Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-24 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 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 15 1 Chris Van Vliet X 15 1 John Vuksic X 15 1 Karel Lambell X 16 Pam Touschner X 11 5 Allan Levin X 15 1 Ken Stendell X 15 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Aylaian introduced five of the six applicants (one applicant not in attendance) for the Administrative Secretary’s position. As part of the interview process, they were in attendance to prepare minutes. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 10, 2010 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the August 10, 2010 meeting minutes with changes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell abstaining. Commissioner Levin reported that he listened to the recorded tapes prior to the meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 2 of 7 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-246 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SEPHORA USA, INC. 525 Market St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a storefront façade remodel; Sephora USA LOCATION: 73-545 El Paseo, Suite 1620 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa stated this project is returning to the Commission with changes recommended at the last meeting. The applicant has submitted changes to the tower element on the corner by switching from black to white. Limestone and black granite was on the striped columns but was not represented on the color board. The limestone was depicted incorrectly on the rendering as it is not white. The façade that runs along San Pablo will remain the same, the awning feature will be covered in a black break metal and the stucco will be white. The Sephora sign has moved down and an eyebrow has been placed at the top edge. Staff is concerned that black and white are very stark colors in relation to the building, however staff feels that it will be a great fit for The Gardens. The applicant is looking for further direction from the Commission. Mr. Walter Wheatley, Sephora, Senior Store Planner stated that they are changing the storefront based on the Commission’s recommendations at the last meeting. He presented a rendering of the limestone and explained that the color is a softer, warmer white. At the dome they have included an eyebrow directly underneath the sign, which supports the sign. Below that they have introduced another lower eyebrow, which continues across all storefront portals. They have removed the black and maintained their branding, which is the limestone and granite striping. They have also maintained the integrity of the building architecture; the dome and the verticality of the rotunda area. He feels that they have added some additional character to the storefront which will be a good draw. Commissioner Gregory stated that this is a big improvement over the previous submittal and looks better with the desert vernacular. He expressed that the off-white limestone is important because white is too glary and architecturally off-white flows with the building. Commissioner Lambell stated that it was a vast improvement and asked that a sample of ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 3 of 7 the limestone be submitted to staff for review. Ms. Grisa asked if the stucco paint color would match the limestone and Mr. Wheatley stated that it would be a softer, warmer white. Commissioner Touschner agreed that it looks much nicer and simpler and fits in with its surroundings better than it did before. She stated that the top eyebrow looks like it’s supposed to be a continuous piece of metal and the way it is drawn it looks like they don’t have any seams. Mr. Wheatley stated that the sign eyebrow would be circular extending from the outside line with seams. The seams will be placed in a strategic place based on material sizes and architectural elements. Commissioner Touschner and the applicant discussed the signage and agreed that the signage needs to be more like the rendering and sitting on the eyebrow. Mr. Wheatley stated that the sign would appear to float. Commissioner Touschner expressed that the blade signs look terrible and appeared like a tiny little thing that was just stuck there. Mr. Wheatley stated that they could increase the scale. Ms. Grisa stated that the scale matches the current sign program in place for The Gardens. Mr. Bob Fliday, The Gardens, stated that they have a blade sign program that has a particular bracket with a minimum and maximum square footage that a sign would fall within. This sign would be consistent with everyone else. Commissioner Touschner was concerned with how the edges look on the stone for the pillars. Mr. Wheatley stated that they are very specific about how they corner the stone. He explained that there will be a chamfered edge and it would be sealed. He stated that they typically use a dark grout or no grout at all with butt joints. The Commission expressed their desire for butt joints. Commissioner Van Vliet pointed out a discrepancy with the number of sconces on the renderings. Mr. Wheatley stated that it would be two sconces on each face as depicted on the storefront elevation. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to: 1) stone and stucco color to be reviewed by staff; 2) stone columns shall have butt joints, no grout with edges chamfered; and 3) double sconces shall be located on pillars as depicted on the storefront elevations. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioner Vuksic and Stendell abstaining. B. Preliminary Plans: None. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 4 of 7 C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Discussion of neon signs. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development wanted to discuss neon signage briefly and conceptually with the Commission. She stated that when staff most recently updated the signage ordinance, less than a year ago, they left the standing prohibition on neon signs. That recommendation came from the signage sub-committee and was strongly supported by the City Council. None the less, when Code Enforcement staff tried to enforce the prohibition, staff received a response from the business community, some of whom had neon signs in place for quite some time, who did not want to remove them. The City Council asked that staff initiate a revision to the zoning ordinance that would allow neon signs. The proposed ordinance will come back to the Architecture Review Commission (ARC), to the Planning Commission and then back to the City Council. Staff is looking for guidance or suggestions that the Commissioners feel should be included and if they had any suggestions or comments over the next week or two to email them to Mr. Tony Bagato, Principle Planner who would be working on this ordinance. Ms. Aylaian mentioned that typically their biggest concern is with neon signs hung in storefront windows and not necessarily with the neon that is used with architectural detailing. She said that what staff is looking for from the ARC is size limits, number of colors used, number of signs in any one location, and should they be allowed to blink, flash, rotate, or move; which is currently prohibited. She asked how best do they marry the concern of wanting to minimize visual clutter with the concern for wanting businesses to be able to present a good and competitive place in the market to attract customers. Obviously content to a large extent is protected by the First Amendment, but the City could recommend