Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-28 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 28, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 21 3 Kristi Hanson X 20 4 Chris Van Vliet X 21 3 John Vuksic X 23 1 Ray Lopez X 21 3 Karen Oppenheim X 22 2 Karel Lambell X 18 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner Lambel to approve the minutes of December 14, 2004. The motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. None. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: SA 04-147 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHAD ADDINGTON, SIGN-A-RAMA, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite L, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of revised tenant signage for new building. Lyle Commercial LOCATION: 78-000 Fred Waring Drive ZONE: O.P. Mr. Stendell commented that there was a typographical error on one of the plans. The plans are now to scale, which was previously requested by the ARC. Chad Addington, representative for Sign-A-Rama, was present to address the commission. He commented that the proposed letters are going to be reverse channel letters. Mr. Stendell commented that with the previous submittal, the ARC had issues with having different colored letters on the upper fascia of the building. If the applicant wanted to use a uniform color on the upper fascia then that would be something that they could approve. Mr. Addington stated that he spoke to the Keller Williams representative and they were adamant that they would not change their red-colored signage. They were told that it would have to be reduced in size if they wanted to keep the red color. The signage has been reduced from 18" in height to 16" in height. Keller Williams did not want to use black for their letters. With the halo lighting, you won't see red at night. On the Fred Waring elevation, the Coldwell Banker sign needs to be blue. The letters are now being presented at 8" in height. The band of stucco on the lower fascia is 3'. The building was designed to try to have signage on the second story with a 4' fascia. Signage is very important to these tenants. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he talked to Keller Williams about the intensity of the red. Mr. Addington stated that he did speak to them about this and they told him that in Rancho Mirage they did tone it down and it was accepted by their corporate office. In Palm Springs, they received approval of the bright red signage, which is on a single-story building. Because these are not going to be internally illuminated channel letters, they'll be toned down. They could possibly use a darker red instead of a brighter red for Keller Williams. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 2 *400 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic stated that he would like to talk about letter size. I scaled the letters because sometimes the signs seem bigger when they're installed. On the elevations where you can see several signs, the Keller Williams sign scales 13" and it looks really good. Where you can see a small piece of the building, the sign scales at 18" on the same elevation. Mr. Addington stated that it's not supposed to be 18" in height. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the red sign is called out to be 16". The 18" black sign originally was scaled at 13", which looked perfectly legible. On the lower band, the letters are called out at 14", but it scales at 12". The 12" letters look nice and are very legible. It appears that on the 3' band on the lower level the 12" letters look good, but on the upper level on the 4' band, 14" letters look like they would be very legible and wouldn't overpower the building considering there are lots of signs being proposed. Commissioner Gregory summarized the idea that with the smaller red sign that they've indicated for Keller Williams appears to be okay. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't say that. The sizes appear to be okay at 12" on the lower level and 14" on the upper level. My point is that I see these different sizes on the plans and the exhibits don't scale out. If there are upper level signs that are 14", that would make the signs legible and they would look good on the building. In my opinion, I think we should go back to what we said about the previous submittal regarding color. To have multi-colored signs on the upper level and lower level doesn't seem respectful of a very nice building. These companies should be proud that they're on such a nice looking building and they shouldn't diminish its high quality with this gaudy signage. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the tenants can still have their colors, but they need to move their signage to the lower band, which is what the ARC agreed on at their last meeting. Commissioner Gregory stated that the letters should be 14" maximum on the upper level and 12" maximum on the lower level and toning down the colors. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they're going to have colors on the upper level, they need to use either the green or bronze which is indicated on one of the signs. Mr. Addington stated that he understood that there was an opportunity to get some colors on the upper level if they were reduced in size. It's so important to these national corporations to have their colors. I personally think that it will make the building more attractive. The building doesn't have an overhang so the signs will give it a little bit of relief so that's it's not just straight up and down. Keller Williams won't put a sign on the upper level if it can't be red. Coldwell Banker won't approve a different color. With the 8" letters for Coldwell Banker and Keller Williams at 14", 1 don't think that G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES they're going to make the building look unattractive. Mr. Drell asked if they're federally trademarked signs. If they're federally trademarked signs, then we can't force them to change their colors. We have a procedure where their signs could be reduced by 20%. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if we can dictate their location. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the Keller Williams sign be a muted, red/brown/rust color with 14" on the upper level and 12" on the lower level. Mr. Addington stated that he would like to come back at a future date to show the commission the color of the Keller Williams sign that was approved in Rancho Mirage. The commission agreed that this would be a good idea. Commissioner Lambel commented that the Coldwell Banker letters are being shown at 8" and wondered if they can use 12" letters. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Coldwell Banker sign is two lines so 8" is probably appropriate. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval, subject to (1) upper level letters being a maximum of 14" in height, (2) lower level letters being 12" maximum in height, (3) Coldwell Banker with 8" high letters and, (4) color for Keller Williams to be reviewed by ARC at a future date. Motion carried 5-0-0- 2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. 2. CASE NO.: SA 04-174 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44- 530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of monument sign. The Offices, Ell Paseo LOCATION: 72-745 Highway 111 ZONE: P.C. Action: Commissioner Lambell moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-2 with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 AGENDA 3. CASE NO.: SA 04-175 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CARL WEHRLI, BAXLEY PROPERTIES, 73-712 Alessandro, Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of sign program for Fred Waring professional building. LOCATION: 44-100 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Urbina stated that this is a proposed sign program that is reviving a previously approved sign program, according to the applicant. The main issue that staff would like the ARC to consider is that there are fourteen bays so they could potentially have fifteen signs if you approve this proposal. Whitten Push, representative for the applicant, was present and stated that this is a poorly scaled building. There are fifteen openings and they have thirty tenants so this would be a way to get the major tenants identified. This was done before we re-painted the building and we took the signs down. They were poorly done signs so we worked with Sign-A-Rama to design a nicer uniform sign that's 16" high and 96" long and they'll all be the same and equally spaced on each one. Carl Wehrli, applicant, was present and stated that the space that the signs will be mounted on is a ledge that's 21" high and it varies in length from 21' up to 28' depending on the configuration and location on the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the proposed signs look quite similar to the old signs that were removed from the building. Mr. Wehrli stated that they are similar. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the square footage of the tenant spaces. Mr. Wehrli stated that they're between 138 and 1,800 square feet. The small executive offices do not get their own signage. They have to have a certain square footage in order to qualify for their own signage. The exhibit calls out a white background, brown border with a two-color image. The letters will all be black. Ken Sanson, representative for Sign-A-Rama was present. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if this is a new application since they removed their signs or do they have the right to put the signs up in the same locations. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 AGENDA negotiation with the City when the building was re-painted. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the signs that were on the building before looked really bad. There was so much signage on the building that it really detracted from the building itself. It looks like the applicant is proposing to put that much signage back up again, which I think is a problem. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if they have 25,000 square feet and significant tenants would have signage then you're probably not talking about fifteen signs. That would mean that every 1,500 square foot tenant would get a sign. That's an awfully small tenant. Mr. Wehrli stated that he has a variety of tenants. Commissioner Vuksic stated that typically when you have that many tenants in a building, they don't all get signs on the face of the building. Mr. Wehrli stated that 80% of the building is on the front part of the building and the executive offices are in back. There are fourteen spaces that are full sized tenants and are requesting the signage. The others would get one sign that says, "Executive Offices". Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if they've considered putting signs on the large stucco face below the rail elements where there's a more substantial surface for them to sit on like the Fred Waring Professional Building sign on the corner. They could actually apply letters to the building instead of creating these boards. Mr. Wehrli stated that he hadn't considered that but it's certainly a possibility. It might look like you have more signage if you do it in that location, rather than up on the ledge. Commissioner Vuksic suggested having a sign at every other bay. Typically, you don't see an office building with signs for every tenant. Commissioner Oppenheim stated that the proposed signs look awfully busy. There's black and then colors, wood, white background. That's a lot going on. Mr. Drell commented that we have experience with these signs and know exactly what they're going to look like. We saw them. The bigger problem is that they look like plywood signs. You asked the question about the fact that they had a previous sign program and does that give them any rights now that the signage has been removed. Once you've abandoned signs, then that entitlement disappears. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the band of plaster where it steps back could support four or five signs, not fifteen. Commissioner Gregory stated that the building used to be more heavily landscaped. Mr. Drell stated that the trees are still there but they've been heavily G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\AgminWR041228.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 AGENDA pruned. They were supposed to be allowed to grow to full size. Mr. Wehrli stated that the trees have actually been removed. Mr. Drell stated that the approved landscaping that's been removed is another issue. Commissioner Gregory stated that when the building was originally approved there was some concern that it lacked some articulation. There was a lot of emphasis put on the landscaping and it was installed, but over time it disappeared. Commissioner Vuksic's observations and comments are really sound and you could probably help yourselves also by getting some larger plant material in there and put in a few trees to help break it up a little bit. The building really looks like a big slab. This is a good opportunity to make the building look really sharp. Mr. Wehrli asked how many signs he could have. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he could have four or five signs (three on Monterey and one or two on Fred Waring). Mr. Drell suggested putting a sign over the arc or at least another sign that says "Fred Waring Professional Building. Commissioner Vuksic agreed. That would identify the building. Mr. Drell stated that this is typically what people in offices do. Commissioner Oppenheim concurred and stated that she would prefer to see that rather than a lot of little signs. Commissioner Lambel commented that if you're driving and you see fifteen signs, nothing is going to register for advertising. You're going to locate it by being at the Fred Waring Professional Building. Mr. Wehrli asked if he could have a monument sign on the corner with some of the tenants listed on it. Mr. Drell stated that once you put more than three or four tenants on it, it will start to look way too cluttered. Commissioner Lambel commented that this building improved so much when the signs came down and it was painted. It's improved so much that I'd hate to see it go back to the way it was before. Commissioner Vuksic suggested using individual letters and they could even light them from the ground with uplighting. Bronze letters would look nice. Mr. Drell commented that small tenants tend to turn over and then you'd end up patching the stucco when the letters have to be removed and replaced. Commissioner Gregory suggested that some additional trees be added to replace the trees that have been removed over the years. It was suggested that this issue be discussed further when the applicant returns with a revised sign program. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to submit a sign program with individual letter signage on the plaster band below G:Plan ning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 7 '%00 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES the balcony rails showing three signs on Monterey, one sign on Fred Waring and one wall sign above entry way. 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. 4. CASE NO.: CUP 04-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VICORP RESTAURANT, 400 West 48th Avenue, Denver, CO 80216 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a patio addition, exterior colors and business signage for Baker's Square. LOCATION: 73-075 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Stendell stated that the applicant would like to add a patio, exterior painting and landscaping. They're deleting some signage and adding new signage to the face. Mr. Drell stated that they're removing the can sign and adding individual letters to the front. Ms. Hollinger asked if there was a landscape plan. The applicant stated that they're just upgrading what's there. Ms. Hollinger stated that they still need a landscape plan. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the columns underneath the overhang are decorative and wondered how the overhang relates to them. Does the overhang stick out beyond it the way the elevation shows? The applicant stated that the columns tie right to the bottom side of the fascia. The fascia is only 10". Commissioner Vuksic commented that the bottom of the fascia is at an angle so how could it be sitting on the top of a column? Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it shouldn't look like it's just added on. Mr. Drell suggested beefing up the fascia somehow. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the columns are only V in depth and the side views look really strange because they're so spindly looking. He suggested making the proportion the same as one of the fronts of the columns. It looks substantial from the front and really "stage front-like" from the side. The left elevation needs to be beefed up so that it matches one of those column elements. There's a problem with the overhang. The overhang is hitting in the middle and it's at an angle so it doesn't sit G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN g ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES cleanly on the column. Ideally, they should be moved in so that the overhang goes out past the columns. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the Baker's Square sign is going to be mounted. The applicant stated that it's a raceway for the back of the letters. We can't mount letters to the fascia because there's no way to penetrate through to get to the electrical. Technically, if you could penetrate through and have the transformers and connectors behind it but there's no way to get through the solid stucco. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the neon details on the side and asked if there was some way to connect it all so that it's a continuous light and get a junction box to power it. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why they can't go through the stucco. The applicant stated that there's no way to get access because it's solid. Commissioner Vuksic asked what was behind the plaster. It shouldn't be a solid beam. The applicant stated that this was an old Sambo's property and it had plated roofs and it's solid. Commissioner Vuksic questioned whether the fascia was concrete. The applicant stated that there's no way to gain access there. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that they would have to make access through the front and then put some kind of recessed electrical device on the inside underneath the roof structure. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't think that it's solid in this area. The applicant stated that he's worked on similar buildings all over the United States and he's never been able to gain access in this area. It's a nightmare. Commissioner Vuksic stated that these are rafters that are going up to the glass line and continue on up. This is cantilevered so there's no reason to have a beam in this area. Commissioner Gregory stated that the commission doesn't like raceways. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the neon is acceptable. Mr. Drell stated that this is a case of having a very blah building that needs a little spark. Commissioner Vuksic asked how they intend to get power to the neon. The applicant stated that he would have to talk to the sign company. Mr. Drell requested a structural drawing on the overhang to show us what you can do and what you can't do. Commissioner Gregory stated that a landscape plan must be submitted. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to continue the request to allow the applicant to revise the plans for the pillars, signage and prepare a landscape plan. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 9 *400t ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim to add MISC 04-62 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-62 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE BARON, 74-074 San Marino Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of an 18' roof height on an accessory building. LOCATION: 77-680 Mountain View ZONE: RE Mr. Smith stated that the applicant couldn't attend the meeting, but requested that the commission take action on the proposed accessory structure. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that all he did was lower the two end roof sections. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the fascia. Mr. Stendell stated that it's part of the metal roof. Commissioner Vuksic commented that he liked how they stepped back the building on the south elevation where the eaves of the lower roofs can die into the other portion of the building. They didn't do that on the north side where it's flat. The eaves are hanging out with nowhere to stop with a very flat building. He needs to have the same kind of off set to allow those things to stop and start naturally. With the low-pitched metal roof, this is going to look like an industrial building. Is that acceptable for this area? Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he wouldn't want to be a neighbor. Commissioner Oppenheim referred to a similar building that had a tile roof and parapets and it looked good. Commissioner Vuksic commented that a metal roof building next to a Spanish tile roof house doesn't work. If his house has a metal roof on it then a metal roof on the accessory building is okay. A 2:12 pitch would work, rather than 1:12. Commissioner Gregory summarized and stated that the north elevation reflect the south elevation with a 2:12 pitched roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof material needs to either compliment his house or compliment what his house will become. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheim for approval subject to (1) eaves on both the north and south elevations are to have similar off sets, (2) pitch of roof to be a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 10 NOV ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES minimum of 2:12, (3) maximum building height to be 18' from grade, (4) roof material to compliment the house and to be residential in style, i.e. clay tile or concrete tile (If the roof material for the accessory structure is metal, then it must match a metal roof on the main residence.), (5) fascia to be plaster to match the house. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. C. Miscellaneous 1. CASE NO.: MISC 04-67 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STAN & MICHELLE SMITH, 73-526 Ironwood Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval to raise existing 4' high wall on the west side of the property to 6' (12' to 4' from curb). LOCATION: 73-526 Ironwood Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Smith stated that this item was on the last ARC agenda and commission requested the opportunity to visit the site. Staff went out and shot some more pictures with the assistance of the applicant. There is a wall inside of a wall. In your packet you did receive updated plans. Stan Smith was present and indicated that he had raised the height of a wall that had existed for some time. It was located in the same location as the wall presently is, but was lower in height. Commission determined that the wall needed to be relocated back at least 12' from the Burroweed curb and accordingly it was moved and seconded to approve the 6' high wall subject to it being 12' back from curb and stucco added to match the existing residence. A landscape plan was requested for approval by the Landscape Manager. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval of a 6' high wall, subject to (1) the wall being 12' from curb, (2) stucco to match existing residence and, (3) approval of a landscape plan for the parkway area by the Landscape Manager. Motion carried 5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Hanson and Lopez absent. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN I I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 28, 2004 MINUTES VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR041228.MIN 12