News

Plan for downtown gym gets a lift

Palo Alto's planning commission supports conditional use permit for gym at 999 Alma St., former Anthropologie site

A proposal to bring a gym to a vacant building that until recently housed Anthropologie received a boost last week, when Palo Alto's Planning and Transportation Commission endorsed the project despite neighbor concerns about noise and parking problems.

The gym, known as Training Space, is poised to take over the building at 999 Alma St., near Addison Avenue, in the South of Forest Avenue II neighborhood. The planning commission voted 5-1 on Wednesday, with Doria Summa dissenting and Michael Alcheck absent, to endorse a conditional use permit that would allow it to open its doors.

Though this building, like other commercial downtown sites, is legally required to have ground-floor retail, the City Council agreed in November to loosen this requirement and allow medical offices, which are slated to occupy about 5,000 square feet in the back of the building on the Addison Avenue side. The rest of the building -- a little less than 5,000 square feet -- would be occupied by the gym, a business that requires a "conditional use permit" under the city's zoning code.

Michael Dorricott, the gym's founder, seemingly got what he needed on May 9, when planning staff signed off on the conditional use permit. Shortly after the approval, however, the city received two requests for formal hearings from downtown residents -- necessitating reviews by the planning commission and the City Council.

Dorrecott appealed to the commission on Wednesday not to delay the process any further. He said he had expected starting the business to be "fairly simple" but then encountered far more roadblocks than expected.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

"This process has been hurting us," Dorrecott said. "I'm not even sure a small business can survive the process, unfortunately. Our main goal is just to be able to have this happen."

In recent months, Dorrecott said he had walked the entire neighborhood and spoke to every resident in the area to find ways to address their concerns. He also noted that most users of the new gym won't need a car at all. Of the roughly 80 people who had signed up for membership as of Wednesday, 57 percent live within four blocks of 999 Alma St. and 31 percent work within four blocks.

Training Space, he said, will offer locals a chance to work out independently, without the crowds and the competition for equipment associated with larger gyms like 24-Hour Fitness and Equinox. The fact that dozens of people have signed up for a $900 annual membership before the gym had even opened testifies to the existing demand, he said.

Ella Wilshire, who lives near the gym and who described herself as a "working mom," also testified in support of the gym. She stressed the importance of allowing the gym to be open in the early-morning hours -- the only free hours that are available for people like her.

"This is not going to be a stampede toward the gym at 5 a.m. It's going to be a pretty lonely experience of very dedicated people," Wilshire said.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Not everyone shared her enthusiasm. Dena Mossar, a former Palo Alto mayor who lives in the SOFA neighborhood near the gym, raised concerns about the potential noise impacts of the new facility.

"We live near a commercial district. It is not a quiet place to live, in general. But it's still pretty quiet at 5 a.m. during the week, and certainly on weekends and holidays," Mossar said.

Mossar and her neighbor, Karen Smerstad, also co-signed a letter requesting a hearing on the gym application. Allowing a business to open at 5 a.m. in the SOFA area would effectively change the rules for commercial operations in the neighborhood.

"There are no other commercial properties in the general area that begin operation at 5 a.m. -- in fact, we believe the standard operating hours are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.," the letter states. "We do not believe that businesses in this area should be exempted from codified rules set in a very public process."

For others, the main concern is parking. The 1952 building predates the city's public requirements and, as such, is considered "legal noncomplying." Because the new gym is expected to bring in less traffic than Anthropologie, the use it replaced, it is not required to provide any new parking (it does have seven devoted parking spots at a nearby site, 100 Addison Ave.).

But Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident who regularly surveys the parking occupancy on downtown streets, said he and his neighbors are concerned that the gym will worsen the area's parking crunch. Today, without these facilities, Buchanan said, the downtown area already has several blocks with 85 percent occupancy.

"With the gym and the medical offices, every nearby block will be saturated," he said.

He and a group of neighbors had also submitted a letter, which argued that the impact of the gym on downtown's commercial and residential streets will be "considerable."

"The City is already expending tens of millions of dollars and considerable staff time to reduce parking impacts in this area after massive outcry from residents," the appeal states. "For the city to now claim that increasing the parking problems on these streets will have no negative impact is implausible and completely contradicts its own prior and current declaration."

Commissioner Doria Summa found these arguments convincing and said she cannot make the necessary findings to approve the permit, namely, that it would "not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety (or) general welfare of convenience."

Though she concurred with the majority that a neighborhood gym is a good use for the site, she argued that the city hadn't sufficiently studied the parking impacts of the new business.

"I'm worried the impacts of this will hurt everybody, including this business," Summa said.

Others, including Chair Ed Lauing and Vice Chair Susan Monk, took comfort in the fact that many users will likely walk or ride their bikes to the gym. Lauing also noted that the property is zoned for retail, which means that whatever business occupies the site will bring in some traffic.

"If not this, then what?" Lauing said. "Because it's going to be retail by zone, and by intent of council."

The council is set to consider the conditional use permit on Aug. 20, after its summer break.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Plan for downtown gym gets a lift

Palo Alto's planning commission supports conditional use permit for gym at 999 Alma St., former Anthropologie site

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Mon, Jul 2, 2018, 11:52 am
Updated: Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 8:27 am

A proposal to bring a gym to a vacant building that until recently housed Anthropologie received a boost last week, when Palo Alto's Planning and Transportation Commission endorsed the project despite neighbor concerns about noise and parking problems.

The gym, known as Training Space, is poised to take over the building at 999 Alma St., near Addison Avenue, in the South of Forest Avenue II neighborhood. The planning commission voted 5-1 on Wednesday, with Doria Summa dissenting and Michael Alcheck absent, to endorse a conditional use permit that would allow it to open its doors.

Though this building, like other commercial downtown sites, is legally required to have ground-floor retail, the City Council agreed in November to loosen this requirement and allow medical offices, which are slated to occupy about 5,000 square feet in the back of the building on the Addison Avenue side. The rest of the building -- a little less than 5,000 square feet -- would be occupied by the gym, a business that requires a "conditional use permit" under the city's zoning code.

Michael Dorricott, the gym's founder, seemingly got what he needed on May 9, when planning staff signed off on the conditional use permit. Shortly after the approval, however, the city received two requests for formal hearings from downtown residents -- necessitating reviews by the planning commission and the City Council.

Dorrecott appealed to the commission on Wednesday not to delay the process any further. He said he had expected starting the business to be "fairly simple" but then encountered far more roadblocks than expected.

"This process has been hurting us," Dorrecott said. "I'm not even sure a small business can survive the process, unfortunately. Our main goal is just to be able to have this happen."

In recent months, Dorrecott said he had walked the entire neighborhood and spoke to every resident in the area to find ways to address their concerns. He also noted that most users of the new gym won't need a car at all. Of the roughly 80 people who had signed up for membership as of Wednesday, 57 percent live within four blocks of 999 Alma St. and 31 percent work within four blocks.

Training Space, he said, will offer locals a chance to work out independently, without the crowds and the competition for equipment associated with larger gyms like 24-Hour Fitness and Equinox. The fact that dozens of people have signed up for a $900 annual membership before the gym had even opened testifies to the existing demand, he said.

Ella Wilshire, who lives near the gym and who described herself as a "working mom," also testified in support of the gym. She stressed the importance of allowing the gym to be open in the early-morning hours -- the only free hours that are available for people like her.

"This is not going to be a stampede toward the gym at 5 a.m. It's going to be a pretty lonely experience of very dedicated people," Wilshire said.

Not everyone shared her enthusiasm. Dena Mossar, a former Palo Alto mayor who lives in the SOFA neighborhood near the gym, raised concerns about the potential noise impacts of the new facility.

"We live near a commercial district. It is not a quiet place to live, in general. But it's still pretty quiet at 5 a.m. during the week, and certainly on weekends and holidays," Mossar said.

Mossar and her neighbor, Karen Smerstad, also co-signed a letter requesting a hearing on the gym application. Allowing a business to open at 5 a.m. in the SOFA area would effectively change the rules for commercial operations in the neighborhood.

"There are no other commercial properties in the general area that begin operation at 5 a.m. -- in fact, we believe the standard operating hours are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.," the letter states. "We do not believe that businesses in this area should be exempted from codified rules set in a very public process."

