Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-11 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 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 8 1 Chris Van Vliet X 9 John Vuksic X 9 Karel Lambell X 9 Pam Touschner X 7 2 Allan Levin X 9 Ken Stendell X 9 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Carol Prinzmetal, 361 Sandpiper stated that she is supportive of the proposed Rosewood Hotel, but was concerned with the height and asked that the review process follow the height ordinance. Referring to the night sky, she had concerns with the lights as proposed. She stated that the materials and architecture proposed is beautiful, but pointed out that there are other options for the same architecture; for instance The Getty going from white to a sand color. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 2 of 7 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 27, 2010 ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Levin, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the April 27, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 10-161 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LITTLE ARCHITECTS, 1901 Newport Blvd #300, Mesa, CA NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of storefront design; Lucky Brand Jeans LOCATION: 73425 El Paseo #112 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato summarized this project and stated that this was a storefront at The El Paseo Village. He described the materials and off white picture molding around the perimeter of the building and basic aluminum storefront windows and awnings. He stated that staff is recommending approval and pointed out that Mr. John Vuksic is representing the applicant. Mr. John Vuksic, architect stated that this is nicely detailed with wood frame and the color has a sense of old style and blue jeans. Commissioner Van Vliet and Mr. Vuksic discussed the wood frames and the anodized doors. Mr. Vuksic stated that the front doors were recessed for depth. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 3 of 7 2. CASE NO: SA 10-148 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE THIRD CORNER PALM DESERT, INC., 73-101 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of restaurant signage; The Third Corner LOCATION: 73-101 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. She said three wall signs and two monument signs are proposed as a part of this signage package. Staff has determined that one monument sign requires a variance. Three wall signs have been proposed on the northwest, south, and east sides of the building. The Third Corner logo has been placed upon a solid back-lit cabinet to match the existing rock monument on-site. The signs located on the south and east sides are not illuminated, but the sign on the northwest tower is proposed as an internally illuminated cabinet. An existing rock monument sign is located on the north lawn of the site. This jagged shape is what exists today and is left from a previous tenant. Existing up lighting exists in this location and no internal sign illumination is proposed as a part of this monument sign. This existing rock slab was used to further develop the wall signage as proposed. The applicant is seeking to add awnings to the southwest and northwest sides of the façade for the extension of outdoor seating. This work will not be a part of this approval. The applicant will seek another approval when drawings are complete. Staff believes the overall design and locations of the signage could be further developed. It is staff’s opinion, that the use of the existing rock monument for the design concept does not enhance the logo or the visual effect of the signage. The sign logo and color separate from the background are excellent. The wall sign located on the northwest tower element has a nice night view effect. Staff recommends removing the logo and lettering from the background and providing individually illuminated letters and logo to match the color effect as shown in the drawings. Staff does not recommend placing a wall sign on the east building fascia. This area is right ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 4 of 7 above a trash enclosure area, and the sign would further draw your attention to an area that never looks appealing. Mr. Edmond Moore, applicant stated that they have a signage issue with the restaurant especially given the fact that it is off Highway 111 and Highway 74. The proposed signage above the trash area will be an illuminated sign just like the ones in the front. They are looking for ways to direct traffic into the restaurant and it would be hard if all the signage was in the front. They reviewed the entire side of the building to see where they could put a sign for people to see as a homing beacon to get them around to the front of the building. The Commission reviewed and discussed the signage above the trash enclosure area. Mr. Moore explained that people are not walking up to the trash enclosure to look at the sign they are looking at it from a distance of 400 to 500 yards away. Once you enter the parking lot there is no reference to get to the restaurant. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the Commission has to look at the sign on its own merit and how it fits on the building. Commissioner Van Vliet felt like all the signs are being driven by the existing monument sign and Mr. Moore stated that to a certain extent it is. He said that they do not have a logo and pointed out that every municipality has their own sign ordinance. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the shape of the signs do not work well with the building because they don’t fit with the parapets and moldings. He stated that the monument sign is dictating their direction. Mr. Moore stated that that was a point well taken and said that he was looking for signs that were illuminated at night so people can see the restaurant. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they have all the space that the Palomino had and Mr. Moore stated that they do and that is why they are actively seeking the awning program so it will define them as a restaurant. He is more than willing to listen to any advice for the signs. He recommended a drive into the parking area to experience the issues that he will face. The Commission reviewed and discussed the illuminated signs. Commissioner Lambell wondered how the vehicular traffic would find its way to the restaurant and asked if the applicant would require directional signage. Mr. Moore stated that was a great comment and said that most people call for directions. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Lambell urged the applicant to look into directional signage. Commissioner Lambell moved for approval and Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked for any further comments. Commissioner Levin asked if Sign A & B were too close together and Mr. Bagato stated that per the ordinance they should be separated and it was recommended that Sign A be eliminated. Commissioner Lambell amended her motion to grant approval of signage subject to removing Sign A. Commissioner Gregory asked if it could be shifted down. The Commission discussed shifting Sign A. Commissioner Levin amended the motion to approve Sign A and B to comply with the ordinance and subject to staff approval. Commissioner Lambell agreed to the amendment and the vote was called. Commissioner Vuksic discussed the drawings regarding Signs A & B. He pointed out that one had frayed edges and the other was more organic and artful looking. He suggested they modify the drawings to reflect the correct one. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Levin, to grant approval subject to shifting Sign A further down on the building to comply with the ordinance and subject to staff approval. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 10-163 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TEAVANA, 3475 Lenox Road #860, Atlanta, GA 30326 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval new storefront design, awnings and signage; Teavana LOCATION: 73545 El Paseo #1104 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented and summarized the project. He stated that this store will be going into The Gardens. He presented photos to the Commission and stated that the letters are illuminated reverse channel. The letters are 14” with 4” in between the top and bottom ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 6 of 7 rather than 6”. He spoke with the applicant and discussed reducing the letters to 12”. The Commission discussed the size of the letters and 10” was suggested. Commissioner Gregory wondered if they would still get the same effect with 10” letters. Mr. Swartz stated that is what the applicant was worried about as well. Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the awning and Mr. Swartz stated that the awning well come out three feet. Commissioner Gregory thought that the 4” margin on top and bottom was inadequate with what they are proposing. Commissioner Lambell thought it may look crammed and said that it needs more relief on the top and bottom. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested 5” top and bottom. Commissioner Levin suggested 5” on the bottom and 4” on the top and reducing the letters to 13”. Commissioner Stendell stated these were individual letters standing off 4” or 5” giving it more relief. Commissioner Gregory made a motion for approval subject to reducing the letters to 12” with a 5” margin on the top and 5” on the bottom. Commissioner Stendell made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked for any further comments. Commissioner Levin asked if 12” would be enough. Commissioner Gregory stated that it is in proportion and he wanted to keep it simple. The vote was called. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Stendell, to grant approval subject to reducing letters to 12” with a 5” margin top and bottom. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Touschner absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: Commissioner Van Vliet asked for an update on the RV ordinance and wanted to know if Code Compliance documented the RVs that were permitted or not. Mr. Hart Ponder, Code Compliance Manager stated that an inventory was completed. He also said that there were certain sections in the ordinance that conflicted with others. This has been corrected by ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 2010 G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100511min.doc Page 7 of 7 the City Attorney and approved by the City Council. Now that the ordinance has been updated, Code Compliance along with the Planning Department will start with the Country Club area first dealing with the RVs and carport issues. Ms. Grisa explained that if there is no public opposition it will be approved by staff. If there is opposition it will come through the Architectural Review Commissioner for review. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Levin to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER