Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-13 s w- i CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 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 14 4 Chris Van Vliet X 18 John Vuksic X 17 1 Karel Lambell X 15 3 Pam Touschner X 13 5 Allan Levin X 17 1 Ken Stendell X 16 2 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meetings:04/12/11 &04/26/11,08/23/11, 10/11/11, 10/25/11 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 22, 2011 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved and Commissioner Vuksic seconded, to approve the November 22, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 7-0. (Commissioner Stendell excused himself from the remainder of the meeting at 12:35 p.m). V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL RE' 'W COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: SA 11-260 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BEST SIGN, INC. 1550 South Gene Autry Trail, Palm Spring, CA 92262 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of six monument signs and three wall signs; Palm Springs Art Museum. LOCATION: 72-567 Highway 111 ZONE: OP Ms. Wightman presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated the Palm Springs Art Museum in Palm Desert is proposing six monument signs and three wall signs to identify a new branch location. She described the signs and their locations and stated that minor changes, additional information, and revised plans need to be presented by the applicant, based on the Architectural Review Commission's determination. This is a difficult site to sign because if you are traveling east bound you see the turn with one sign, but if you are traveling west bound there is really no identification on this corner to turn into the site. Staff is satisfied with the proposed design and materials selected and recommends approval of the proposed signage package, subject to: 1) the applicant submitting side and back views of the sign to illustrate finishes, side details, and dimensional depth; 2) submitting a site plan to indicate dimensions from nearest edge of all monuments signs to curb faces to ensure locations are outside of public rights- of-ways; and 3) preserve the existing removed monument signs and coordinate with the City Project Manager for off-site storage. Mr. Jim Cross, Sign-A-Rama, understands that the ordinance states one sign per frontage, but the reason they are asking for two is because the existing sign that will be relocated is only visible traveling east. However, if it does come down to them choosing one or the other they will leave the existing sign in its place and utilize that location since it is right at the entry. They will be replacing the two existing main signs in the same location. There will be six monument signs; one large and one small monument sign, as well as four very small donor identification signs. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes\2011WR111213min.doc Page 2 of 13 'ARCHITECTURAL REN COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 The Commission discussed the location of the monument signs, the donor identification signs, as well as the location of the monument sign on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 111. Commissioner Touschner suggested a multi-sided sign to read on both sides. Mr. Cross stated that the name of the museum is lengthy and they are limited on the square footage. He feels that even if the sign were placed perpendicular the primary identification would be harder to read from a distance and traveling at that speed. They looked at it in multiple ways and when they turned it different ways they sacrificed visibility and aesthetics coming from the opposite direction. Commissioner Touschner stated it is a missed opportunity not to have their name on both sides of that sign. She suggested a wedge sign in order to have a face on both sides. Mr. Cross stated they were looking for more of a clean line monolithic appearance. Commissioner Levin asked if the existing multi tenant sign reads as you are traveling west bound and Ms. Wightman said no. Commissioner Levin pointed out there is absolutely zero signage for this center for the west bound traffic and Ms. Wightman said there is a monument sign on El Paseo directing traffic in. Commissioner Touschner feels that by putting something on the corner, the traffic is going to pass it and they need to know to turn there. Mr. Cross said it wasn't so much intended to be a way finding or a directional sign, just merely identification. Mr. Michael Kiner, Palm Springs Museum, stated one of the elements that is a part of this is a major piece of sculpture that will go in behind that sign at the entrance off of Highway 111; a kinetic piece about 18' high. He feels this piece will be a big part of the identifying marker of the museum. Commissioner Vuksic said he doesn't see any compelling reason to allow an additional sign and it doesn't seem to be any different from the challenges that a lot of sites have. He wondered what kind of precedence this would set. Ms. Wightman said they would have to apply for a variance to get the sign on the corner of El Paseo and Highway 111. Mr. Bagato stated it would have to be a unique circumstance to get the variance. Mr. Cross stated they realize that they may have to choose between one or the other and if the one on the corner is not something that can be approved, they will pull away from that one and move on with all the other signs. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR111213min.doc Page 3 of 13 J ARCHITECTURAL RE ,;W COMMISSION ,, MINUTES December 13, 2011 Commissioner Touschner referred to "The Galen" signage and said it is lovely and well designed, but thinks the wording looks funny and thinks they should add "family" or "building". The sign is small enough and is an issue that can be worked out with the client. Commissioner Gregory stated the signs look unusually handsome, it's not a commercial project, and would be something that would benefit the city. Personally he would be thrilled to see the corner sign go up and feels this is something the City should make a lot of effort to make noticeable even if it might be redundant. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and said it could be done tastefully and it would be an important sign in that location. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to grant approval of all signs with the exception of the sign located on the corner of Highway 111 and El Paseo; subject to: 1) submitting a site plan indicating dimensions from nearest edge of all monuments signs to curb faces to ensure locations are outside of public rights-of-ways; and 2) preserve the existing removed monument signs and coordinate with the City Project Manager for off-site storage. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell absent. 2. CASE NO: MISC 11-490 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): RICHIE'S DINER, 43172 Business Park Drive Suite 102, Temecula, CA 92590 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a monument sign; Richie's Diner. LOCATION: 72-840 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato presented a proposal for a monument sign for Ritchie's Diner. He showed an aerial of the existing monument sign located on Monterey Avenue which is 8' high. The applicant is requesting the same height, but the new sign code states 6' unless it is compatible to the architecture of the building. He also mentioned that the applicant submitted a wall sign for approval. His concern with approving the wall sign was that it had a different look from the monument sign. He expressed to the client that the wall sign looks better and requested them to look at a design that would raise the GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFilesW Minutes\2011WR111213min.doc Page 4 of 13 ✓ ARCHITECTURAL RE ,W COMMISSION `.. MINUTES December 13, 2011 letters up above to create the same architectural features on the building. Mr. Chris DeRuyter, Signage Solutions, said Ritchie's Diner has a layout that is consistent with their branding and presented the Commissioners with merchandise information showing their logo. Mr. Bagato asked if the wall sign was actually different from most of the other branding and Mr. DeRuyter said yes but the two brands are typical with this restaurant. He described how each sign will work singularly or in tandem with the components of Ritchie's Diner. Commissioner Gregory mentioned that the Commission usually steers clear of copyrighted logos. Mr. Bagato agreed but his concern lies with the sign that it is pretty simple and the City usually likes more substance. Trademarks should only get into the coloring and the branding and not the massing and detail of a sign. His concern is that it is almost a box with a little bit of shape at the top. Mr. DeRuyter explained the signage construction to the Commission and said this sign will definitely stand out as something new and clean. Mr. DeRuyter described the specifications to the Commission. He explained that neither the checkers nor the blue color will illuminate at night. Commissioner Gregory is concerned with the complexity of the sign which he realizes is their logo. He pointed out that the Commission is not trying to stop them from using their logo but having a logo with as much going on is not quite what they had intended with honoring a logo. The Commission has tried to be careful in the past about having lots of things going on especially with really bright colors because Palm Desert is a very staid community. He was also concerned with the sign being taller than what is currently allowed. He doesn't mind the sign so much if certain things were toned back like the red behind the letters on "Diner". Commissioner Vuksic pointed out there wasn't a photo of the monument sign and the sign they submitted is on the wall. He feels it is not as strong as it would be if it was free standing somewhere. He was a little leery of this in a monument. He agrees with Mr. Bagato that the letters popping above would be more interesting aesthetically. He likes how fun the sign is and believes they have done it in an artful way and said at night it would be a handsome sign. However, he was worried about what it would look like during the day when it's basically a big block with some angled edges on GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2011\AR111213min.doc Page 5 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REV*, ,:W COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 it. He said he's not quite there with approving it and asked the applicant to tell this Commission that this definitely has to be the monument and they're not able to have something that looks more like the wall sign with the letters popping up and the mass breaking up more. Mr. DeRuyter stated the monument sign is cleaner than the wall sign because you see a lot of neon components and neon signs are not very sightly during the day. Going with a clean monolithic sign that has push through copy and routed out you are getting a better sophistication. As far as the massing with having letters pop out, they try to stay away from that when they are down low because of issues with vandalism. It is also a cost issue it's obviously a lot easier to build a clean sign. He said they could have built a big square box but they are actually trying to keep with the fun of the sign. Mr. Bryce Meyers, Richie's Diner, said the intrigue of the sign on the eyebrow of the storefront