For others, the main concern is parking. The 1952 building predates the city's public requirements and, as such, is considered "legal noncomplying." Because the new gym is expected to bring in less traffic than Anthropologie, the use it replaced, it is not required to provide any new parking (it does have seven devoted parking spots at a nearby site, 100 Addison Ave.).

But Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident who regularly surveys the parking occupancy on downtown streets, said he and his neighbors are concerned that the gym will worsen the area's parking crunch. Today, without these facilities, Buchanan said, the downtown area already has several blocks with 85 percent occupancy.

"With the gym and the medical offices, every nearby block will be saturated," he said.

He and a group of neighbors had also submitted a letter, which argued that the impact of the gym on downtown's commercial and residential streets will be "considerable."

"The City is already expending tens of millions of dollars and considerable staff time to reduce parking impacts in this area after massive outcry from residents," the appeal states. "For the city to now claim that increasing the parking problems on these streets will have no negative impact is implausible and completely contradicts its own prior and current declaration."

Commissioner Doria Summa found these arguments convincing and said she cannot make the necessary findings to approve the permit, namely, that it would "not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety (or) general welfare of convenience."

Though she concurred with the majority that a neighborhood gym is a good use for the site, she argued that the city hadn't sufficiently studied the parking impacts of the new business.

"I'm worried the impacts of this will hurt everybody, including this business," Summa said.

Others, including Chair Ed Lauing and Vice Chair Susan Monk, took comfort in the fact that many users will likely walk or ride their bikes to the gym. Lauing also noted that the property is zoned for retail, which means that whatever business occupies the site will bring in some traffic.

"If not this, then what?" Lauing said. "Because it's going to be retail by zone, and by intent of council."

The council is set to consider the conditional use permit on Aug. 20, after its summer break.

Comments

Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2018 at 2:09 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2018 at 2:09 pm

5.00 am sounds a little early to me.

Why doesn't the gym offer reduced membership to those who live within 2 block radius?


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Jul 2, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Jul 2, 2018 at 4:31 pm

When it comes to understanding parking and traffic impacts, we're mostly flying blind, because the City doesn't make before-and-after measurements. I'd like the City to be required to do that for every commercial project.

In practice that probably means frequently sampling traffic and parking in and around the commercial districts, since you can't always know in advance that you need to take a "before" measurement. I think that would be a good thing, because it would give us advance warning when a problem is just beginning.

And it would finally resolve questions like "Do parking-lite developments cause spillover parking on nearby streets?"


stephen levy
Registered user
University South
on Jul 2, 2018 at 6:50 pm
stephen levy, University South
Registered user
on Jul 2, 2018 at 6:50 pm

5 am is normal opening time for a training facility. Many people train at 6 am or even earlier to fit into their work schedule and the facility and trainers need time ahead of their first appointment.


Trust
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2018 at 7:37 pm
Trust, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2018 at 7:37 pm

"When it comes to understanding parking and traffic impacts, we're mostly flying blind, because the City doesn't make before-and-after measurements. I'd like the City to be required to do that for every commercial project."

Agreed. But the next question is how in the world do we get them to make trustworthy measurements?

If we ever needed a reminder that the City Council has decimated our retail districts, it's yet another gym moving in to longtime retail locations to serve day workers.


End the Madness
Crescent Park
on Jul 2, 2018 at 7:58 pm
End the Madness, Crescent Park
on Jul 2, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Are just seven parking spaces enough for a gym allowed to hold 86 people? Of course not. The gym will put dozens more cars on already cramped nearby neighborhood streets.

Our city staff and Planning Commission majority simply don't care. They ignore the blindingly obvious, accepting absurdist claims that most gym users will live or work a few blocks away.

Small wonder our parking problems keep getting worse and worse.

It's not fair to ask residents to donate the parking in front of their homes to businesses that refuse to supply enough parking. Please vote for City Council candidates who will stand up for what's right.


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Jul 2, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Jul 2, 2018 at 8:05 pm

"...the next question is how in the world do we get them to make trustworthy measurements?"

You're right; the level of trust is so low right now that we'd need to verify.

