Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem KAGENDA REPORT DATE: October 8, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01 -10, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A PERSONAL FITNESS STUDIO AT 220 MAIN STREET, SEAL BEACH (BELLA FORMA) SUMMARY OF REOUEST: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Conunission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the personal fitness studio at 220 Main Street would be denied. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the personal fitness studio at 220 Main Street would be approved, subject to appropriate terns and conditions. BACKGROUND: On August 22, 2001 the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution to deny the application for a CUP for a personal fitness studio on a 3 -2 vote (Commissioners Ladner and Sharp —No votes). On September 5, 2001 the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 01 -37 on a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Sharp — No vote) and thereby denied CUP 01 -10. At least one member of the Planning Commission indicated that he felt the City Council should determine whether the use is appropriate for a first story location on Main Street. Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission Resolution No. 01 -37 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission. Please refer to Attachments 3 and 4 respectively to review the Planning Commission Minutes of August 22 and September 5, 2001 and to Attachment 5 to review Agenda Item v C:Wyn umenu \CUM I -10 AppwLCC Sufi Rcpo doc \LM10 -02 -0I Public Hearing - Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 220 Main Street October 8, 2001 the Planning Commission Staff Report of August 22, 2001. Attachment 6 is the Planning Commission Minutes of July 18, 2001. An appeal of the recommendation of the Planning Commission was filed in a timely manner (please refer to Attachment 1), and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. FACTS: • The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2001 to consider CUP 01 -10. Both written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request. No persons appeared in opposition and the City did not receive any written communications in opposition to the request. • After receiving all public testimony on August 22, 2001, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and after discussion, voted to direct staff to draft a resolution to deny the requested Conditional Use Permit on a 3 -2 vote (Commissioners Ladner and Sharp — no votes). At least one Commissioner in the majority indicated that he felt that the City Council should determine whether the use was for a first floor location on Main Street. • On September 5, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 01 -37, denying CUP 01 -10 on a 4 -1 vote (Commissioner Sharp — no vote). • On September 12, 2001, an appeal was filed (See Attachment 1). The appellant has taken no position on the merits of the application, but has indicated that he agrees that the City Council should decide whether the use is appropriate for Main Street. The matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. ❑ Staff has received a letter from the property owner, Jane Laivlasney, supporting the requested conditional use permit and is provided as Attachment 7 for the information of the City Council. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS: Under Code Sections 28 -2503 and 28 -2504, all conditional use permit requests most be evaluated in light of three issues: I ) Is the use conditionally permitted in the zone; 2) Is the use compatible with the General Plan; and 3) Is the use compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general? 01 -10 App LCC Stiff Rcpon Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 110 Main Street October 8, 2001 Additionally, under Code section 28- 1251(5), all conditional use permit requests for property within the Main Street Specific Plan Zone must be evaluated in light of four issues: 1) Is the use consistent with the intent, purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan? 2) Is the use consistent with the Main Street Specific Plan's goal of a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non -local populations? 3) Does the use contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that provide the Main Street sense of identity? 4) Does the use comply with the applicable City Council policies? Regarding whether the applicant's proposed use is conditionally permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone, the Planning Commission resolved this issue on July 18, 2001. On that date, in connection with an application to conduct a similar use at a second —story location on Main Street, the Commission determined that a personal fitness facility is allowable within the Main Street Specific Plan Zone subject to obtaining a conditional use pemnit. Please refer to Attachment 6 for the Planning Commission Minutes of this determination. Regarding whether the applicant's proposed use is compatible with the General Plan, this issue too was resolved by the Planning Commission's July 18 determination. The current land use classification of the subject property is Main Street Specific Plan zone and, in accordance with the Commissions July 18's determination, the proposed use is a conditionally permitted use within the Main Street Specific Plan zone. Resolution of the remaining issues will depend on the Council's view as to whether a first - story personal fitness studio is consistent with the intent, purpose and vision of the Main Street Specific Plan. Some members of the Commission felt that such a use is not appropriate at a first floor location on Main Street. Additionally, it will depend on the City Council's view of the evidence presented during the public hearing regarding impacts to the surrounding community of a personal fitness training studio at the subject property. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: After receiving all public testimony and considering the decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the application for the personal fitness studio at 220 Main Street would be denied. 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution sustaining the appeal and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. If such a resolution were subsequently adopted, the 01 -10 Appcel CC Smfl` Report Public Hearing— Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 220 Main Street October 8, 2001 application for the personal fitness studio at 220 Main Street would be approved, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. FISCAL IMPACT: Potential gain of sales tax revenue if the proposed use is approved since the applicant intends to conduct a small retail component in connection with the personal fitness services. e =ttenberg Director of Development Servie Attachments: (7) Attachment 1: Appeal of Councilman Boyd, dated September 12, 2001 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 01 -37, adopted September 5, 2001 Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: September 5 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes: August 22, 2001 Attachment 5: Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 22, 2001 Attachment 6: Planning Commission Minutes — July 18, 2001 Attachment 7: Letter from Jane LaMasney, property owner, dated September 30, 2001 01- 10AVPOLCC Staff Rcpan 4 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 120 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 APPEAL OF COUNCILMAN BOYD, DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 01 -10 Apaa1.CC Suff RWn Sep-12 -01 04:34pm From- Kinkos Huntington Beach 7148974523 T -924 P. 001 /001 F-877 G ►Y . COJVwc..� Nr•�w V'*-� s4�f- t - Pk -u- 1.e R�u Ak- :s . AoLL t7,.._ Ds. tJ`� SEP -12 -2001 17:56 7148974523 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 220 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 01 -37, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 01 -10 Ap LCC Stela Report RESOLUTION NUMBER 01 -37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CUP NO. 01 -10, DENYING THE OPERATION OF A PERSONAL FITNESS STUDIO AT 220 MAIN ST. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On August 1, 2001, Judy Fabrizio (the "Applicant's filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, seeking to allow a personal fitness studio to operate at the property located at 220 Main St, Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and §]I(B) of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the application for CUP 01 -10 for the proposed personal fitness studio is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August 22, 2001, to consider the application for CUP 01 -10. Section 4. The record of the hearing of July 18, 2001 indicates the following: (a) On August 1, 2001, Judy Fabrizio submitted an application for 01 -10 with the Department of Development Services. (b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to operate a personal fitness studio, which utilizes techniques known commonly as `Dilates ". (c) The subject business contains approximately 944 square feet. (d) The subject property is described* as Orange County assessor's parcel number 199 - 043 -17. (e) The proposed building will include only the proposed business. (f) The nearest residential property is located directly behind the subject business, across a 15 foot alley. (g) The subject business has been operating without a legal business license. (h) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: EAST Residential Housing in a Residential High Density Zone NORTH & Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific Plan Area SOUTH WEST Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific plan zone and Residential High Density (RHD) Zones. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to § §28 -1251, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed personal fitness studio, due to its proposed first floor location, is not consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the Main Street Specific Plan. Such intent and purpose and vision contemplates that the first floor of structures on Main St. shall be utilized for retail commercial sales only. 2. The proposed personal fitness studio, due to its proposed first floor location, is distinguishable from the personal fitness studio approved for the second floor of 109 1/2 Main St. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit 01 -10. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 5th day of September 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES:- Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Ladner Hood, Sharp W e Whitten erg Secretary of the Planning Commis 10 David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fimess Studio 220 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION NUNUTES: SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 01 -10 Appeml.CC Smff Report 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of September 5, 2001 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2001. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.' ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Terence Bogs, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner Absent: None AGENDA APPROVAL - MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Hood opened oral communications. Ms. Judy Fabrizio, the owner of Bella Forma at 220 Main Street, expressed her concems regarding the decision of the Planning Commission at the meeting of August 22, 2001 to deny Conditional Use Permit 01 -10. She requested that the Planning Commission reconsider its decision. She said that based upon what Staff had told her she had acted in good faith. Ms. Fabrizio stated that although she respected Commissioner Brown's decision and his vision for Main Street, she asked that the Planning Commission advise her of what she would need to do in order to ' These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2001 keep her business operating. She said that when she approached the City in March there was no discussion whatsoever, either verbal or written, regarding the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). She stated that she respects the desire to maintain the small town atmosphere in Seal Beach and this was the reason that she decided upon this city as a good place for her business. Ms. Fabrizio emphasized that she did not want to create a problem and would respect the final decision of the Planning Commission. She said that after receiving verbal approval from several Staff members who told her that coming before the Planning Commission was merely a formality, she had in good faith spent her money in this community. (Ms. Fabrizio noted that these Staff members would be legally deposed.) She stated that a CUP for another similar business was being considered at that time and her business was not the problem. She said that she now finds that after five months of successfully running her business she has been denied the privilege to operate on Main Street. Ms. Fabrizio again requested that the Planning Commission reconsider rather than her having to appeal the decision before City Council. She said that her business would bring in revenues but if the Planning Commission so desired, she could expand the retail section of her business to help create more revenues for the City. She emphasized that she wanted to find a workable solution for the City and for her business. She stated that she was told that she would be issued a business license and she could not believe that the City would ask a successful business to leave, in particular after she was told by the Assistant Planner that there would be no problem in having her application approved. There being no other members of the public wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 -0 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Adopt Resolution 01 -37 denying Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 for fitness training studio at 220 Main Street. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2001 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Resolution 01 -37 is presented tonight for consideration based upon the determination at the Planning Commission meeting of August 22, 2001. He said that if the Planning Commission wished to make any changes to the text of Resolution 01 -37, these changes should be included in the motion to approve or deny. Commissioner Sharp stated that due to the nature of the issue and the discussion at this time, two of the representatives of the Planning Commission feel that this decision should be made by City Council. He said that he did not agree with this determination, and he felt that the Councilperson for District 1 should file the appeal rather than having the applicant pay additional fees to appeal this decision. Commissioner Brown commented that it was extremely unusual for a Councilperson to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission, but he would talk to the Councilperson for District 1. Commissioner Sharp stated that under different circumstances he would not even consider making this request, however, because two of the Planning Commissioners had stated that City Council should make the final decision, he felt that completing this process should not place a financial burden upon the applicant. Commissioner Brown stated that although he would not pretend to tell a Councilperson what to do, he would be happy to pass on the suggestion. An unidentified representative of the applicant requested a point of order and stated that the applicant wished to request that the Planning Commission go to a "no finding" because of the position in which Staff has placed the City. He stated that in this way the actual discussion or the record of this hearing would not taint the hearing before City Council, not libeling or exposing the City to possible litigation in the future. Mr. Boga stated that if this matter is appealed to City Council, that hearing would be a Denovo hearing, meaning that everything is open, beginning from scratch and City Council would be free to do as it chooses. Chairperson Hood confirmed that any action or discussion tonight would have nothing to do with what takes place at the hearing before City Council. Mr. Boga confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Cutuli requested further clarification of Mr. Boga's statement. Mr. Boga stated that if this decision is appealed to City Council the Council would not be bound in any way by any Planning Commission action tonight. Commissioner Cutuli asked if there were some way of presenting this issue before City Council with more of a neutral bias. Mr. Boga stated that by City Code the Planning Commission is obligated to make a decision whether to approve or deny. Ms. Fabrizio's representative interjected that by "Parliamentary Rules and Procedures" the Planning Commission is able to find a no finding. Chairperson City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2001 Hood noted that the Commission follows "Robert's Rules of Order." The representative stated that this was an acceptable policy of Robert's Rules of Order." Mr. Boga stated that City Code requires that the Planning Commission make a decision based upon written findings. He said that the City Attorney's office interprets this as whether the Planning Commission decides to approve or deny, there should be findings to support that decision and not simply a mutual recommendation that City Council consider the matter. Chairperson Hood stated that the Planning Commission had made findings of fact at the meeting of August 22, 2001, based upon testimony at that meeting. He noted that this was now a part of the minutes that had been approved by the Planning Commission tonight. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Ladner to adopt Resolution 01 -37 denying Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 4-1 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Ladner NOES: Sharp ABSENT: None Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 01 -37 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 3. NPDES Permit No. CAS 618030 (Order No. 01 -20) Permit Conditions Requiring City Actions Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that this item is being presented to apprise the Planning Commission of this water quality permit currently under final consideration by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and its effect on planning actions of both the Planning Commission and City Council over the next 3-4 years. He said that this permit is expected to be finalized in November, and that specific reviews and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council would be required if this permit is finalized in its current form. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this permit is proposed by the SARWQCB, which comprises basically the northern two- thirds of Orange County. He noted that a.San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board ( SDRWQCB) covers the southern portion of the county. He stated that each of these water quality control boards is issuing permits for 5 -year cycles for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). He explained that the SARWQCB is very different from San Diego or Los Angeles County as the Orange County process is one of developing processes and programs instead of developing Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 210 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 22, 2001 01 -10Ap LCC Staff Report City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 Chairperson Hood noted that in essence what a vote approving this application would state would be that if there are already two exterior stairways on the south side, then this one could also be on the south side. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the restrictions on exterior stairways to the north side apply only to the A Row residences. He stated those homes on the B and C Rows can have entrances and stairways on either side. He said that although changes to the Code attempted to take into account any new construction, it did not take into account the non - conforming structures already in existence. He stated that as he and the Assistant Planner drove along the A Row of homes, they found the large majority of this type of stairway along this row. He recommended that the Commission continue this item for 30 days to the second meeting in September for reconsideration. Commissioner Cutuli recommended asking the SHA what their feeling is regarding stairways on the south side when there are other homes with the stairways on the south. MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue this item to the scheduled meeting of September 19, 2001. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: None ABSENT: None 5. Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 220 Main Street Applicant/Owner: Judie Fabrizio / Jane La Masney Request: To utilize approximately 900 square feet for a personal fitness training studio at an existing building located on Main Street. Recently, the Planning Commission made the finding that this request is allowable under the provisions of the Main Street Specific Plan, subject to Conditional Use Permit. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 01 -37. Staff Reoort Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that this use is not currently defined in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP), although the Planning Commission considered and approved a substantially similar request at the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2001. He described the QAPC Minutes12 0 0110 8 4 2 -01 PC Minutes.doc City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 location as measuring approximately 944 square feet, including a storage room and a restroom. He described the surrounding land uses as follows: NORTH & SOUTH: Commercial businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone. WEST: Commercial businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone and residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. EAST: Residential housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone The Assistant Planner noted that the main difference between the previously approved application and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01 -10 is that Bella Forma is to be located on the first floor level. He stated that Staff does not see a major difference in terms of the impact upon the community and that this use is appropriate for Main Street. Mr. Cummins stated that with regard to the concept of the Planning Commission acting as the "mall manager" along Main Street, when the MSSP was drafted Staff took the view that Main Street was a mix of commercial and service /commercial uses. He said that there were many first -floor service commercial uses along Main Street, and as such, Staff believes that this use fits in within the scope of the MSSP. He reported that currently Bella Forma has been operating without a valid business license. He stated that the applicant, Ms. Fabrizio, had applied for a business license and was informed that a CUP would be necessary. Because her application was received shortly before the application for 2091/2 Main Street was to be reviewed, Ms. Fabrizio was advised by Staff to wait until the Planning Commission had made a determination of proper zoning. Mr. Cummins explained that after the Planning Commission approved the application for 209%2 Main Street and made the determination that all similar applications would require a CUP, Staff informed Ms. Fabrizio of the need to apply for a CUP. He stated that Staff is recommending approval of CUP 01 -10 subject to conditions. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Hood asked whether Ms. Fabrizio had been notified of the need to receive approval of a CUP prior to opening the doors for business. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff had so informed the applicant. Chairperson Hood asked if despite this information, the applicant still opened for business. Mr. Cummins stated that apparently the applicant was under the impression that their request had been .approved. Commissioner Brown asked who had authored the Staff Report for this item. Mr. Cummins reported that he had written the report. QdPC Minules@001W8.22 -01 PC Minutes.doc City of Seat Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 Chairperson Hood asked in the opinion of Staff, what the difference was between and fitness studio and a massage parlor. Mr. Whittenberg responded that massage parlors are a totally different use as defined not only by City Code but also by County of Orange Health and Safety Codes with specific licensing requirements for massage parlors. Chairperson Hood stated that he simply wished to provide clarification on the difference between the two types of establishments. Commissioner Ladner asked if this application would supersede Bella Forma, or would Bella Forma continue to be in business at this location. Mr. Cummins reported that Bella Forma is the name of the applicant for CUP 01 -10. Commissioner Ladner asked if they were currently operating as a one -on -one fitness studio. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Sharp asked W it were unusual for someone to open a business without realizing that it was not a permitted use under City Code. Mr. Whittenberg stated that normally business license applications are submitted to the Finance Department and are then forwarded to the Department of Development Services for review to ensure that the business meets zoning and other requirements prior to issuing the license. He explained that many times a business would go ahead and open while the license is being processed. He stated that Staff has advised the Finance Department that no business should be allowed to open until all necessary approvals have been received. He said that in this particular case, there was quite a lengthy period of time from the time that the application was initially submitted until it was presented to the Department of Development Services for review. He reported that there was also a change in personnel for processing of business licenses and, unfortunately, this application along with several others was delayed. He stated that because there was a problem with the City's processing of this application, the applicant did go ahead and open for business. He noted that once Staff became aware of the situation, they informed the applicant that a CUP would be required. Public Hearing Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. Ms. Judy Fabrizio stated that she wished to clarify that Bella Forma would not be just a one -on -one fitness center. She said that they also had retail workout clothing for sale. She explained that Pilates is not just fitness, but a form of medical rehabilitation. She stated that she had taken possession of the building at 220 Main Street in February and at the beginning of March had applied for a business license. She said that she had only received an oral response from the City stating that she would be approved for a business license. Ms. Fabrizio reported that she was not informed that she would need a CUP until after the applicant for CUP 01 -8, Ms. Julie Beck, came to Ms. Fabrizio requesting support for her application at 2091/2 Main Street. She noted that she had applied for a CUP after the Assistant Planner had told Ms. Fabrizio's secretary that they would require a CUP. She said that she was told to wait to apply until after the Planning Commission had made a determination QAPC Minutes @001108 -22 41 PC Minutes.doe 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 on CUP 01 -8 for fitness centers along Main Street. She emphasized that she had not opened for business without first having investigated whether she would require a business license. Ms. Tracy Barden, a physical therapist and instructor at Bella Forma, stated that she is currently seeing 22 clients, 10 of whom live in Seal Beach and walk to the studio from their residences. She stated that 3 of her clients are senior citizens who are receiving therapy to assist their recovery from strokes. She noted that her other clients come from other cities three to four times a week for their appointments. She said that they also would usually shop or eat in Seal Beach after their workout. Ms. Paula Paloski stated that she had completed the business application two months prior to the scheduled opening. She said that Bella Forma was not contacted by the City prior to opening despite her placing several unretumed telephone calls. She stated that she had contacted Mr. Cummins who had told her that everything was fine, but that Ms. Fabrizio would have to apply for a CUP. Ms. Paloski said that she had requested the application and Mr. Cummins said he would forward it to her. She stated that she never received the application nor did she receive a follow up call until June when Mr. Cummins informed her of Ms. Beck's application for CUP 01 -8, and he also instructed her to wait until a determination was received on whether fitness centers would be allowed on Main Street without the requirement of a CUP. After the public hearing for CUP 01 -8, Ms. Paloski was informed that a CUP would be required and she immediately filed the application. She stated that Bella Forma had never attempted to ignore any of the requirements for operating a business, but was simply not informed in a timely manner of what the requirements are. Ms. Paloski stated that instruction is one -on -one, there is no loud music, and it is a yoga -type workout rather than weight lifting. She said there are never more than 3 clients in the studio at a time with one or two instructors. She noted it is a mind/body fitness method for physical fitness and rehabilitation. Commissioner Ladner asked if both male and female clients would receive instruction. Ms. Paloski stated that this was correct. Commissioner Ladner confirmed that only one unisex restroom would be made available. Ms. Paloski confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Brown said that the applicant had stated that this was not a physical fitness training studio, so he asked how the business was to be described. Ms. Paloski stated that it is a Pilates studio. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the way Staff defines a personal fitness training facility would fall under the type of services provided. He noted that there are other business activities going on at Bella Forma that do not require a CUP. Ms. Fabrizio added that her portion in the business is the retail clothing and she is the manager and owner of the property, but she does not do the physical training. She stated that when she said this was not "personal training," she was stating that this would not involve aerobics, weight training, running, etc. She noted that this was more of a meditative -type workout like Yoga. OAPC Minutes @001108 -22 -01 PC Minutes.doc 11 City of Seal Beach Planning commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 Commissioner Brown asked if this would be closer to physical therapy. Ms. Fabrizio stated that this was how Pilates had started: to help rehabilitate injured dancers. Commissioner Ladner asked how the number of people in the building would be controlled with the retail clothing sales on site. Ms. Fabrizio stated that the clothing line is limited to workout clothing, which is made available for the clients coming in for a training session and to the general public. Commissioner Ladner asked if sufficient parking is available for both staff and clientele. Ms. Fabrizio confirmed that with nine spaces there is sufficient parking. She commented that Bella Forma has been very well received by the residents of Seal Beach and she takes great care in ensuring that the fagade and front sidewalk areas are well maintained. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Sharp noted a correction to Condition No. 8 of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Brown stated that just as he had opposed CUP 01 -8, he is also against approval of this CUP. He noted that the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) is not done by the Planning Commission but by the City of Seal Beach through the City Council. He said that ultimately the decision on any issue that determines the direction, the nature, and the vision for Seal Beach is up to City Council. He stated that the MSSP is the embodiment of City Council's vision of what Main Street should be. He said that the Planning Commission does act like the manager in terms of interpreting what the City Council meant to create. He continued by stating that ultimately all decisions of the Planning Commission are open to appeal to the City Council. He noted that City Council has this authority over Main Street because it is public property as opposed to a mall, which is on private property. He explained that as such, the City provides the parking for this "mall" on Main Street and maintains that parking and also provides trees, landscaping, and security, which can be quite expensive. Commissioner Brown stated that although the City does not determine exactly what businesses go in on Main Street, nor does the City set the rents or own the land, it does determine the overall theme. He said that if the City Council should choose to change the vision for Main Street, the appropriate way to do this would be through the MSSP. He stated that he wished to clarify this for Staff, as it appears that Staff does not understand this. Commissioner Brown noted that the vision for Main Street was to create a retail environment to serve both residents and visitors. He said that in terms of this application, the retail use is not in question, but rather whether this is a personal fitness training studio rather than a retail store. He stated that although he likes what has been done at this location, he does not believe that this is an appropriate use for Main Street, or is it allowed in the MSSP. QAPC Minutest2001%08-22 -01 PC Minutes.doc 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 Commissioner Sharp stated that although he agreed with Commissioner Brown, this business is very similar to CUP 01 -8, which was already approved, and Bella Forma does have sufficient parking, so he believes this application should also be approved. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he believed this would be a worthwhile business on Main Street. He said that he believed this issue should be presented to City Council for a determination as to whether this type of business should be allowed on Main Street. He stated that if he were a member of City Council, he would definitely approve this application, however, for now he would have to agree with Commissioner Brown. Chairperson Hood asked if the MSSP is inclusive or exclusive or both. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Zoning Ordinance Provisions define specific uses that are allowed by right and by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and has a clause that indicates that additional uses can be permitted based upon the determination of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Hood asked if the MSSP was silent on the issue of fitness training centers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Ordinance does not mention fitness studios, but the Commission at its meeting of July 18, 2001 made the determination that this type of use was acceptable subject to obtaining a CUP. Chairperson Hood asked which would be correct: 1. Commissioner Brown's statements that imply that because the MSSP does not mention this use, it should not be allowed. 2. Or as Chairperson Hood understands it, because the MSSP is silent on this particular use, then the Planning Commission would determine the appropriateness of the use. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it was actually a combination of both. He explained that the uses permitted by right are listed in the City Code, and those reflect the uses discussed at the time the MSSP was adopted. He noted that the City Council also adopted a Zoning Ordinance Provision that Staff uses. He said that at the time the MSSP was created, this type of land use was not as popular as it is today. He stated that the Code does state that other uses that are found to be substantially similar by the Planning Commission can be allowed once the Planning Commission makes that determination. Commissioner Brown stated that he did not feel that Chairperson Hood had conveyed a correct characterization of his statements. He corrected by saying that what he had said was that the overall vision of the MSSP is a retail environment. He said he never mentioned that uses were included or excluded. He stated that what Staff is saying is that if there is a new use, the Planning Commission determines whether it is more similar to a use that is allowed or to a use that is not allowed. He said that this does not mean that the use is defined as allowed or not allowed, but WPC Minule51200110a -22 ,01 PC Minules.doc 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 simply means that the Planning Commission defines the use by looking at the intent of the MSSP and determines whether the use falls within this intent. Commissioner Ladner commented that this use would have some retail value. Commissioner Brown stated that certain uses are allowed by right, but a gymnasium is not an allowed use, and it is not a good use for the first story retail area of Main Street. Commissioner Ladner asked what percentage of the business would be retail. Commissioner Brown suggested re- opening the public hearing in order to ask the applicant. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the issue was not whether retail is to be the major use of the building, but whether City Code allows a personal fitness studio as a use subject to a CUP. Commissioner Sharp stated that because the Planning Commission had already approved CUP 01 -8, with no objections from City Council, that CUP 01 -10 should also be approved. Chairperson Hood asked if CUP 01 -10 is granted who is eligible to appeal this decision. Mr. Whittenberg stated that any individual could appeal this decision. Chairperson Hood asked what the cost would be if a City Councilmember were to appeal this decision. Mr. Whittenberg said that there were no costs involved. Chairperson Hood asked if there would be a cost for the applicant to file an appeal. Mr. Whittenberg confinned that there would be an application fee. Chairperson Hood expressed his concern for facilitating review by City Council should the Planning Commission deny this application, without incurring further fees for the applicant. MOTION by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 01 -20 and adopt Resolution 01 -37. Motion dies for lack of a second. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to deny Conditional Use Permit 01 -10. MOTION CARRIED: 3 -2 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, and Ladner NOES: Hood and Sharp ABSENT: None Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would return with Resolution 01 -37 reflecting the Planning Commission's decision at the next scheduled meeting. He also advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 01 -37 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. OdPC MinutesWW08 -22 -01 PC Mlnutes.doc 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2001 Commissioner Sharp asked whether Bella Forma would be allowed to continue to operate in the interim. Mr. Boga stated that the City Attorney's office has not received direction to attempt to close down this business. He recommended that until the appeal process is complete that Bella Forma be allowed to continue to operate pending final action by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Whittenberg reported that no public hearings are scheduled for the meeting of September 5, 2001, and that Staff would attempt to schedule study session matters for that meeting. Chairperson Hood noted that he had received a copy of the faxed letter from Walt Miller and inquired whether Staff has prepared a response to Mr. Millers letter. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was provided for the information of the Planning Commission, but Staff would provide an appropriate response to Mr. Miller's letter and provide a copy to the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on September 5, 2001 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, August 22, 2001. QAPC Mlnulest2001W8 -22 -o1 PC Minutes.doc 15 Public Hearing — Appeal ofP /aping Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 210 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01 -10, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, AUGUST 22, 2001 01 -10 A,.LCC SWff Report August 22, 2001 STAFF REPORT - To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01 -10 220 Main St. GENERAL DESCRIPTION JUDI FABRIZIO JANE LA MASNEY 220 MAIN ST. MAIN ST. SPECIFIC PLAN (MSSP) THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE ABILITY TO OPERATE A PERSONAL TRAINING FITLNESS STUDIO ON MAIN ST. THE USE IS NOT CURRENTLY DEFINED ON MAIN ST., BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECENTLY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THIS USE IS ACCEPTABLE, SUBJECT TO CUP. THIS PROJECT 1S. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEGATIVE DECLARATION 96 -1 28- 1250; 28 -2503; 28 -2504 APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED'BY STAFF, AND AS MAY BE FURTHER REVISED BY THE COMMISSION AFTER CONSIDERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY. CUP 01 -10, r canning Commission StafReport 120 Main St. 8/27/01 FACTS • On August 1, 2001 Judi Fabrizio (the "Applicant"), filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 01 -10. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to operate a personal fitness gymnasium on Main St. • The subject business is approximately 944 square feet, including a storage room and restroom. • The subject property has 6 parking spaces in the rear of the building. • This is the only use in the proposed, single story building. • The nearest residential property is located directly to the rear of the subject property, across a 15' alley. • The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH & SOUTH Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone WEST Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone & Residential Housing in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone EAST Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHD) zone • The subject property is considered to meet all on -site parking requirements as required by the current Municipal Code. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to operate a gymnasium use on Main St. This particular use is not defined as being an allowable use on Main St. currently. The Planning Commission made the determination that this type of land use is permissible on Main St., subject to Conditional Use Permit, at its meeting of July 18, 2001. This application is substantially similar to CUP 01 -8, which was approved across the street at 209 % Main St. The only caveat is that this application is for an establishment which is proposed to be located on the first floor. I CUP 01 -10, r,anning Commission StafjReport 220 Main St. 8/22/01 The applicant is proposing to utilize approximately 944 square feet of space for "personal fitness training." Staff sees this as being much different than a "Gym" use. Generally, gym uses are associated with large spaces with cardio - vascular equipment, free weights, and other apparatus in large building spaces. This use will be predominantly, if not completely, 1 on 1 training. In terms of impacts on the surrounding community, staff feels that this type of use is really not different than any other retail type of use due to the one on one nature of the business. In terms of parking, the predominant issue with land use on Main St., staff sees this type of business being substantially similar to that of a retail use, at lspace /500 feet. In a crossover of similar puking demanded uses, where no new parking is being demanded, there is no parking deficiency, regardless of how much physical parking is on site. As suck, staff sees no more impact on parking with use than the previous use. The applicant is proposing to operate 7 days a week, from 7 AM to 7 PM. Staff does not see any problem with this, provided a condition is added which indicates that the clientele will park on Main St., so as to alleviate any noise issues in the alley, with close proximity to residential housing. When this issue was last discussed by the Commission, there was some feeling that the City should act as a "Mall Manager" when considering applications before them. Staff feels that this might not be the most appropriate way to approach these types of applications. Staff sees the "Mall Manager" as someone who can dictate tenants and land uses alike, when the Planning Commission is primarily charged with assessing the impacts a particular land use might have on the surrounding area. In terms of Conditional Use permits, the Commission should consider the impacts of a particular land use (regardless of tenant) on the surrounding community. These impacts might be noise, parking, environmental effects, traffic issues, etc. Staff would like to point out to the Commission that within the Main St. Specific Plan, the Commission can make the determination that a particular land use does not fall within the scope and vision of the plan, but most be careful not to consider certain businesses to be within that scope and others not, even though those businesses are substantially similar land uses. In relation to the issue of compatibility with the Main St. Specific Plan, staff views this street as being a mix of retail and service commercial uses. This is interpreted to mean that a myriad of different land uses are acceptable. This was envisioned to service not only the visitor and tourist clientele, but also the local patrons. Staff sees this application as fitting in within that scope. The Commission was also concerned regarding I' and 2 "d floor operation of this type of land use. Staff sees no realistic difference in terms of impacts on the community from having the land use on either the first or second floor. Additionally, the proposed business has been operating without a valid business license for some time. The applicant applied for a business license and due to some changeover within the finance department personnel, the application was delayed in reaching the Planning Department. When Planning received the document, staff informed the applicant that they would need a CUP to determine whether or not the land use was appropriate on Main St. The applicant asked how that process worked and staff informed them. At that time, the other applicant at 209 %: Main St. submitted a completed application for a CUP and determination of zoning for a personal fitness studio. Staff advised Bella Forma, tonight's applicant, that they should wait until the determination was made regarding zoning. At some CUP 01 -10, Ymnning Commission Staff Report 220 Main St. 8122101 point Bella Forma began operation. Staff is not sure of the exact date, as no business license has yet been issued. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, approve Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 subject to conditions regarding the proposed use and a twelve -month review period. Staff's recommendation is based upon the following: o Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Main St. Specific Plan" zoning designation for the subject property. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. • The proposed personal fitness studio is consistent with surrounding residential and commercial uses, in that the relative size of the space being utilized as workout area is sufficiently small enough so as to not attract a substantially large amount of people. As such, the personal fitness studio will realistically not have any greater impact on the community than any other retail use. • The building and property are adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property. • The Planning Commission made a determination on July 18, 2001, that personal fitness studios were an appropriate land use under the Main St. Specific Plan, subject to Conditional Use Permit. Approval of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10 should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 01- 37 with the following conditions in place: 1. CUP No. 01 -10 is approved for the operation of a personal fitness studio business located at 220 Main St. 2. All clientele will park on Main St. between the hours of 7 AM and 9 AM, to alleviate potential noise related effects of parking. 3. The hours of this CUP shall be 7 AM to 7 PM, 7 days a week. 4. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of CUP 01 -10, running Commission Staff Report 110 Main St. 8/22/01 Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed. 5. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when: a. The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval. b. There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the establishment. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail- related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti- social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter. 7. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 8. The tern of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions. Mac Cummins Assistant Planner Attachments: (4) Attachment 1: Application Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution Attachment 3: Photos Attachment 4: Plans e Whittenberg Director of Development Services CUP 01 -10. rianning Commission Staff Report 220 Main St. 8/22/01 ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICA'T'ION ppk r ry ,_ 1. Property Address: aso - 11tc 2. County Assessors Parcel No: 3. Applicant's Name: Address: 140 l�lSiLl Phone: Home (q4q ) '7 (1 -, FAx: (gLLq) `7 I q - �jqq 2 4. Property Owner's Address: Eb Home Phone: P2 5. Work: (9,21 -I LtOQCO General Plan and Zoning Designation: Present Use of Property: 7. Proposed Use of P, Property: I0--,JeS (� O a. Request For: 'T"i I Gt -s g i Ltr Lt D iD bP— hx�d- (�- 220 K to 541,04- ?. Describe the Proposed Use: �2sSior�S b c�(?pair f rnef ©t lc� Yy 3eren� Cihywspl erg 10. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: SkI 40 1A7"5pL?'rP- i5 "very ebb -fJ F Page 7 cy�xa.ra,nc -c u.r� rem. 2100 = CITY OfySEAL BEACH PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION Ll ppk r ry ,_ 1. Property Address: aso - 11tc 2. County Assessors Parcel No: 3. Applicant's Name: Address: 140 l�lSiLl Phone: Home (q4q ) '7 (1 -, FAx: (gLLq) `7 I q - �jqq 2 4. Property Owner's Address: Eb Home Phone: P2 5. Work: (9,21 -I LtOQCO General Plan and Zoning Designation: Present Use of Property: 7. Proposed Use of P, Property: I0--,JeS (� O a. Request For: 'T"i I Gt -s g i Ltr Lt D iD bP— hx�d- (�- 220 K to 541,04- ?. Describe the Proposed Use: �2sSior�S b c�(?pair f rnef ©t lc� Yy 3eren� Cihywspl erg 10. Describe how and if the proposed improvements are appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: SkI 40 1A7"5pL?'rP- i5 "very ebb -fJ F Page 7 cy�xa.ra,nc -c u.r� rem. 2100 11. Describe how and if the approval of this Unclassified Use Permit would be detrimental in anyway to other property % the vicinity: Q-)r N 12. Proof of Ownership Staff is to attach here a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Dead provided by the applicant. W Signed and notarized O+mefs Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): S3 Pte,.,i -, eGl9 "L 9&,11A, W.- )n hl�L IfW n-:, ;L T '.d-(LL 't?.�.c_�t1 , J tyaa. - G y iivG W By. 1 $q— I —q 31 (Signature of Applicant) uei_A rl-ByIEiO (Pint Name) (Cate) Page a Rev. vua Environmental Informatiop and Checklist Form For OM Use -Only AppGrafan No Date Fled: General Information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor. Name: IiS Address: City State: Zip: Telephone: FAX: 2. Address of Project: KCU n 15 f2t Assessors Parcel Number: lq<l 1`7 I Name and address of Project Contact Person: Name: N f Ih Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: FAX: 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies �f 5. Existing zoning: nn Existing General Plan: 6. Proposed use of site: (l it ACS S Page 11 Rev. z Project Descriptic 7. Site size (square footage): �ro� ` CD SL{ 8. Square footage of proposed Project: P i 9. Number of Floors of construction: 10. Amount of off -street parking provided: r fLCLS D� )^C lc�tt'i 11. .Plans (attach) bLU h 12. Propo.,ed scheduling: t�L� 13. Associated projects: ro I-k 14. Anticipated incremental development. iJ 15. 16. 17. For residential projects, indicate the A Number of units: B. Unit sizes: C. Range of sale prices or rents: D. Household size(s) expected*. For commercial projects, indicate the: A Type of project: Iv' B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: C. Square footage of sales areas: D. Size of loading facilities: For industrial projects, indicate the: A Type of project: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. Size of loading facilities: 18. For institutional projects, indicate the: A Major function: Page 12 Rev. vao B. C. D. E. Estimated employ ent per s;tift: Estimated occupancy: Size of loading facilities T Community benefits derived from the project: 19. ff the project involves a variance, conditional use permitfunconditional use permit, height variation or rezoning application, state this and indicate dearly why the Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any bays tidelands Page 13 Rev. coo beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours? ..._ 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 28. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. Page 13 Rev. coo _ ✓ 29. Substant` I coange in demand for municipal service (police, f„ o, water, sewage, etc.). 30. Substantially : Increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). J31. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 32. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scznic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 0 1 33. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of rand use (one- family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. N Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers on separate sheets.) 34. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? -b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the she? Page 14 YES MAYBE NO V/ Y Rev. Ma MAYBE NO d J/ Page 15 kev. voo YES f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, _ ground failure, or similar hazards? 35. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? - - C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 36. Water. Will the proposal result in: - a. Changes in currents, "a course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? C. Alteration to the course or flax of flood waters? d. Change in amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? 1. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? MAYBE NO d J/ Page 15 kev. voo 71 36. Page 16 R.Y. zroo YES MAY'E NO g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for / public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? J j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow or chemical content of surface thermal springs? ✓ Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees; shrubs. grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of / existing species? ✓ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects and microfauna)? c/ Page 16 R.Y. zroo b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species or animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 39. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people-to server noise levels? 40. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 41. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. 42. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 43. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances (nciuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the even of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or.an emergency evacuation plan? YES MAYBE Q J V y V Page 17 rte, LOO 44. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growlh rate of the human population of an area? 45. H usin . Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 46. Transportation /Cir ulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people .and /or goods? e. Alienations to waterbome, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 47'. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Page 18 i YES MAYBE NO / J/ C/ Rev. 2/00 48, Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 49. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ti. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water damage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 50. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure or people to potential health hazards? 51. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 52. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? YES MAYBE NO V V/ V V J Page 19 Rev. MO S4. 