Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-02-25 ARC Regular Meeting MinutesCITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chris Van Vliet, Chair Karel Lambell, Vice Chair Allan Levin Michael McAuliffe Jim McIntosh Jim Schmid John Vuksic Current Meeting Present Absent X X X X X X X Also Present Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development Eric Ceia, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Nick Mellon!, Assistant Planner Wayne Olson, Sr. Dev. Analyst Economic Development Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting; 12/24/19, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2020 Year to Date Present Absent 3 1 3 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 4 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the February 11, 2020 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5- 0-2 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh and Vuksic voting YES and Schmid and Van Vliet absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION 0 MINUTES February 25, 2020 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SARC 20-0001 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS. The Signs & Services Co. Attn: Ryan Ybarra, 10980 Boatman Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve wall signage; Armed Forces Career Center LOCATION: 44-100 Town Center Drive Bldg A ZONE: P.C. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, presented wall signage for the Armed Forces Career Center (Armed Forces) located within the Trader Joe's shopping center on Town Center Way (Town Center). He reminded the Commission that this building was recently approved for a facade enhancement to sub -divide the building into three (3) suites. Armed Forces is now the second tenant in this building and they are proposing two (2) signs. The applicant is proposing stacked letters but the sign program for the center does not allow it. However, the sign program does allow for minor deviations subject to approval by the landlord and Architectural Review Commission (ARC). He said the letters are channel lit reverse halo, 24" high with a sign envelope of 3'. He presented slides of the two (2) signs; one facing Town Center and the other facing the parking lot. He pointed out that the letter color is red, which is an approved color in the sign program however, the sign returns are black and the sign program states that the returns must match the sign color Staff discussed this with the applicant who has agreed to having red returns. Commissioner Vuksic asked how tall the lower letters were on the Aspen Dental sign. MR. RYAN YBARRA, Signs & Services Company, said they are about 28" high. Commissioner McAuliffe thought they might be 24" and said they are significantly larger than what they are proposing based on the dimensions given_ Commissioner Vuksic agreed and said looking at the letters the vast majority of them are going to be half as tall as the "s". However, in the elevation it fits comfortably and looks reasonable. Commissioner Vuksic said that the sign is 12" high and the channel letters are 5" deep and wondered if that was going to look right because GAPiannngUanineJudMROlMincles1202M2g0225min.docx Page 2 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REV-._VV COMMISSION Q MINUTES February 25, 2020 typically they are 3" deep. MR. YBARRA said it is usually always 5". Commissioner McIntosh stated that the drawing was way out of proportion. Commissioner McAuliffe said given the scale of the letters he thinks the depth can be reduced. MR. YBARRA believes they can reduce the depth of the letters and will definitely confirm that with the client. Commissioner McAuliffe said it would be better proportionally. Commissioner McIntosh thought there may also be more even light distribution with 5". Commissioner Vuksic clarified that the Commission is requiring the depth to be 3" and if there is a problem then the applicant can return to staff. ACTION: Commissioner McAuliffe moved to approve subject to reducing the depth of letters from 5" to 3" to keep letters proportional. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 5-0-2 vote with Lambell Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh and Vuksic voting YES and Schmid and Van Vliet absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP 19-0002 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T Smartlink, Attn: Chris Doheny, 2033 San Elijo Avenue #600, Cardiff, CA 92007 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve a new 65' monopalm to include power generator, utility cabinets and 12 panel antennas. LOCATION: 78-0005 Country Club Drive ZONE: P.C. Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal by the project applicant, AT&T Smartlink, to construct a 65' tall wireless telecommunications tower (WTT) camouflaged as a palm tree at the corner of Washington Street (Washington) and Country Club Avenue (Country Club). The tower will feature 12 panel antennas and 36 remote radio units mounted at a height of 65' and screened by faux palm fronds. The tower will be placed within an existing landscape planter adjacent to the carwash building. The applicant proposes to relocate existing palms within this planter as a means to screen the monopalm. He described the 28B' enclosure that will house the support equipment and stuccoed GAPlanningUanineJudVkARMIMinele3M2OWO;-l25min.d=x Page 3 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REV W COMMISSION `-' MINUTES February 25, 2020 to match the adjacent buildings. The proposed WTT conforms with height and setback requirements, but will require an exception for separation distance from an existing tower located 908' northwest of the proposed tower. He said towers at this height require that it be at least 1,000' from