Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-08 A f � � ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT � � ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • • MINUTES February 8, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 2 1 Chris Van Vliet X 3 John Vuksic X 2 1 Karel Lambell X 3 Pam Touschner X 2 1 Allan Levin X 3 Ken Stendell X 3 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Neal Stephenson, Fire Safety Specialist Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant II1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 25, 2011 Action• Commissioner Levin moved and Commissioner Lambell seconded, to approve the January 25, 2011 meeting minutes. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. V. CASES: ARCHITECTURAL R�1EW COMMISSION �°` � MINUTES February 8, 2011 A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 11-028 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SUPERIOR ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING, 1700 w. Anaheim Street, Long Beach, CA 90813 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of one new illuminated awning; Dollar Tree. LOCATION: 72-630 Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C.-3 Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant, Dollar Tree, is moving into the old PetSmart center and is requesting an awning that measures 3' tall by 33'-4" long. Staff informed the applicant that an illuminated awning is not allowed in the City and staff is recommending a denial on that portion of the request. She mentioned there has been some minor fa�ade changes made over the counter and pointed out a section that was removed and an area that was expanded. In the expanded area a new bank of windows will be placed where the awning will be located. She presented photos of the overall center and pointed out that other than Ethan Allan, no other store has individual awnings such as the one being proposed by Dollar. Staff is recommending denial of the individual awning for the reason that it does not match the center. She also pointed out that the landlord has subdivided this space into two spaces and what used to read architecturally as one space will now be two. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the signage was a part of the approval and Mr. Bagato stated the signage met the code and was already approved over the counter. Commissioner Vuksic said he was concerned with two signs on the one piece and feels it will look really cluttered. Right now it is one sign but as soon as the second sign comes in we will have a problem. He said if there is nothing they can do about that, then the first sign should be centered on their half; right now it is closer to the center. Commissioner Touschner suggested that it could be smaller and just within the space and the other sign will have to do the same. Mr. Bagato stated the sign code says that signs have to be architecturally compatible so staff could request that it be smaller. G:\Planning\JanineJudy\WordFilesWMinutes�2011WR110208min.doc Page 2 of 6 . ' ARCHITECTURAL RE'�W COMMISSION �''" MINUTES February 8, 2011 Mr. Tony Rector, representative said the Dollar Tree stores are evolving to an upscale discount store with about ten stores opening per month in the Southern California area. Most stores wherever possible are getting the awnings because of the effect, which gives them an upscale look. Commissioner Stendell asked if the applicant mimicked the awnings on the other side of the center in some sort of structural way would the color be acceptable. Ms. Grisa stated the color is a trademark color and mentioned that this center has a specific color scheme with reds, blues, creams and browns in the tile work and awnings, so even if they added the same structural element and kept the green color she didn't think it would match; however green is an integral color of their logo. Mr. Bagato was concerned with one awning on half the building and another tenant coming in the future who may or may not have an awning. He stated if it is a trademark color we cannot deny them based on color. Commissioner Van Vliet liked the variety of awnings and didn't think it was a problem to have different types of awning styles or color on the other side. Commissioner Vuksic stated the bigger problem is going to be signage from a future tenant next to the other one. Commissioner Touschner was concerned with the awnings on the other side that are all within some metal work and now there is a simple awning that looks tacked on; the other plays into the architecture. If it was designed as a whole the simplistic aspect to it works, but right now it looks chopped. Ms. Grisa mentioned again that all the metal work, awning and tile work tie into the overall color scheme and didn't think the green color of the awning is a portion the Commission would have to approve. Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development believes that the color is not protected because first amendment protection is for signs and awnings are not signs. Mr. Bagato said the color may be trademarked but it doesn't mean they are guaranteed an awning. Commissioner Lambell moved for denial of the green awning and Commissioner Touschner seconded the motion. Mr. Rector asked if the Commission would be open to other colors. Commissioner Touschner answered yes, but it needs to be a design that is compatible with the total elevation. Commissioner Vuksic stated that normally the Commission doesn't look at awnings being compatible, but in this case the vocabulary is so strong with what has been set up and feels that is why this is different. