Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-24 �`•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES February 24, 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 4 Chris Van Vliet X 4 John Vuksic X 4 Karel Lambell X 4 Nancy DeLuna X 4 Pam Touschner X 3 1 Vacancy 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 Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 2009 and February 10, 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to approve the January 27, 2009 and February 10, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REVW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 09-079 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LUIS MARISCAL, 20117 Romar Street, Chatsworth, CA 91311 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage: First California Bank LOCATION: 78000 Fred Waring Drive Suite 100 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that a sign program was approved for this building in 2004 by the Architectural Review Commission allowing for fourteen inches at the top and twelve inches at the bottom, but the applicant is proposing eighteen inches on all letters. Staff informed the sign company that the letters were too large. He pointed out there are signs on the upper portion of the building with at least one letter approved at eighteen inches. The Commission reviewed the plans and felt that the sign was too big and too long. Mr. Bagato pointed out that the previous sign was eight inches plus the line at the bottom, and stated that per the sign program twelve inches can be approved. Mr. Swartz said that these were individual letters and the logo is a can sign. Mr. Steve Lyle, Landlord stated that the letters for the previous 1st Centennial Bank" sign were twelve inches with the "1 st°being larger. The Commission questioned the size of "Realty Executives" and the size of 1st Centennial Bank". Mr. Lyle confirmed that "Realty Executives' was larger than fourteen. Mr. Bagato again stated that according to the approved plans 1st Centennial Bank" showed eight inches for the rest of the wording except for the main letter. Commissioner Gregory said that if the sign program calls out for twelve then why not go for twelve. Mr. Lyle stated that the building name, 1st Centennial Bank Plaza was named after 1st Centennial Bank and their goal now is to rename the building First California Bank Plaza. The bank is the anchor for this building and people have a hard time finding the plaza because the signage doesn't stand out like a typical anchor. They are hoping this time that the bank stands out as the anchor GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090224min.doc Page 2 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 and people can find it. When first submitted the applicant requested twelve inch letters and Mr. Lyle asked them to increase it because he feels that the previous sign didn't work. It was too small and their colors blended in a little bit with the building. This is a chance for the building to look more balanced. Commissioner DeLuna said that the new sign is so much longer than the old sign; they have increased not only the height but the length makes it disproportionately large. Commissioner Touschner stated that the "Realty Executives" sign works because it's big, red and sticks out and is located in the center of the building in a prime location. Comparing the new "First California Bank" sign to the old one she liked the symbol and stated that a lot of times we see colors and symbols first before we see names. She had two concerns; a) it was too big and b) it didn't appear to be centered above the door and it needs to be centered in the elevation. She could not make a decision without looking at what it looks like on that whole elevation. Commissioner Gregory stated that he didn't know if it was the strong horizontal members in the architecture but the building really has all the likelihood of being a billboard type building. From the start, the signage on that building is very predominant. Commissioner Touschner said that the fascia pieces where the signage goes is very narrow and the letters where allowed to be larger and all scaled appropriately. Commissioner Gregory thought that the tenants who had signage on top felt that twelve inch letters appeared smaller because they were farther away. Commissioner Touschner felt that they are up there and you're able to see them better. Mr. Bagato stated that technically by code second story signs are supposed to be 50% smaller than the first floor so staff gave them much more than what the code allowed. The Commission discussed the length of the sign, the symbol, the fascia and the color. They felt that the "Coldwell Banker" sign pops and the white will actually be nice. Commissioner Vuksic said he would like to see this in context with the building. The Commission discussed centering the sign on the building and Commissioner Vuksic stated that by making the whole sign smaller would solve that problem. If the applicant needed to get the sign up quickly it was recommended that they reduce it to twelve inches and it could be approved at staff level. Mr. Bagato stated that staff could approve the letter dimension and the sign being centered. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090224min.doc Page 3 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 Commissioner Touschner also recommended approving the logo being larger than the letter size. Mr. Lyle once again stated that he was hoping for something that was bigger than twelve inches. He was concerned that it wouldn't look like the anchor on the corner. Commissioner Gregory suggested that they have their sign representative submit illustrations of the entire building front showing various letter sizes ranging from twelve to eighteen inches. Mr. Bagato was aware that the applicant was trying to get the sign up as soon as possible, but whatever the ARC approves today he reminded them of the fifteen day appeal period. So if they made the sign with twelve inch letters staff could approve it and they could put the signs up right away. Mr. Lyle said he wanted to do it right so he would explore different sized letters, twelve to eighteen inches and take pictures of the entire building to view all the signs together. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue subject to submitting illustrations of entire building front showing various letter sizes ranging from twelve inches to eighteen inches. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO: RV 09-037 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DEAN VEITH, P.O. Box 752, Indio, CA 92202 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a request to park a boat behind a side gate in the RV driveway. LOCATION: 43-620 Vanda Circle ZONE: R-1 9,000 Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that the applicant is requesting to park an approximately thirteen foot high boat behind a side yard gate in the recreational vehicle (RV) driveway located on the side of the house. She stated that staff is recommending denial due to inadequate screening. Photos taken by staff indicated that the boat appeared to be higher than the maximum height of twelve feet and the RV extended beyond the front roofline of the home. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Mlnutes\2009\AR090224min.doc Page 4 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 Mr. Bagato stated that this case was noticed to the neighborhood and asked if there were any neighbors in attendance; there were none. The Commission reviewed the photos of the boat, gate and the roofline. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that regardless of the height the boat has to be screened and it's not. He said that it has to be substantially screened between the adjacent lot and the public street and felt that it was impossible to screen it. Ms. Grisa stated that code reads that it be adequately screened and in staff's opinion if it was just ending at the T-top it would be adequately screened, but it extends too far above and cannot be removed. Mr. Dean Veith, applicant presented additional photos of his boat and side yard and photos of issues in his neighborhood. The Commission discussed screening options and asked if he could park the boat further back into the property and Mr. Veith stated that he could go back about another three to four feet for a total of seven feet. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that this be continued to allow the applicant to submit additional site information after pushing the boat further back and closer to the house. Mr. Bagato also suggested portable pots with tall plants to help screen the boat. The Commission was concerned with the neighbor and how this could be encroaching on their view. The current neighbor is okay with the boat being there, but future owners may not be happy with it there. The Commission recommended that this be continued to allow the applicant to tuck the boat further into the property. Mr. Bagato informed the Commission that after the applicant submits his changes, staff would contact the Commissioners and have them drive by for review. He also suggested that Code Compliance take photos of the boat once it is pushed back. Mr. Hart Ponder, Code Manager stated that he will take photos of the changes and that he will also check into the concerns that were raised by Mr. Veith regarding the violations in his neighborhood. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to continue subject to Code Compliance taking photos of the boat pushed back an additional three to four feet. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090224min.doc Page 5 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 3. CASE NO: MISC 08-368 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC., 11000 North 1-H 35, Austin, Texas 78753. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall signage and a fagade remodel; Golfsmith's. LOCATION: 72-700 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: PC-3, FCOZ Ms. Schrader presented the project and stated that Golfsmith's opened on January 5, 2009 and staff allowed them a temporary sign including the temporary lighting as shown in the photos. A photo sim shows a can on top of a new fagade remodel which is stone veneer. Staff is recommending illuminated individual letters for the sign and suggests that the applicant resubmit a lighting scheme along with a better photo sim. Mr. Blaine Stengel, Representative stated that they were open now for three months and are very successful and appreciate the Commission's efforts to help them get going. They have learned some new and interesting things about our market that they are adjusting to. First and foremost, the iconic image of the independent front fagade proved to be in this climate a significant investment that their executive staff did not want to chase down any further. So in lieu of that they tried to find something that was cooperative with the southwest style. He then described the proposed changes of a rock fagade and stated that there is a variety of earth tones in the materials that would work well with the color of their brand sign. The Commission and the representative discussed the stone veneer and the different materials and styles that could be used. Commissioner Gregory stated that what is nice about the stone sticking out is if they have a raceway type of sign the stone will absorb the thickness of the sign to some degree so they won't have