. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing and hearing no response closed the public hearing. Chair Wehrenberg felt the maps are very useful and that they should be posted at the City buildings, the BART station and the main public transit locations. Cm. King stated that the bike committee proposed a Class 1 or 2 bike lane in the area mentioned but Staff removed the proposed bike lanes. He felt it was not appropriate to have Class 1 and 2 bike lanes in other areas and not on the two streets that connect to the West Dublin BART station. He felt that the City is trying to encourage people to ride bikes to BART and a Class 3 bike lane is not a safe environment. He was concerned that this type of bike lane would discourage bike riders to the BART station. Cm. Schaub suggested putting the bike path on Regional Street. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager stated that what is shown on the map is part of the Bikeways Master Plan adopted by the City Council. He continued that the issue of the Class 3 bike lane, right-of-way and the ability to accommodate different types of bike facilities was brought up when the Bikeways Master Plan was being developed. He stated that Staff will be looking at accessibility and how to address bikeways as part of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan. Manning Commission flay 12, 2009 ~gular Meeting 99 Chair Wehrenberg suggested that the City could also use signage to let people know that it is OK to use sidewalks in dangerous situations when there is no appropriate bike lane. Cm. King stated that since the City Council will read the minutes he is satisfied that he raised the issue and felt they did not need to amend their recommendation at this point. On a motion by Cm. King and seconded by Cm. Swalwell, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION NO. 09 - 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AMULTI- MODAL GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP AND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN RELATED TO THE CREATION OF THE MULTI-MODAL MAP PA 09-010 8.3 PA 08-044 New Evolution Fitness Facility Conditional Use Permit request for a parking reduction and off-site parking for a health club facility. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there were any objections to Cm. King voting on this project. Andrew Piunti, Counsel for Enea Properties stated that in previous situations Cm. King had recused himself and felt it was appropriate at this time as well. Cm. King recused himself from the item and left the meeting at 8:01p.m. Jamie Lynn Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked if the same parking standards were applied to this project as were used for the Promenade/Club Sport project. Mr. Baker answered that Staff used the Zoning Ordinance parking standards for a gym and looked at similar facilities to ensure that the City's parking standards were sufficient. He continued that the Promenade/Club Sport project looked at creating parking standards specifically for that project. Cm. Schaub asked if the survey included the existing tenants in the Enea Center. Ms. Rojo answered yes, the survey was done to see how many cars were in the shopping center during the hours of 6-7pm on Parcels B, C and D. Cm. Schaub asked how many buildings in the center are vacant. Planning Commission fay 12, 2009 ~gular Meeting 100 Ms. Rojo answered there is one vacant tenant space on Parcel D. Cm. Schaub asked what tenants are in the other parcels. Ms. Rojo named the tenants in each parcel. Cm. Swalwell asked if the vacant tenant space was the old Tower Records store and what the square footage for the building is. Ms. Rojo answered the square footage is approximately 10,000 square feet. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Rojo to explain what the I-680 on and off ramp will look like when the West Dublin BART station is fully operational and what the traffic load will be at the intersection. Jamie Bourgeois, City Traffic Engineer did not have the information available as far as volume of traffic but suspected it would increase. Cm. Swalwell asked since the embedded, flashing crosswalk lights were prohibited at a controlled intersection, would they be allowed between controlled intersections. Ms. Bourgeois stated they would be allowed between controlled intersections. Cm. Swalwell asked if it would be allowed between Dublin Blvd. and St. Patrick Way on Amador Plaza Road. Ms. Bourgeois stated that roadway flashing crosswalks are used at mid-block crossings as well as uncontrolled intersection. She continued that typically the location is evaluated to ensure that it is appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there would be a sign at the off-ramp to warn "pedestrian in crosswalk." Ms. Bourgeois answered that she had not seen that type of signage at an intersection. She continued that regular signs that say "Yield Right of Way to Pedestrians" but she did not believe that type of sign is mentioned in the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there is a code requirement for placement of the flashing crosswalks at a certain distance from an off-ramp. Ms. Bourgeois answered that each location would be evaluated before implementing the measure but they would want to consider the distance from the intersection because the approaching vehicles would need time to react to the flashing lights and that there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Planning Commission stay 12, 2009 ~gular ~Yteeting 101 Cm. Swalwell asked if the concern