The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-11-12 ARC Regular Meeting Agenda AGENDA PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 12, 1991 12:00 P.M. - ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * STUDY SESSION WILL BEGIN AT 12:00 NOON REGULAR SESSION WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. (OR EARLIER) -- COMMISSION WILL TAKE UP THE AGENDA AT 1:00 WHERE IT LEFT OFF AT STUDY SESSION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. Approval of minutes of the October 22, 1991 meeting. II. Minute motion approving cases found acceptable at the study session. III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda may address the commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the commission. 2. This is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on non-hearing agenda items. It should be noted that at commission discretion, these comments may be deferred until such time on the agenda as the item is discussed. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of five minutes unless additional time is authorized by the commission. IV. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: 368 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STUDIO FIVE ARCHITECTS & DESIGN for LUCKY STORES, 31511-A Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Reconsideration of Condition No. 3 on approved landscape plan LOCATION: El Paseo and Lupine Avenue ZONE: C-1 S.P. 2. CASE NO: PP 90-13 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DSL SERVICE CO. , 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 5000, North Tower, Newport Beach, CA 92658-6030 Noe AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1991 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: 1 ) Reconsideration of Mervyn's sign request; 2) Review of drawings for major tenants and inline shops LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. 3. CASE NO: PP 89-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RODGER A. BROOKS for PIZZA HUT, 200 So. Rock Road, Suite A, Wichita, Kansas 67207-1160 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of outdoor dining patio and trellis LOCATION: 72-311 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. (3) S.P. 4. CASE NO: 374 C APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MELANIE PLACE PARTNERS, 73-441 Mariposa, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Remodel portion of existing building LOCATION: 42-650 Melanie Place ZONE: S. I . 5. CASE NO: 2071 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 205, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awning and signage LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo, Suite 8 ZONE: C-1 S.P. 2 AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1991 6. CASE NO: 1485 SA-1 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PACIFIC SPA AND BATH, 73-446 Highway 111 , Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of additional signage on awning LOCATION: 73-446 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 7. CASE NO: 2070 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DUCHESS HAIR DESIGN, 73-900 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage on awning LOCATION: 73-900 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 S.P. 8. CASE NO.: VAR 91-3 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FOXX DEVELOPMENT CORP. , 74-818 Velie Way, Suite 12, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of final landscaping plan and material board LOCATION: 73-811 El Paseo ZONE: C-i 9. CASE NO. : 2072 SA APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : MS. DIANE BIGGS for DIANE'S, 125 Manhattan Beach Blvd. , Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Replace existing awning with new white awning to include new signage LOCATION: 73-800 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 3 AGENDA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 1991 B. Miscellaneous Plans: 1. CASE NO: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS) : JUNE MULLENEAUX for TSING TAO RESTAURANT, Post Office Box 123, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of blower extending four inches over parapet LOCATION: "Super Block Building" located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Portola Avenue ZONE: C-1 S.P. 2. CASE NO.: PP 89-19 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GREGORY & ASSOCIATES for "SUPER BLOCK" BUILDING, 74-020 Alessandro Drive, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Commissions review of installed landscaping LOCATION: Northeast corner of Portola Avenue and Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 S.P. 3. Comments on tree light recommendations to city council . V. ADJOURNMENT: *************************************************************************** I , Donna Bitter, of the City of Palm Desert, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Architectural Review Commission meeting of Tuesday, November 12, 1991, was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, November 8, 1991 . Dated: November 8, 1991 DONNA C. BITTER Senior Office Assistant City of Palm Desert, California 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager and City Council FROM: Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development DATE: November 14, 1991 SUBJECT: Tree Lights Attached is a letter from Embassy Suites Hotel regarding lighting for palm trees. Council at its October 10, 1991 meeting received an architectural commission recommendation pertaining to the lighting of trees at Embassy Suites. The commission recommended that council approve the existing tree lighting concept. Council continued the matter, instructing staff to ask the commission for further clarification of its recommendation. Staff was also to direct the commission to establish tree lighting guidelines. The issue was discussed by the architectural commission at its meeting of October 22, 1991. The commission: 1 . Reaffirmed their previous approval recommendation to council. Commission stated to staff that they were familiar with the lights and had seen the site. 2. Commission also clarified that their policy relating to tree lights was as follows: a. No color lights should be permitted. b. Bulbs should be small, white non-blinking lights. c. Lighting should be low voltage accent lighting. d. Lighting should be tastefully done and aesthetically acceptable. A question arose at the council meeting whether these lights violated our sign regulations. Section 25. 68.020 U defines a sign as meaning: " . . . any thing of visual appearance primarily used for, or having the effect of, attracting attention from the streets, sidewalks or other outside public areas for identification purposes. " The section goes on to define what a sign is not: "A sign shall not mean displays of merchandise or products for sale on the premises, or signs inside buildings except less than three feet behind a window facing public view, or CITY MANAGER/CITY COLoyw,,IL TREE LIGHTS NOVEMBER 14, 1991 ornamentation, design, statuary, architecture, landscaping, pictures, paintings or other such art forms unless, in the case of any exceptions listed in this chapter, the attraction, because of location, size, use or the nature thereof, has the substantial effect of attracting attention for identification purposes when viewed from an outside public area. " The section concludes: "The basic intent behind this definition is not to discourage product displays, design or art forms epitomizing simplicity, good taste and compatibility with taste and compatibility with the community' s desired image. " The process established for reviewing the lighting of trees calls for the architectural commission to evaluate applications and make recommendation to the council. Council then makes the final determination. The policy or criteria used by the commission in making its recommendation has already been stated. The sign ordinance, which was recently amended, is written in a manner that permits the council to review and decide on a case by case basis this issue. Council wisely setforth this procedure because all of us realized that the lighting of trees, or a building for that matter, should be judged on a case by case basis. The only decision that is being made here is that in the case of Embassy Suites the lighting of 26 trees may or may not be acceptable. Staff continues to recommend that council affirm the architectural commission recommendation. ON A. D AZ SSISTANT CITY-'MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING /tm Attachment 2 ' NworRECEIVED EMBASSY OCT 2 4. 1991 SUITES' HOTEL COMMUNITY OFELOPMENNT TSDETARTMENT CITYConference Center & Resort October 23 , 1991 Mr. Ray Diaz Planning Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Mr. Diaz : I understand that the lighting of our palm trees is of some concern and I would like you to consider that: 1. Tourism is the major industry in Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley. 2 . The successful tourism industry is marketed as an exciting glamorous industry. 3. The lights in our trees and on El Paseo and on other trees along Highway 111 give the tourists a sense of arrival and a welcoming atmosphere. 4 . Embassy Suites Palm Desert generates approximately $345,000 .00 in Transient Occupational Tax. 5. Of the entire part of the $1,000,000 .00 we have invested in this hotel in the last year, the lights on the palm trees continually bring us favorable comments from tourists and locals alike. For these reasons, I would welcome your support in allowing the continuation of not only the lighting at the Embassy suites but that other businesses are encouraged to add to the lighting in a tasteful way in order to add to the welcoming atmosphere. Sincerely, Michael C. Kahler General Manager Embassy Suites'°! 74-700 Highway 111, Palm Desert, California 92260, 019/340-6600 For nationwide reservations call 1-800-EMBASSY