Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-11 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 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 2 Chris Van Vliet X 13 1 John Vuksic X 13 1 Karel Lambell X 14 Pam Touschner X 11 3 Allan Levin X 8 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 14, 2009. Minutes of the July 28, 2009 meeting to be approved at the next meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the July 14, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REV�.wf COMMISSION :,,, e MINUTES August 11, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-288 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GEORGE PEJOVIC, JR., 74-237 Old Prospector Trail. Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to build a carport in the front yard. LOCATION: 74-237 Old Prospector Trail ZONE: R1-10,000 Ms. Grisa stated that this item was presented at the last meeting and the Commission's comments were to create larger beams across the top to provide more shade. There was also an issue with matching the columns to the front of the fagade because the top failed to match the roofline. She said that if you are looking at the front elevation the cross member is the same height as the fascia but the member below is within the column and you can see it from the right elevation. The Commission reviewed and discussed the columns and the fascia. Ms. Grisa stated that the applicant increased the size of the beams to 4 x 6s and concealed the connectors. Commissioner Van Vliet expressed his concern that it does not enhance the architecture of the house, in fact it distracts from it. Commissioner Vuksic thought they asked the applicant to align it with the bottom of the fascia and if they wanted to increase the beams to 4 x 8s it would be okay. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that they would twist. Mr. Gary Wagner, representative stated that they would have several 2 x 6s in between them all. Commissioner Vuksic stated that if the applicant goes to free of heart structural grade lumber on the 4 x 6s that would minimize the twisting. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there wasn't really any shear and asked if they were 6 x 6 posts coming up inside the columns. Mr. Wagner stated that was correct but they will be framed 10 x 10 square. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there should probably be steel columns, otherwise there won't be any shear on it. G1PIanningWanineJudy\WordRes\AMinutes\200MR090811min.doc Page 2 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL R'6.AEW COMMISSION Nlo+° MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant will have to obtain a building permit and the Building Department will look at how this will hold up in an earthquake. It will need a better structural system that takes it down to the footings with some steel buried inside instead of just the wood posts. Mr. Wagner said they were planning on using steel. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval subject to structural grade lumber to minimize twisting. Motion carried 4-1-0-1, with Commissioner Van Vliet voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-332 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): FRED PIZZUTO, 44-645 San Antonio Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a carport 20 feet from face of curb LOCATION: 44-645 San Antonio Circle ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting approval of a two-car carport that will be located 20 feet from the curb. The applicant had a two-car garage that was converted into living quarters legally. The applicant must provide covered parking per Section 25.16.090, C, which states, in order to encourage rehabilitation of older dwelling units and to provide shaded parking for vehicles, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve a well designed carport structure with a minimum setback of 20 feet, to be measured from the curb face to the front edge of the carport structure. The applicant proposes a 16- by 28-foot carport that will be attached to the eave of the house. The carport is aluminum lattice, and the lattice is 2- by 2-inch tubes at 2-inch spacing. The carport will be 8 feet in height and will have two 30- by 30- by 30-inch steel post for support. The proposed carport is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would be congruent with the proposed massing and architectural GAPlanningWanineJudyNordFiles\AMinutes\20091AR090811min.doc Page 3 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION v MINUTES August 11, 2009 language, as well as enhancement of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. Mr. Stephan Gallegos, representative stated that the carport will have steel beam inserts in the front to support the weight with steel post and 30- by 30- by 30-inch deep footings and rebar. He said that the plans will be reviewed by engineering and pointed out that the applicant has five feet on both sides with an adjacent lot on the one side which the applicant also owns. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans. Commissioner Levin asked how wide the driveway was and Mr. Gallegos answered that it was about 22 to 24 feet. Commissioner Levin asked to see a site plan of the entire circular driveway because he felt that it wouldn't work once the carport goes up. Mr. Gallegos said it would work because where the driveway circles there is grass and the footings are going into the grass not in the slab; it will be out of the way of the driving area. Commissioner Vuksic said the plans showed the carport being in plane with the eave of the house and Mr. Gallegos stated that the 2 x 6s would be attached to the eave of the house to keep costs down. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it was hard to understand because it was drawn so out of scale. They discussed the clearance of the driveway and carport. Mr. Gallegos stated there will be a one-foot clearance from the bottom of the header beam and said that he could start at the eave and angle it up as you go out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it would take a pretty strong artistic statement to pull that off. Mr. Gallegos said that he could put another header beam to the back and attach that to the fascia and attach the rafters on top of the header beam allowing him to raise it up even higher. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they didn't want him to raise it above the eave. Commissioner Levin pointed out that the carport has a sixteen-foot depth and will not cover the entire vehicle. Mr. Gallegos stated that it will cover the majority of the vehicle and what is left is about two to three feet of the van or truck. GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090811min.doc Page 4 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL RCmrEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Touschner asked if there was any consideration given to other locations on the site. Mr. Gallegos stated that the applicant would like the carport in the proposed area. Commissioner Touschner said that it was odd to force this on the front of the house when he has property next to the house and could build a garage. She wondered how they could drive underneath this carport and still be able to use the circular drive. It seemed to her that they would be hitting the post. Mr. Gallegos stated that the post on the left side will be out of the way and the post on the right side will be into the curve of the driveway so it's actually out of the way. Commissioner Touschner thought that doing something in the center of the building like a porte-cochere would enhance the house, blending it with the building so that it doesn't appear tacked on. The Commission reviewed and discussed the plans and placing the carport in the front of the property. Commissioner Vuksic agreed that it would enhance the house. It would define the entry, be multi- functional and well-balanced as opposed to what is proposed because of the way the driveway curves. He suggested that Mr. Gallegos come back with more information including good site information so the Commission could see it better on the plan. Mr. Gallegos asked what the Commission was recommending. Commissioner Touschner asked Mr. Gallegos to consider placing the carport in the center of the circular driveway. Mr. Gallegos stated that it would not be functional for the applicant located in the center. Commissioner Touschner stated that in one of the photos there are two cars parked in front so why not have something in the middle where he would be able to park two cars underneath it. She thought that it would balance the house and they wouldn't have to maneuver around the columns. The Commission discussed the material for the carport. The Commission asked Mr. Gallegos to bring samples of the material to the next meeting, as well as the color and photos of previously built carports for comparison. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue Case MISC 09-288 subject to: 1) submitting site plan drawn to scale; 2) submitting material samples and photos of project; and 3) proposing other locations. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:\PlanningVanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR090811min.doc Page 5 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVI COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 3. CASE NO: RV 09-338 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ALBERT LEWIS, 74-339 Chicory Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV in the front yard behind a six-foot block wall and gate. LOCATION: 74-339 Chicory Street ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a nine-foot-six-inch high RV in the front yard behind a proposed six-foot block wall and gate of steel and corten. The RV is 29 feet in length and nine feet in width and will be approximately 20 feet from face of curb. The applicant currently has landscaping in the front yard and will add more to visually enhance the property. Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a RV shall not exceed twelve feet in height, which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of nine feet six inches. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission may approve and issue a permit to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a legal notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. Mr. Swartz pointed out on the photos where the cactus, gate and the new block wall will be located. The existing wall and gate will be demolished so the RV would set back. Commissioner Touschner stated that from a site plan point of view she was intrigued by it because it may be something that actually works, but from a height point of view it doesn't work because the building is so shallow and has such a modern flare to it. There is no sloped roof which would add height to it and the RV will overshadow the home. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AP090811min.dx Page 6 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL RL,.ocW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Vuksic said the problem with this is that the applicant has a really interesting and attractive house and felt that this would destroy it. Commissioner Van Vliet felt that it would have a pretty good impact on the neighbor's house as well. He said that it was just too big and didn't fit there. Commissioner Vuksic repeated something that Commissioner Gregory has said in the past that this should be compared to adding a wing onto a house because that is how big they are. Commissioner Touschner pointed out that the RV was an Airstream and goes with the architecture of the house, but she was concerned with how this would affect the neighbor. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to deny because of the impact to the neighbor since it will place it six feet three inches above the six-foot block wall. Commissioner Vuksic stated that even if it didn't impact the neighbor he still wouldn't be in favor of it because of what it would do to the house even though the RV was an Airstream. Commissioner Lambell thought that it looked like they were shoving something into a spot where it doesn't fit. Commissioner Touschner stated that this is one of the nicer ones that they have seen in a while and felt that the RV needed to be superimposed on the pictures and photos need to be submitted showing the impact to the neighbor. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to deny Case RV 09-338 due to incompatibility with the house and the visual impact on neighborhood. The Commission felt the RV at nine feet six inches would not be properly screened by the six-foot wall. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 4. CASE NO: RV-337 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VELA JUSTIN, 43-895 Buena Circle, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV (utility trailer) in driveway located in the front yard. LOCATION: 43-895 Buena Circle ZONE: R-1 GAPIanningWanineJudy\WordResWMinutesTW MROW811min.doc Page 7 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVvW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting to park a six-foot high utility trailer in the driveway located in the front yard. The applicant uses the trailer for his landscaping business. The applicant has a home business license to operate his business from home. The trailer sits back on the long driveway and is adequately screened with the street. The trailer is only stored in the driveway during the evening. Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a RV shall not exceed twelve feet in height, which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of twelve feet. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) may approve and issue a permit to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. Commissioner Levin stated that he drove past this property prior to the meeting and said that there wasn't any screening from the neighbor's. Commissioner Touschner stated that there is an area about five feet wide that could be landscaped to screen the trailer. Commissioner Levin pointed out that if there were no vehicles in the driveway, there wouldn't be any screening from the street. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far back the house sat from the street and Mr. Swartz stated that it was beyond 20 feet. Commissioner Levin stated that it was about three vehicles deep. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission has allowed this sort of trailer in the past because it is low profile. The Commission discussed ways to landscape the entire area. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the applicant would need more robust landscaping even on the side that is green so that the only time you could see it would be if you were looking straight down the driveway and not as you were approaching on the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how far the landscaping would come out. Mr. Swartz said twenty five feet from the house with at least four to five feet tall so you wouldn't see the trailer either side. GAPIanningWanineJudy\WordRes\AMinutes\20MAR090811min.doc Page 8 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL R*sWIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Touschner stated that higher landscaping on the neighbor's side makes sense, but on the other side it should be something much lower. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to granted approval subject to: 1) landscaping the property line side with plantings at least 6 feet in height and 25 feet from house; 2) landscape on the opposite side of driveway can be lighter and not as tall; and 3) landscape plan to screen trailer shall be reviewed and approved by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. 5. CASE NO: RV 09-319 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JESUS GASTELUM, 74-148 San Marino Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV on the street side yard. LOCATION: 74-148 San Marino Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting to park a twelve-foot high RV on the street side yard behind mature landscaping and gate. The RV is located on the corner of San Marino Way and Cabrillo Avenue. Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Recreational Vehicles on Private Property, states the measurement of a RV shall not exceed twelve feet in height, which this RV falls under as measured to its highest point of twelve feet. Furthermore, this chapter states that the Architectural Review Commission may approve and issue a permit to park a recreational vehicle in the front yard whether in a designated driveway or other city-approved hard surfaced area provided that an appropriate fence, wall, gate, door, landscaping or combination thereof is deemed adequate to screen the vehicle from adjacent lots and public streets. Staff believes the location and screening is adequate as the RV exists in the current photographs. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that a notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and asked if there was anyone in attendance who was in favor of or in opposition for this request. None were noted. GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes\2WMS090811min.doc Page 9of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REV%m,nN COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 The Commission reviewed photos of the site and discussed the landscaping. Commissioner Vuksic asked about the screening material in front of the trailer. Mr. Swartz thought it was a mesh screening material. Commissioner Levin stated that he drove by the site and said that the applicant will need landscaping on the corner of San Marino and Cabrillo, and at the north end of the Cabrillo side to fill in the gap. They will also have to remove the mesh screening material. Commissioner Lambell stated that they don't always like to rely on landscaping to screen because the landscaping could die. Commissioner Touschner felt that this was one of those cases where there's already a lot of mature landscaping there. Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Hart Ponder, Manager of Code Compliance if this came forward because of a drive-by or a complaint. Mr. Ponder said that it was a compliant they had received. The complainant had about three or four things in a four block radius that was pointed out. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the cases when they haven't allowed landscaping was when it is in the front yard making it look blocky and out of place; this case is quite different. He stated that Code Enforcement is doing a good job bringing these issues forward to be addressed. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that this is one of the few lots that can accommodate something hidden in the corner, but the landscape will need to be maintained. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) addition of landscaping at the corner of San Marino and Cabrillo; 2) removing existing screening material; 3) addition of supplemental landscape at the northeast corner along Cabrillo; and 4) landscaping must be maintained, if not RV must be removed. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanineJudylWordFilesAMinutes\2009WR090811min.doc Page 10 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REftwiW COMMISSION .4 MINUTES August 11, 2009 6. CASE NO: VAR 09-330 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CANDICE KNOX, 42210 Cook Street, Suite M, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signage: Cambria LOCATION: 42210 Cook Street, Suite M ZONE: SI Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this is a variance for two signs on one frontage and will have to go to Planning Commission. He explained that when Cambria first came in they were approved for two wall signs. Those two signs are currently on the building but they have since added another sign, which makes it two signs on one frontage. He pointed out that no other business in the complex has two signs. Commissioner Touschner asked what staff was looking for from this Commission and Mr. Swartz stated that the ARC would be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission for a variance. Commissioner Levin was at a loss as to why they need two signs since they seemed to be very visible particularly located on the corner. Ms. Candice Knox, Cambria stated that they are looking for a variance for the second sign over the terra cotta structure and respects that the city strives for only one sign per complex. However, their problem with the one sign is with the 70-foot frontage, as well as having two separate facades of different materials and colors. What they are finding is that it is very hard for people to find their location. The sign is great as you drive by but once you drive into the complex they cannot locate where the entry to the store is since the sign is located on the upper part of this huge complex. Having the sign down on the terra cotta structure would be much easier to locate the entrance. Mr. Swartz asked if they would be willing to remove one of the signs on the upper fagade. Ms. Knox stated that they would then lose some of the visibility from the street. She mentioned that she had letters from the owner of the property as well as some of the business owners who are very happy with Cambria being there and G1P1anning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20 MR090811min.doc Page 11 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVd COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 they have no problem with their signage. She also presented photos of the complex showing that no other business has two signs but no one else has the same criteria as Cambria with a 70- foot frontage, as well as two entry doors and two different facades. Commissioner Touschner asked about the existing signs. Mr. Swartz stated that all three signs are currently there, but they were originally only approved for two signs. Commissioner Touschner asked where the main entry door was located. Ms. Knox stated that it was under the terra cotta element and said that the other businesses have more of a balance where their entries are located. Ms. Knox stated that they have a sign that is high quality, very attractive and in proportion to the size of the space that they have. She pointed out that they made a calculated decision bringing Cambria to Palm Desert and to that specific location on Cook Street and really feel that they have enhanced not only the Cook Street Marketplace, but Cook Street in general. Commissioner Vuksic was worried about precedent because he thought they didn't need a sign over their entry and unfortunately they don't have a strong architectural statement telling them where the entry is. Ms. Knox agreed and stated that this is the difficulty people are experiencing when they are driving up. Commissioner Vuksic said that 70 feet isn't that big and couldn't imagine that people can't find their address. Ms. Knox stated that there is no Cook Street access so people enter off of Greenway and come into the Cook Street Marketplace and then when they are in the complex they wonder where Cambria is located. Commissioner Lambell referred to one of the photos of Francis and Wane and agreed that this is not seen as you are driving through the parking lot parallel to Cook Street, but they have their name prominently on their front doors. Paper Dolls have something on their door and it is very visible from a car, Cambria doesn't have anything on their doors. Ms. Knox stated that when she was looking to see what the city wanted as far as beauty and simplicity, she felt that this wasn't particularly attractive. Commissioner Lambell felt that when you are trying to reach someone in a car that is where you would look, not up at the huge sign on the side of the building. She agreed that the big Cambria signs were wonderful and were great advertising out on Cook Street, but if they are trying to get someone coming up she suggested putting something on the door. G:\PlanningWanineJudyWordFilesAMinutes\2009WR090811min.dx Page 12 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL ftwelEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Touschner said that her concern with the terra cotta piece is that half of the letters are obscured because of the tree which is not doing them any justice. She thought it was smart of them to put the sign on the corner and felt they didn't need to have the sign on the terra cotta piece. Ms. Knox stated that it all depends on the angle and said there are trees that block the other side as well. She thought that this sign was attractive and simple. Commissioner Touschner agreed that the sign was attractive and tasteful and in the right location where you would want to put signage, but it's all about what Commissioner Vuksic said about this starting a precedent. Commissioner Van Vliet also agreed and said that the Commission would have to have a pretty compelling reason to grant a variance and go against the ordinance and he didn't see one here. He asked what would prevent other people in the future from coming in and wanting double signs in the front. Another representative