Neilson and friends are essentially doing that for parking, so we (residents) at least understand what needs to be done there.

Traffic is a challenge. If the counting is contracted to a third party, and they're willing to reveal their validation data, and everything's subject to public review, that might be good enough. Failing that, we'd have to do some counting of our own to validate what the City measures.


resident
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2018 at 8:13 pm
resident, Old Palo Alto
on Jul 2, 2018 at 8:13 pm

Would you rather have a gym at this location or another tech office? Realistically, there is little demand for a retail store or restaurant on a busy street like this for the rents the landlord is probably charging. If neighbors force the gym out, be prepared for a tech office to move in. How many cars will that bring to the neighborhood, all day long.


NeilsonBuchanan
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2018 at 9:27 pm
NeilsonBuchanan, Downtown North
Registered user
on Jul 2, 2018 at 9:27 pm

This planning process is based on not knowing very much. Within the next year the results will be very telling one way or the other.

In my opinion parking demand in this section of Professorville will be like putting three feet into two shoes.

These three businesses have not opened for business. For the record, everyone should know that four neighborhood parking zones adjacent to the new pre-school, medical office and gym are sold out at this time.

Neighborhood quality defaults to commercial demand contrary to comp plan.
This create more political pressure for more and more commercial all-day parking on neighborhood streets closest to Alma.

Volunteer residents should not be the sole quality assurance system; neither staff nor Council has the stomach to set a standard. The staff report suggested 85% saturation might be a standard. There are 20 parking spaces on High between Addison and Lincoln. On most days residents on High typically have only three empty parking spaces because of residents' and commercial parking. The school, medical office and gym are not operating yet. Negative impact would be mitigated if very large number of gym patrons live the 'hood and walk to the gym. But the Conditional Use Permit does not address downside risk to Professorville.

I am addressing only the all-day commercial parking demand.

I am not addressing the most probable parking issue. It is short-term parking for 2 hours or less. There is no limit for non-resident parking less than 2 hours. The only limit is a vacant space. The primary choices will be short-term parking in the neighborhoods or parking along busy Alma.

Bottom line: Nobody knows what will happen. Planning Commission made a deliberate decision for blind justice.


End the Madness
Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2018 at 5:56 am
End the Madness, Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2018 at 5:56 am

No tech office can move into 999 Alma as the city's retail preservation law prohibits that. Don't be scared by false scenarios. What we might get instead is a retail business that needs far less parking and operates during normal hours.

Like what was there for years.


Alma plaza
College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2018 at 7:47 am
Alma plaza, College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2018 at 7:47 am

Sounds to me that the neighbors are planning to alma plaza this location ( complain and object while the place remains empty for years). They are exempt from parking rules due to the age of the building. And no retail will really want to location. It is far from university and basically has no other retail around. And as was stated, any retail will bring traffic also.


Becky Sanders
Registered user
Ventura
on Jul 3, 2018 at 7:49 am
Becky Sanders, Ventura
Registered user
on Jul 3, 2018 at 7:49 am

Hey Everyone: I put this up on Nextdoor when this topic was circulating. Reposting here with some modification:

As I understand it, a bunch of neighbors are protesting that the gym won't have adequate parking. It and the medical offices going in with it will have just seven parking spaces compared to the 41 or more that the building needs according to current and accepted parking standards.. So dozens of cars will be parking in front of houses and businesses for several blocks around the gym, creating huge problems for residents and visitors to that part of town. The city has a law saying gyms aren't allowed into neighborhoods when doing so will create these kinds of problems, but city staff didn't study the parking problems (a not uncommon occurrence these days) and granted the permit anyway. So the neighbors are protesting. I mean I don't even live over there, but we are feeling the parking squeeze over here in Ventura where we have new businesses going in under the radar... like software companies operating out of buildings and homes with no or inadequate parking ... and folks that don't live around here are parking all over the neighborhood.

I have had folks remind that the residents do not own the streets. That's a solipsism and has nothing to do with the fact that not providing adequate parking is a set up for conflict.

