Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(HIC)_(Minutes)_(June 7, 1978)-MDWTES OF THE RbJLAR MEETING OF THE H.ERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, JUNE 7, 1978, AT 7:45 P.M. Meeting called to order, at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: A1so Present: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Hendersen, Schoenfeld, Chmn. Foreman None Rod Merl, staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved that the approval of the minutes of May 2nd and May 16th be continued to the next regular meeting. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION Motion by Chlnn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese, to approve Resolution HIC 78-3. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Comm. Freese, Grimshaw, Hendersen, Schoenfeld, Chmn. Foreman None None Comm. Fridrich, Schoenfeld SECTION II -Improvement Commission Items Presentation of Beautification Awards to the following by ChJnn. Foreman: ( 940 Ninth Street; Mark Fabian, Bruce DeMille, am G. W. !Cruger 1519 Bayview Drive; Jane Turner and Thomas G. Burger ( "-.._/ 340, 342 -30th Street; John Cologne 201 -24th street; Terrace Investments (not present} 512 Longfellow; James Fiege and Robert Fiege 910 Strand; T.IC. Vander Pluym and Steve Hunt 2317 Manhattan Ave; T.IC. Vander Pluym and Bill Schneider 934 Hermosa Avenue; Bill Burge, R & B Development, and Jerry Russ (not present} 955 -15th Street; Charles Toole 911 -13th Street; Neil and Diane Hagemeiser DESIGN RE.VIEW SD!INAR It was suggested at the workshop meeting of the City Council and the Hermosa Beach Improvement Commission that Hermosa Beach host a Design Review Seminar and invite other cities to participate in it as well as the public. It was stated that some of the changes and sign laws and some of the new concepts that are coming up are of interest. Perhaps one of the most outstanding ordinances is that of Palm Springs; both design and sign review, which was recently successful in court. HERMOSA IMPROVD1ENT COMMISSION MINUTES CONTINUED JUNE 7, 1978 page 2 . BEAUTIFICATION AWARD NaaNEF,5 Motion by Chmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese, to present a beautification award to 1428 Manhattan Avenue. So ordered Motion by CbJnn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese, to nominate the following addresses tor beautification awards, to be voted on at the next meeting. So ordered. 341 -33rd street; 18o8 Valley Park; 1839 Valley Park; 1849 Valley Park; 1907 Valley Park; 1616 Monterey {apartment complex); 502 -28th Street {letter). SECTION III -Design Review 1838 Valley Park Avenue Mr. Silva, applicant, said that the project is to enclose the area between the gar- age and house on a single family residence. Motion by Comm. Fridrich, seconded by Comm. Freese, to approve as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Hendersen, Schoenfeld, Chmn. Foreman None None 330 -33rd street Mr. Jahn Schmitt requested approval of second story addition. He stated that the chimney will remain and be extended. He will also keep the fireplace and front porch as is. Slutters on window will be included. Motion by Chmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese, to approve as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Hendersen, Schoenfeld, Chmn. Foreman None None 575 -20th street Mr. John Miller requested approval of pl.ans for remodel of single family residence. Cbmn. Foreman asked if they wou1d consider continuing the wood trim on all eleva- tions as the Commission encourages carrying the theme on all elevations. Mr. Miller stated that the windows {west, east, and north) do not have scenery and that nobody would be looking at the sides except the neighbors. Comm. Freese said that the neighbors and Mr. Miller would see these elevations. Mr. Miller agreed to the stipulation. Comm. Freese asked why he had fixed windows. Mr. Miller stated that he had them just for a skylight effect. He has sufficient ventilation and fixed windows wou1d be for show· only. He also stated that a porch is over the garage; Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Comm. Grimshaw to approve with the stipu1ation that they put window trim all around windows and on all sides. Windows in the stairwell are not included in the stipulation. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw~ Hendersen, Schoenfeld, Chmn. Foreman None None HmMOSA IMPROVEJ.miT COMMISSION .MINUTES CONTINUED J page 3 SECTION TV -Sign Review 316 Pier Avenue Continued :from May 16 Mr. Moriyuki and Toshimori Susuki, applicants for Cher Ton-Ton Restaurant. ~e Commission had given prior approval to the small sign. The applicant did not bring a rendering of the sign as requested. It was agreed that the business card lettering was a good style for Cher Ton-Ton sign. Mr. Sanada stated that he will order the professional painter to use white background with red lettering~ border would be black. Large sign is 31 x 7 1 • Comm. Grimshaw stated he would not approve the sign just by looking at a card, although it is more professional than drawing. Chmn. Foreman asked if the words could be in a straight line instead of going up and down. Motion by Comm. Hendersen, seconded by Comm. Fridrich to leave sign as is. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Fridrich, Hendersen, Schoenfeld Comm. Freese, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman None Motion by Comm. Grimshaw, seconded by Chmn, Foreman that applicant submit rendering before sign is approved. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Schoenfeild, Chmn. Foreman Camm. Hendersen None Commission voted for applicant to bring rendering showing how sign is going to look in color, style and size. Applicants are requested to bring sample to the June 20th meeting. Commission will cintinue this to June 20th. So ordered 530 Pacific Coast Highway Continued :from May 16th meeting Spencer's Bike (signs already up). Roof sign is non-conforming. Applicant will have to remove the five-foot projecting sign, as it projects more than allowed by ordinance. Applicant does not own building. Comm. Freese stated that owner should be located and notified. Window signs will have to come down, they cover more than 20'1, of the window. Applicant stated signs on windows are used to block the afternoon sun, he doesn't care about the signs and will take them down. Comm. Hendersen suggested he put up curtains or something similar to shield the sun. Applicant talked about removing the exterior paneling to expose an additional win- dow. As this was not part of the original application., Chmn. Foreman stated that before the applicant cuts the tijird window, he must come back to the Commission for design approval. Motion by Chmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese for approval of Spencer's Bike wall sign. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Schoenfeld, Hendersen, Chmn, Foreman None None Motion by Comm. Schoenfeld, seconded by Comm. Freese that window signs come down. '-~, • Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Grimshaw, Schoenfeld, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman None None .___,, HERMOSA IMPROV.E)iENT COMMISSION . JUNE 7, 1978 page 4 439 Pier Avenue Gem Cafe -Farmers Insurance (continued 5/16) Chmn. Foreman asked the applicant, Henry Poirier, why the wood was removed f'rom the building. Mr. Poirier stated the owner did not like the wood, so he had it removed. Applicant stated that he will only re-stucco front of building. Farmers Insurance and Gem Cafe are on the same sign. Chmn. Foreman stated that the sign was a dis- credit to the building. She also stated that two signs on one roof at one facility does not conform to the C-2 zone. One sign has been on roof for 40 years, the other sign 16 years. Rod Merl stated this was a Wion-conforming situation (two roof signs). Mr. Poirier replied that the old sign wUl always be a problem with the new owner because parapet is stationary, and part of the building. Comm. Grimshaw stated sign is too high and appears to be a lettered sign with no creativity and does not stand out because of excessive wording. It was pointed out that the sign is used for advertisement as well as identification. Comm. Freese felt both roof signs seem to be excessive. He suggested a sign on the window would be su:f'ficient. Applicant said window is too low and that a car parked in front o:f' it would hide the sign. Chmn. Foreman stated that roof sign on the eastern side o:f' the building seems to be very effective and wondered if they would work something out for another sign that would say "pies and homemade cooking". Two signs saying GEM CAFE is unnecessary. Mr. PoirJer said they have put enough money into signing and would rather neutralize the whole sign and go without. Comm. Grimshaw asked if they would color coat the building. Mr. Poirier stated that the building will be yellow or gold, not white or brown as it is now. Comm. Bendersen stated she has no objection to sign since it is going to be there anyway. The vote failed, Chmn. Foreman requested a second vote. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Grimshaw, Schoenfeld None 920 Pacific Coast Highway Dunkin'Donuts (continued from May 16) Mr. E. L. Teuton, 3403 So. Caries Drive, Hacienda Heights, was the applicant. Chmn. Foreman did not disagree with the design of the sign, but felt it was too high to be ef:f'ective. Mr. Teuton siad that a lower sign would be easily hit by people walking by and maintenance would be a problem. Chmn. Foreman said there was too much advertising on the sign. Mr. Teuton agreed to put up a sign without a message board, and would lower the sign to 12 feet instead of 16 feet. Mr. Teuton handed two drawings to Commissioners, and it was agreed that the sign would be 4161 x 9'x 10'. Comm. Grimshaw asked when landscaping would begin. Mr. Teuton replied it would begin as soon as it is approved {30 days after permit is received) Motion by Cbmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese to approve sign as stated. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Chmn. Foreman Comm. Schoenfeld None llOO Pacific Coast Highway Security Pacific Motion by Comm. Freese, seconded by Chmn. Foreman to approve as submitted . Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comm. Freese, Fridrich, Hendersen, Grimshaw, Schoenfeld, Cbmn. Foreman None None HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ' JUNE 7, 1978 page 5 Applicant stated Security Pacific did not know they had a pole sign and was not going for it and felt it was unnecessary. The property owner stated Security Pacific would --, not sign their lease until they got a can on the pole sign. However, Security Pacific knew nothing about it. ~e Improvement Commission asked that the Council be made aware of this fact . 634 Monterey Blvd, LeMaster' s Market Comm. Grimshaw asked if signs are being changed to color of building. Mr. Sogomonian, the applicant, said whatever color the Commission preferred, he ~ould act accordingly. Chmn. Foreman stated building is beautifuly, but the Commission received a written complaint about the coloring. ~e applicant was given a copy of the letter. The applicant asked if he should use enamel or flat paint. Chmn. Foreman suggested a flat paint. Sing will be plastic. LEMASTER' S lettering will be red. Three signs will be on top of the front door, two of which are very samll, Lettering will be blue; (three dimensional, not over a square footage; equal to what C-1 would allow). Chmn. Foreman stated color should be earth-tone color, orange or brown. Comm. Fridrich stated they should see signs, drawings are not good enough to go by. App- licant said signs ~are made at home. He stated that if the majority of the Commis- sion disapproved the signs, they would come down. Commission accepted proposal. Applicant said signs will be put up by the June 20th meeting, so they could make their final decision as to whether signs on the side are appropriate. Chmn. Foreman asked applicant not to do any painting until sign decision has been made. Item continued to the June 20th meeting. Staff Report Rod Merl read a report on current sign legislation. One important emphasis was on type of signs and approaches to enforcing signs as part of the zoning code or list- ing them in a special district. Mr. Merl's feeling was that signs should be dealt on a district basis. Zoning codes generalize too much. Mr. Merl commented on the importance of consistancy in decisions made by the Commission. Chmn. Foreman moved to ask staff to prepare anoutline to be presented to the Com- mission regarding the districting for sign review; Comm. Freese seconded the motion. Conmissioners Items Cbmn. Foreman read an article from South Bay Post urging dissolution of Improvement Commission. Chmn. Foreman asked if Improvement Commission would sign a letter to the editor which would be sent to the Post and to the City Council. She suggested City Council may consider a similar let~er. Chmn. Foreman mentioned problems of' attendance. Sile suggested the Commission should possibly vote on whether or not an absence should be excused. Comm. Hendersen men- tioned that they establish a procedure of' not having scheduled meetings on an elec- tion night. Chinn. Foreman seconded the motion. No objection. Chmn. Foreman stated that if attendance goes back to only four members instead of six, like they have to- night, they will have to make more stringent guidelines. Chmn. Foreman noted that the minutes of May 16 and May 2 did not contain complete discussion of' the meeting and they would be revised accordingly. HERMOSA IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION JUNE 7, 1978 Page 6 ,, Cbmn. Foreman moved that staff' prepare an ordinance change that would establish minimum distance between signs on a commercial establishment that abutt each other. It would be a hous-keepipg ordinance written into the code and considered technical requirement. 'lbe motion was seconded by Comm. Schoenfeld. No objection. Comm. Grimshaw requested that water be at all meetings. Motion to adjourn meeting by Chmn. Foreman, seconded by Comm. Freese. Meeting ended at 11:00 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the ::foregoing minutes were approved by the Improvement Commis- sion at their regular meeting of June 7, 1978. ~~/ PAMELAHENDERS~CR~Y DATE