Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(HIC)_(Minutes)_(July 6, 1978)( MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, JULY 6, 1978, HELD IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7~45 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comm. Freese, Fr,idrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None Edward King, Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to approve the minutes of June 20, 1978, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ITEMS Chmn. Foreman explained to the audience the functions of the Improvement Commission. She also called attention to the sign which states that all actions by the Commission can be appealed within 10 days to the City Council. She noted that awards are given to houses and buildings that merit special recognition as part of the beautification program. Administrative Approval of Decks and Balconies Chmn. Foreman said the Commission had been considering recorrmending to the City Council that Improvement Commission approval of decks be turned over to staff. Comm. Grimshaw felt that applicants should come before the Commission, especially in cases of approval of balconies. Comm. Hendersen agreed, mentioning that sometimes there are special problems involved. Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to keep the review of decks and balconies at the commission level. Ayes: Noes: Absent: DESIGN REVIEW Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None 2901 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Request by Lee Kline, Architect represent Vasek Polak (applicant), for commercial addition. Comm. Grimshaw asked if there was a color rendering available. Mr. Kline said that it was given to the City Manager. I• HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 2 Mr. Kline came forward to explain the drawings. When asked about the type of materials to be used, he responded that the addition would be made with light blue ceramic veneer tile, stucco, and glass which would tie in with the present stucco and fixed glass windows. Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Comm. Grimshaw, to approve the addition, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: 2500 STRAND Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None Chmn. Foreman recommended that this item -be held over until the end of the agenda because the applicants were not present. 620 GOULD Request by Robert Ernestus, Owner, for approval of second story bedroom addition on rear of garage. Comm. Grimshaw asked the applicant about the stucco~ Mr. Ernestus replied that the same type of stucco as existing is proposed. Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Chmn. Foreman, to approve the addition, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: 1032 -8TH PLACE Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None Applicant Pat Roberts, owner, requested approval of a second story addition. In answer to inquiries, the applicant explained that the addition in the front of the house would give more footage to the house and would bring the porch out. Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Comm. Fridrich, to approve the second story addition request, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None 832 HERMOSA AVENUE (DESIGN & SIGN REVIEW) Request by Peter Mokler, project designer, representing the applicant, for a proposed new front facade and sign review. Chmn. Foreman commented that the colors were not noted on the drawings. Mr. Mokler replied harvest gold stucco with blue lettering would be used. Chmn. Foreman asked if the gate was to be painted and expressed concern about what color would be used. Mr. Mokler specified black wrought iron. n HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 3 Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to approve plans, with the colors as noted above. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None 934 HERMOSA AVENUE Mr. King noted that due to a clerical error, this application had been left off the agenda and not included in the packet. Request by Mr. Burge, applicant, for approval of a design addition to the existing one story structure. Mr. Burge was present and explained the details of the canopy addition. Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Chmn. Foreman, to approve the addition of the canopy. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None Mr. King commented that plans had been submitted and would be sent to the Buildi~g Department. SIGN REVIEW 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Request by Roger Bacon, owner-developer, for approval of his plan for a monument sign. Chmn. Foreman read a communication from the City Clerk regarding the City Council's action at its June 15, 1978, meeting in which an appeal for the proposed monument sign was granted (on Pacific Coast Highway rather than Aviation) and later rescinded because of the possibility of additional signs being proposed in the future. The City Council required that Mr. Bacon 11 prepare a complete, total and precise plan showing each and every sign currently existing and intended for future construction with its location delineated and its appearance described in detail.11 Mr. Bacon stated that he filed an application and gave plans of existing and future signs. The pole sign on the property was approved by the Commission. Now, he was trying to get a monument sign on Pacific Coast Highway to catch the attention of passing traffic. He then read a statement (Item Number lA) to the effect that the proposed sign now represented the total of signs planned for the shopping center unless further changes occur. Mr. Bacon said that he was trying to meet defined specifications of clients. He explained that according to a letter he received from Sign Review (3/3/78) he was allowed 2600 sq.ft. His current request would bring his total to approximately 1422 sq.ft. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 4 Conm. Grimshaw suggested that Mr. Bacon prepare a comprehensive plan, as required by the City Council. n Chmn. Foreman requested a whole plan including specifications, delineations and details of the Fotomat building. She commented that this was not the type of comprehensive plan accepted in the past. She also noted that the original request was reviewed by the Commission in March; yet the Council hear the appeal in June. Mr. Bacon explained that the delay was due to the negligence of Heath Sign Co. Comm. Grimshaw commented that he was discouraged by all the banners at the site. Comm. Hendersen noted that Security Pacific was not aware of the pole sign when they came before the Commission; but Mr. Bacon had said they would not sign the lease unless there was a pole sign. Mr. Bacon said this was due to a misunder- standing and that they had in fact refused to sign the lease without being guaranteed a pole sign. Comm. Grimshaw asked if Mr. Bacon wanted the copy approved as submitted by Heath Sign Co~ Mr. Bacon replied that he was not here for copy approval. Mr. Rosenberger, 515 Hollowell, spoke as a concerned citizen and a member of the Planning Commission. He stated he had looked at the project and that the signing was gross. He felt that the project does not look like what was approved previously and did not carry out the Spanish motif originally proposed. He expressed concern over what appeared to be current vacancies and about the maximum allowable sign footage. Chmn. Foreman again asked for a comprehensive plan. She said she didn't feel the Commission could act on what Mr. Bacon was presenting tonight, as in her opinion it was not what the Council requested. Comm. Grimshaw asked Mr. King if it was possible to have both a pole and a monument sign. Mr. King answered that a variance would be needed for both signs on one site. Mr. Bacon then responded to Mr. Rosenberger 1s comments. Mr. Bacon felt he had kept with the Spanish design. He said that all the spaces were occupied, although not all had signs. He added that temporary signs could not be included in the maximum allowable square footage and that the bank signs (temporary) would come down. • Chmn. Foreman said that according to the directive from the City Council, the Commission could not act on the matter, stating that the Commission needed one plan including the whole site with all stores and signs. The Commission needs a comprehensive plan indicating all present and future signing, color, size and printing. The Commission does not approve a plan without color renderings. Chmn. Foreman said she thought a variance would be needed for two signs on one site. She felt the plan was long overdue, as the Commission had been asking for it from the beginning. Chmn. Foreman said the Commission would deal with the m~nument sign after a comprehensive plan had been submitted. Mr.Bacon expressed disappointment. He said he felt he had submitted a comprehensive plan and was willing to go to his office to get a picture of the Fotomat building for inclusion. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 5 Chmn. Foreman again stressed the need for a precise plan on one sheet of paper and explained the information needed, specifically where the building would be located, the elevations, and rendering of the sign, not an "x" on a xerox copy. Comm. Hendersen asked Mr. Bacon if the tenants who were not shown were planning signs. Mr. Bacon replied that Century 21 and Allstate needed colors approved; one blank space was his office; one tenant, Fingernail Express, could not afford a sign; and the Fotomat building had to be approved. Chmn. Foreman asked Mr. King 1 s advise as to whether the Commission could act on this tonight, as the building hadn 1 t been approved. Mr. King said it depended_ on the Co1TU11issfon 1s definition of a comprehensive plan. He added that the Fotomat building would require design review. Mr. Bacon requested that people in the audience be allowed to speak in support of the monument sign. Harvey Hunziker of Burgerworld and Jerry Barber of Super Fine Dry Cleaners both spoke in favor of the signs and the effect on their respective businesses. Chmn. Foreman stated that other shopping centers with tenants had submitted comprehensive plans. Mr. Bacon said that Heath Sign Company would not include Alpha Beta in their drawing because they did not build that sign. Chmn. Foreman cautioned Mr. Bacon about raising his voice and asked that order be restored. She said the Commission has a written directive and is responsible for compl~ing with it. A ruling from the City Attorney clarified that the Bacon property constituted one site, hence a variance was required for approval of the monument sign. Mr. Bacon said he felt that he had given a precise plan and that he just wanted a- approval on the monument sign. He said that only the Fotomat sign would be added; air!ld possibly an additional sign for the Alpha Beta building. The sign would be for the liquor department. He said that there may be additional buildings in 5 or 10 years, but has no plans at this time. He also requested a copy of the minutes. Mr. King said that if the Commission were to accept this as a complete package, then they could act on the monument sign; but it would require a variance. He said the basic issue is whether this conforms with the Council 1s request. Comm. Grimshaw asked Mr. Bacon if the five (5) drawings were the complete plan. Mr. Bacon answered yes, with the exception of Alpha Beta (done by a different sign company). He noted that the rendering of the Fotomat was in Mr. King 1 s office. Also, there is a possible addition of a liquor sign to Alpha Beta and a sign for the Fingernail Express. Chmn. Foreman commented on the monument sign dimensions; copy submitted by Mr. Bacon shows the monument sign larger than the agreed upon dimensions (5 1 x 81 ) between Mr. Bacon and City Council. Mr. Bacon did not agree that these dimensions were agreed upon. Chmn. Foreman referred to page 4, item 1 of the Council minutes of June 13, 1978, and read the item to Mr. Bacon: 11 The sign shall be no larger than 5 feet high and 8 feet long on a base no higher than 18 inches, said base to bear .no written material or picture of any kind.11 Mr. Bacon concurred after Council minutes were quoted. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 6 Chmn. Foreman called for a motion dealing with the five pieces of material which had been submitted as a plan. Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Chmn. Foreman, to accept the five pieces of material submitted as a complete, total and precise plan showing each and every sign currently existing and intended for future construction, with its location delineated and its appearance described in detail. Ayes: Noes: Absent: None Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None Chmn. Foreman declared the motion did not carry and explained the right to appeal. The Commission feels this is not a complete plan, as required by the City Council. It was decided to number the documents submitted by Mr. Bacon as follows: Item 1: Xerox plan; poorly reproduced. No dimensions, color, or location specifically noted. Need specific plan indicating pole sign and Fotomat building. needs more detail. Item lA: Letter from Mr. Bacon; left option for future signs. Item 2: Park Pacific Center Sign plan; dimensions not correct on sign, not in detail, copy color not indicated at all. Errors in copy. Item 3: Sign plan for the offices and the Park Pacific Center sign; indicates ·blank sign in two,.cases, not what asked for ias detailed sign. Item 4: Drawings of existing signs of Alpha Beta and State Mutual Savings; not complete, does not show relationship of the signs. Item 5: Alpha Beta plan; does not indicate the correct whole sign and does no show relationship to other signs in Park Pacific Plaza. The excessive length of time of the temporary banner sign along Alpha Beta was noted. The Commission has to take into consideration all buildings and the relationship of the proposed new sign to other signs. Comm. Grimshaw requested that all commissioners be notified of any appeal and that Mr. King be present at the Council meeting. He also requested a copy of the minutes be given to each commissioner. Jim Fucile of the Chamber of Commerce spoke on behalf of the merchants. He asked that the commissioners show consideration to the merchants in the shopping center and not penalize them because of personal feelings toward Mr. Bacon. Chmn. Foreman assured Mr. Fucile that personality does not enter into the Commission's decisions; that the plan has been done piecemeal and a comprehensive plan is needed. Mr. Fucile requested expediency in this matter. Chmn. Foreman clarified the monument sign could not be considered until Mr. Bacon submitted a comprehensive sign plan as required by the City Council. .., HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 7 1014 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cafe Hermosa) Request by Avi Indik, 1014 Hermosa Avenue, for a ground sign. Applicant noted that the existing temporary signs would be removed. Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Chmn. Foreman, to accept as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None None 2500 STRAND (from earlier in agenda) Request for extensive exterior remodel. Applicant not present. Members in audience requested to make comments. Vi Knegenhelm expressed concern about the bus stop which would interfere with her gate if it were moved. Mr. King informed here that the Commission's authority is on the exterior design of a structure. Chmn. Foreman advised here to take her concerns before the City Council. Gordon Gilmore, 2515 Strand, described problems with vacant houses being remodeled in the neighborhood. He was advised to inform the police, fire and building departments. Mr. King noted that it would be at least one or two weeks before a plan check and building permit could be issued on this remodel. Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Fridrich, to hold this review over to the second meeting of July, July 18, 1978. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Hendersen None In response to audience reaction to the length of the meeting, Comm. Grimshaw commented that the Commissioners were volunteers. STAFF REPORTS Mr. King presented a photo albumn of houses which have been given the beautification award and noted that more can be added. Mr. King informed the Commission that the Council had appointed a new Commissioner, Kemp Sheffer. He also apologized for errors in the packet. He added that someone else will be in charge of the packets in the future. There has been no official communication as to who the Commission will be relating to, but Mr. King will still function as advisor. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Grimshaw felt it would help to inform the audience of the Commission's authority in the beginning of the meeting. He questioned whether revolving signs were allowed in C-3 zones. Mr. King said they were allowed. The Commissioners discussed certain streets and projects they felt had achieved good appearance. Mr. King stated that if the City gets a grant, they might be able to start similar projects. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 1978 page 8 Comm. Hendersen said she felt they needed to work on the city ordinance in respect to the maximum allowable sign footage. Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Comm. Hendersen, to adjourn the meeting. So ordered. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved by the Hermosa Improvement Commissi uly 18, 1978. PAMELAHENDSE' DATE