So I have to urge all to look at both sides now (like Judy Collins) and try to come to consensus. Our city is setting us up against one another by approving businesses and new housing without thoroughly studying impacts like parking. I find stuff like this gym situation super frustrating cause the owner has sunk his life savings in the project and the neighbors have sunk their life savings into their homes and want to keep their streets navigable and safe. When people have to compete for parking and are rushing about to be able to park near their destination it's a huge stressor. We have seen a real uptick in kids on bikes being hit by cut through drivers/speeding drivers over here. I am sympathetic to both sides and do not understand why the city approved the gym in the first place, setting the owners and neighbors up for this Catch-22.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 am

The one thought I will add to the mix is that this is not a suitable place for retail unless it is destination retail. Anthropologie decided to move to Stanford SC, which shows that they feel they could do better elsewhere. I can't see any retail wanting this site. Hopefully the gym members will be local enough to walk or bike and fit enough to do so.


Just.....Wow
Old Palo Alto
on Jul 3, 2018 at 11:27 am
Just.....Wow, Old Palo Alto
on Jul 3, 2018 at 11:27 am

Really, this is a problem? A gym? They are indoors. For Pete's sake it's not a concert venue or night club. The expression "first world problems" certainly pops into my mind. Aren't there bigger problems in the area folks could contribute their efforts to solving?

I just don't get the overblown drama here. I live right downtown as well and welcome vibrancy, active (non-office) ground-floor uses, flexible hours for businesses, and maximum use of existing on-street parking (no new parking lots).

I live in Palo Alto because of the activity. If I wanted boring and quiet I would move to Los Altos Hills.


Marie
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 3, 2018 at 11:51 am
Marie, Midtown
Registered user
on Jul 3, 2018 at 11:51 am

To say this spot is not suitable for retail totally ignores the history of this building that has always been retail since I've lived here (28 years) and I'm pretty sure for many years before that. If they charge appropriate rent for retail, they will have successful retail. It's the rent, stupid. Hassett Hardware in a similar location is doing fine.

Let it sit vacant until the owners are willing to charge a rent equivalent to the zoning. 7 spots offsite are not even enough for the permanent employees, including the medical practitioners and employees of the gym. No one is going to be able to show up at 5AM to work via public transportation.

Palo Alto has no reason to alter zoning just to benefit the owners when it is nearby residents who have to pay the price of inadequate parking. The fact that there are no parking permits available, says it all.


Alma plaza
College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Alma plaza, College Terrace
on Jul 3, 2018 at 12:05 pm

Marie- resd the article. The building is exemot from parking requirements. And what kind of retail will work there? Certainly not a chain store. Why don't you invest your money and often a store. But let's micromanage the site and dictate how much rent to charge and kind of store to put in there. Typical pali alto response


End the Madness
Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm
End the Madness, Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm

More false information is showing up on this thread. This building is NOT exempt from parking requirements. No building in Palo Alto is. First, the gym has to provide 7 spaces to comply with expected usage. Of course, that's not enough. Second, gyms in that location are not allowed to make things substantially worse for residences and businesses nearby ... so it can't use up a substantial share of the already limited parking in the neighborhood.


Alma plaza
Community Center
on Jul 3, 2018 at 3:15 pm
Alma plaza, Community Center
on Jul 3, 2018 at 3:15 pm

MadnessMadness- my comments regarding parking are based on this from the article:
For others, the main concern is parking. The 1952 building predates the city's public requirements and, as such, is considered "legal noncomplying." Because the new gym is expected to bring in less traffic than Anthropologie, the use it replaced, it is not required to provide any new parking (it does have seven devoted parking spots at a nearby site, 100 Addison Ave.)."


Allen Akin
Registered user
Professorville
on Jul 3, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
Registered user
on Jul 3, 2018 at 4:32 pm

@Just....Wow: I'm not speaking for anyone else necessarily, but I see this as a lot like climate change. Gradual, incremental, largely unnoticed, until the effects near you have accumulated to a tipping point. Suddenly, the environment you depend on is gone. Then you want to do something about it, but it's too late; the problem is already past the point of no return. With more foresight, maybe you would have made some corrections early, when they still could have been small, and they would have had plenty of time to take effect.