from Cambria asked if the precedent was for the double signage or professional signage. He stated that the new sign was very professional and said that people cannot see the sign driving up. The first time he came to this location he had to turn on Cook Street and had difficulty finding their location. He understands that they can put signs in the windows but they like to have a very professional look. He felt that the precedence they are setting is that you keep this professional for companies located in a somewhat industrial area. Commissioner Vuksic felt that they could enhance their entry with special paving or landscaping where they don't want people walking into the store; making it clear to the public where they should enter. Commissioner Vuksic explained what he meant by precedent. The Commission's concern is what they will say to the next person wanting the same thing because the public can't tell where their door is. Ms. Knox said she understands that the city strives for one sign per frontage, but she felt they met other criteria. Commissioner Levin had a problem with them coming back asking for forgiveness not permission. They went ahead and consciously did it without permission and now they are coming back and trying to justify it under professionalism. He asked why they didn't come to the Commission initially and request another sign. The representative agreed that they made a mistake. Mr. Swartz wanted to point out that the Commission will determine if it is compatible or if it creates too much clutter, then staff will take their recommendation to the Planning Commission. GAPIanningWanine Judy%Word Files\A Minutes\200MR09W Imin.doc Page 13 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL RE1 woW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there is no question that the sign is professionally done, but felt that it could be done in other ways. For instance having directional signage or signage on the doors could direct people to the entrance. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a monument sign for this complex. Mr. Swartz stated that there is one near Jensen's on Cook Street. Commissioner Lambell asked if their name was on the monument sign and Ms. Knox said that it was not. It currently has the Nail Company and California Closets which doesn't leave much room for Cambria, other than the space six inches above the dirt. She felt that it wouldn't work the way it was situated. Commissioner Levin didn't think that would help anyone find Cambria. They already know they are there because the signs are visible coming from both directions on Cook Street. He wasn't sure how someone would have a tough time finding Cambria if their signs were over the corner of the building. Ms. Knox stated that from a design standpoint she thought the new sign looked more in proportion to the rest of the complex. She presented photos of the other businesses in the complex. Commissioner Touschner said she was struggling with Ms. Knox's statement that this sign is more proportional. The signs may be in the same place but none of those businesses have two signs on one singular fagade. Ms. Knox stated that they could not have another sign because they do not have the same architectural design as Cambria. She felt that the Cambria sign is compatible and proportional to their space. Commissioner Touschner said that the issue isn't that the sign doesn't look great; the issue is their reasoning to have two. She said that the signs look great and probably don't create clutter, but Commissioner Vuksic had a good point that the front door needs signage to identify it as the entrance. She also pointed out that there is handicap parking which identifies it as the entrance. Commissioner Touschner made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that this sign does not create clutter and is compatible to the building; however there is no strong reason for having two signs on one elevation. Commissioner Lambell said this needs to be a recommendation for approval or denial and felt that this is not compatible to the complex. The other businesses whether they have one or two arches, only have one sign. So for Cambria to place one over the door, one in the upper corner and one around the corner doesn't seem to be compatible. She agrees that the clutter is not the issue, but the compatibility with the other stores GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009\AR090811min.dm Page 14 of 18 ' ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 becomes an issue. Ms. Knox said that the design of the other stores would not allow them to put a secondary sign. It would be different if they all had the same and Cambria was the only one who had two but when you look at the design of the complex Cambria was the only one that could actually put a second sign and have it look good. Commissioner Levin asked if Cambria had any architectural input in the way the building was designed or did they came in as a tenant. Ms. Knox stated that they came in as a tenant. Commissioner Levin stated that if they had centered the sign over the left side it would have made it more visible from Cook Street and then you could have eliminated the upper sign. It would then become a question of picking one or the other signs. Ms. Knox stated that they are not interested in removing one of the signs. She said that she hasn't looked into other options and appreciated Commissioner Levin's input. Commissioner Vuksic said if the corner feels like the entry and that is where people go he asked if they have thought about rearranging the interior. Ms. Knox stated that would be a huge expense because they would have to change the layout of the design center. She said they really have a beautiful facility and are pleased to be in Palm Desert and a part of the community and are here to stay and invest in Palm Desert. They bought a beautiful space and a beautiful sign and hopes there is a way to keep it up. Commissioner Van Wet mentioned that Commissioner Touschner made a recommendation and asked if there was a second to the motion. Commissioner Touschner said that when you look at the photos of the businesses in the complex they all have a sign centered over their entrance. The Commission discussed the complex and the locations of their signs. Commissioner Touschner restated her recommendation that Cambria be allowed to have three signs and that the third sign is located directly over the entrance for consistency with the complex and that this approach does not allow clutter. Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he still had a problem with the sign and felt that there were other ways to do it. He thought something in the window or a small directional sign, or pots on each side of the archway would give the entry way some definition. The vote failed 2-3-0-1 with Commissioners Lambell, Van Wet and Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR0W811min.doc Page 15 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REWwW COMMISSION 1*0 MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Lambell agreed that there are other ways to go about this than having their name twice on the same facade. The two signs on the corners are in wonderful taste. They are beautiful and very visible coming up or down Cook Street and suggested being creative to get people to their front door. Commissioner Lambell made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the third sign on the terra cotta adds clutter and is not compatible with the rest of the complex. Commissioner Van Vliet made the second and asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the Commission was recommending that Cambria have either the sign higher up on the parapet or the one over the entry, and not just that the one over the entry which makes it look cluttered. Commissioner Lambell stated that the one on the terra cotta piece is the one that was put up without an approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we have to look at this as thought it was never there and what will we accept. Mr. Swartz stated that with their original permit these locations were never part of the original approval so part of the recommendation could be to keep the sign on the terra cotta piece or remove the upper sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked Commissioner Lambell to consider broadening her motion a bit not just to say that the one on the terra cotta surface is unacceptable but may be acceptable if the sign on the upper parapet was removed. The representative asked if the Commission really thought that would look nicer. Commissioner Van Vliet said that they were giving them a choice to make that decision. Commissioner Vuksic thought it would look nicer because when you look at what is there now you see a lot of the same sign. The representative said that they were only looking at this from one angle. You have to think of yourself driving down and seeing the one sign more than the one in the front. Commissioner Lambell expressed to the representative that it's not this Commission's decision which sign stays or goes. Their decision is merely to decide if it is cluttered or if it's incompatible with the complex. She explained to the representatives that when they are preparing for the Planning Commission that they give that some thought. She asked them to be able to define their entry in a more visible way as opposed to the sign. She didn't think she wanted to change the motion to say one has to stay or go. It needs to say that it is cluttered and that it is not compatible; which is what GAPlanningVanine JudyMord Files\A Minutes\2009 AR0W811min.doc Page 16 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL RE' W COMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 the Planning Commission wants to hear from this Commission. She said that her motion stands and Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his second stands. There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to deny Case VAR 09-330 subject to two signs on one frontage adds clutter and is not compatible to the rest of the shopping center. Motion carried 4-1-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. The Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, adding Case No. SA 09-316 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO: SA 09-316 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHAPMAN'S FINE MENSWEAR 73-740 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new awning and signage; Chapman's Fine Menswear. LOCATION: 73-740 El Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Ms. Grisa presented this project and stated that this item came before the Commission at the last meeting. This item was continued subject to: 1) all underside brackets & connectors neatly installed; 2) underside of canopy with light piece to be continuous from wall to wall and painted out black to blend with canopy; 3) no shelf on light box; and 4) submitting installation shop drawings for canopy. Mr. Jim Sadler, American Awning stated that the reason they went with a shorter light box was so that you wouldn't see it from the side. The back of the box will go all the way up to meet the back of the framing; without a ledge. It will be completely enclosed with fabric the full width of the canopy. The frame will be painted black GAP1anning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2009WR09o811min.doc Page 17 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIOVeCOMMISSION MINUTES August 11, 2009 with black awning and the standard state of the art brackets will be bolted to the wall and either painted to match the wall or they will leave them black. Ms. Grisa asked if the light box was painted black as well. Mr. Sadler said the light box is a galvanized steel tube frame which will hold the light and then be covered with the same canopy fabric all the way around. Commissioner Touschner wondered if the light shouldn't go the full length, side to side and cut back for the lettering only. Mr. Sadler said that the light box is always separate and it hooks up to the frame. Then if you do have to clean it you can unbolt it, take it down, clean it and put it back up. The Commission and the applicant discussed the light box and the frame of the awning. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval as presented subject to making the light box no larger than needed, and not extending it to the full length of the canopy. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. MISSY GRISA ASSISTANT PLANNER GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\N Minutes\2009V1R090811min.doc Page 18 of 18