HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA_Minutes_1982_10_18MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZOOING ADJUS'lMENTS OF T'r:lE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON OCTOBER 18, 1982, AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order at 7: 33 P .M. by Chnn. Moore Pledge of Allegiance led by Chrrn. Moore ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cooms . Cutler, Ebey, Toth, Chrm. Moore ABSENT: CoIIIll. Williams ALSO PRESENT: Laurie Duke, Staff Liaison APPROVAL OF MINUTES M:ition by Comn. Ebey, seconded by Corrm.. Toth, to approve the October 4, 1982 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLlITIONS None CONS:ENT CALENDAR None Chmn. Moore stated that Item 4, Variance Request BZA 154-483, would be heard after Item 5, Variance BZA 154-484. VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-484 -1120 Lonia Drive (cont. from 10/04/82 meeting) Applicant: Rob Saemann Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property is located in the R-3 zone, high density residential. The lot size is 40 x 106, and the lot area is 4,240 sq . ft . The existing lot density is 10 . 2 7 du/ ac , and the proposed lot density is 20.54 du/ac. The existing lot coverage is 29.88%, and the proposed lot coverage is 39. 9 r!e. The existing garage area is 3 70 sq. ft. , and the proposed addition is 900 sq. ft.of living area, 48.75 sq. ft addition to garage area, and 114 sq. ft.for the deck. She stated that the applicant was requesting permission to add a unit over an existing garage that has a nonconforming rear yard setback of 2' in lieu of the 5 ' required and to maintain the 2' at the upper level with the deck only. The second level of the building will be set back 6' . Chnn. Moore asked for a clarification as to where the required parking will be located.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MilWI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 2 VARIANCE BZA 154-484 -1120 wma Drive (Cont.) Mrs. Duke replied that there will be two spaces in the garage, and there will be two open spaces in front of the garage. Public Hearing continued at 7: 37 P .M. Rob Saemarm, 1120 Loma Drive, Hemnsa Beach, applicant, stated that the existing back wall of the garage sits on a retaining wall; therefore, the elevation of the neighbors' house is actually six feet lower than the retaining wall. By rroving the garage forward, no useful area would be gained. He stated that the weight of the second floor will be carried by a series of bearng and posts. He added that he had had no contact with his neighbors . No one appeared to speak in favor of this variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to this variance. Public Hearing closed at 7: 40 P .M. Crum. Moore noted that he lived two houses from the property in question; h~ver, he was in no way related to the project. Motion by Conm. Toth, seconded by Cornn. Ebey, to approve Variance Request BZA 154-484. AYES: NOES: Conm, . Cutler, Ebey, Toth, Chrrn. Moore None ABSENT: Conm. Williams Chrm. Moore info~d the audience that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Required Findings: 1. . . . because the garage has been existing for a long tiirB; because of the slope from the back and the new addi tian being set into the required depth, there would be no additional significant infringement an air or light for the adjacent property. 2 .... because a number of other properties in the same vicinity .and sharing that zoning have more than one residence on the property with greater coverage than the property in question. 3. . .. because the variance maintains it within the lot density of the area. 4. . .. because it is in conformity with the general plan. Motion by Coom. Toth, seconded by Conm. Ebey, to approve the above Findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: c.ooms . Cutler, Ebey, Toth , Chmn. Moore None Conm. Williams
OOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -October 18, 1982 Page 3 VARIANCE REQUEffi' BZA 154-483 -675 Longfellow (cont. from 10/04/82 meeting) Applicant: Jo Ann Miller Mrs. Duke submitted the staff report. She stated that the property is located in the R-1 :zone, low density residential. The lot size is 25 x 100, and the lot area is 2,500 sq. ft. The existing and proposed lot density is 17.42 du/ac. The existing lot coverage is 35%; proposed lot coverage, 58.45% The existing floor area is 1526. 64 sq. ft . , and the added floor area is 1398. 5 sq. ft • She stated that the applicant is requesting permission to add rrore than 40% to an existing single family dwelling with a nonconfonning east sideyard (on Tennyson Place) of l 19 3/4", and to maintain the nonconformity with the addition. Also, although the plans provide 542 sq. ft. of usable open space which rrore than ireets the 400 sq. ft. required by Section 406 of the Code, it is all provided in a proposed roof deck and the code requires a portion to be located at ground level. She added that a 11portion" V10uld need to be at least 100 sq.ft .. in that the minimum area that can be counted toward the UBable open space in the R-1 zone rrrust meet a dilrension of ten feet in any direction. She added that the applicant will have open space in the form of a 20 1 driveway on the Iongf ellow frontage; however, driveways do not count as open space. She added that the applicant also will have a 101x 131 patio which the building will overbang, thereby not counting as open space because it is not open to the sky. Cornn. cutler asked if the concrete driveway was included in the 58.45% proposed lot coverage figure. Mrs. Duke replied in the negative, adding that paving does not count as lot cover-age. Comm. Ebey asked if the applicant was requested to submit findings. Mrs. Duke replied that the Board, at their last meeting, requested the applicant to submit findings but to date none had been received. Public hearing continued at 7:47 p.m. Dean Purkey, 675 Longfellow, Herrmsa Beacb., contractor of the project, stated that he had lived at the residence for seven years. He stated that all of his neighbors VlOUld. agree to sign a petition in favor of the variance. He stated that they do have the 10 x 10 open space area; however, it is not open to the sky. He noted that there is ample room for the deck on the roof to provide recreation space. He informed the Board that at 673 Longfellow there is a two-story addition without any type of ground level area for recreation. Chmn. Moore asked if one part of the variance is to extend the sideyard encroach-ment. Mr. Purkey replied in the affinnative. Chmn. Moore asked if the other variance was to count the 542 sq.ft. of deck as meeting the usable open space requirement, as opposed to having a portion of it on the ground.
BOARD OF ZONlliG ADJUSTMENTS MINlJI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 4 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-483 - 6 75 Longfellow (Qm.t.) Mr. Purkey replied in the affirmative. He stated that they are requesting to extend a variance that is already in existence. Chrm. Moore asked if it would be possible to build a legally-sized garage. Mc Purkey replied in the affirmative. He added that the ground level on the west side also has to ju:rp back a foot or so to accomodate Code, which will make the addition even more narrow. He stressed that his lot is very narrOW'. Comm. Ebey asked the applicant if he could offer any suggested Findings. Mr. Purkey replied that there are six people in his family. Coom. Cutler asked if there will be room enough for a lawn after the concrete had been laid out for the driveway. Mr. Purkey replied in the affirmative, adding that there will be planting all along the ~st side of the building. He added that there -would be plant area of three feet on both sides of the driveway. No one appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 7:57 P.M. Mrs. Duke stated that the applicant's required front yard is ten feet, and the applicant is providing a 20-foot driveway. Cornn. Cutler stated that he :inspected the properties from the comer lot in question west to Archrore. He noted that many of them had lawns. He believed that this request for a variance would be a precedent-setting variance which could lead to other requests to lengthen their narrow lots and to extend the driveway up to the street level. Cornn. Ebey stated that she originally voted for the variance, and she felt as though they provided enough open space; hov.:ever I she stressed that it would have been helpful if the applicant had provided Findings. Mr. Purkey stated that many of the surrounding lots that do have lams are larger lots. He noted that his lot is on a comer at the end of the street. He added that the other lots on the block have entry to the garages from the back. He believed that his lot is unique in that he IIlllSt put the garage in the front, thereby eliminating plans for a lawn in the front. Motion by Corrm. Toth to approve Variance BZA 154-483. (Motion died, due to lack of a second.)
IDARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUrES -October 18, 1982 Page 5 VARIANCE REQOEST BZA 154-483 -675 I..ongfellow (Cont.) Chmn. Moore stated that he could possibly supJX)rt the sideyard variance with the exceptional circumstance being that the lot •in question not only is an end lot, but also has streets on three sides. However, he could not supJX)rt the variance for the usable open space, due to lack of extraordinary circum-stances. Motion by Chmn, Moore, seconded by Corrm. cutler, to deny Variance Request BZA 154-483 for failure to find extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to support the variance for usable open space at ground level. AYES: Corrms. Cutler, Ebey, Chmn. Moore NOES: Conm, Toth ABSENT: Coran, Williams Chmn. Moore inforrred the applicant that he may appeal the Board Is decision by -writing to the City Council within ten days. VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154~486 _·437 ~ 31st Street Applicant: Thomas Lee Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property is located in the R-1 rone, medium density residential. The lot size is 30 x 70, and the lot area is 2,100 sq. ft. The existing and proposed lot density is 20.74 du/ac. The existing lot coverage is 54. 03%; the proposed lot coverage, 57. 52%. The existing floor area is 1804 sq. ft. , and the added floor area is 593. 6 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting to add to an existing single family residence with nonconfon:ning front yard setback of 4. 45 1 in lieu of the 7 ft. required and a nonconforming ~st sideyard setback varying from 2. 8' to 2. 92 ' , and to lffiintain the nonconformities with the second story addition. Public hearing opened at 8:l3 p.m. Tom Lee, 437 -31st Street , Henrosa Beach, applicant, stated that bis house exists with the nonconforming setbacks. He stated that the only renodelmg that will take place downstairs is the rermval of a wall. He believed his request was sjmply an extension ibf a variance which had already been granted. Chtm. Moore asked for the age of the structure. Mr. Lee replied that it is 35 years old. No one appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 6 VARIANCE BZA 154-486 -437 31st Street (Cont.) Motion by Ccmn. Toth, seconded by Ccrrm. Cutler, to approve Variance Request BZA 154-486. AYES: NOES: COIIIIIS . Cutler, Ebey , Toth, Chim.. Moore None ABSENI': Corrm. Williams Chmn. Moore stated that the fuard's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Required Findings: 1 .... because in order to bring it into conformi..ty, the applicant 'WOUld have to have major structural changes to the existing building. 2. . . . because the property right of this nonconfonnity is typical of the street and of the area and zone, and it asks nothing exceptional of the other property owners that they do not already enjoy. 3. . because there will be no significant inpact oo. air or light. 4. .because there is no change in use. Motion by Comm. Toth, seconded by Comn. Ebey, to approve the above Findings. AYES : Comns . Cutler, Ebey, Toth, Chmn. Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Corrm. Williams VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154..:4s7 -3408 Highland Avenue Applicant: Robert C. Fleming Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property is located in the R-2 zone, IIEdium density residential. The lot size -;Ls 30.09' x 100.07', and the lot area is 3011 .1 sq. ft. The existing and proposed lot density is 28. 94 du/ ac. The existing lot coverage is 56 . 25%; the proposed lot coverage , 65. 0%. The existing floor area is 2269. 5 sq. ft. , and the added floor area is 285 sq. ft. She stated that the applicant was proposing to maintain a 2. 23' south sideyard setback with a 15 ft. garage extension. The purpose of the 15 ft. extension of the garage is to allow a 15 ft. portion of the existing garage to be rerrodeled into a bedroom, bath and closet at the first floor level. Corrm. Cutler asked if there will still be a garage after the expansion. Mrs. Duke replied in the affirmative, adding that they presently have a 20-foot deep garage. The applicant is taking 15 feet of that garage to create the bedroom, bath, and closet. He will add 15 feet to the five feet that will be left of the
.. OOARD OF ZONING ADJUSI'MENTS MINUTES -October 18, 1982 Page 7 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-487 -3408 Highland Avenue (Cont.) g-arage to create a new 20 foot deep garage. He will extend toward the alley. She stated that there will be a 2 1/4 foot side setback on the oouth side; however, it appears to be greater because the applicant's fence is sitting approximately 7 inches into the yard of the neighbors to the south, and the neighbor to the north of them has a fence approximately one foot into their yard. Public hearing opened at 8:22 p.m. Bobert Fleming, 3408-3410 Highland, Herm::,sa Beach, applicant, stated that the rental is located over the existing garages. Conm. Cutler asked if the applicant would have space for four cars after everything is rroved back 15 feet toward the alley. Mr. Fleming replied in the negative. Chrm, Moore asked if the two spaces in front of the garage qualify as legal parking since they are on the street. He asked if it were technically a loss of parking. Mrs. Duke stated that it was built with one-to-one parking in 1956. She added that the applicant is parking on an apron, but it was not req_uired at the time the building was built. She added that two-to-one parking would only be req_uired if another unit was added. Conm. Ebey stated tbat, in actuality, . the Board would be allowing the applicant to give up two parking spaces if the variance were approved. Mrs. Duke stated that as long as no units are being added, the code does not require additional parking spaces provided, however, there is one space for each existing unit on the property. She stated that the building permit issued in 1956 was to construct a duplex with a two-car garage. Crum. Moore asked if the driveway parking spaces V10uld qualify as parking if this were a new project . Mrs. Duke replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Moore asked the applicant if he had had any input from the neighbors concerning the reduction of parking. Mr. Fleming replied that he had obtained the signature of the neighbor to the south, who would be the only one concerned. Tom McClung, 112 24th Street, Manhattan Beach, designer of the plans, stated that they will be going approx. six feet off of Crest Drive. He stated that the neigh-bor to the south signed in favor and her fence is three feet from the existing structure that will be extended. He added that there is basically no walk traffic on that side. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the variance.
OOARD OF ZONING ADJUSIMENI'S MINlITES -October 18, 1982 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154~487 -3408 'Highland Avenue (Cont.) No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 8: 29 P .M. Page 8 Corrrn. Ebey stated that she would vote against the variance because it would take <May two parking spaces . Conm. Cutler agreed with Comn. Ebey's above remark. Motion by Conm. Ebey, seconded by Carrn. Cutler, to deny Variance Request EZA 154-487. • Comn. Toth argued that if the variance is not granted, the applicant will need to jog in and make the building less attractive. He stated that the two parking spaces that will be eliminated are non-required parking spaces. Crum. Moore stated that there is no legally tenable reasons for denying this project on the basis that it reduces parking. He added that the only neighbor -who could object to this variance has indicated no objection. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Cutler, Ebey Comms. Toth, Chnn. Moore Carrn. Williams Motion by Chnn. Moore, seconded by C0111ll. Toth, to approve Variance Request BZA 154-487. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Toth, Chrm. Moore CClll1lIB . Cutler, Ebey CoIIIn. Williams Crum. Moore infonred the applicant that his variance request had failed on a tie vote. He gave the applicant the option of appealing to the City Council or appearing before a full Poard at their next n:eeting. Recess from 8:37 P.M. to 8:42 P.M. VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-488 -2100 Strand Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Barry Taylor Mrs . Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located dn the R-2B zone, rredium density residential. The lot size was irregular, and the lot area was 3,074.2 sq. ft. The existing lot density was 28.32 du/ac, and the proposed lot density was 14.17 du/ac. The existing lot coverage was 63.8%, and the proposed lot coverage was 65. 63%. The existing floor are~ is 2,571.75 sq. ft., and the net floor area after the projectwill be 4,292.~ sq.ft. which constitutes a 66. 9% increase. The floor area and fmmdation left after dennlition is 390. 37 sq. ft. , and the percentage of addition to remaining structure is 999%. She stated that the applicants were requesting pennission
OOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINlITES -October 18, 1982 Page 9 VARIANCE REQUEsr BZA 154-488 -2100 Strand (Cont.) to add mre than 40% to an existing duplex (converting to a single fami.ly dwelling) that has a nonconforming front yard setback varying from 1. 65' on the north to 3. 61' on the south, in lieu of the 5 ft. required, also, the south sideyard is nonconforming, being 2 .12' in lieu of the 3 .825' required. The applicants were requesting to maintain the existing nonconformities. Also, the proposed plans show the lot coverage to be . 63'% over the 65% allowable, which could be solved by eliminating the spiral stair which also encroaches into the required sideyard. She noted that this plan contained the ingredients 'Which have in the past caused the Board to require a deed restrictioo. as a conditicm of the variance. Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. Barry Taylor, 2100 Strand, Hernosa Beach, applicant, stated that they bought the duplex two years ago with the intention of converting it to a single residence . At that tinE, he was not aware of all the nonconfonni.ties on the property. He claimed that the property was just recently surveyed. He noted that all o:f the neighbors are in favor of the variance. He stated that the reason he was requesting the variance was to enjoy the s~ property rights that his neighbors enjoy. Conm. Ebey asked the applicant if he would have any objection to eliminating the spiral staircase. • Mr. Taylor replied that he would like to retain the spiral staircase, if possible. Conm. Ebey asked the applicant if he would agree to signing a deed restriction limiting the property to a single family residence. Mr. Taylor replied in the affirmative. George Spratt, 13409 Margate Street, Van Nuys, designer of the project, stated that they are converting a three-bedroom,1 1/4 bath om.er's unit and a two-bedroom, 1 bath rental unit over a garage into a four-bedroom, four-bath single family dwelling. Therefore, they will be dam.grading the structure and upgrading the area. He stated that sorre of the extraordinary circumstances relating to the property is that it is an irregularly-shaped comer lot varying in width from less than 30 feet on the Strand and over 46 feet at the rear. The existing structure was originally constructed to maintain a three-foot sideyard setback on the north side. In order to rreet the present Code requirerrents, the entire structure would have to be remved including the foundation. He stated that the preliminary analysis shows the existing footings to be 12 inches wide or wider. There would not be any beefing up of the foundations; therefore , the fomdation would be perfectly adequate for the addition of a second story. He stated that there is a wood floor foundation which is in good shape. He stated that the property is surromded on three sides by public open space. Chim. Moore asked if they were going to disasserrble the building to dig out the wine cellar.