the unappealing look of the sign popping out. Mr. Stengel stated that they could come up with a furred out method to adhere the stone to it to give it some additional relief or depth back into the GAPIanningWanine Judy\Word Res\A Minutes\2009WR090224min.doc Page 6 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 plane and come out beyond the band that is now attached to the building. Commissioner Gregory asked if there could be some sort of trim piece around it so it doesn't look like it's not just stuck on. Commissioner Touschner said that they could use corners pieces that would return. The Commission discussed the color of the sign and the letters. Mr. Stengel presented photos of the building signage and the monument signs with a red back panel with white letters. The Commission asked how the signs would be lit. Mr. Stengel stated that both signs are internally illuminated; the red is a red LED light and the white will be white neon. He presented a photo of a sign that he is working on for another store where the "Extreme" is aluminum channel letters and black. He explained that on this proposed sign they could make "Extreme" pop with the black letters and leave the rest of it red, which is a smooth and classy look. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they could also incorporate another plane above the surface where the door is and instead of it being imbedded surrounded by the stone have it above the door as a surface that is in line with the edges of the stone and then surround the front door and the sign with the stone becoming a part of the architectural composition. Commissioner Touschner stated for them to take a look at their goals of what they want. If they want the red and the white, then the stone doesn't add to that. The stone has no flexibility to it, other than it might allow you to hide a raceway. Mr. Bagato agrees that the stone hinders what they are trying to do and felt they would have more opportunities with paint and signage. Commissioner Touschner liked what was first submitted; it had energy and a connection. Mr. Stengel stated that they would put some more effort into dimension and relief and then resubmit the proposal. He asked about extending the Temporary Use Permit and Mr. Bagato stated that it wouldn't be a problem. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to continue subject to working out design features with red element and white letters on signage. Motion carried 6-0. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090224min.doc Page 7 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 4. CASE NO: SA 09-062 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COAST SIGN INC., 1500 W. Embassy Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall and monument signage; Hilton Homewood Suites. LOCATION: 36-999 Cook Street ZONE: PCD, FCOZ Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that this proposal was for three wall signs and one monument sign. She pointed out that the sign locations were all over the twenty foot height limit as stated in the code. Sign A on the north elevation is 37 feet from grade to the top of the sign and the architect suggested that we measure from the top down because they may not be able to measure that out in the field. So staff's recommendation would be to have Sign A two feet below the top of the building. Sign C is okay located to the right of the front entrance. Sign B on the east elevation is in the middle of a wall and is 37 feet, but it appears to be more like 30 feet. Staff would like to move it about four feet down so that it is at the top of the window. Ms. Grisa stated that the two signs at the higher height are illuminated and the one next to the entrance would not be illuminated. Staff would recommend approval of the wall signage with the changes mentioned, but the block monument sign would not be approved unless it matches the architecture of the building. Mr. Bagato stated that it is also an illuminated cabinet and mentioned that staff is currently in the process of rewriting the sign code which prohibits illuminated cabinets. The Commission discussed the landscaped area that surrounds the monument sign. Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist discussed the 40-foot triangle rule, stating that they do not want objects over a certain height in the corners by the right of way. Commissioner Touschner was concerned that in the front elevation there are two signs literally on top of each other. Mr. Bagato said that the code allows one building sign and one pedestrian oriented sign. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\200MR090224min.doc Page 8 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 Mr. Chris Polster, representative stated that the intent is that both signs be pedestrian oriented and explained that the one higher up on the elevation is meant to be seen from a distance and the lower one is when a pedestrian is in the area. Commissioner Touschner asked about the building and sign colors and stated that without knowing the colors of the building it was hard to determine if the signs looked good with the building. Mr. Bagato stated that the north elevation was sort of a sage green color and the element where Sign A is going is beige or olive green. He said that staff hasn't approved the green yet because the applicant has changed how they are applying the stucco, which has modified the original colors of a forest green. The Commission discussed how the signs appeared to be stacked. Mr. Bagato stated that per code second story signs are supposed to be 50% smaller than a first story sign so even though the sign complies with the square footage it could be reduced based on how high it is. Mr. Polster stated that the channel letters for Homewood Suites are only fifteen inches and very high in the air, so if they start reducing it down the signs will blend into the wall and start fading away during the day. Mr. Bagato asked if they had an alternative color beside the teal. Mr. Polster stated that he has not seen one and explained that each Hilton brand has their own set of colors and Homewood goes with the teal. The Commission again discussed the location of the signs on the building and felt that Sign B should be centered on the elevation within the reveals and that consideration is given to the color of Signs A & B in relationship to the building. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to continue subject to: 1) consideration needs to be given to the color of Signs A and B in relationship to the color of the building; 2) reconsider the layout of Sign A, possibly making it horizontal to allow placement centered over the entrance way; 3) relocate Sign B on the backside so the top of it is no higher than the top of the window, and centered between the reveals to the north; 4) The location of Sign C is fine; 5) monument sign needs to reflect the architecture and color of the building; lit cans are not approvable. Motion carried 5-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090224min.doc Page 9 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVVW COMMISSION ow' MINUTES February 24, 2009 5. CASE NO: CUP 08-247 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D 1st Floor, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of installation of a 70 foot faux mono-palm telecommunications facility. LOCATION: 73-750 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: S.I. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to continue; the applicant was not in attendance. Motion carried 6-0. 6. CASE NO: PP 06-18 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICK YANG, 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228-A, San Gabriel, CA 91776 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of plans for a four (4) story hotel, 88-unit hotel with restaurant and related amenities; Candlewood Hotel. LOCATION: 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive ZONE: PCD ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner to continue; for further review of plans. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: None GAPlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009WR090224min.doc Page 10 of 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2009 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Touschner to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. TONY B GATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009\AR090224min.doc Page 11 of 11 `fir✓' Mrr� P ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 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 3 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 3 Karel Lambell X 3 Nancy DeLuna X 3 Pam Touschner X 2 1 Vacancy Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Renee Schrader, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant 111111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 27, 2009 Action: Minutes to be approved at the next meeting. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION ""0 MINUTES February 10, 2009 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 09-56 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PATRICK CARNEY, 47260 Rose Sage Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single family addition; 17 feet in height. LOCATION: 47260 Rose Sage Court ZONE: R-1 12,000 The Commission discussed the materials and color for the project and recommended that any color change be submitted to staff for review and approval. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner DeLuna to grant approval by minute motion; submit any color changes to Staff for review and approval. Motion carried 6-0. 2. CASE NO: MISC 09-57 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): GARY WRIGHT, 44-829 Cabrillo Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of an RV permit to park utility trailer in driveway. LOCATION: 44-829 Cabrillo Avenue ZONE: R-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that the code allows for a utility trailer to be parked in the driveway if there is no room on the side, rear or in the garage as in this case. He presented photos of the location of the trailer. As seen in the photos, the trailer is screened by a hedge and cannot be seen unless you are directly in front of the home, and coming from the other direction the courtyard screens it. This is consistent with other RVs and boats in the neighborhood. Commission discussed landscaping measures and recommended that the hedge remain the same depth and height as GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2009WR090210min.doc Page 2 of 3 a ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2009 it is currently. The Commission and Mr. Hart Ponder, Code Manager discussed his concerns with approving it as a trailer and not as a RV. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it was important to know that there was screening elements on both sides of the trailer; a courtyard and a hedge. He stated that it was pretty hard to notice it as you were driving by. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell to grant approval for utility trailer only, subject to hedge remaining the same depth and height as it is currently. Motion carried 6-0. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting to the Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m. TONY B GATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER GAPlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2009 AR090210min.doc Page 3 of 3 wr► �''`