I've lived within a short walk of downtown for more than 30 years. Like you, I want a place that's more active than the hills. I also want a place that isn't full-blown urban; if I did, I would have moved to one (and I have lived in such places in the past).

Nowadays I look around and see that some older neighbors are having trouble hauling their groceries home because there's no parking available near their houses. Workers visiting the neighborhood sometimes have no place to park. There's too much fast-moving traffic on the nearby streets for my kids to bike safely. I can't carry on a phone conversation in the morning if the windows are open because the commuter traffic noise is too great. And there is now traffic outside my house every single hour of the day and the night (confirmed by webcam recordings).

It doesn't take much insight to connect the dots. If things continue developing as they have during the past ten years or so, the place I live will no longer be a viable residential neighborhood. Yet to most of us the incremental value of another office is zero, and the incremental value of another restaurant is tiny (we already have more than a hundred downtown). It makes sense to take small corrective actions now, before things reach the point of no return.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any particular position on the gym project; I'm probably not going to be affected by it one way or another. But I do respect the concerns of the people who are likely to be affected, and I want the City to show more foresight when it comes to development.


stephen levy
Registered user
University South
on Jul 3, 2018 at 5:17 pm
stephen levy, University South
Registered user
on Jul 3, 2018 at 5:17 pm

Just curious

Do any of you have actual experience with a training facility? The article seems to imply that members will train independently and so there will be few if any trainers and I saw no mention of classes.

And what do you make of the owner's report that most members live within walking distance?

Put all that together and even 100 members most of whom live close and many of whom will not use the facility during prime working hours and I do not see the problem here.

For those worried about noise go stand 100 feet from the downtown places that have workout classes and experience the lack of noise except from the regular sidewalk and street noise. Or go to Midtown and stand between No Excuses and Starbucks and tell me you hear the gym noise. I sit outside the gym area waiting to train and hear no loud noise even being right next to the door.


Don
Evergreen Park
on Jul 5, 2018 at 11:59 am
Don, Evergreen Park
on Jul 5, 2018 at 11:59 am

From the article:

"There are no other commercial properties in the general area that begin operation at 5 a.m. -- in fact, we believe the standard operating hours are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.," the letter states.

Starbucks University Ave opening time is 4am/4:30am; Blue Bottle is 6am; Cafe Venetia and Coupa Cafe open at 7am; Peets is 5am.


margaret heath
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 5, 2018 at 7:22 pm
margaret heath, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 5, 2018 at 7:22 pm

The owner of the gym told the Planning and Transportation Commission he needs 500 gym members to make his business work. I don't think he was asked to clarify whether the 500 gym members included the trainers.

Going house to house in the neighborhood the gym owner has pre-enrolled about 80 members, 50 of them (80%) close enough not to drive. Taking this number, the PT&C extrapolated that 80% of the total membership, or 400 of the 500 members, will therefore not need to drive. That would be 400 of the 500 members.

Is it reasonable to extrapolate that only 100 members will live far enough away to drive to the gym? To assume that none of the other 400 members, to save time, won't incorporate a stop at the gym as they drive to or from work? That many of the trainers will find public transport so convenient they won't want to drive?

The sale of parking permits in each neighborhood is carefully calibrated so that 80% of the parking is mostly occupied all day by permit holders with the remaining 2-hour time slots available for neighborhood use. Visitors, home help, etc. The nearby neighborhood is already parked at full capacity.

How likely is it that the number of gym members and medical patients who will drive is being underestimated? That most of the neighborhood 2-hour time slots won't end up parked at 100%? Plus generating additional traffic s clients hurry to find the nearest parking spot.

Staff is required to do a parking study if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is necessary. They did not do so. Instead they looked at the numbers the business owners gave them, decided the parking need was so minimal the adjacent neighborhood would not be impacted, and approved a Conditional Use Permit. The P&TC have now done the same.


margaret heath
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Jul 5, 2018 at 7:32 pm
margaret heath, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Jul 5, 2018 at 7:32 pm

One of the speakers on behalf of the gym said that as a member she was looking forward to being able to do yoga at the gym. None of the P&TC members thought to follow up and ask if she meant yoga classes were going to be offered, or if she was referring to a one-on-one yoga session.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.