ID.ARD OF ZONING ADJUS'll'1EN1'S MJNUI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 10 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-488 -2100 Strand (Cont.) l1r. Spratt replied in the affirmative, stating that that is the reason for taking off the back half of the building. He noted that Mr-. Taylor wished to maintain a wine cellar as enterta.inmmt for a wine-tasting area. Chrrn. Moore asked if they intended to retain the original fomdation. Mr. Spratt replied that they will retain the original foundations in the front of the structure. He stated that only half of the second floor livable area is going to be directed out over the encroachnent. The other half of the second floor area is behind the required setback. He noted that the existing floor elevation of the existing house is exactly the sarre elevation of the new house cm the middle level. He added that they will be eliminating a nurrber of encroachrrents that are existing on the property, those being, the fireplace, the comer points of the building --essentially the entire south side of the building. Chmn. Moore asked if the wall on the south side will be retained or denolished. Mr. Spratt replied that the wall -where the fireplace is being rermved will have to be enclosed. He stated that they are adding another parking space, in addition to the three already included in the plans. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 9:00 P.M. Motim by Conm. Ebey, seconded by Cornn. Cutler, to approve Variance Request BZA 154-488 subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to single fam:i.ly usage. Cornn. Toth stated that he could not make the Findings, and he believed that it could be built to 65% lot coverage to canfonn to Code. He stated that the only portion that is being retained is a slab of foundation 12" x 1211 in the front. He believed it were essentially a new building. AYES: NOES: Corrms . Cutler, Ebey, Chim. Moore Cornn. Toth ABSENT: Conm. Williams Chmn. Moore stated that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Required Findings: 1. . . . because the building is nerely being built up in the front yard setback; the existing encroacbnent is not detrimental to the surrounding zone as a similar statistical encroacimEnt might be in sorre other part of the city because of the position of this property not only on the
'-BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUl'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 11 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-488 -2100 Strand (Cont.) Strand, but also an a walk street providing substantial buffer area around the property; the building as originally built was legal; the excess of lot coverage is so minuscule as to be insignificant. 2. . .. because many, many other properties in the s~ vicinity and zone have been expanded to allow owners to rrodemize and increase the size of their dwellings; this property is not being changed in that portion that requires the variance; to hold the applicant to not be allowed to expand the rest of his property would deny him a right enjoyed by others . 3. . . . because the e}q)ansion of the property will not significantly increase the encroachment of this property on air or light in the area because of the special positioning of the property; the public is further protected against misuse of the property as a two-unit building without Code by a deed restriction that has been accepted by the applicant. 4. . . . because the use of the property is well within that envisioned by the general plan. Motion by Chnn. Moore, seconded by Comn. Ebey, to approve the above Findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Cutler , Ebey , Crom. Moore Conm. Toth Comn. Williams CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-489 -68 Pier Avenue .Applicant: Roy's Mill Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in zone C-2, general comnercial designation. The applicant was requesting permission to allow the service of beer and wine at their restaurant. The business is located on the south side of Pier Avenue between the Strand and Herrrosa Avenue. The business presently is open from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. serving breakfast and lunch. If granted approval, the applicant plans to re-open in the evenings from 5: 00 p. m. to 9: 00 p. m. to serve dinner. He anticipates this will increase their daily custo~r volUIIE by an additional 75 people. The custorrer parking is provided by VPD Lot A and 3 rretered spaces in front of their business on Pier Avenue. If the Board acted to approve the request, the Staff Review Comnittee had recOJilIEnded 10 conditions. Comu. Ebey asked if there were a condition with relation to prohibiting roller skates and enforcing screens . Mrs. Duke replied that the Staff Review Comnittee did insert a condition with relation to screens; however, they left it up to the Board as to whether or not they wished to add a condition prohibiting roller skates .
OOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'Il1ENTS MINUTES -October 18, 1982 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-489 -68 'Pier Avenue (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 9: 11 P .M. Page 12 Roy Mills, 68 Pier Avenue, Herroosa Beach, applicant, stated that they will put screens on their windows if they serve alcoholic beverages. He stated that he does not allaw roller skates in the building. He submi.tted a petition containing 450 signatures to allow Roy's Mill to serve beer and wine. Corrm. Ebey asked the applicant if he would agree to a condition that beer and wine be served no later than 9: 00 P .M. or 9: 30 P .M. Mr. Mills replied in the affirmative. He stated that there will be a completely different menu for dinner, consisting mostly of chicken, steaks, and ribs. He noted that there will be a few combination plates, four Oill:!lettes (#8, 16, the California, and the Ham& Cheese) five egg dishes, three harrburgers, and two sandwiches. He stressed that he was not going to open a bar, that he was in the food business. He stated that he would not oppose a condition that no alcohol be served past 9:30 P.M. and a condition that no roller skates be allawed. He clairred that his Torrance restaurant buys about $350 to $400 of beer and wine per nnnth. No one appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use pennit. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the conditional use penni..t. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. Motion by Corrm. Ebey, seconded by Corrm. Toth. to approve Conditional Use Pennit BZA 154-489 with the added conditions that beer and wine be served between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 9:30 P.M. and that roller skates be prohibited. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns . Cutler, Ebey, Toth, Cbim. Moore None • Corrrn. Williams CONDITIONAL USE PEID-1IT BZA 154-490 -338 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Ammn Arcade Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the C-3 zone, rmtlti-use corridor. The applicant was requesting pennission to operate a video game arcade in a comrercial building located on the east side of Pacific Coast Hi~way at the comer of Fourth Street. The business will occupy a store that is 201 x 50', or 1,000 sq. ft. in size. They propose to have approximately 25 video gaIIE machines. She stated that :in May of 1979, the City Cotmcil passed Ordinance No. 79-615 limiting amusen:ent arcades to the C-3 Highway Comrercial zone only, and requiring application for a conditional use permit prior to being issued a business license. She stated that this conditional use permit approval was subject to the granting of a variance on parking requirenents. She stated that the Staff Review Corrmittee recomrended 16 conditicns, if approved.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-490 -338 Pacific Coast Highway (Cont.) Cornn. Cutler asked where the bicycle racks would be located. Mrs . Duke replied that the bicycle racks would be located at the rear of the building. COIIIll. Ebey asked for the estimated anount of persons that will be using the arcade at one time. Mrs. Duke replied that the anticipated daily cust~r volume is 50 persons. Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. l3en Wasserman, 1112 Hemosa Avenue, Hernosa Beach, representing the applicant, stated that they do have an objection to the candi.ticn regarding no food, drinks, and no srroking. lie stated that there is no reason for having this type of restriction on this type of a business. He stated that alcoholic beverages are obviously prohibited; however, he did not feel that smoking could be regulated. He stated that, with regard to suggested Condition /ft3, it would be placing an unreasonable burden on the operators. He noted that there are a number of schools that recess before 2: 30 P .M., and the students can becorre emancipated at the age of 14. Also, students under the age of 16 do not carry identification cards. He also believed that, with regard to Condition /15, it was an unreasonable burden to place upon the operators to use tokens. He stated that if the machines are emptied each night, and the coin boxes are placed on top 0£ the machines, it would be satisfactory. He believed that it would be appropriate to simply post signs that the machines are emptied at night, and no rroney will remain in the premises. He stated that there is room in the rear for 20 bicycles , and the racks would not interfere with the existing parking. He believed that t½e racks would be up against the building. With regard to suggested Condition :/ft8, he felt that it was too restrictive. In surrrnary, he objected to Conditims {ft2, 3, 5, and 8. Cornn. Cutler asked Mr. Wasserman if he had had any other clients who were applying for arcades. Mr. Wasserman replied in the negative. Comn. Ebey asked Mr. Wasserman which schools are out before 2:00 P.M. Mr. Wasserman replied that North school is out at 2: 00 P .M. Lenora Arrm:m, 1012 Strand, Manhattan Beach, applicant, stated that she would not like to put the business an the basis of asking for identification when one entered the arcade; however, if it were a condition, she would ask for identification. She believed that asking for identification would put the children on edge, and she wan.ts them to feel relaxed and enjoy themselves. She stated that 2: 00 P .M. would be a rrore reasonable tine . Mrs. Duke stated that any one of the conditions may be changed, except for the presence of adult supervision and the prohibition of alcohol.
BJARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENl'S MINUTES -October 18, 1982 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE ·pmuT .BZA 154...:490 ...: '338 Pacific Coast "Highway (Cont.) Ms. Ammn stated, that, with regard to bicycle racks, they would have 20; hawever; they were not certain if they would have the hanging racks or the ones on the ground. Cornn. Cutler asked the applicant if she would agree to add to Condition 1!5 that any and all bicycle parking and/or storage has to be near the rear entrance and not the front. Ms. Amron replied in the affirmative. Corrm. Toth asked if, with regard to Condition lfr2, the applicant were m:,re interested in selling or consrnption of food and drink. Mr. An:m:m replied that she would prefer that Condition 112 allow the cons~tion of food and drink. Conm. Ebey recorrmended that Condition 112 read, "No alcoholic beverages be sold or consumed on the premises." She also suggested that sroking be all<Med on the premises . Comn. Cutler objected to the deletion of no sroking on the premises. Com:n. Cutler asked the applicant if she had previously been involved with managing an arcade. Ms. Anmm. replied in the negative, adding, however, that she visited with many arcades, and rrost of the patrons were teenagers. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. Bruce Rerick, 235 Pacific Coast Highway, Herrrnsa Beach, ~ner bf Zee Comfort Zone, asked for the hours of operation for 'the arcade. He also asked where the trash bin will be located. Mt:'s . Duke replied that the hours of operation afe from 10: 00 a. m. to 10: 00 p . m. , and there is a trash bin at the rear. Mr. Rerick stated that he was conpletely opposed to the plan because it would bring loiterers after hours who will bring noise, fights, and illegal parking to the area. Also, the merchants and the residents will be vandalized. It • would be unsafe for the children. He added that there are red curbs in front of the property, and the police will be busy with traffic tickets as a result. He stated that he had been at 235 Pacific Coast Highway for eight months, and he has never seen the sidewalks hosed down or the windows washed. He believed that the arcades and other arrn.iserrent . centers should be • l<ept at the Pier. He stated that he had a beautiful showroom in his furniture and waterbed store, and he does not want to lose it. He informed the Board that he cleans the sidewalk on the entire block once a week. He clained that he picks up trash constantly. He noted that although he is located on the west side of the street, he feared that persons will cross the street and leave their trash on his property and put his business in danger.
BO.ARD OF ZONING AD.TIJS'Il1ENTS MINUTES -October 18, 1982 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-490 -338 Pacific Coast Highway (Cont.) Conm. Cutler asked what is located at the property :in question at this tirrE. Ms. Af!IIOn replied that the property is vacant. Peter Simpson, 531 Esplanade, Red.cm.do Beach, stated that he owned the coin lanudry located at 402 Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that his business is located across Fourth Street from the proposed business location. He noted concern for the children and the women do:ing their wash at night. He also stated that the teenagers from the arcade will run out of quarters , and they will see the people in his business who have quarters for their wash. He believed this would increase his vandalism. He infomed the Board that he has 14 off-street parking spaces. Haward Ulman, 400 Pacific Coast Highway, Henrosa Beach, owner of the liquor store north of the property in question, stated that he and the laundry mat share a corrroon parking lot. He stated that the arcade will help his business, and he also has four arcade garres. He noted concern for children asking adults to buy them alcohol. He noted that the children who patronize his store do not lock up their bicycles; they put them right on the sidewaJk in front of the door. He stated that children will be hurt on Friday and Saturday nights as a result of heavy traffic. Mr. Wasserman stated that :Mr. Ul1Ilan objected to the proposed arcade because it would lessen his business on his video gmIEs. He felt as though there were enough conditions placed on the conditional use permit to take care of any problems which may arise. Mr. Ulman stated th.at he was not against con:petition. However, he was concerned that the children will chase away his adult custorrers. Public Hearing closed at 10:05 P.M. The Board agreed that Conditirn 112 should read, ''No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or cons~d on the premises . '' Coom. Cutler objected. The Board agreed that Condition 113 should indicate that no one mder the age of 16 will be permitted on the premises between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. when public schools are in session. Comn. Cutler felt that the operators should use tokens. Chlm. Moore felt that tokens should not be required. Corrmi, Toth reconmended that Condition. l/5 read, "Ann.iserrEnt machine coin boxes are to be cleared every night and placed on top of the machines.'' Conm. Ebey suggested that Condition flu indicate that 15 to 20 bicycle racks are to be provided. Conm. Cutler added that a sign should be posted in the front window indicating that bicycles are to be parked in the rear of the building.