is fun and has actually been toned down from their other restaurant. He described the visual of the restaurant and how the signage ties into it. He said if you throw the mesh background in the sign into a can or up on the street it becomes too busy for the street. He appreciates the comment about the letters popping above the mesh, but the lettering would be visible from one side to the other and it just wouldn't work. They were not allowed a monument sign in Rancho Cucamonga so they placed the logo on the wall. So the application there is different, but they want to keep the consistency because when people drive in they will see the sign. That is the consistency they are trying to bring along with the elements of the logo. He expressed his appreciation of the Commission's consideration and said they are excited to open mid January. Commissioner Levin asked how they could deal with the other side of the sign and Commissioner Vuksic said one idea would be to have another material that is not at the same level as the main monument that is back farther and would serve as a backdrop for the upper portion of the sign and to reflect the light. Commissioner Lambell asked for the existing height of the existing Marie Callendar's sign along with the base. Mr. Bagato said it was 8', but the code today is 6'. He explained that when Westfield was approved, the signage was approved in accordance with that development plan. The overall size can technically be approved, but again it is a different design and would be based on its own merit and design. If it was an 8' high sign, staff could technically GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2011 WR111213min.doc Page 6 of 13 -ARCHITECTURAL RE\,,,,W COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 approve it if the design was okay. The code states that the Architectural Review Commission, as well as staff has to find that the sign will visually enhance the property and although the way it illuminates looks nice, the overall shape, size, and the massing does not enhance the property. He said the Commission could approve this at 8' because it is consistent with the Westfield plan if the Commissioners were comfortable with the design at that size. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if they were asking for a 7' or 8' sign and Mr. Bagato stated it was 7'-5" with a 12" base. Commissioner Van Vliet was concerned with the height and feels that the sign could be lowered down to 6' and still get the impact. He is also concerned with the redness of the diner portion, but if the sign was reduced it would also reduce down the redness. It is a lot different from the existing sign, which has a small base. This one has a whole different massing. He asked if the old sign was internally lit and Mr. Bagato stated it was only the letters and was a lot more subtle than this sign. Commissioner Touschner agreed and said if all the letters were lit that would be great but this red seems like it would be a lot of red. She liked the shape of the monument sign rather than the wall sign and stated it is more proportionate. She liked that it is set up and not just sitting on the landscaping. She questioned the large red portion and asked what it will look like when it's all illuminated. It may give them the impact they want, but not be so big and bold in your face. She said she is okay with the height and it seems to her that there should be a little compromise with it being a little taller than 6' but asked does it have to be all the way up to 8'. Commissioner Vuksic suggested the corners be at 6' and the curved part going up to 7'. Commissioner Touschner felt that might be a good compromise. Commissioner Gregory said it would be okay if there was a way of limiting the redness of the background of "Diner". He explained to the applicant that the City has a history with being careful with red and white at night because they really catch your eye, and they have worked hard at toning down those two colors. Mr. Jack Williams, founder of Ritchie's Diner, stated he has been in the restaurant business for 53 years and expressed that the logo is critical. It is critical not only to the success of Ritchie's in this community, but it is critical to the success of the growth. They have a very viable concept with record sales and record customer counts GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\20MAR111213min.doc Page 7 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL RE,, ;W COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 in each of the other three stores and feel this store will be a winner. The color of the red is very important to them and believes this sign will be a trend setter; exciting and fun. To make it here in Palm Desert they need every valuable part of their logo. He asked the Commission to keep this in mind when pondering their decision. Commissioner Lambell agreed that the corners be at 6' and let it go up to 7' at the top. So the whole thing gets reduced down proportionately by 12". Commissioner Vuksic said there is enough going on that it is approvable, but said he would have like to see a little more texture with the letters popping out. It is a fun sign and artfully done. He made a motion to approve subject to reducing the sign proportionally by one foot. Commissioner Touschner stated that her concern with having things that are separate is having another place for a bird to sit and to get dirty. Her main concern is the brightness of the red and it would be nice to be able to see this somehow illuminated for review. Mr. Bagato reminded the Commission there was a motion that needed a second. Commissioner Touschner made the second. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the red field is grounded down at the bottom as opposed to it being up high. Commissioner Gregory stated in years past the Planning staff and or Commission was concerned with the signs being too bright so staff would require the applicant to have some means of adjusting the brightness of the sign, which has been done successfully in the past. Mr. Bagato said a rheostat can be applied to wall signs but didn't know if it could be applied to monument signs. Mr. DeRuyter stated they are not doing anything different from other signs in the valley. They started with fully exposed neon signs in Rancho Cucamonga and that is truly the nostalgic diner experience, they worked through all these processes with Westfield to get it where it is at now. They feel they have made major compromise in regards to dimming things down. He has no worries in regards to what is proposed. Commissioner Vuksic asked them if they were not worried and Mr. DeRuyter stated absolutely not. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the Apple sign that had to be dimmed down about 30% and said this is where the Commission is coming from. Commissioner Touschner asked if the red is too GAPlanningWanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes12011WR111213min.doc Page 8 of 13 •ARCHITECTURAL RElW COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 bright was there a way to resolve it. Mr. DeRuyter said if the Commission is not happy with it they could put diffuser on it and knock it back 30%. Commissioner Touschner said she would approve it knowing that is an option. Commissioner Vuksic amended his motion to approve and added that the Commission has the option of reducing the brightness of the red field by 30% if staff feels it is necessary. Mr. Meyers said he was concerned with staff approving it and Commissioner Van Vliet recommended bringing it back to this Commission. The vote was called for the amended motion. ACTION: Commissioner Vuksic moved and Commissioner Levin seconded, to grant approval subject to: 1) reducing sign proportionally by one foot with corners at 6'; 2) if the red field is too bright, a diffuser will be added to reduce it by 30% and re-submitted to ARC for review and approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 11-440 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALMS TO PINES CANVAS, 69- 640 Sugarloaf Avenue, Mountain Center, CA 92561 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of six awnings; Grapevine Plaza. LOCATION: 73-640 El Paseo ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Swartz presented the project and said this came before the Commission previously. Staff was concerned with the awning and felt that it did not blend in with the architecture of the building and looked more like an add-on. It was continued with the recommendation to put a mock-up in the field. Mr. Swartz said the applicant did an oval mock-up to resemble more of an awning rather than something flat as previously proposed. At the last meeting, the applicant presented a variety of colors, but the owner of the building wants to go with blue that is out there today. He said the awnings are within the right-of-way so the applicant will have to go to Public Works to do a hold harmless agreement and an encroachment permit. Commissioner Lambell GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2011WR111213min.doc Page 9 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 said the curved shape is far better than the previous proposal. The flat does not speak to anything on the building and the curve looks softer. Commissioner Vuksic stated after review of the mock-up, he said this is certainly an improvement over what is out there currently. However, he is bothered that the awnings are all the same color. Mr. Ernie Brooks, sign representative stated they can change that if the Commission is offended with just one color. Commissioner Vuksic said he would be most happy if this was one store and this is what they wanted to do, but it's the fact that all the stores have the same solution. Mr. Brooks stated the existing awnings are all vertical and flat. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what is there now is a super long sign and this at least is broken up and you get nice flashes of roof between the signs, which he liked. He felt this was approvable just by being out there and seeing how bad it looks currently, although if he saw this show up on another building he would question it. With this building, and in this case, he agrees. However, he would hate to see it become a standard because there are a lot of tile roof buildings on El Paseo that have awnings nicely tucked in under the eave and they look fine. He would hate to see this pop up in other places. Commissioner Lambell thought it was important to show different lettering and asked the applicant if he would be open to changing the blue and Mr. Brooks said yes. Commissioner Lambell also said if it was a color that doesn't fight with the red tile roof and the beige building it would go down easier than the bright blue. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the client will be selecting the colors on the awnings. Mr. Swartz said the owner wanted to go with all blue but Mr. Brooks said he would be flexible. He said he could go back to each tenant and ask what they prefer and bring that back to staff for approval. Commissioner Lambell stated it would have to be something that is compatible with the architecture of the building. She said he would have to be somewhat cautious in showing the tenants colors that are not indicative of the building. Mr. Swartz presented color swatches for the Commission's review. Commissioner Levin said he agrees that it shouldn't be a single color and definitely thinks the curve is better. Commissioner Vuksic said he normally doesn't care for beige awnings but in this case some beige may be good just to break it up; however, he was still bothered that they were still all the same awning. At least the beige is a neutral color so it may go away a little bit. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2011M111213min.doc Page 10 of 13 °ARCHITECTURAL REV,.N COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 The Commission picked out three colors; toasty beige, regatta, and forest green. Commissioner Vuksic said if the tenants want something different that's okay, it at least gives staff some control and the tenants can come in and propose something different if they don't like it. The rear can be one of the three colors but not the same colors. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Vuksic seconded, to grant approval subject to: 1) selecting the oval awning shape as depicted in Plan B; 2) for the south facing elevation apply toasty beige to Cactus Flower and regatta and/or forest green to the other two store fronts, but no two colors the same; 3) for the north elevation choose two of the three colors mentioned above, but no color shall be the same; and 4) wording and lettering to return to staff for review and approval. Motion carried 4-0-2-1, with Commissioners Gregory and Touschner abstaining and Commissioner Stendell absent. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to add Case No. SA 11-494 to the agenda. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell absent. 4. CASE NO: SA 11-494 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ESCADA USA, 1412 Broadway, New York, NY, 10018 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of awnings and signage; Escada. LOCATION: 73-100 Ell Paseo 1 & 2 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Bagato said this is a proposal for a sign program for window and awning signage. Mr. David Fletcher, representative stated Escada is moving from their current location to where BCBG was located on the corner of Ocotillo and Highway 74. He stated BCBG had awnings over all of the windows which have now been removed and Escada is replacing them with a new awning GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes\2011WR111213min.doc Page 11 of 13 ARCHITECTURAL REW COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 similar in style with black fabric and gold vinyl lettering. Above several of the awnings will be sign bands that are mounted flat to the wall. This is a giant fish bowl and the layout didn't exactly work for them so they have blacked out some of the windows. Other windows will have large graphics that will be back lit similar to their windows now. Some windows will have mannequins and some will have their current image campaign. One window that faces El Paseo will have regular mannequins. There is a small window on either side of the front door that will have images. At the back corner of this space, facing the parking lot, the windows will have images and blacked out windows. Due to technical difficulties with the recording system the minutes are sporadic. The Commission reviewed and discussed the number of times the name "Escada" appears on the storefront and awnings. Mr. Chris McFaul, Architect, stated the only ones that would be seen at night would be the upper sign. The Commission discussed how the black is being stopped by the building. Commissioner Touschner asked if the panel is mounted to the face of the building or does it stand off of the building. Mr. McFaul said it stands off from the building. Commissioner Touschner pointed out that even on the black glass they have the word "Escada" on it and feels the word is everywhere. It is along the bottom but when it gets to the black glass it jumps up and is in the middle of the black glass. Mr. McFaul stated the reason for that is because that is the only element on that window, but they would be more than happy to move them to be consistent with the other ones. Mr. Fletcher stated a lot of the stores on El Paseo have that window signage down at the bottom for the customers walking on El Paseo who can't see the signage on the face of the awning or above the awning. Commissioner Touschner said she understood. She then questioned why they didn't have it on the rear of the store and asked why they couldn't put it there to be consistent. The Commission discussed the rear of the store in the parking lot. Commissioner Touschner said it is not very nice back there. Mr. Fletcher said they will be cutting the concrete back in the recessed area and adding a planter with vines on a trellis to fill the void. The Commission discussed not having an awning in the rear. Mr. Fletcher stated this space is a mirror image to California Pizza Kitchen and who GAPlanning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2011 WR111213min.doc Page 12 of 13 °ARCHITECTURAL REV.,,,IV COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2011 does not have an awning on their back window, but they do over the sides and front. BCBG currently does not have one facing the parking lot. Commissioner Vuksic likes the idea of an awning so that it wouldn't look like it was missing something, but understands that it wouldn't really have a function other than an aesthetic one. Mr. McFaul said it would be perfectly fine to put an awning there for consistency. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to grant approval subject to: 1) adding an awning to the north exterior elevation; and 2) consider adding pedestrian signage on the glass. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Stendell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. JANINE JUDY RECORDING SECRETARY GAPlanning\JanineJudy\WordFiles\AMinutes\2011WR111213min.doc Page 13 of 13