adjacent towers. The Palm Desert Municipal Code allows exceptions from separation requirements for towers designed as a stealth installation and there is a precedence for these exceptions granted in the past. Mr. Mellon! presented slides of the site plan, landscape plan and passed around a materials board. The proposed tower is designed to appear as a palm tree and is clustered with live palms to blend in with the surrounding area. Staff is concerned that the significant height difference between the tower and proposed live palms will only accentuate the tower's visibility from the adjacent right-of-way. Staff recommends requiring the applicant to provide additional mature palms throughout the site, within the existing landscape buffer along Washington and Country Club, and immediately next to the tower. Additionally, these live palms should be at a mature height to reduce the visual impact of the proposed tower. Staff also recommends the applicant provide additional landscaped shrubs between the equipment enclosure and the adjacent street to further screen the facility and replace any existing dead trees or shrubs. Staff also recommends that the applicant submit a formal landscape plan calling out the species of the palms, the height at the time of planting, replacing dead shade trees, and clarify details of the landscaping between the sidewalk and the proposed enclosure so that it fits in with the existing landscape. Overall, staff recommends approval and a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission for the design subject to landscaping comments. Mr. Mellon! presented slides of two (2) existing towers that are approximately 65' tall on the north side of Country Club within an existing center. He said the applicant has explored alternative locations, however due to lack of property owner agreements, and other zoning restrictions, these alternative locations have proven infeasible. He referred to a letter that was handed out at the beginning of the meeting from Attorney John Henning who is representing the owner of one of the existing towers. In the letter it voices the tower owners opposition to the tower on the basis that it isn't needed. Commissioner Vuksic said the letter states that the proposed tower is not needed because they can use an existing tower. Mr. Melloni said the applicant informed staff that they looked at alternative sites that weren't entirely feasible based on other zoning restrictions or an inability to acquire a lease. The Commission and MA. CHRIS DOHENY, AT&T GVlanningUanineJudyWRM1MinuleM2020\200225min.daeK Page 4 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL RE%,..W COMMISSION 0 MINUTES February 25, 2020 Smartlink, (AT&T) discussed the tower's design, the types of fronds and the location of the equipment. Mr. Eric Ceja, Principal Planner said the Commission's role today is to approve the monopalm design and landscaping placed around the tower. This will then move forward to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Levin asked why AT&T wasn't looking to co -locate on the existing tower. MR. DOHENY said they researched the two (2) towers and approached the property owner several times without response. The two (2) facilities are occupied and in use now. As the tower is approximately 65' tall, AT&T would probably be offered the lower position which would push them down to about 45'. After reading the attorney's letter, he said he is just now aware that one of the towers are vacant. Commissioner McIntosh thought there might be an opportunity now to co -locate since the tower is vacant. Mr. Ceja said staff encourages co - location and the onus is on the applicant to prove that co -locating is not an option for them. MR. JOHN HENNING, Attorney at Law, said his client, SBA, is the owner of the tower closest to the proposed tower. SBA feels the City doesn't have to approve new cell towers when the capacity that is needed by both the carrier and the citizens of the City is available on the existing tower. He stated that the City's ordinance is designed to encourage shared use/co-location of existing towers as a primary option rather than constructing a new tower. This Commission can recommend approval of the tower on aesthetics and architectural grounds but recommend to the Planning Commission not to approve the project. He discussed the issue of whether this proposed tower is needed and referred to a letter from the site marketing manager for SBA stating that AT&T has not approached them as to the possibility of leasing space on the existing tower. SBA has reviewed the plans and can easily accommodate all of AT&Ts equipment at precisely the same height. SBA rents out space on the tower for up to four (4) carriers and in this particular case AT&T can have whichever space they want because the tower is currently vacant. The letter states that AT&T has not approached SBA to inquire as to the possibility of leasing space on this tower. SBA feels this is a workable solution and the City can avoid approving another tower. He referred to the waiver request on a tower less than 1,000' from another tower and said if the Commission grants approval there should either be some sort of real hardship or that the waiver has no impact on the neighborhood. He strongly urged the Commission not to grant approval of the waiver as there is no justification. Commissioner Vuksic said if the goal is to disguise it as a palm tree, can it accommodate more than one carrier. MR. HENNING believes they G:%P1anninMJanineJudy\ARC%lMinutea120201200225min.d=x Page 5 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REV�W COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2020 may be able to accommodate two carriers at the same level but didn't know the technology at this