is going from parcels D to C to A, or from Parcel C to Parcel A is the concern with traffic. He felt there is not a lot of traffic between Parcels D and C on St. Patrick Way. Cm. Schaub disagreed and felt that once the West Dublin BART station was operational the traffic would increase considerably. Ms. Bourgeois stated the bigger concern would be crossing Amador Plaza Road based on existing high volume traffic conditions. She continued that the signal from St Patrick's Way does not have a protected left turn phase which means traffic would drive through the crosswalk at the same time the pedestrians are crossing causing a safety issue. Cm. Swalwell asked Ms. Bourgeois if St. Patrick's Way will be an artery to the West Dublin BART station. Ms. Bourgeois answered yes. There was a discussion regarding St. Patrick Way, Amador Plaza Rd. and Golden Gate Drive and how the traffic for the BART station will affect the project. Cm. Schaub mentioned that St. Patrick Way will continue from the I-680 off ramp to the hotel on Regional Street and there are three roads from St. Patrick Way that have access to the BART station. He continued that if you come off I-680 St. Patrick Way is the route to the BART station and he expects that road to be very busy. Cm. Swalwell asked for the capacity of the BART garage. Mr. Baker answered the capacity is approximately 700 vehicles. Cm. Schaub commented that there will also be two condominium projects with 300-400 units in each which will increase traffic as well. Cm. Schaub asked if there was an exception made for parking when Parcel A was approved. Ms. Rojo answered that the parking requirements for the entire Enea Shopping Center is higher than the Zoning Ordinance requires, therefore it is parked between the retail and office requirements. Cm. Schaub stated he was asking only about Parcel A and whether it is parked correctly or were there exceptions made. Ms. Rojo stated that on Parcel A there are a total of 125 parking spaces available and there are 96 spaces required for the current tenants. Mr. Baker stated that there is enough parking on Parcel A to accommodate a variety of different uses; however, there is not enough parking to support the intensity of the gym use. 1~'lanning Commission fay 12, 2009 ~gufarrYteeting 102 Cm. Schaub asked if Parcel A is currently parked correctly. Ms. Rojo answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there would be an issue with other tenants in the shopping center. Cm. Schaub responded that as long as they were a commercial use it would be appropriate. Mr. Baker responded that the type of tenant would determine the parking requirements. Cm. Swalwell asked why Dublin gyms were not chosen for the traffic study. Ms. Bourgeois explained that there was a lot of effort put into to identifying sites that could be surveyed where the parking would be solely attributed to that single use. She continued that a lot of gyms share parking with multiple uses which would make it difficult to determine which cars are associated with that particular gym. She stated that she worked with the Applicant and the consultants to find locations in the area and the two locations mentioned in the traffic report were the gyms where the parking demand could be captured. Cm. Swalwell felt that Fitness 2000 is similar in size and is the anchor for the shopping center and should have been included. Ms. Bourgeois stated there other uses in that shopping center and the parking is shared which would make it difficult to determine which cars were associated with Fitness 2000. Cm. Swalwell stated that this project also has shared parking. Ms. Bourgeois answered that the task of the traffic/parking study was to determine the parking demand for a gym and for that purpose the site required only the gym parking even though in this location they would be shared parking. Cm. Swalwell asked if the problem is the health club use and Staff's concern with pedestrian traffic. He asked if there would be a problem if the project was a small grocery store or electronics store. He felt that the real problem was that in two years there will be a lot more traffic and asked if there would be concerns with any tenant that was proposed for this building. He asked if Staff was indicating that no tenant can go into Parcel A because of Staff's concerns with pedestrian traffic. He felt that any tenant will have people that would have to walk across Amador Plaza Road to get there. He asked if the issue is because it is a health club facility or would there be problems with any tenant in that space. Mr. Baker responded that the issue is not with the use, a gym is a permitted use at the site, but the issue is the intensity of that use. He continued the gym has proposed to add square footage to the facility and the parking requirements are based on the programming and activities within the site. He stated that a less intense gym use that did not have the extra square footage potentially could be compatible. He stated that the issue is the parking requirement for this particular user. Manning Commission May 12, 2009 ~guCar Meeting 103 Cm. Swalwell stated that the Applicant is proposing to add only 5,000 square feet which would require only an additiona150 parking spaces. Mr. Baker answered the additional square footage would be part of the issue, but the programming of the inside of the facility would be the remaining issue. He stated the Applicant could reconfigure the inside of the facility to meet the parking requirements. Cm. Swalwell stated that any tenant that wanted to go into that space for retail would need shared parking. Mr. Baker answered that the tenant would need to be able to park on-site and depending on the requirements of the user they could fit on the site. Cm. Swalwell responded that because of the parking ratio, any tenant at 28,000 square feet wori t meet the parking requirement for that space. Cm. Swalwell asked what type of use would be able to go into that space. Chair Wehrenberg responded that office space would require less parking requirement but could still be an intense use. Cm. Swalwell felt that nothing could go into that space. Cm. Schaub stated that the issue is the 110 parking spaces that are required for this use, not what other use could go into the space. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Mr. Andrew Piunti, Counsel for the Enea family, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that when the Enea family developed the center they were persuaded by the City of Dublin to dedicate part of the area to be used as the City's 10% contribution to the I-680 off-ramp project. He responded to the question of whether the parcel is adequately parked - he stated that there are 46,000 square feet of retail use, which makes it approximately 50 parking spaces short of the required parking. He stated that the building in question has been vacant for 3 years. The Enea family has tried to obtain a tenant for this location during that time. He agreed this tenant is not the most ideal tenant for the spot but felt it was a tenant that would bring people to the shopping center. He felt the Omni Means Traffic Study looked at what the true parking situation is currently. He stated that there are 423 parking spots in the entire Enea Plaza and the most cars parked at the center, at peak hours, was 119. He stated that 75 % of the parking spots at the shopping center are vacant at peak hours. He felt that the land owner did not have a true opportunity to work with Staff to establish mitigatation measures that would make the project work. He stated that one of the reasons that Staff recommended denying the project is that it adversely impacts other retail tenants. He continued that there are no tenants opposing this project. He stated that there is adequate parking but there is a potential safety issue from cars running a red light at the I-680 off-ramp. He felt that the Applicant could address these issues and the owner is willing to invest in traffic mitigations and mentioned them. The Applicant <1'lannittg Commission ~Yfay 12, 2009 ~ggutar ~4teeting 104 asked the Planning Commission to defer the project so that the owner could meet with Staff to find a solution that mitigates the risks and the parking issue. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. Cm. Swalwell commended Staff on the Staff Report and felt it addressed the concerns of Staff and the traffic study was adequate, but he felt there is some undercurrent that Staff is not willing to work with the Applicant to make it work and then recommending denial. He felt that a lot of Staff's concerns were speculation and conjecture and assumes that pedestrian traffic is dangerous. He felt the City should not be afraid of pedestrian traffic, that it can be exciting, and can create buzz for the area and business for other retailers. He felt there is a way to make it work and he would like to know from Staff what the impact of the BART station would be on the project. He agreed that that the area does not have a lot of traffic. His recommendation was to direct Staff to work with the Applicant and bring back Conditions of Approval to review. He did not feel comfortable making findings that the project should be denied and asked to see findings so the Planning Commission could approve the project. Cm. Schaub stated his biggest concern is Amador Plaza Road and felt it is a congested area. He stated that even without the gym the signal at Dublin Blvd and Amador Plaza Road is not effective. He felt that pedestrians will be hit by cars in this area because of the traffic problems. He felt it would be difficult for 200 people to cross the street safely and did not think the flashing lights on the crosswalk would be effective. He stated that drivers are focused on different destinations and not focused on pedestrians. He stated he was in support of working with the Applicant to find a solution to accommodate this project and so that the Planning Commission can feel comfortable approving it. Mr. Baker stated there were meetings with the Applicant, who is not present tonight and the property owner s real estate agent to discuss the results of the parking study and Staff looked at a variety of alternatives trying to work with the Applicant to find a solution. He stated the issue is the safety concerns, and stated they were not able to come to a consensus to address the safety concerns. Cm. Swalwell asked Mr. Baker if the Applicant took out the extra square footage would that change Staff's opinion as to the safety of the project. Chair Wehrenberg answered that it would reduce the deficiency of required parking. Mr. Baker also responded that the extra square footage does not create the safety issue; the issue is the intensity of the use that generates the off-site parking. Cm. Swalwell felt the issue is the gym use at that location. Mr. Baker responded the issue is the size of the gym and how much parking the gym would require; the site is not large enough to accommodate the gym at the intensity that is being proposed for the site, therefore the issue is not the gym, but the fact that