Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-24 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 24, 2008 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 12 Kristi Hanson X 7 5 Chris Van Vliet X 12 John Vuksic X 11 1 Karel Lambell X 11 1 Nancy DeLuna X 10 2 Pam Touschner X 3 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 10, 2008 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the June 10, 2008 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner DeLuna abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R /IEW COMMISSION WNW MINUTES June 24, 2008 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: PP 07-04 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OCHOA DESIGN ASSOCIATES, 73-626 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new commercial/industrial building; Marty's Tires Plus. LOCATION: 73-741 Spyder Circle ZONE: S.I Mr. Bagato presented construction drawings and summarized the project. He stated that on the previous plans, the applicant was requesting approval of a tower element that was two feet above the height limit but consistent with our other ordinances; however, the Planning Commission was not in favor of the tower element so it was reduced down to thirty feet and also a tire ornamental element which had to be removed. Staff is recommending a continuance because the structural plans don't match the height and there were issues with the inset. Mr. Juan Carlos Ochoa, Architect thought that it would be ok to keep the logo if it were lowered it. Mr. Bagato stated that he reviewed the minutes and it was Planning Commission's recommendation to lower the tower and the logo should not include the tire. Mr. Ochoa stated that he would clarify the logo issue with the owner. Mr. Ochoa stated that he could keep the tower at the same height, remove the inset and carry the element up. He suggested that he could continue the tower element straight out to thirty feet, which is shown on the plans. Commissioner Van Vliet thought the tower element might look odd without having an inset and asked if it could come down a little. Mr. Ochoa stated that he was looking at the same height for the tower element and said that the sign should be placed somewhere on that tower element. Mr. Bagato stated that the sign code indicates that signs are not supposed to be above twenty feet. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008 AR080624.min.doc Page 2 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RYVIEW COMMISSION *✓ MINUTES June 24, 2008 The Commission reviewed and discussed the drawings with the architect. Mr. Ochoa stated that they would change the materials on the tower element. Commissioner Touschner stated that she wouldn't have a problem approving it with the condition that the tower element is lowered, with no inset and carrying the reveal up. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) the reduction in the tower; 2) carrying the reveal up so that architecturally it all looks the same; and 3) supporting Planning Commission's comments. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. Subsequent to the action noted above Commissioner Gregory asked to abstain and requested that the motion be reconsidered. Motion to reconsider carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) the reduction in the tower; 2) carrying the reveal up so that architecturally it all looks the same; and 3) supporting Planning Commission's comments. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Gregory and Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 08-244 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RED CARPET CARWASH, 44- 440 Town Center Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new monument sign, repainting a portion of exterior building, and the addition of awnings to rear of property. LOCATION: 44-440 Town Center Way ZONE: PC 3 SP Mr. Swartz presented the staff report and summarized the project. When the new owner of Red Carpet Carwash bought the previous carwash there was an existing monument sign that they refaced and are here for approval. Staff was concerned with the can sign so the applicant has proposed to leave the can sign and build new &\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 3 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RM/IEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2008 columns with stone around it. There is also a proposal for the red awnings along with awning signage that were replaced without approval. The Commission reviewed photos of the monument sign, awnings and the color of the building. Mr. Bagato stated that at a previous meeting the Commission had requested color modifications for the building, but a proposal for those modifications has never been submitted. He mentioned that the sign ordinance states that signs and awnings cannot be approved until other code violations are addressed so they need to address the color changes. The Commission stated that there were several colors that the applicant could choose from that would work with the red awnings and not have to replace the awnings. The applicant had questions on the recommendations that were made at the last meeting and the Commission reviewed those minutes. The Commission was concerned with approving the red awnings until the applicant can submit samples of the alternative base color for the building. They had concerns with so much red on the can sign and felt that it could be done in a different way. They also discussed the illumination of the sign. Mr. Bagato stated that the entire sign face lights up at night. Mr. Dave Bullen, General Manager, stated that they didn't have a problem taking the back lighting out and doing indirect lighting. The Commission suggested removing the red from the sign except for their corporate colors. The Commission discussed several directions that the applicant could go with the signage. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant had good intentions with the sign and felt that it didn't have to be this complicated. He discussed the towers and caps with the Mr. Bullen. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the sign needed more work to get the proportions right, as well as additional drawings to see it from the top and all sides so the Commission can understand the relationship of the different surfaces. Mr. Bullen stated that he would have to inform the owner that he would have to take down the sign and start over because the City won't allow him to reface it the way he would like. He understood that it was a non-conforming sign and that they could either start from scratch or do it the way the City wants it. Commissioner Touschner stated that the sign be something that is very simplistic, not fussy, matching the building, and being careful with site lines and invading into sidewalks. She also recommended &Planning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 4 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL R /IEW COMMISSION 1400, MINUTES June 24, 2008 that the color red be an accent color. Commissioner Vuksic submitted a drawing with his suggestions on what they could do. Mr. Bagato stated his concern again about the illumination and suggested a new face that has push through routed out letters that light up. He discussed the size of the sign and stated that they could have 40 square feet of letter area and then the monument sign could be designed around that area. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to continue subject to: 1) designing a simplistic, non-fussy sign matching materials on building; 2) monument sign to be designed around 40 square feet of letter area; and; 3) submittal of new color options for building that will work with the red accent. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. 3. CASE NO: CUP 08-247 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D 1" Floor, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of installation of a 70' faux mono-palm telecommunications facility. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated that the applicant was not present for the meeting. The applicant proposes to install a 70-foot tall mono-palm located on a property with an existing building for Desert Gateway Self Storage. The area the applicant is leasing is located in the rear of the property and the size is 176 square feet. Outside the leasing area will be a 35-foot high generator along with a 35-foot high Telco Vault. Screening the area will be an 8-foot wrought iron fence. The applicant has provided a detailed layout (see attachment). The applicant is not providing any landscaping to help screen and soften the mono-palm or leasing area. Staff feels that the location of the mono-palm meets the City's zoning standards, but the applicant needs to provide three to four palm trees ranging in height from 40 feet to 50 feet to meet the City's visual standards. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Flles\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 5 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL R /IEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2008 The Commission discussed the location of the generators. One generator is currently located there and they would be bringing in another. They also discussed the height of the four palm trees currently at that location. Mr. Bagato stated that there was no more room to put additional palm trees at that location. The Commission also reviewed and discussed other locations on the property where it could be relocated to work better. Mr. Bagato had a couple of other concerns and stated that Planning Commission has stressed that they would prefer to see mono- palms that have the antenna inside the trunk of the pineapple, not the outside rays. His other concern was that the proposed mono- palm has a large microwave that doesn't blend in with the palm tree. He recommended that the case be continued so that they can meet with the applicant. Commissioner Touschner questioned the block wall that was around the two transformers and stated that the elevation and the plans did not match. The Commission reviewed the elevation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue subject to applicant working with staff on location and overall design. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO: VAR 08-254 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LONGS DRUGS c/o SIGN DESIGNS INC. 204 Campus Way, Modesto, CA 95352 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building and monument signage; Longs Drugs LOCATION: 74517 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated the applicant is requesting an exception to the City's sign ordinance allowing additional square footage of signage. Long's Drugs fronts on three public streets allowing the applicant one sign per frontage. Each building frontage is 130 square feet allowing the applicant 82.5 square feet of signage per building frontage. The G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 6 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RMVIEW COMMISSION `"� MINUTES June 24, 2008 applicant is proposing three wall signs with each sign being identical. The applicant is allowed 82.5 feet of signage per building frontage. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Planning Commission for an additional 126.5 square footage of signage per frontage; for a total for each wall sign 209 square feet of signage. Staff feels that with the architecture of the building the signage is overwhelming on the building. Staff understands where they may be coming from to ask for an exception by looking at the building. The building does have a large frontage to ask for an exception, but staff eels that from 82.5 square feet to 209 square feet is excessive. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the size of the signs. It was noted that the applicant was not proposing any monument signage so all the square footage allowed would be on the wall. The applicant is proposing directions signs and staff did not have any issues with those. Mr. Bagato stated that staff can see why the building could use a larger sign per the code because 82.5 square feet looks small for that building. However, when we do a Variance for Planning Commission we have to consider not setting a precedent. Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed sign is quite large and clearly looks over scale. Commissioner Touschner asked what their reasons were for wanting is bigger. Mr. Sam Spinello, representative, stated that Long's Operations felt that it would be more noticeable to the public and help to drive sales. The Commission felt that the plans were a little deceptive because it was black and white and not in red. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there were three signs on this building and typically on a regular building we would only have one on the front face so the applicant has a bonus by having three signs. That is a lot of signage and they could go with the smaller signs and make them pop. Mr. Bagato stated that Staff is recommending denial of the proposal and taking it to Planning Commission and shared our recommendations to the applicant. Mr. Spinello asked if there might be the possibility of a compromise between the two. Commissioners DeLuna and Touschner stated there wasn't a good enough reason for the signs to be bigger. Mr. Spinello stated that the applicant wants what has been proposed, however he had another version made that was bigger than the code but a little more commiserate with what would fit with the building. He stated that he came up with 128 square feet of signage compared to 85.5 GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL AM(JIEW COMMISSION *400r MINUTES June 24, 2008 allowed by code. Commissioner DeLuna stated that if the sign was going to be red they would have to go a long way to defend why they want to make it bigger. Commissioner Touschner said that just to be bigger wasn't a good enough reason to approve the increase. There are two directional signs and three signs on the building and felt that it was well signed. She stated that part of the issue was that they had "Drive Thru Pharmacy" which has to be included within the size. If they took that away then "Long's Drugs" could be larger. Mr. Bagato stated that originally he had recommended that with the applicant. Mr. Spinello stated that Operations felt that may be problematic. The Commission discussed the sign locations and the possibility of making two of them smaller. Mr. John Vuksic, Architect stated that the signage shown at 128 square feet is actually smaller than the signage that was put on the architectural package. However, none of these signs were red. He suggested bringing them back as red signs and in 3D to see what it would look like from the corner so the Commission would really understand what they would be approving or not approving. Commissioner DeLuna felt that people would see Long's Drugs and recognize the brand and felt that they didn't need to defend a larger size. Mr. Bagato said that when you do a Variance it has to be something unique and special to this property that is not unique or special to anyone else in the city. In this case, this building is on three corners and if they removed "Drive Thru Pharmacy" from the front wall sign they would have a larger wall sign there or they can just have a monument sign and no wall signage. They could have 41 square feet of sign area on a corner monument sign and get full visibility. He feels that giving them a Variance just to have a bigger sign just because it looks better on the building is not something they can support at Planning Commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to deny request for a Variance. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\ARC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 8 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL RIEW COMMISSION wry MINUTES June 24, 2008 5. CASE NO: MISC 08-253 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHURCHILL PACIFIC, 73-061 El Paseo, Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval for tenant improvements, fagade enhancement and signage; Bottega Veneta LOCATION: 73-080 El Paseo, Suite 3 and 4 ZONE:C-1 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Wet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approval by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 , with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Hanson absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G1Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesWRC Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 9 of 9