HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA_Minutes_1984_01_16•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON JANUARY 16, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting c~lled to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Moore
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Moore
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Grove, Senior Building Inspector
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Williams, to approve the January 4,
1984 minutes with the following amendment and clarification:
Comm. Williams noted that her intention on Page 4, paragraph 4, was that a
person may rent out a portion of their home, not necessarily as a second unit,
if it did not contain a stove.
Chmn. Moore stated that if everyone in the building has common keys, it would
be hard to argue that it is not a single dwelling .
• Page 10, paragraph 10, line 2, should read, "He did not believe the Board had
the obligation to grant the landmark in perpetuity. 11
No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Grove noted that this resolution is in conjunction with the conditional
use permit request before the Board tonight. He stated that an official
resolution was not prepared for the original application last year. He
added that the resolution could be found in the body of the report for
Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-545.
Motion by Chmn. Moore, seconded by Comm. Corder, to approve Resolution
BZA 154-493 . .
AYES: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore
NOES: None
ABSENT : None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-545 -16 -20 Pier Avenue
Applicant: Frank Nam
Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the request is a modification of
an earlier conditional use permit that the Board of Zoning Adjustments granted.
•
(
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 16, 1984 Page 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-545 -16 -20 Pier Avenue (Cont.)
The applicant is requesting permission to merge the business at 16 Pier
Avenue (Munchies) with the business at 20 Pier Avenue (Hermosa Fish Market.)
Both restaurants are presently owned by the applicant. The resulting
merger will increase the seating capacity of the Hermosa Fish Market by
approximately 24 seats. The Hermosa Fish Market was granted a conditional
use permit for beer and wine sales in conjunction with the operation of a
restaurant in January of 1983. As of this date the Building Department
has not received any complaints concerning this business nor has the
Police Department experienced any problems with this business. He noted
that staff suggested the Board use the same conditions as are now in
effect with the following change to Condition #12: "This permit is
s'ubject to annual reviews. 11 This change is warranted based on the past
performance of the applicant.
Comm. Cutler questioned whether or not Munchies was being closed down,
and the applicant was using the space as an extension of the Fish Market
Cafe.
Mr. Grove ~eplied that the applicant is using Munchies as an extension of
the Fish Market Cafe.
Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M.
Frank Nam, 1190 Longfellow, Manhattan Beach, applicant, appeared to answer
questions of the Board.
No one else appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use permit.
No one appeared to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit.
Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M.
Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Berardo, to approve Conditional
Use Permit BZA 154-545, subject to Condi ti on #12 to read, "This permit is
subject to annual reviews. 11
Comm. Corder noted that the minutes of January 17, 1983 reflected that the
Board was concerned with restaurants becoming bars. The discussion focused
on the fact that the only way the Fish Market Cafe would become a bar is if
there were a change in its physical structure. He requested a clarification
of l -11 on the floor plan.
Mr. Grove replied that 1 -11 designates kitchen equipment.
AYES: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chmn. Moore announced that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
' .
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 16, 1984 Page 3
REVIEWS
None
MISCELLANEOUS
Chmn. Moore stated that the Board had discussed having staff's position on
the staff report. He noted that staff regularly makes recommendations that
go to the City Council, and the majority of the Board felt that there was
no harm in, and possibly some help to, having staff's opinion in the staff
report. It would not be a reason to approve or deny a project; the Board
must find their own reasoning.
Comm. Williams stated that she would appreciate staff's op1n1on on any item
that deals with public safety. This would include remodels and reconstruction.
Chmn. Moore noted that staff's opinion that the project should be approved
or denied is not particularly useful to the Board; however, detailed
presentations backing up their position would be useful to the Board.
Mr . Grove concurred that staff 1 s opinion that the project should be
approved or denied alone is not appropriate. He stated that they would
address the required Findings in making a recommendation.
INFORMATION REGARDING SCHOOL SITES E.I.R.
Mr. Grove noted that the Board, at their last meeting, requested some
information regarding the E.I.R. for the school sites. He noted that
included in that information are some letters addressed to the Planning
Commission. Also included in that information is a synopsis of the
comments received by the public and submitted by the Board. Jim Hinzdel &
Associates had also submitted some information addressing the questions of
the Board. The Planning Commission minutes were also included. Those
minutes were with regard to the E.I.R. on the five school sites.
Comm. Cutler noted that Jim Hinzdel's report is misdated. It should be
dated lQ84, as opposed to 1983.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 1983
Comm. Corder wished that the City Council minutes were more specific with
regard to Council discussion on the mural located at 137 Pier Avenue.
Chmn. Moore stated that the City Attorney drew the distinction that other
cities have sign ordinances which are much more specific in defining what
is permitted and what is not permitted. He stated that the City Attorney
felt that the sign ordinance of Hermosa Beach was vague, and there were
no grounds for denying one sign and permitting another.
..
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 16, 1984 Page 4
MISCELLANEOUS (Cont.)
Comm. Cutler appreciated that the City Council minutes were included in
their packet. He noted that he would like to receive the City Council
minutes on a regular basis.
Mr. Grove stated that the Board was entitled to information, such as the
City Council minutes. He noted that there are several items which may
affect the Board indirectly or personally; therefore, staff is intending
to include the City Council minutes on a regular basis in the Board's
packet.
Comm. Williams noted concern for offensive murals coming before the Board
in the future.
Comm. Cutler quesiti oned how , the City Counci 1 concluded that the "mural 11 at
137 Pier Avenue was not a sign.
Mr. Grove stated that at an earlier date the City Attorney commented about
commercial speech as opposed to individual free speech. A conclusion was
never reached by the City Council that it was not a sign.
Comm. Williams felt that the "mural11 at 137 Pier Avenue was not a sign.
Comm. Cutler recommended that the next time a mural is denied, the Board
should specifically state that "this is a sign, not a mural. And it is larger
than what is allowed by Code. Permission denied."
Mr. Grove stated that the above recommendation would be a possibility.
Comm. Corder stated that the Board must base their opinion strictly by what
the Sign Ordinance stipulates.
Mr. Grove concurred.
Comm. Corder asked if the applicant is charged an additional fee to appeal
a decision to the City Council .
Mr. Grove replied in the negative.
Motion to adjourn at 7:55 P.M.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -January 16, 1984 Page 5
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments
were approved at a regular meeting.
DATE
u