Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(HIC)_(Minutes)_(December 5, 1978)--.. .,.-- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION HELD IN CITY (-') COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON DECEMBER 5, 1978 ( Meeting called to order by Chmn. Foreman at 8:04 pm ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Hendersen, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Grimshaw (unexcused) Also Present: Ed King, Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Foreman reconmended continuing the minutes of November 21, 1978 to the next meeting. So ordered. IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION 'ITEMS Chmn. Foreman explained the Improvement Corrmission serves as a recommending body to . the City Council and as such, makes recommendations on anything that needs improvement. She encouraged the audience to contact Mr. King about suggestions for improvements. She added that all suggestions would be considered. I Chmn. Foreman noted that all actions taken by the Improvement Commission may be appealed to the City Council in writing within ten (10) days. Award Nominations Comm. Freese made the following recommendations for beautification awards: 602 -3rd ::;Street, for remodel 637 -4th Street, for multi-unit 630 -3rd Street, for Maintenance DESIGN REVIEW 157 Pier Ave. -1215 Manhattan Ave. (Cont•d from November 21, 1978) Request by Norman Steiner, applicant, and Chuck Simmons, designer, for commercial development. Mr. King explained that the request had been continued for a landscaping and design plan to be submitted together. He noted that the City Council had upheld the action of the BZA. Chmn. Foreman asked if the project would require any other commission approval. Mr. King explained it would require City Council action regarding the use of City property. Chmn.Foreman questioned whether the Improvement Commission could hear this request when a City Council action might effect the Improvement Commission decision. Mr. King explained that he was advised to put it on the Improvement Commission agenda. MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 (-' Comm. Freeland asked how the design would be effected if the City Council were to deny the request for use of City property. Mr. Simmons explained it would make Page 2 it smaller, but not affect it aesthetically. He presented the drawings and explained the proposal for subterranean parking under the existing City parking lot. Comm. Freese suggested that the Commission would need information on the number of shops for the sign review. Mr. Simmons noted that the proposed monument sign was described on a handout which was presented to the Commissioners. He said it would be wood or metal frame. He said the planter would be approximately four (4) feet and might have lettering along it. He added the directory would be no more than seven (7) feet high and of wood construction. Chmn. Foreman asked about the individual store signing. Mr. Simmons noted the blocked out rectangles on the drawing which designated individual store signing. He said the individual signs would not encompass any more than what was shown. He explained the individual signs would be either transfer lettering or painted on windows. Mr. Steiner said that to specify who and/or how many tenants would be speculative. Mr. Simmons noted that the maximum would be based on the play layout. Chmn. Foreman felt she would want to continue the request for sign review until a comprehensive sign plan could be submitted, but before any signing would be put up. She said the Commission needed to know the sign area. She said that most architects designate the sign area and then it is just a question of copy. Comm. Freeland suggested that the Commission could conceptually approve the signing· to provide the applicants with some direction. Chmn. Foreman explained to the applicants that conceptual approval would mean that a comprehensive sign plan, including all areas, the relationships of the signs to one another and the dimensions would still have to be submitted. She added that the conprehensive plan should be as specific as possible. Chmn. Foreman asked that the minutes show that the Commission is not approving any specific signing in that area and will approve when the applicant is ready. Motion by Comm. Freeland, seconded by Comm. Freese, to accept the proposed conceptual plan as the concept for the type of signing that the Commission would like to see. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Hendersen Comm. Grimshaw In reference to design, Comm. Freeland noted this is a large project. He said he would like to be assured that the scale of the proposed buildings would not be out of proportion with the area. He requested the architect show some relationships . . Mr. Simmons noted that this is a sensitive area. He said there is a residence on the Manhattan side. He noted the east elevation will break up and be articulated by the use of brick, which he felt tends to break down the scale and be more modular. He said the east elevation is the most critical. He added that as the design evolves, it will become more articulate. Chmn. Foreman noted the commercial business across from the project. Mr. Simmons explained that most of the residential section is located across from the parking lot and