Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1967_10_30MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION held at the City of Hermosa Beach, California, in the Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, October 30, 1967. ROLL CALL -Pr ese nt: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Ham i l t on, Boic e, Chairma n Viault; Bud M. Trott, Building and Planning Director; Wesley McDaniel, City Manager Comm. Boice was seated after roll ca l l, and Comm. Hamilton a rrived a f ter the first motion on the agenda was made. CONTINUED REVIEW AND STUDY OF PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE Pres ent to speak fo r th e Chamber of Commerce and the recommendations which they had .presented to the Planning Commission, wa s the presiden t , Mr. Wi ll ia m Boultt. Also pres e nt wer e Mr. Jerry Jackson, Califor n ia Elect ric Sign Association; Mr. Rober t Mason, Ken t ucky Fried Ch i cken. Mr. Jackson was qu es tioned about some of the recommendations, and why it was f e lt th ey were necessary. Mr. Jackson once again confirmed what he had stat ed previously, t hat he felt the Comm ission had covered adequately most of t he sign proglems, and he thanked the Commission f or their effort s in behalf of the merchants. Mr. Wesley McDaniel, City Manager, suggested that the Commission go through the p rop osed ordinance once again in order that the various points be clarified. He also suggested that the question of signs in service stations, such as sandwich signs, might be answer e d by standards whic h could be se t up f or such facilities. A motion wa s made by Comm. Boic e, and seconded by Comm. Reeves, that the recomme ndations of the Chamber of Commerce committee be accepted as received. Motion f ailed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Boice NOES : Comm . Armer, Sta bl er, Chairman Viault ABSENT: None (Comm. Hamilton had not arrived at th e time of this motion) Comm. Boice stated that h i s reason for ma king th e motion, was that t he Chamber of Commerce and oth e rs involved had spent con s iderable time in studying the ordinance and in contacting the businessmen in the community, and tha t he felt the r e commendations reflec t ed t he wi 11 of the businessmen and people i n the commun ity. Motion was made by Comm. Hami lton, second e d by Corrm . Nob le to accept the recommendations of the Chamber relative to page l, paragraph l of the proposed ordinance, which eliminates the s ect ion which r e ads: 11 1n the case of a double­ faced sign, or any other sign with mo re than one face, eac h fa ce s ha ll be deemed to be a separate s ign f or the pu rpose of determ i n i ng sign are as .11 Mot ion carried by the fol lowi ng vo te : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Boice, Chairman Viaul t Comm. Armer, Stabler, Hamilton Non e Planning Commission Page 2 October 30, 1967 Motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Hamilton, that the recommendation of the Chamber be accepted re page 2, paragraph 12, definition of color, which suggests that the word 11 not 11 be added to the present wording, 11 shal 1 include black and white11 so that it will read: 11 shall not include black and white.11 Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Hamilton, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Reeves, Armer, Stabler None Motion was made by Comm. Hamilton, seconded by Comm. Armer, to accept the recommendation re page 10, paragraph B-1, which reads: 11 one wall sign with Planning Commission approval,11 by deleting the section which states: 11 with Planning Commission approval .11 Motion carried by EJnanimous vote. Motion was made by Comm. Hami I ton, seconded by Comm. Boice, to accept the recommen­ dation which refers to page 11, paragraph 2, presently reading: 11 wall signs shall not project more than twelve (12) inches from the wall of the bui lding,11 to read: 11 more than eighteen (18) inches,11 and to add: "provided the ends of the sign are not used for sign purposes.11 Motion carried unanimously. There was some discussion regarding pages 12, cH~1, 18 and the sections which are concerned with the exterior walls of the building painted or constructed of materials in more than one color, or values of one color, which shall be construed as a sign, requiring Planning Commission approval. Motion was made by Comm. Noble, to add the exception, 11 the trim on the doors and windows may be of another co\or.11 Motion carried by unanimous vote. Motion was made by Comm. Noble, seconded by Comm. Boice, re page 11, paragraph 5, to accept the recommendation of the Chamber. Section reads: 11 No portion of a sign shall be higher than the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of a bui \ding, whichever is the lesser.11 The Chamber recommendation is to change the word 1 '1esser11 to 11greater.11 The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Boice Comm. Armer, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault None Motion made by Comm. Hamilton, seconded by Comm. Stabler, to accept the recommendation re page 13, paragraph B-1, deleting 11with Planning Commission approval,11 from the wall sign stlpµiliation. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Comm. Hamilton, with second by Comm. Boice, made motion to accept the following: Further recommendation by the Chamber was that number (5) be added to this section to read: 11 Qne roof sign,1 1 and number (6) be added to read: 11 one combination sign.11 Motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Boice NOES: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault ABSENT: None Planning Commission Page 3 October 30, 1967 Motion was made by Comm. Boice, seconded by Comm. Armer, to accept the recommendation re page 13, paragraph C-1, projection and height allowed in a C-2 zone, which is to add 1 J14 ft. or above -4811 projection.JI Motion carried by following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Armer, Stabler, Hamilton None Motion made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to accept the recommendation re page 14, paragraph 2, and page 17, paragraph 2, relative to projection of wall signs in a C-2 and C-i zone, to effect the same change as that made in the C-1 zone, to change wording to 11 eighteen (18) inches, with the provision that the ends of the sign not be used for sign purposes.11 Motion carried by unanimous vote, Motion was made by Comm. Boice, seconded by Comm. Reeves, to accept the recommendation re page 14, paragraph 5, which reads: "No portion of a sign shall be higher than the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of a building, whichever is the lesser,111 to read: 11 No portion of a sign shall be higher than fifteen (15) feet above the parapet wall, roof or ridge line of a building, whichever is the greater.11 (It was decided to vote on the exception of a thirty ft. pole sign separately.) Motion as stated, failed to carry by following vote: AYES: NOES: .t!BSENT: Comm. Boice Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault None Motion was then made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to vote on the portion which changes the wording from 11 \esser 11 to 11 greater.11 Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Hami I ton, Boice Comm. Armer, Chairman Viault Comm. Stabler None Motion was then made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to vote on the exception which was recommended for this portion of the ordinance: 11 pole sign thirty feet above grad~1 to be allowed. Motion failed to carry by following vote; AYES: Comm. Bai ce NOES: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault ABSENT: None Motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Noble, to accept the recommendation which would add paragraph 4 to read: 11 Allow one revolving sign the same as C-3, except maximum 75 square feet.11 Motion failed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Noble, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Reeves, Armer, Stabler, Hamilton None Planning Commission Page 4 October 30, 1967 The Commission discussed the recommendation re prohibited signs -Section E, page 15, recommending addition of one roof sign, and one combination sign. It was pointed out that this had already been voted out, and Commission went on to the next recommendation, Section 808 -Sign requirements and regulations page 16, paragraph : 8-2 -which asked that wall signs not have Planning Conmission approval. Vote carried as follows: (Motion by Comm. Noble, second by Comm. Hamilton) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault Comm. Boice None Motion made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to accept the recommendation in C-3 zone which adds to page 16, paragraph 16: 11 14 ft. or above 4811 {already voted on) and 16 feet or above 60 inches.11 Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Armer, Stabler, Hamilton None Motion made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to accept the recommendation re projecting signs page 17, paragraph 5, to change to: 11 fifteen (15) feet to twenty (20) feet,1I and to change the word ,1Jesser11 to 11 greater.11 Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: PASS: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Ham i l ton Comm. Stabler None Motion was then made re page 17, paragraph 6 by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Boice, to read whichever is the lesser height or 20 ft. above roof line. After partial vote, discussion determined that the motion be re-stated. Comm. Boice, seconded by Chairman Viault, made motion that any roof sign in C-3 zone is not to exceed twenty feet above the roof line. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Hami 1 ton None Motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Armer, to accept the recommendation which proposes a change of maximum sign area (page 19 paragraph C) to 100 square feet. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Armer None Planning Commission Page 5 October 30, 1967 As recommended by the California Sign Associationi motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Chairman Viault, to changed. of paragraph 2, page 19 revolving signs, from 10 RPM to 8 RPM. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Comm. Reeves, seconded by Comm. Boice, to accept the recommendation relative to nonconforming signs from 7 years to 10 years for removal. Motion fai Jed to carry as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Boice Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault None Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Chairman Viault, to specify removal of nonconforming signs as follows: Seven years for interior illuminated or neon signs, and three years for all other signs. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comm. Reeves, Armer, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Chairman Viault Comm. Boice None Motion was made by Comm. Noble, that ground signs in the C-J,~B~~,sDe]lzon~sbshall be a minimum of 8 feet above grade to the bottom of the sign. Motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: Comm. Reeves, Noble, Stabler, Hamilton, Boice, Chairman Viault Comm. Armer ABSENT: None Motion was made by Comm. Armer, seconded by Comm. Hamilton, to adopt P.C. 154-630, a resolution of Intention of the Planning Commission to initiate action for the purpose of consideration of amending certain sections and articles of Zoning Ordinance N.S. 154, by establishing requirements and regulations of the projection, location on property, height, area, illumination and type of signs erected within the City of Hermosa Beach, and providing for the removal of nonconforming signs as set forth in the resolution, and that public hearing be held at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 11, 1967, Motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED REVIEW AND STUDY OF CONTIGUOUS LOTS AND POSSIBLE AMENOMENT TO N.S. 154, SECTION 403 Motion was made by Comm. Noble, because of the late hour, to continue this matter to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 13, 1967. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bud Trott, Building and Planning Director, presented the Commission with some data and possible regulations for service stations, and respectfully requested that they study the possibility of such regulations. ~L'~ ADJOURNMENT: 11 : 25 ~rmer, Secretary