parking is off-site and that generates safety concerns that Staff was not able to address. planning Commission flay 12, 2009 ~guCar Meeting 105 Cm. Swalwell stated he did not understand the difference between a gym and any other Applicant that would go on the site that would require off-site parking. He felt that any project that went into the space would .require off-site parking and people crossing Amador Plaza Road. Mr. Baker answered that different uses have different parking requirements and not all tenants would require off-site parking. Chair Wehrenberg stated there .was a discussion during the Promenade project regarding a reduction of 40 parking stalls, but it was mixed use, and. also took into account that people would be walking or biking, etc. She stated she tried to consider different ways to accommodate the project. She felt that if people are in a hurry to get to gym class they will take the shortest way to get across Amador Plaza Road putting themselves at risk. She stated that it is unknown what tenant would occupy the vacant spaces which could cause another parking issue. She continued that the West Dublin BART station will create traffic problems and that the Gym members agreeing to park in designated areas does not limit the City's risk of liability. She stated she did not feel she could support the project as it is now. She felt that reducing the size of the gym could help and would recommend to the City Council to deny the project. Cm. Schaub asked if there is a child care facility as part of the gym. Mr. Baker answered yes as well as retail and restaurant components. Cm. Schaub stated he is very concerned about off-site parking and parents with children crossing Amador Plaza Road. Chair Wehrenberg felt they would have to create a barrier that would force people to use the crosswalk. Cm. Schaub mentioned that would cut off parking to the other tenants. Chair Wehrenberg felt sure that Staff has gone through all possibilities on the project. She continued that she would like to see business in the building but felt the project was too intense of a use for the site. Cm. Schaub stated that this is an appealable action and the Applicant can change the project before going to City Council if they can find a solution. Chair Wehrenberg suggested a pedestrian bridge over the street. Cm. Schaub suggested a tunnel going under the street. He felt the Commission s number one responsibility is the safety of the community. Cm. Swalwell felt this project should be referred back to Staff, and if appealed then the City Council has a full record of Staff's and the Commissions attempts to make it work. He mentioned both Chair Wehrenberg and Cm. Schaub mentioned a number of solutions that were not in the Staff Report. He felt it should go back to Staff for another review. <1'lanning Commission 511ay 12, 2009 ~gular SYteeting 106 Cm. Schaub was in support of referring the project back to Staff and the Applicant to restructure the project. Chair Wehrenberg asked what recourse the Applicant has if the Planning Commission denies the project. Mr. Baker answered that the commission could direct Staff to work with the Applicant. He mentioned that the issue is not the gym. He stated that placing the item on the agenda for tonight's meeting was at the request of the Property Owner which is the reason it was brought to public hearing at this stage. He was not sure that they could develop a solution but would explore the possibilities with the Applicant. Cm. Swalwell moved to direct Staff to work with the Applicant and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baker suggested that the Commission continue the item to a date certain. Chair Wehrenberg stated that would be her recommendation also. Cm. Swalwell asked, since Cm. Brown is absent from this meeting, would he be able to participate in the discussion when the item is brought back to the Commission. Kit Faubion, City Attorney responded that Cm. Brown would have to familiarize himself with the record; read the Staff Report and the minutes and then announce for the record that he has read the information regarding the project and is qualified to participate in the continued discussion of the item. Cm. Swalwell withdrew his earlier motion to direct Staff to work with the Applicant. Mr. Baker stated that the recommendation would be the July 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. On a motion by Cm. Swalwell and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 4-0, with Cm. Brown absent, the Planning Commission moved to continue the project to the July 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting: RESOLUTION NO. 09-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ~Ylanning ~ommissian May 12, 2009 ~gularMeeting 107 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 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 asked to have a study session regarding the parking ordinance. Mr. Baker answered that the Parking Ordinance will be coming to the Planning Commission but there is no date as yet. 10.3 Cm. Schaub asked if the Commission will be talking about signage and boarding houses in the future. Ms. Ram stated that within one year of the Housing Element being adopted the City will be required to modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow that type of housing. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully Doreen Wehrer Chair Planning ATTEST: ~... Jeff B er Acting Planning Manager G: ~MINUTES~2009~PLANNING COMMISSION~5.12.09.doc 2'Canning Commission 9Kay 12, 2009 I~guCar Meeting 1 ~8