111--- b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Mandatory Findings of Significance a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant and animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tern, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -tern impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) Page 20 YES MAYBE NO J V/ Rev. Zoo YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may affect two are more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 21 Re,,, zoo .:#TOTE. Bef^re a.Lead Vency can accept this apprication as complete, the applicant must consult the lists prepared p :.cant to section ;859e2.5 of the Govemmep Code and submit a signed statement indicating yhether the project and any alternatives are located on a she which is included on any such list, and shall i:SPecdY any list..: , Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any attematives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: 1. Name of applicant 22V `' 1 :2� D 2. Street: 14C)l pr-,Ve-� 3. City: —qtr en D_Z.Q. Ma-1- 4. Zip Code: '�a(Qa � 5. Phone Number. ky) Itq— 0$ZS 6. Address of site (street and zip): 1'r ��C1 r'1 dl Y �.R-7 ��C�Dtrivv 7. Local Agency (city /county): a. Assessor's Parcel Number. 9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: hJ I he 10. Regulatory identification number: 11. Dafle of list: J Dat a Signature Jb, Applicant: Page 23 Rev. nO NOTE: In the event t' at the project site and qny alternatives are not listed on any list complied pursuant tc Section 65962.5 of W Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this applicatjpn are not contained on these lists. 15; a 'iris Page 24 Rev. ua PROPERTY OWNE -I'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } CITY OF SEAL BEACH } COUNTY OF ORANGE } (IY(we), / (Name) swear that (I amy(we are) the owner of the property at: (SWeel Address) tcily) (State) (ZIP) and that (I am) /(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing and filing a Plan Review application. The information contained in the attached Plan Review application is correct to the best of (myy(our) knowledge and (I)) e) apProvvee of this application to do th�follovnng work: y14 SO 151��1 5i7rc1 .� p. (PnM Name) IB D AND SWOR T BEFORE E 3 T}f D YOF 11LLVANTUY i COMM.#1164203 v j f - 2' �i - NIMY?+Nic Cacao y m OPANGECOUN��i' iKyP &blic Page 26 R., Mc CUP 01 -10. manning Commission StafReport 120 Main St. 8122/0/ ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION CUP 01 -10, r,anning Commission Staff Report 210 Main St. 8122101 RESOLUTION NUMBER 0 1-3 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CUP NO. 01 -10, ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A PERSONAL FITNESS STUDIO AT 220 MAIN ST. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On August 1, 2001, Judy Fabrizio (the "Applicant ") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, seeking to allow a personal fitness studio to operate at the property located at 220 Main St. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and §II(B) of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the application for CUP 01.10 for the proposed interior remodeling is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August 22, 2001, to consider the application for CUP 01 -10. Section 4. The record of the hearing of July 18, 2001 indicates the following: (a) On August 1, 2001, Julie Beck submitted an application for 01 -l0 with the Department of Development Services. (b) Specifically, the applicant is proposing to operate a personal fitness studio. (c) The subject business contains approximately 944 square feet. (d) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel number 199 - 043 -17. (e) The proposed building will include only the proposed business. CUP 01 -10, r conning Commission Staff Report 210 Main St. 8122101 (f) The nearest residential properly is located directly behind the subject business, across a 15 foot alley. (g) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: EAST Residential Housing in a Residential High Density Zone NORTH & Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific Plan Area SOUTH WEST Commercial Businesses in the Main St. Specific plan zone and Residential High Density (RHD) Zones. Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to § §28 -1400, 28 -2503 and 28 -2504 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: ❑ Conditional Use Permit 01 -8 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "Main St. Specific Plan" zoning designation for the subject property. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. • The proposed personal fitness studio is consistent with surrounding residential and commercial uses, in that the relative size of the space being utilized as workout area is sufficiently small enough so as to not attract a substantially large amount of people. As such, the personal fitness studio will realistically not have any greater impact on the community than any other retail use. • The building and property are adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property. ' • The Planning Commission made a determination on July 18, 2001, that personal fitness studios were an appropriate land use under the Main St. Specific Plan, subject to Conditional Use Permit. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, subject to the following conditions: I. CUP No. 01 -10 is approved for the operation of a personal fitness studio business located at 220 Main St. 2. _ All clientele will park on Main St. between the hours of 7 AM and 9 AM, to alleviate Potential noise related effects of parking. CUP 01 -10, r,anning Commission Staff Report 220 Main St. 8122101 3. The hours of this CUP shall be 7 AM to 7 PM, 7 days a week. 4. This CUP shall not become effective for any purpose unless/until a City "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) calendar -day appeal period has elapsed. 5. A modification of this CUP shall be applied for when: • The establishment proposes to modify any of its current Conditions of Approval. • There is a substantial change in the mode or character of operations of the establishment. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach if harm or retail- related problems are demonstrated to occur as a result of criminal or anti- social behavior, including but not limited to the congregation of minors, violence, public drunkenness, vandalism, solicitation and/or litter. 7. This CUP shall become null and void unless exercised within one (1) year of the date of final approval, or such extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to a written request for extension submitted to the Department of Development Services a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to such expiration date. 8. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, beginning the first day of operation of the new restaurant. At the end of the initial term, the applicant may apply to the City for an indefinite extension. The Planning Commission may grant an extension as discussed above, provided that all Conditions of Approval have been met and no significant police or other problems have occurred. The applicant is hereby advised that a new application and accompanying fee must be submitted to the City prior to consideration of any extensions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of Aueust 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners luo Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission II CUP 01-10, manning Commission StafRepon 210 Main St. 8/21/0/ David Hood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Planning Commission CUP 01 -10, Panning Commission Staff Report 220 Main St. 8/22/01 ATTACHMENT 3 PHOTOS 12 I *N& Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01 -10, Personal Fitness Studio 210 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 18, 2001 0140 Ap LCC Staff Report 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 Mr. Whittenberg reported that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission is August 8, 2001. 4. Conditional Use Permit 01 -8 209'/: Main Street Applicant/Owner.. Julie Beck / Flora Trostler Request: The ability to operate a personal training fitness studio on Main Street. The use is not currently defined on Main Street. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 01 -32. Staff Repo t Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that the purpose of this hearing tonight was for CUP 01 -8 and also for the Planning Commission to make a Determination of Zoning that the proposed use is appropriate within the scope of the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). He reported that the proposed location is approximately 700 square feet and is located above BJ's Pizza Restaurant. He said that Staff believes this to be a different land use than a gymnasium, which is defined in the General Commercial C -2 Zone. He noted that neither use is defined on Main Street. He stated that the applicant is proposing to operate 7 days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and will have some music. Mr. Cummins said that Staff is aware that this may be a concern, but noted that every business in the City is subject to noise restrictions, which place a certain decibel level restriction on any business activity. He stated that parking might also be an issue, particularly with a newly defined land use. He said that Staff sees this use as somewhat similar to a retail land use as the fitness center will provide only one-on -one training and will not offer classes for large groups. He stated the Staff is recommending that the parking ratio be the same as that for a retail land use of 1 space per 500 square feet. He noted that the previous business at this location had been a retail store and the parking need would be the same. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff is recommending approval of CUP 01 -8 and that the Planning Commission make the determination that a personal fitness studio would be an appropriate land us along Main Street by right and direct Staff to prepare the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to do this. Mr. Cummins noted that another application for a similar use is pending. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Cutuli asked how Staff would determine whether this fitness center was creating too much noise for the business underneath it (BJ's). Mr. Whittenberg stated that this issue would be outside the purview of the Planning Commission. He UCULLrCARMENIPC Minutes @001107 -1841 PC Minutes.doc 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 reported that the property owner determines the appropriate mix of tenants to which the property would be leased. He stated that Staffs concern is that there would be nothing up there, like a heavy weight, that might endanger the structural stability of the supports for the second floor area. He stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this is a valid concern, Staff would recommend denial of CUP 01 -8 and make the determination that these types of business are not permitted above an existing business within the community. Commissioner Sharp stated that his concern was whether this older structure could support the use of very heavy weight training equipment. Commissioner Ladner questioned the hours of operation and asked about the parking situation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is concerned that fitness training patrons arriving between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. not park in the alley but on Main Street so as to not disturb the residents living opposite the alley. Commissioner Ladner inquired whether the fitness center would be for women or men only. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the applicant would have to respond to this question. Chairperson Hood asked if Staff had looked at the parking issue with regard to intensification of use. Mr. Cummins responded that because this use has not yet been defined, the parking requirements would be up to the determination of the Planning Commission. Public Hearing Chairperson Hood opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Julie Beck stated that she would be the only trainer in the studio. She said that several of her clients live in Seal Beach and are present tonight. She reported that she has been servicing clients from Long Beach, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach since October 1997. Ms. *Beck clarified that she was not proposing to have a gym but a fitness studio where clients can come for one -on -one attention. She said that she was proposing to use 300 square feet of the 700 square foot site for an office and lobby area, and the remainder of the area for the workout area. She reported that she would service both male and female clients with short sessions lasting 60 minutes. Ms. Beck stated that she would be the only trainer and that the music she would use would not be disruptive to the restaurant below. She described some of the equipment that she would use, including special rubber flooring to help minimize the noise from weights being dropped. She said that the maximum size weights that she would use would be 30 pounds. Mr. David Rosenman spoke on behalf of himself and his neighbor, Brent Matthews, in opposition to CUP 01 -8. He stated that the main issue here is a land use issue that once granted is there forever. He noted that he is in disagreement with responses on the application that reflect that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) \19CULLrCARMENIPC Minutes12001 \07 -1841 PC Minutes.tlac 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 would be necessary. He stated that there were potential problems with noise, parking, transportation, and circulation. Mr. Rosenman said that this use is not compatible with the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). He cautioned that the Commissioners carefully consider their determination on this application. He said that there were other more appropriate locations in Seal Beach for this type of use. Mr. Gordon Shanks spoke in opposition to CUP 01 -8. He stated that in reviewing this item the considerations should be: 1. Is it advisable? 2. Is it going to work? 3. Can it be controlled? He quoted from the Staff Report, which states, "As such, the personal fitness studio will realistically not have any greater impact on the community than any other retail use." Mr. Shanks noted that typically there have been office type businesses on the second stories along Main Street. He stated that because fitness training always involves some kind of music, his concern is that the volume of the music will create noise problems, particularly during the early morning hours. Mr. Shanks also cited potential problems with having more than one trainer on site at the same time and with parking for clients. He emphasized that this was not a use that belongs on Main Street. 24/ M s. Rhonda Finby, a client of Ms. Beck's, spoke in support of CUP 01 -8. She said 25 that Ms. Beck comes to her home when: she has a studio where her workouts are 26 conducted. She said that her workouts take place at 5:00 a.m. and music is played 27 to accompany these workouts. She noted that her husband is asleep on the second 28 floor at this time and does not hear the music. She explained that because the 29 training is one -on -one, the music cannot be so loud that she cannot hear Ms. Beck's 30 instructions. Ms. Finby stated that were Ms. Beck to propose training more than 1 31 person at a time, she would no longer avail herself of Ms. Beck's services. She said 32 that parking would is not a problem, as she would walk to Main Street for her 33 appointments. 34 35 Ms. Nancy Flag spoke in favor of CUP 01 -8. She said that she has been a client of 36 Ms. Beck's for 4 years and stated that she would not participate in group training, as 37 she prefers the one -on -one attention. She noted that many times her workout is 38 done without music. She stated that there is usually a lot of activity on Main Street 39 during the early morning hours and once BJ's opens for business, it can get quite 40 noisy. She said that parking for a one - on-one fitness center should not be an issue. 41 42 Ms. Judy Fabrizio, the owner of Bella Forma fitness, spoke in favor of CUP 01 -8. 43 She said that she is also applying for a business license. She said that when she 44 had originally applied for a license, she was told that there would be no problem with 45 this use. She said that she went ahead with the remodel and opened for business 46 and did not receive a response on her application. Ms. Fabrizio stated that because %4SCULLV CARMEN%PC Minutest 001\07 -18 -01 PC Minutes.doc 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 the remodel was such an improvement, the City never challenged her. She said that her business has plenty of parking in the rear, she is not near residences, and her workout is more of a meditative, Zen, rehab type of workout. Ms. Fabrizio reported that she had circulated a petition to the surrounding businesses soliciting their support and asking them to express any concerns about her business. She noted that her business also provides one -on -one training starting at 7:00 a.m. and there is only one instructor at a time at Bella Forma. She said that the responses to her petition were very positive. She encouraged the support of female -owned businesses and invited the Commissioners to visit her studio before making a determination. Ms. Julie Quinn, a client of Ms. Beck's, spoke in support of CUP 01 -8. She stated that she would like to be able to come to Ms. Beck's fitness center to make use of the special equipment she will have available. She noted that there are more dogs in this community making noise at 6:00 a.m. than any gym would ever create. She also encouraged support of female -owned businesses. She said that she would be walking to her appointments. Ms. Flora Tostler, owner of the property at 209'/2 Main, stated that initially she was concerned about the noise issue, as she is more concerned about BJ's than she is about Ms. Beck's fitness center. She said that she is confident that the noise level will not interfere with business at BJ's. She said that the former retail use had generated more traffic than she believes the fitness studio would. She stated that if the Planning Commission carefully assigns conditions for this use, this would help to alleviate the concerns expressed regarding noise and parking. Mr. Reg Clewley stated his concern about neighborhood compatibility with having a fitness center surrounded by eating and drinking establishments. He wondered whether this might not create animosity between the businesses with fitness clients ending their appointments by eating pizza. He recommended that Condition No. 3 be stricken from the Conditions of Approval, as it is unenforceable. He noted an error on Condition No. 9, Line 2, which states "the new restaurant" and should read "personal training fitness studio." Mr. Mark Finby stated that his wife has worked out with Ms. Beck for a long time. He stated that he always sleeps through the entire workout period without hearing any noise from downstairs. With regard to parking, Mr. Finby noted that there is no alley entrance to the property making it more convenient to park on Main Street. He said that this particular use is already being done by Tru -To -Form on Main Street, and Ms. Beck's training is strictly one -on -one, rather than in groups like Tru -To -Form. He stated that even if Ms. Beck were to have another trainer on site with another client, this would still only comprise 4 people total. He recommended approval of CUP 01 -8. Ms. Casey Riley, an employee of Ms. Beck's spoke in favor of CUP 01 -8. She explained that fitness workouts have evolved from what the standard image of an 118CULLrCARMEMPC Minutes\2001 \07.18 -01 PC Mlnat.S.dOC 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2001 aerobics gym setting would be. She stated that the loud music with a thumping beat is not what is used with this type of workout. She said that the music used is very relaxing. Ms. Riley stated that she very often refers out-of -town clients to the restaurants and nail salons in Seal Beach. Ms. Julie Beck stated that she would be in agreement with the Code and Conditions of Approval as they are written. She recommended that a distinction be made between an aerobics studio and a personal training fitness center. She stated that her biggest concern is to help clients who come to her for help. She said that she would be happy to provide any information needed to write the determination of use. There being no other member of the public wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Sharp stated that Leisure World has a fitness studio of about the same dimensions as the proposed property. He stated that when he has had occasion to walk through this facility, it is quiet and the patrons are busy doing their individual workouts. Commissioner Brown stated that he was not concerned about the noise issue, but he has always viewed Main Street as a mall, with the City as the mall manager. He said that the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) is very specific in stating that Main Street would be a retail environment. He stated that this would not be the type of use you would want in a retail mall. Commissioner Brown noted that he had no objection to this type of use in other areas of the City. He said he disagreed with Staffs comment that this would be the same as any other retail establishment, since it is not a retail but a service establishment that would not generate sales revenues. He commented that due to good zoning and businesses Main Street has gone from being a "ghost town" to being a very vibrant street, and he would 'not want to see this change. He said that with regard to parking, should the Planning Commission approve this application, he believes the appropriate number of parking spaces should be determined more along the lines of what would be required of a beauty salon rather than a retail establishment. Commissioner Brown stated that he did not believe the fitness studio would create any more noise than SYS. He emphasized that he would prefer to have more retail businesses on Main Street. Commissioner Ladner asked for more information on what the total weight of the free weights would be. Chairperson Hood re- opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Julie Beck reported that she would have on site a 4 -foot dumbbell rack that will hold 3 pairs of 3 -lb. dumbbells, 2 pairs of 5- lb. dumbbells, 2 pairs of 8- lb.. 1 set of 10- lb., 1 set of 12- lb., 1 set of 15- lb., 1 set of 20- lb., 1 set of 25- lb., and 1 set of IISCULL=ARMENIPC MinutesaGO`[ -1841 PC Minutes.doe 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 30- lb. dumbbells. She also noted that she has purchased a 17.5 -lb. bar for use with bicep curls and a set of 4 2.5 -lb. weight plates, a set of 5 -lb. weight plates, a set of 10 -lb. weight