Laserfiche WebLink
PAGE 2 <br />MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL <br />SUBJECT: 23 W. MAIN ST.; FILE# U-09-025 <br />Feb~•ua~ y I8, 2010 ~ ~ <br />BACKGROUND: <br />The property is located at 23 W. Main Street, on the south side of Main Street just west of the <br />Highway 17 bridge. The applicant is requesting a CUP for a personal service business <br />(salon) in the downtown (C-2 zone). The subject space was previously occupied by a nail <br />salon for the last 23 years. The property owrier purchased the property with the intention of <br />rehabbing the structure from damage sustained during the 1989 earthquake. The construction <br />necessitated the removal of all the existing tenants including the nail salon. Due to the length <br />of the construction, the existing non-conformirig personal service use expired. <br />The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2010. The CUP <br />was approved with a modification to reduce the permitted number of stations from twelve to <br />seven. <br />DISCUSSION: <br />A. Project Sununary <br />The applicant is requesting a CUP for a personal service business, specifically a full service <br />salon that would include hair, nails, and skin care. The salon would occupy approximately <br />1,250 sq. ft., with an additional 200 sq. ft. of shared building space. It has come to staffs <br />attention that the previous personal service business only leased 1,000 sq. ft., of the building. <br />Through the building permit process, the interior walls were relocated, and 200 sq. ft. that <br />was previously included in a separate suite (23 B) is now included in the tenant space. This <br />does not impact the required parking for the site as a whole, or the traffic impact of the <br />proposed use. <br />Please see Attachment 4, for additional information regarding the proposed project. <br />B. Planning Commission <br />The Planning Commission considered the CUP Application on January 27, 2010. The <br />Commission voted 5-1 to approve the CUP Application with a reduction in the number of <br />permitted stations from twelve to seven (Attaclunent 3). <br />Several Planning Commissioners were concerned about over-concentration of salons in the <br />downtown, and the different type of parking and traffic impacts a hair salon would impose in <br />comparison to the .previous nail salon. The reduction in the number of stations was a <br />compromise reached•by the Planning Commission after the close of the public hearing. The <br />Planning Commission did not confer with the applicant on this modification. <br />C. Appeal <br />An appeal of the Planning Corrunission decision was received on February 4, 2010 <br />(Attaclunent 1). The basis for the applicant's appeal is that the Planning Commission's <br />modification of the permitted number of stations is not in keeping with the number of <br />