Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(HIC)_(Minutes)_(August 15, 1978)( ( MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AUGUST 15, 1978 ,CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:50 P.M .. .. Meeting called to order at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Grimshaw Also Present: Ed King, Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Chmn. Foreman to hold ·approval of the July 18 and August 1st minutes until the September 5, 1978 meeting because of Comm. Grimshaw's absence. The Commission unanimously agreed. So ordered. Chmn. Foreman noted that Comm. Grimshaw was not present due to illness. She said it was an excused absnece. IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ITEMS Chmn. Foreman explained to the audience that the Commission acts as a reconmending body to the City Council. She encouraged the citizens to bring their suggestions to the City staff. She also called attention to the sign in the City Council Cham- bers which stated that all actions by the Commission can be appealed within ten days to the City Council. Bike Racks A presentation of the proposed Downtown Cycle Organizer was given by Kerry Ellard representing Public Service Communications at 14724 Ventura Blvd. in Sherman Oaks, California. Mr. Ellard said the Downtown Cycle Organizer takes up only three ft. horizontally because it is a vertical bicycle storage system. He noted that the bikes can be locked. His company is proposing: 1. To install, maintain and insure the bicycle system, possibly along the beach periphery. The cost would be covered by the advertising on the panels of the system. The City would re- ceive a percentage of the advertising revenue. 2. To install the system on private property, in shopping center areas. Chmn. Foreman said the Commission is trying to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether these type of signs constitute signing or advertising. She questioned Mr. Ellard about his interpretation of 11 advertising tastefully designed 11 used in the letter and flyer that was previously submitted. Mr. Ellard presented some pictures as examples of the type of advertising. He said that his company was dealing with national advertisers who could afford an institutional approach. Chmn. Foreman explained that the Commission can authorize signing but not advertis- ing. She added that the Commission is not authorized to approve signs within the public right-of-way. She felt that it was a matter for the City Council. Mr. King explained that the material was being presented to the Conmission because the City Manager felt the Commission might want to make recommendations on the proposed signs. He asked if the Commissioners had any positive or negative thoughts. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15, 1978 Chmn. Foreman said she would prefer that the City Council hear the presentation first in order to save everyone 1s time. The Commissioners agreed. So ordered. SIGN DISTRICTS Chmn. Foreman explained to the audience that the Commission has been talking Page 2 about the establishment of sign districts. She added that the Planning Department had suggested the Commission look at signing overlays. Mr. King noted the information included the Conmissioner 1s packet. He satd the Planning Department wanted feedback from the Conmission as to desirability of zone overlays and specific amendments or deletions. He said he had a discussion with the Planning Director about including the C-1 and M Zones into either overlay Zone #1 and Zone #2. Comm. Shiffer asked if this would require any sign changes for businesses that fall within the limits. Mr. King explained that the policy, if adopted, would only effect new signs unless an abatement policy was set up. Chmn. Foreman added that either an abatement period is used, or the ordinance affects existing signs when the businesses close. Mr. King explained that there were a few items in the overlay requirements where provisions were deleted because of contradictory or repetitive aspects. He noted that the pole signs were not allowed in C-1 and C-2 zones. He said there was no- thing in the existing code regarding maximum allowable wall signs. He said there is a clause about a minimum distance between signs. Chmn. Foreman suggested scheduling a workshop an hour before the September 5, 1978 meeting. The Commissioners agreed. So ordered. BEAUTIFICATION AWARD NOMINEES Chmn. Foreman explained to the audience that the Commissioners look for businesses and residences that deserve special recognition for maintenance, and remodeling on new construction. Mr. King showed slides of the nominees. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to present an award to 1836 Strand (remodel). Ayes: Noes: Absent: ColTITI. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Motion by Chmn. Foreman to send a letter to Cafe Courtney at 2701 Pacific Coast Highway commending them on the rear exterior. The Commissioners agreed that a letter should be sent. DESIGN REVIEW Chmn ; Foreman noted, :for .the benefit of the audience, that the .design review for 1900 Pacific Coast Highway be continued to the September 5, 1978 meeti _ng at the request of the applicant. 746 Prospect Mr. King explained that one condition for Planning Commission approval of the two unit condominium was that the landscaping be approved by the Improvement Commission. (---..,__ . I H.I.C MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15, 1978 Page 3 Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve the plan as presented. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Chmn. Foreman complimented the applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Isgreen, on their comprehen- sive plan. 834 -1st Street Mr. King presented the landscaping plan. Chmn. Foreman asked why the project was taking so long to be completed. Mr. King responded that he was unsure as to when construction began. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve the plan. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm-. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw 1342 Hermosa Avenue Chmn. Foreman suggested holding review of the window installation over until the end of the meeting because the applicant was not present to answer questions about the plans. So ordered. 428 Longfellow The applicant was not in the audience. The Commissioners did not have any questions about the new single family residence. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Comm. Freese, to approve the plan. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw 629 -24th Place Request by Richard Greer, owner, for approval of an addition to a single family residnece. Mr. King explained that the variance for addition (exceeding 40% of the existing floor area) had been approved by the BZA, but was later denied by the City Council because they felt it did not meet the criteria for a variance. He noted that the applicant had decided to cut back the existing building to conform with the side- yard requirements. Comm. Freese asked why there were very few windows proposed on the north side. Mr. Greer explained that he needed the wall space. Gordon Wright of 643 -24th Place came forward to express his feeling that there was not enough publicity about the project prior to the meeting. He objected to the proposed project because it would block a lot of views. He was concerned about the increasing number of two story houses on the block and their effect on the neighborhood. H.I.C. MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15, 1978 Page 4 Chmn. Foreman noted that at a recent Council meeting, the Council had decided to start working on zone overlays to address this impact. Comm. Hendersen commented that the Improvement Commission can only upho}d the code. She added that the proposed plan fails within code. Comm. Hendersen suggested that Mr. Wright organize the neighbors and go the the City Council. Chmn. Foreman added that any action the Improvement Commission takes can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Wright suggested that the Commission postpone the decision until the ne~t meet- ing. He asked the Commission to form an opinion about the effect on the neighborhood. Chmn. Foreman asked Mr. King what purpose it would serve to hold over the decision. Mr. King said that the project has met the noticing requirements. He advised that the Commission make a continuance only if the applicant concurred. He added that if the applicant wanted a ruling, then it must be given. Mr. Green noted that he did not want to cut off any of the existing structure, but the City Council had suggested it as a means of conforming to code. He added that the second story would block a little view, but he had tried to minimize that amount. He said that he had submitted the plans to the Building Department and had worked closely with them. Mr. Edward Brannon of 622 -25th Street agreed with Mr. Wright. He felt that every- one would be forced to go two story to keep up with property values. Chmn. Foreman asked Mr. Brannon what the neighbors wanted changed in the design. She said the Commission could not deny the two story addition and did not visualize anyway to change the design to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Brannon suggested that a moratorium be set. Chmn. Foreman explained that would have to be done by the City Council. Comm. Hendersen asked the applicant about the window frames. He said the existing frames were wood, but he had proposed aluminum for the second story. Comm. Hendersen said she would prefer all wood frames for continuity. The applicant agreed to change to all wood frames. Chmn. Foreman commented that the east side was completely barren. She noted that it faced another building and asked if some type of wood siding or trim and a beam could be incorporated. Mr. Greer agreed to use verticle siding, or batten board, and al' x 12' beam. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve the project with the designated conditions (siding, beam and wood frames). Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Frid~ich~ Hendersen~ Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw May Hastings of 901 -9th Street requested that citizens be notified about two story projects. Chmn. Foreman recommended that a letter be sent to the City Council re- questing that written notice be given to all adjacent property owners. BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS Mr. King noted that the beautification awards had been left off the agenda. Chmn. Foreman presented to awards to: 1042 Strand -design review 706 -5th Street -design review ( H.I .C MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15, 1978 Page 6 DESIGN REVIEW (continued) 1535 Silver Request by Mr. Ed. Madden, owner, for remodel and addition. Mr. Madden explained that not all the windows were shown on the plan because the inside of the house has not yet been finalized. Chmn. Foreman felt the north elevation was very stark. Comm. Hendersen agreed. Mr. Madden said that there was an area (4 1 x 8 1 ) of siding proposed that was not shown on