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154..;490 -338 Pacific Coast Highway (Cont.) Conm. Ebey stated that Condition 117 should indicate that the lighting is required inside the premises. She also reconmended that Condition 1/7 should indicate that lighting is required outside near the bicycles in the rear. Mrs. Duke stated that Condition 117 will read, ''That a high intensity level of lighting shall be provided in the interior, layout to be approved by the Director of Building and Safety, and adequate lighting to be provided in rear parking area as approved by the Building Department. 11 :tfotion by Crnm. Toth, seconded by Cornn. Ebey, to approve Conditicnal Use Permit BZA 154-490 with the additions and deletions indicated by the Board. Chnn. Moore asked the applicant if the nodifications were understandable and acceptable. Ms. Ammn replied in the affirmative. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Cutler, Ebey, Toth, Chmn. Moore None Comn. Williams VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-491 -338 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Anmon Arcade Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the applicants share a parking lot with three other stores. When the building was constructed in 1960, the Building Department requested a parking determination from the Plarming Corrmission. The decision of the Planning Conmi.ssion was that the ™11er be required to provide three spaces for the new building with the remaining four spaces to be used by the existing stores. This was. based on one space for three hundred square feet of gross floor area of the building. The requirenent for anrusenent or recreation establishm:!nts is one space for each 75 feet of gross floor area devoted to such use. Therefore, 13 spaces are the parking requirement for this building if converted to arcade use. There are seven parking spaces for the entire property with three of them reserved for this store. However, she noted that the applicant's layout is not to scale. She stated that the inspector cane up with only five available spaces in the parking lot . She stated that, by Code, they have only three spaces alotted to their building, and they need 13 spaces. She stated that the Planning Conmission allocated three spaces for the store, and they let the existing stores go on with nonconfonni.ng parking of four spaces. Public Hearing opened at 10: 26 P .M. Ben Wasserman, 1112 Hernosa Avenue, Herrrosa Beach, representing the applicant, stated that custoners of the store do angle park in the parking lot. He noted that the restaurant has expanded, so there are only two stores. He stressed that many patrons of the arcade will be either walking or riding bicycles.
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMEt'ITS MINUTES -October 18, 1982 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-491 -338 Pacific Coast Highway (Cont.) No one appeared to speak in favor of the variance. Page 17 Howard Ulman, 400 Pacific Coast Highway, Henoosa I3each, stated that the restaurant takes up many of the parking spaces. He stressed to the Board that the parking lot in question is overloaded. Peter Sinpsan, 531 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, stated that the parking lot in question is used by people who live in the vicinity, and it is not policed by the owners. Public Hearing closed at 10:30 P.M. Motion by Conm. Ebey, seconded by Corrm. Cutler, to deny Variance BZA 154-491 on the basis of inadequate parking. CoIIm. Toth stated that he would not be able to make the Findings. He believed the inadequacy of parking was too gross to approve. Chim. Moore stated that parking is a big problem for nerchants up and down Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that arcades are a legal business, and arcades are allowed in this particular area of town. He could not suggest any other business that would not require as l!R.lch parking as an arcade business. AYES: NOES: ABSENr: Conms . Cutler, Ebey, Toth Chnn.. Moore Corrm. Williams Chnn. Moore inforned·th.e applicants that they may appeal to the City Council by writing within ten days. REVIEWS None MISCELI.ANEOUS Mrs. Duke advised the Board of a merro which requires the Board of Zoning Adjust:IIEnts to review sign variances and design review. Motion to adjourn at 10:50 P.M.
"' BOARD OF ZONillG ADJUSTMENTS MINUI'ES -October 18, 1982 Page 18 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular IIEeting of the Board of Zoning AdjustlIE.nts of the City of tm)Sa Beach, California. NEAL DATE