that they not be allowed to put up telephone numbers, prices, and things like that that are commercial rather than First Amendment protective. In short, how can we minimize the clutter but allow some creativity. That is the kind of direction staff is looking for from the ARC. The Commission reviewed a power point presentation of neon signs in and around the city and Ms. Aylaian pointed out that two thirds of these examples were located in Palm Desert. One of the recommendations that staff has is that neon signs are not used simply to repeat other signs that are already on the building. Commissioner Levin asked if “open” and “closed” signs were currently permitted and Ms. Aylaian stated that one “open” sign is ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 5 of 7 allowed that is 12 x 18 inches in size. Another recommendation that staff would have is that it is prohibited to advertise products sold within. It could be used for an aesthetic element for the name of the business, but not necessarily for products sold within. Commissioner Gregory stated that as with all ordinances it is really focusing the most on chronic offenders. Ms. Aylaian stated that the prohibition has been in place for many years but her belief is that it is for places like liquor stores that tend to have all the different types of beer signs hung in the window where it does add to the clutter. She stated that historically the ARC has not objected to neon in general. She pointed out that Mr. Bagato has looked at some competitive resort cities and has identified that many of them tend to not have any neon signs at all. So another question for the Commission would be is that okay? Does that further our image as a destination resort community? Commissioner Levin asked if in Mr. Bagato’s research could he inform the Commission as to what the other desert cities are doing. Commissioner Touschner stated that neon signs are not sustainable because they are using electricity. The store is closed but they leave the neon on and sucking up energy; energy that they don’t necessarily need. She said there are older signs that were the thing back in the day, but that is not where Palm Desert is now. The neon sign issue needs to follow the sign ordinance regarding the size of signs. In most cases it is used in addition to what they currently have. They have their building sign and then they have the neon sign and she feels that is double dipping. She said that they do need to address the size. Commissioner Vuksic stated there is a lot of high end retail development that uses neon effectively. Commissioner Touschner agreed and said that in those cases neon is not used for signage. It is used to accent an architectural element or an entrance way. Commissioner Levin asked how they differentiate whether it is a sign or an accent. Ms. Aylaian stated that in the municipal code neon signage is allowed in architectural elements like Outback where the neon runs all the way around the perimeter of the building; that is not signage. Ms. Aylaian pointed out that one of the things staff is looking at is that lighting technology is changing pretty rapidly and staff is going to try to stay away from the term neon because there are other technologies that signs companies are now using to give a neon ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 6 of 7 look to a sign. So staff will want to define that in a generic sense and not based upon the gas that is actually in the tube. It is the image that Palm Desert is concerned about more than the actual neon. Commissioner Van Vliet thought that the main objection was the window signage because that looks the worst. If there wasn’t any window signage and it was on the building architecturally or on the signage it might be okay. Commissioner Levin agreed that being repetitive is unnecessary. If they have store signage with their name you wouldn’t need a neon sign that says the same thing. Commissioner Vuksic asked if by placing the neon in the window would it technically be a sign. Ms. Aylaian stated that it is a sign in the window and part of what staff has to define is what is a sign. A few businesses have signs in their windows that are legal because it is more than five feet back from the window and from the outside it looks like a window sign. Staff will define what window signage is and it will be regulated differently from architectural elements. Commissioner Stendell stated that there are some good looking signs out there. He suggested that the signage be theme oriented rather than advertising oriented. Commissioner Lambell had concerns with blinking, flashing, rotating signs and that should never be an option. The image Palm Desert is trying project is an El Paseo image by and large and felt that neon is not a part of what El Paseo is right now. Commissioner Vuksic stated that anyone placing a sign five feet back from the glass is putting it there so you can see it through the glass; so it is a sign. Ms. Aylaian stated that staff could look to see if there is a way to tweak the definition of signs. At some point you want the businesses to be able to put graphic images on their inside walls so that it can be viewed by customers from inside. Staff would have to look at how visible it is from the public right-of- way. Commissioner Lambell said in order to minimize clutter we would have to do something similar to the sign ordinance to determine the size of the sign. It should be determined by the square footage of the building. Ms. Aylaian stated that one of the things that the City did when it adopted the sign ordinance was that you could have up to 40% of window area covered with signage regardless of the type of store. That has now been reduced down to 25%. The city has not yet started enforcing that because staff has been trying to work with the business community; which has not been successful. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100824min.doc Page 7 of 7 Ms. Aylaian asked if the Commission would like to see all neon signs. Commissioner Gregory asked if they would review all signs even the ones that conform without question to the City’s sign ordinance. Ms. Aylaian stated that staff issues a great number of signage permits over the counter but when it pushes a certain threshold or criteria, or if it is something that staff doesn’t agree with then it comes to ARC for review. Commissioner Touschner asked if there was an option of having no neon at all. Ms. Aylaian stated that the City Council requested staff to amend the ordinance such that did allow for neon signage. Ms. Grisa asked if turning off the neon signs after store hours would be considered. Ms. Aylaian didn’t believe that was something under discussion, but if the Commission agrees it could be recommended. She stated that it could be a limitation such that neon signs are required to be turned off one hour after business closing. Commissioner Levin asked if there would be anything in the ordinance regarding grandfathering and Ms. Aylaian stated that her anticipation is that they would need to accommodate for grandfathering in some of the signage. Commissioner Gregory asked about non-neon signs in addition to the neon signs because at a certain point you can hardly look in their windows. Ms. Aylaian said that issue is actually being brought forward by the police department and will be discussed at the Public Safety Commission because it blocks vision into the store which creates a security issue. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. MISSY GRISA ASSISTANT PLANNER