the drawings. He said he could put it on all four sides. Comm. Hender- sen asked if it was a light or dark color of stucco. Chmn. Foreman asked if there was wood trim around the windows. Mr. Madden answered yes. Mr. King advised the applicant that what the Conmission approved must be carried out. He added that any changes would have to be brought before the Commission. At Conm. Hendersen 1 s request, Mr. Madden came forward to consider the Commissioner's corrections to the plan. Mr. Madden concurred. Motion by Comm Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to accept with the modifications noted on the plan. Ayes: Noes: Absent: SIGN REVIEv/ 155 Pier Avenue Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Request by Mr. Luecke, applicant, to repaint existing signs. Mr. King noted a correction to the analysis. He said that a variance would be needed for the two roof signs. Mr. Luecke explained that he only wanted to paint the signs. He added that the structure would eventually be torn down by the new owner. Chmn. Foreman said she would hesitate granting a variance. She said she would like to see the smaller roof sign taken down. Mr. Luecke said he thought the sign was attached to the roof. He felt the owner might not want to tear it down. Comm. Hendersen said that the owner could not refuse if it was a condition of approval. Chmn. Foreman siad that the staff should write a letter to the owner. Motion by Comm. Freese to accept. Comm. Freese recinded his motion at the request of Comm. Hendersen and Chmn. Foreman. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Fridrich to accept with the understanding that the small sign will be completely removed. Ayes : Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw ... H.I.C MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15, 1978 DESIGN REVIEW 1432 Hermosa Avenue (continued from earlier in agenda) Request by Mr. Earhart for window installation. Page 6 Chmn. Foreman asked Mr. Earhart if there were sliding windows. He replied yes and added that the details of engineering would dictate the size. He asked for conceptual approval. Chmn. Foreman suggested the Commission give conceptual approval and that the appli- cant come back for specific approval. She added that the Conmission could waive the fee for the specific approval. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Corrm. Freese, to give conceptual approval and vaive the fee. Ayes: Noes: Absent: STAFF REPORTS Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Mr. King noted the copy of the City Council letter ( in connection with 1100 PCH) included in the Commissioner's packets. He added that he would continue to provide the minutes from the City Council meeting.• Mr. King said the workshop on the sign districts was a good idea so that the specifics of the proposal could be analyzed. He also said it would give him a chance to work with the ~ommissioners. Chmn. Foreman noted an abatement date -July 1, 1978 in the Sign Ordinance that she wanted to mention to the City Council. She also noted that nothing had been done at L.C. 's Cafe to fix up the rusty part of the sign. She said it was a condition of the request for approval. Mr. King responded that he would get in contact with the applicant. Chmn. Foreman commented that if any of the Commissioners wanted to recommend any more ordinance changes, they should do so at the workshop. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS 1100 Pacific Coast Hi gh\:Jay Chmn. Foreman recommended sending a letter to Jim Rosenberger thanking him for his slide show. Comm. Hendersen seconded. So ordered. Chmn. Foreman commented on the sandwich signs that Burgerworld and other tenants of 1100 Pacific Coast Highway were putting up. She thought they had exceeded their allotted 30-day time period. She felt that these tenants were not showing good faith in dealing with the Commission. Chmn. Foreman requested that staff refigure the allowable sign footage for Park Pacific Shopping Center, based on 28Al3 Items 1 and 2 which states that the sign area will be calcu·lated according to which street the stores front on, and Item 4 which states that no sign shall cover more than 40% of that fascfa. She explained that when businesses front on two streets, calculations are based on streets that business front on. " I • H.I.C MINUTES CONTINUED AUGUST 15 Page 7 Chmn. Foreman commented that the temporary signs were in violation of the sign ordi- nance and in excess of th~ir allowable coverage. She noted that she had measured the planter discussed at the last meeting and it was not five feet (measurement on plans incorrect). She commented that the Commission does not get Mr. Bacon 1s material before the meetings and therefore, will not act on any specific proposals without the plans and information. She felt it was not fair to the Commissioners. She did not feel that any special privileges should be given. She added that Mr. Bacon must meet the same requirements as other applicants. Chmn. Foreman noted an illegal message panel sign at Abe 1 s Liquor. Motion by Comm. Hendersen, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to change the starting time of the Improvement Commission meetings to 8:00 P.M. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Fridrich, Henders_en, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to adjourn the meeting to \he 7:00 PM workshop on September 5, 1978. So ordered. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved by the Hermosa Improvement Commission at their regular meeting of September 5, 1978 • .r.