time. Mr. Ceja thinks one of the arrays can accommodate four (4) antennas and believes there is a way to share. MR. DOHENY said they cannot share the same array due to frequency interference. Commissioner Vuksic said in the past applicants have mentioned interference with signals. MR. HENNING said the level of 65' is available and basically there is nothing AT&T can do on their tower that they can't do by co -locating on SBAs tower. Commissioner McIntosh said with the ordinance encouraging sharing of towers, is there some requirement of the applicant to demonstrate they have no options at this point. Mr. Ceja said staff typically asks for that when they turn in the application. MR. HENNING said their application states they considered other towers and other possibilities but didn't indicate who they spoke with. Commissioner McIntosh asked if staff takes the applicants word and Mr. Ceja said the applicant performs two exercises upon submittal of the application. One is to submit radio frequency maps to show how they are impacted if they move their antennas 900' and the other is a letter stating they have reached out to nearby tower owners. MR. DOHENY said if they identify a tower and see antennas on it their assumption is that it's going to be working and occupied by another carrier. If it is a monopalm, the 45' height level is not going to serve AT&T. Commissioner McIntosh said now that AT&T knows that it is vacant can they go down this path. MR. DOHENY said it is a big surprise to him that this tower is not being used. Generally what happens when a tower is built and it goes out of service it is dismantled and taken down in accordance with the agreement. He's not sure how long this has been out of service. The Commission reviewed previous images of the tower compared to the current condition. Commissioner Vuksic wondered how long the tower has been vacant and said obviously no one has given it any kind of care because it just has nubs with hardly any fronds. MR. HENNING wasn't sure which of the two towers belong to SBA. Commissioner Vuksic asked staff if there was something in place that this needs to be maintained or dismantled. Mr. Mellon! said it is a condition but for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to be formerly revoked, it has to go back to a public hearing. Mr. Ceja said there is something in the ordinance on abandonment of towers and the owner has 180 days to get that down, however he doesn't know when the tower stopped operating. He said there are a lot more questions that have been brought up by this letter that was received an hour prior to this meeting. Commissioner McAuliffe said staff can review the abandonment issue, as well as a couple of other GARanningUanineJudyWFiCllMinules120201200225min.doex Page 6 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVk..-W COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2020 things. MR. HENNING said if SBA is responsible for something that doesn't seem to meet the conditions they have agreed to, the client will fix it. Mr. Ceja said when an operator comes back and wants to upgrade their panel antennas they have to submit a building plan and staff will catch it then. Staff will then require that all the fronds be replaced and everything repainted. Commissioner Vuksic wondered what would happen when someone wants a tower and is told they have to co -locate because another tower is already there. He feels that now instead of owning their own tower the applicant is forced to rent a tower or their tower is not approved. Commissioner McAuliffe doesn't think that is the case. He thinks if the new tower is proposed at 1,001' away there isn't a whole lot of argument to be made. It certainly seems there is ample room for both parties to have a conversation and hammer out something that mutually serves both parties and if not then the application will be reviewed at some other time. Vice Chair Lambell encouraged MR. DOHENY and MR. HENNING to meet and discuss the opportunity to co -locate AT&T. The Commission and staff discussed the mandatory processing times dealing with cell towers and Mr. Ceja informed the Commission that staff has been processing the CUP in accordance with proper time lines. Obviously new information was presented the eleventh hour and staff will research that. Vice Chair Lambell spoke to MR. DOHENY and said it now becomes the applicants responsibility to prove to the Commission and ultimately the Planning Commission that they have contacted SBA for information on co -locating on the tower. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to continue subject to applicant exploring an alternative site or co -locating on an existing monopalm in project vicinity. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McAuliffe and carried by a 5-0-2 vote with Lambell Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh and Vuksic voting YES and Schmid and Van Vliet absent. G-AanninpUanineJudoRCltMinutes12020\200225min.doax Page 7 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL R6.r4 COMMISSION MINUTES C. Miscellaneous items; February 25, 2020 Wayne Olson, Senior Development Analyst in Economic Development presented the Invest Palm Desert Incentive Program. VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner Vuksic — 02/19/20 Commissioner Vuksic reported that the Commission selected artists for the Palm Desert Community Gallery, VII. COMMENTS Commissioner Vuksic inquired about the Chandi project and Mr. Olson provided a project status update. Vill. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McIntosh moved to meeting at 2,00 p.m. ERIC CEJA PRINCIPAL PLA R SECRETARY r � INlJi Y ORDING SECRETARY adjourn the Architectural Review Commission G.1?IannngUanineJudyWRCllMinutes120201200225min.dock Page 8 of 8