plates, and a set of 25 -lb. weight plates. Commissioner Ladner asked if she had attempted dropping a weight on the floor above BJ's to test the noise level. Ms. Beck stated that at this time this would not provide an accurate measure, as she has not had the special cushioned rubber flooring installed. Ms., Flora Trostler stated that although she understood that the City would like to promote more retail business on Main Street, this property was formerly a small accounting firm for several years. She said that this business would create revenue as clients would stop and shop or eat after visiting the fitness center. She stated that this would be a better use than some other businesses proposed. Chairperson Hood closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Brown regarding Main Street being like a mall, because most of the second -story areas are not conducive to retail sales. He noted that as society changes, the City must stay aware of what interests the public. He said that weight training and personal fitness are very popular today. He stated that if this CUP is approved the Planning Commission does have the option of revoking in the future if this use presents any problems. Commissioner Sharp stated that this use is the same as a beauty shop, and he does not feel that the Planning Commission has the right to dictate to landlords regarding whether the businesses on their properties are generating sales tax. He said that he could not see that this use would be a problem. Commissioner Brown confirmed the Director of Development Services' statement that approval of this CUP would allow these businesses "by right." Mr. Whittenberg stated that the CUP process was utilized to bring this use before the Planning Commission for consideration. He continued by stating that Staff would then request separate direction regarding whether the Planning Commission would want to review similar applications through the CUP process or through a definition that limits this use. Commissioner Brown stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Sharp and that the Planning Commission does have the right to determine the types of businesses that would operate on Main Street. Commissioner Sharp interjected that the Planning Commission can do so based on use and not based on whether or not the business will generate sales tax. Commissioner Brown responded that in accordance with the MSSP the Planning Commission should create a retail environment, which in turn does generate sales tax. Chairperson Hood stated that he was in agreement with both Commissioners. He explained that the Planning Commission does have the right to determine the type of business mix on Main Street, and to determine what is compatible. He noted that the subject that has come up tonight is one of primary and secondary uses. He UCULLY CARMEMPC Minutest 001W.18-01 PC Minutes.Coc 13 City of Seal Beach Planning commission Meeting Minutes of July 16, zool stated that a primary use business would be one generally located in the downstairs of the building with the secondary use on the second floor. He said that it was the Planning Commission's job to decide whether the secondary uses are complimentary, supplemental, or detrimental to the existing businesses. He stated that this determination should not necessarily be made solely on the ability of the business to generate sales tax. He noted that the concern was whether or not the Commission would be allowing uses that might be detrimental. MOTION by Brown to deny Conditional Use Penult 01 -8. Motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Condition No. 9 would be corrected to remove the word `restaurant' and replace it with "personal training fitness studio." Commissioner Brown stated that the method for determining the parking requirements for this type of use had not been settled. The Director of Development Services stated that Staff sees this type of use not having a demand for parking greater than that of a normal retail business on Main Street. Commissioner Brown referred to Commissioner Sharp's comment about this use being similar to a beauty parlor and asked what the parking requirement would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in order to develop a parking requirement based on the number of parking spaces per personal trainer, the requirement would be 2 spaces per trainer. He reported that based on the size of the building the retail parking requirement would be 2 spaces, and with a similar standard for the trainer, the building would be restricted to the use of one trainer. Commissioner Brown asked if the Conditions of Approval stipulate these parking requirements. Mr. Whittenberg stated that if this use were to be determined to be the same as any other retail use, parking requirements would not have to be specified. He said that if the Commission were to determine the parking on some other criterion then this would have to be specified in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Cutuli asked if the parking restriction would apply to having two trainers on site during all business hours or one trainer on site per shift. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would interpret this to be the parking requirement for one trainer on site at a time. He noted that to rule otherwise would require that one- time in -lieu parking fees of $3,500 per space to be paid for 2 additional parking spaces in order to have two trainers on site at a time. Commissioner Cutuli asked that Staff include the appropriate wording specifying one trainer on site during any time that the business is open. Commissioner Sharp stated that this might create a problem with overlap of shifts. . Commissioner Ladner inquired about both a trainer and the business owner being on site at the same time while the owner performs bookwork. Commissioner Brown responded that at that time the owner would not be functioning as a trainer. MCULLYICARMEN%PC Minutes12001W -1801 PC Minutes.doc 14 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 18, 2001 MOTION by Brown as an amendment to the MOTION; SECOND by Cutuli to direct Staff to include under the Conditions of Approval the parking requirement of 2 parking spaces to be provided for each trainer licensed simultaneously serving clients at the facility. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Brown Cutuli, Hood, and Ladner NOES: Sharp ABSENT: None MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 01 -8 and adopt Resolution 01 -32 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp NOES: Brown ABSENT: None Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 01 -32 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff has received a new application for a Senior Assisted Care Facility as part of the Bixby project. He stated that the Marriott Corporation was previously approved as the builder for this facility but has decided not to proceed and a new provider has submitted a CUP application for a facility on the same location with a slightly different floor plan. He noted that the application would come before the Planning Commission sometime in late August or early September. COMMISSION CONCERNS Chairperson Hood stated that he visited Hennessey's to check on the patio doors and reported that the glass on these doors is not double paned. ADJOURNMENT 43 Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. 44 45 46 %%SCULLYCARMEMPC Min utes12001 \07- 18- 01 PC Minutes.doc 15 Public Hearing — Appeal of Planing Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 01-10, Personal Fitness Studio 120 Main Street October 8, 2001 ATTACHMENT 7 LETTER FROM JANE LAMASNEY, PROPERTY OWNER, DATED SEPTEMBER 30,2001 01 -10 AV0®I.CC Staff Report 11 ' o) September, 30.2001 Jane LaMasney 50 Rivo Alto Canal Long Beach, Ca. City of Seal Beach City Council Members John Larson, Bill Yost, Peter Campbell, Shawn Boyd Mayor Bill Doan 21180' Street Seal Beach, Ca. My name is Mrs. Jane LaMasney and I am the owner of the property at 220. Main St. I have owned this property for 29 years. My first tenant was Don Hadley, the original owner of the Main Street Art and Frame Company. In 1977, he sold his business to Joe and Adrienne Kalmick; they occupied my building for 23 years. Last January they relocated to another location on Main Street because they needed more space. At that time they removed their two storage buildings from behind my building increasing my available parking spaces to nine. It was Joe who recommended Judi Fa Brezio as a prospective tenant. When I first met Judi she told me of her ideas for the Bella Forma Pilates Rehabilitation Studio. She was intending to spend $50,000 of her own money to update my building. I was stunned, but delighted to have a prospective tenant make such an offer. I have owned other commercial buildings and this was the first time I had such an offer. She has now turned my entire building into a very attractive first class Pilates Studio that I believe is an asset to the center of Main Street. I feel that this business will draw additional customers to the retail establishments. It is currently my understanding that under the provisions of the Main Street Specific plan this is an acceptable usage of this building. I understand from Lee Whittenburg that he and his crew has given their approval. The purpose of my letter is to request that you approve the conditional use permit for the Pilates Studio. Judi Fa Brezio is a kind, enthusiastic 992 Businesswoman who can only enhance and be an asset to the downtown business community. Thank you very much for your consideration. 9�a� A Mrs. Jane LaMasney W�alwr 99% I° September, 30.2001 Jane LaMasney 50 Rivo Alto Canal Long Beach, Ca. City of Sea] Beach City Council Members John Larson, Bill Yost, Peter Campbell, Shawn Boyd Mayor Bill Doan 211 8`" Street Seal Beach, Ca. My name is Mrs. Jane LaMasney and I am the owner of the property at 220. Main St. I have owned this property for 29 years. My first tenant was Don Hadley, the original owner of the Main Street Art and Frame Company. In 1977, he sold his business to Joe and Adrienne Kalmick; they occupied my building for 23 years. Last January they relocated to another location on Main Street because they needed more space. At that time they removed their two storage buildings from behind my building increasing my available parking spaces to nine. It was Joe who recommended Judi Fa Brezio as a prospective tenant. When I fast met Judi she told me of her ideas for the Bella Forma Pilates Rehabilitation Studio. She was intending to spend $50,000 of her own money to update my building. I was stunned, but delighted to have a prospective tenant make such an offer. I have owned other commercial buildings and this was the fast time I had such an offer. She has now turned my entire building into a very attractive fast class Pilates Studio that I believe is an asset to the center of Main Street. I feel that this business will draw additional customers to the retail establishments. It is currently my understanding that under the provisions of the Main Street Specific plan this is an acceptable usage of this building. I understand from Lee Whittenburg that he and his crew has given their approval. The purpose of my letter is to request that you approve the conditional use permit for the Pilates Studio. Judi Fa Brezio is a kind, enthusiastic Businesswoman who can only enhance and be an asset to the downtown business community. Thank you very much for your consideration. C 4,1,a4pr Mrs. Jane LaMasney