that about 50% of the area across from the proposed building is conmercial. :He also 11oted that there are two-story structures across from the residential area already. MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 Page 3 Comm. Freeland agreed that articulation is important. He felt the other important factor is the landscaping and the size of the trees used. Motion by Comm. Freeland, seconded by Comm. Freese, to accept the concept of the design plan based on what was presented. Rev. Donald Wright of 1235 Manhattan, spoke about a potential eyesore. He felt the project would lead to more large scale construction projects. He no\ed a petition containing 500 signatures against the project. Chmn. Foreman reminded the audience that the Improvement Corrmission can only deal with the design and aesthetics of the buildings and must keep to that. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Hendersen Comm. Grimshaw Comm. Freeland said he did not think there was enough landscaping information to deal with the request. Mr. Simmons said that such detailed information would require a landscape architect, who would not be brought in until they were ready to do the working drawings. Comm. Freeland felt the landscaping plan should be presented prior to final design approval. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to continue the landscaping review until such time as the working drawings are presented for approval. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Shiffer, Hendersen, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw A member of the audience asked if any drawings could be obtained for the media. Mr. King said the plans would be available in the Building and Safety Department to the public for review, and could be xeroxed. 2444 Manhattan (Continued from November 21, 1978) Request for residential addition. Mr. King explained that the design had been approved with the stipulation that the applicant bring back the landscaping plans. He noted that he had not received the landscaping plans and that the applicant was not present. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Comm. Freeland, to continue to the next meeting. Ayes: Noes: Absent: 2230 Strand Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Request by Frank Swanson, for remodel · and two story addition. Mr. King noted that a landscaping plan had been submitted. He explained1 there is a problem with the MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 loft. He noted the lot is zoned R-1. He said the floor plan for the loft level would have to be modified, however he did not think it would effect the exterior. Page 4 Mr. Swanson said that he had just been notified by Bill Grove that the loft level would have to be modified. He added that it would not change the exterior design. He said the only thing that might change would be the hand railing. Comm. Freese asked about the stucco. Mr. Swanson explained that the stucco texture would continue all around the building. Comm. Freeland asked about the setback on the Strand. Mr. King advised that nine (9) feet is required and added that the appljcant is setting back ten (10) feet. Mr. Swanson said that low shrubs would be used because of the overhang, which comes within six (6) feet of the property line. Mr. King noted that the overhang is allowed to project four (4) feet because the proposed front yard setback is ten (10) feet. Chmn. Foreman questioned there would be a tree in used in the other areas. Italian Cypress would be the applicant about the landscaping. Mr. Swanson said the center courtyard area. He said low shrubs would be John Berardo, applicant, specified that two (2) or three (3) used in the courtyard area. Motion by Comm. Freeland, seconded by Comm. Hendersen to approve the design as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: 909 Loma Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Request by Curtis & Violet Cravens for stucco on all four (4) elevations. Comm. Freese asked what color would be used. Mrs. Cravens replied off-White with aqua trim. She added that it would be a rough textured stucco. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Comm. Freese, to approve the request. Ayes: Noes: Absent: 436 Ardmore Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Request by Marvin May for addition to a warehouse. -Chmn. Foreman asked the ap~licant if all that was being changed was to cover over the loading dock. Mr. May said yes, so that it can still be used when it rains. He noted the walls would be brick with a composition roof. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve the request. MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 Ayes: Noes: Absent: 1160 Aviation Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Page 5 Request for approval of existing commercial remodel. Mr. King explained that it previously was a solid window, the slumpstone base was added. He said the applicant was not aware it required approval. Chmn. Foreman commented the applicant has been before the Improvement Commission previously and should have known it would require approval. Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: SIGN REVIEW Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw 517 Pier Avenue {Continued from November 9, 1978) Request by Mr. Campazzi, applicant for one projecting sign. Mr. King explained that the applicant could not be present at the last meeting because the drawings were not complete. Mr. Campazzi noted he was proposing red for 11 ice 11 and blue for 11cream 11 • He also noted the proposed lights on the borders of the sign. Chmn. Foreman asked if a roof sign can project. Mr. King said the code is ambiguous. Mr. King read the code specifications for projection under C-2 and under C-3. He explained the difference is that the C-3 definition includes both roof and projecting signs but roof signs are not stated under the C-2 specifications. Chmn. Foreman asked whether the lights around the perimeter of the sign would be flashing. The applicant replied they would give an old fashioned loo~ and would not flash. Comm. Freeland asked what type of materials would be used. The applicant replied exterior plywood. Chmn. Foreman asked if the sign is a roof sign that projects. Mr. King said the sign does project off the roof. He did not think it could be projected off the side of the building. He said the issue"to be considered is the fact that roof signs are not mentioned under the C-2 specification relating to projection. Chmn. Foreman noted that the last sign was approved for no more than four (4) inches from the roof and is considerably higher. Chmn. Foreman expressed concern that the proposed sign not be raised off the roof. She said she wanted it flush with the roof. Mr. King noted that the sign will have to be structurally approved and will require supports. Chmn Foreman said the mounting should be indicated on the plans for the Cammi ss ion. ,,-.., MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 Page 6 Mr. King suggested the Commission could approve the request as is, with the stipulation that the applicant bring back any needed modifications for approval. Motion by Comm. Freeland, seconded by Comm. Shiffer, to approve the request supject to low profile bracing as indicated on the plans with the stipulation that anything else required by the Building Department will have to be presented to the Improvement Commission. Mr. Campazzi noted that he had used the existing bracing for the other sign. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw 700 Pacific Coast Highway Request for five (5) wall signs. Mr. King noted that the "Pit Stop" sign, the pole sign and the 11 Datsun11 and 1•1Toyota" signs had all been approved. He added that the "Japanese Car Service" and "British Car Service" had not been approved. Chmn. Foreman noted that the Improvement Commission once gave a sign award for this business. She asked if the award continues. Mr. King felt that previous owner had probably taken the award.with him. Mr. King noted that banners can be approved as permanent signing in C-3 zone. Motion by Chmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freeland, to approve the signs requested {existing and proposed). Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Chmn. Foreman recommended submitting a sign complaint for "Casey's Used Car Lot" sign because it is not an approved sign. Staff Reports Mr. King reported on the trash enclosure program. He said a meeting would be scheduled to finalize the necessary planning operations. He noted that letters regarding the new trash enclosure program and the new rates had been sent out. He added that there had been very few complaints. Comm. Shiffer commented that he,had several complaints from residents,_ apartment house owners and businessmen in reference to the type of service they have received from BFI. Mr. King said the City was negotiating with BFI for an extension of the existing contract. Comm. Shiffer asked if negotiations were currently in progress. Mr. King said yes, in the sense that an additional amendment to extend the contract to 1981 L and include four (4) proposed changes is being negotiated. MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 Page 7 Comm. Shiffer said he would like to know if any other companies had been contacted. Comm. Freeland said it would be difficult if the contract was still in progress. Mr. King advised Comm. Freeland that the contract had ended in June, 1978. Comm. Freeland agreed that it should be open for bid. Chmn. Foreman noted that the Commission had previously recommended that when the contract is negotiated, that noise suppressors be required. She added that a direct part of the recommendation concerned the level of noise (decible) for the trucks. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Comm. Freeland, to recommend to the City Council that other trash services in this area be contacted for competitive bids because of the negative service and complaints received by the Commissioners, and that the previous recommendation including noise suppressors be considered. Comm. Shiffer further recommended a staff report on what action is being taken as far as securing a competitive bid for selection of a trash company, be submitted to the Commissioners. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Hendersen, Shiffer, Freeland, Chmn. Foreman None Comm. Grimshaw Mr. King noted that, the Design Review Ordinance calls for a great deal of material that the Commissioners have not been getting. He added that he spoke with the Building Director and with Chmn. Foreman. He felt this item should be discussed. He said it is a question of whether the Commission wants to give staff any flexibility in what material would be required, or use a strict interpretation. Mr. King noted that the Building Director felt that the required material specified in the ordinance would apply to a big development,. but would be financially infeasible for small additions and hoped that staff would have some flexibility. Chmn. Foreman said she agreed except for the problem of changing staff. Comm. Shiffer said that as long as the Commission had a set of plans he would rather look at that than the xerox copies. Chmn. Foreman pointed out that the xerox copies are more helpful when looking at the property. She felt it was difficult to have only one set of plans and have to study them and ask questions in five (5) minutes. She agreed that extra material should not be required on small additions. She expressed concern about what 11 staff11 means. 1 Comm. Freeland felt the Staff should have flexibility. He added that in some cases a landscaping plan may be more important. Mr. King invited the Commissioners to come look at the plans before the meetings or to call for more information if .there is something in the packet is insufficient. Mr. King commented that it seems .requests are being heard prematurly. Chmn. Foreman said she had discussed this with the City Attorney and City Manager. Comm. Freeland felt the big developers want to know our parameter~. In reference to the big developmerton Pier Avenue, he said they now have an idea of the type of signing that the··commission was favorable toward. MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 Commissioner's Items Page 8 Chmn. Foreman commented that Cher Ton Ton had come before the City Council for appeal after she had been assured that it would not. She said it was added to the agenda under City Manager Items. She noted the vote was a 2 -2 tie. She said she spoke to the City Manager, and his reply was that the applicant had the right to be heard. Chmn. Foreman agreed but felt it should be done within the correct procedures. Chmn. Foreman recommended that Improvement Commission items that are on the City Council Agenda be done within the correct procedures set down by the City and that the Improvement Cammi ss i o·n. members and staff be notified. Chmn. Foreman noted that full information was not given and the Improvement Commission minutes were not available to the City Council. She felt this was undermining the Commission. Chmn. Foreman commented that the date should be included on each page of the minutes. Comm. Freeland said the appeal was presented as a hardship case at the meeting. He did not feel the Council was trying to undermine the Commission but was doing their best under the circumstances. Chmn. Foreman noted the City Council also discussed cutting the Commissions to rive (5) members each. Chmn. Foreman said she would like to work with a full commission, no matter what the::number. She said that if the Commission remains at seven (7) members, she will ask for another Commissioner to be appointed. Comm. Freeland questioned the reasoning of the City Council with respect to cutting costs. Comm. Freeland felt the City should be trying to increase citizen involvement. He felt the Improvement Commission is important and saw the reduction as the first step ·in elimination. Chmn. Foreman thought the City Council wanted to cut back the Commissions because of Proposition 13. Comm. Shiffer noted that the cost involved was for the packets. Comm. Freeland did not feel it would be an advantage to the City. Chmn. Foreman said that one member of the City Council wants to eliminate Commission. Chmn. Foreman said there is a problem in appointing commissioners, in that people who do apply to serve on a commission often have conflicts of interest. She added that Proposition 9 is another factor because it required a declaration of holdings, which many people feel an invasion of privacy. She said applicants must have the ability to serve and the.des-ire. Chmn. Foreman noted that Comm. Grimshaw had indicated that he had withdrawn his resignation, however he has not been present for the past three meetings. ' Comm. Freese recommended submitting a sign complaint for the barber shop on Aviation because of the paper sign that covers the full length of the window. Comm. Shiffer recommended submitting a sign complaint for two temporary signs on 1100 Pacific Coast Highway because they have exceeded the time allowed by temporary permit. '--._,/ Chmn. Foreman asked Mr. King about the temporary sign at Abe's Liquor. Mr. King replied the sign was taken down and the permit terminated. ... MINUTES OF THE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION -December 5, 1978 ) Page 9 The Commission decided to hold its regular meeting on December 19th and decide at that time whether to have the January 2nd meeting. Mr. King said he would contact Comm. Grimshaw. Chmn. Foreman recommended the Public Works Department consider painting signage on the streets when there is a 4-way stop. Motion by Comm. Shiffer, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to adjourn the meeting. So Ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing .minutes were approved by the Hermosa Improvement Commission on December 19, 1978 . ~f<l~_- PAMELA HENDERSEN, SECRETARY