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded, to deny Case SA 10-103. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files�A Minutes�2011\AR110208min.doc Page 3 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL R'�IEW COMMISSION `'�'' � MINUTES February 8, 2011 2. CASE NO: SA 10-380 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, 610 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of monument and wall signage; Holiday Inn Express. LOCATION: 74-675 Highway 111 ZONE: PC-4 Mr. Swartz presented the case and said the applicant is proposing a wall sign and a monument sign. The monument sign based on the frontage would comply with the sign code, but the applicant is only allowed 60 square feet for both signs. The monument sign is 50 square feet and the wall sign is 99 square feet so the applicant is asking for additional square footage. This request would have to go to the City Council and staff is looking for a recommendation from the Commission. The existing monument sign is currently located in the right of way and the applicant is proposing to move it back, which would put it in the landscape planter. The height of the monument sign is 10' for a total of 60 square feet and staff feels it should be reduced. The top of the sign should be 6' and in this case it is not. The wall sign is large and staff is requesting that it be reduced as well. Mr. Swartz pointed out the Best Western sign that is closer to Highway 111. Commissioner Stendell asked if there was a different ordinance at the time the current signs were approved. Mr. Swartz said they conformed to the code at that time. The Commission discussed the height of the existing signs and the proposed signs. Mr. Bagato explained that the sign code states that monument signs cannot exceed more than half the allowable square footage. After reviewing the photo sim, Commissioner Vuksic pointed out that the monument sign was more like 8' not 10'. Looking at this relative to the existing signage he felt it was something worth pointing out. Mr. Kumar Koneru, partner explained that they just bought this property a few months back and they are going through the re-launching of new standards of Holiday Inn Express and they have to put up new signs. He stated that with all the landscaping and the elevated landscape on the island the signage is not visible to the public. He said their guests are having a hard time locating the hotel because the signage is setback so far from Highway 111. They are losing money because their guests pass G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2011\AR110208min.doc Page 4 of 6 1 ' ARCHITECTURAL RE�rtW COMMISSION '�+�'' MINUTES February 8, 2011 their hotel and go to the next Holiday Inn Express in Rancho Mirage. His first choice is to have a sign closer to Highway 111 like the Best Western sign and their second choice would be in the same location with a bigger sign. Commissioner Levin asked if there were any permitting options and Mr. Swartz stated he would have to go to the City Council for approval. Mr. Koneru respectfully requested the Commission to approve the signage closer to Highway 111. Mr. Swartz informed the Commission that staff is recommending denial of the sign because it is too large and if it is denied the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Van Vliet said he didn't have a problem with the sign being closer to Highway 111 if the sign was done well, especially since the Best Western sign was out there; but it would have to reduced in size. He liked the existing wall sign much better than the new one because the new one shouts out too much. The Commission discussed the location of the sign being in the right of way. Commissioner Stendell said their existing sign is buried as you are traveling west on Highway 111. He pointed out that the hotels are set back so much you don't see them as you are traveling on Highway 111 and since these hotels are a valuable asset to TOTs we should assist in making them more visible. Mr. Swartz stated to Mr. Koneru if he wanted the sign on Highway 111 he would have to redo the sign so it will meet the sign criteria and then ask City Council to approve it in the right of way. Commissioner Vuksic stated this is a difficult position and understands why the applicant wants the monument sign in addition to the sign on the building. He wondered what kind of precedent does this set if it is over the square footage allowed. Commissioner Lambell felt they needed a grand sense of entrance to the hotel because the eye does not come all the way back to the porte-cochere. Perhaps it's not solved with a 10' sign, but solved by making the entrance more important. Mr. Kevin Swain, sign representative asked the Commission to approve the sign design so they can go to the City Council for the approval to place the sign in the right of way. Commissioner Levin explained that if they were asking for approval of the sign design and the location and it was within the constraints of the existing sign ordinance, this Commission could approve the design but not the location since it was in the right of way. The Commission reviewed and discussed the sign and the illumination. The representative pointed out the areas that are illuminated. The Commission had concerns with the sign being 10' high and in the right of way. Mr. Swain submitted a new proposal for an 18 square foot sign that was 6' high. Mr. Bagato stated that the wall signage is over the G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�201 t�AR110208min.doc Page 5 of 6 ARCHITECTURAL R�d1EW COMMISSION ``�•�' ° MINUTES February 8, 2011 allowable square footage but the monument sign was okay. In order for it to conform to the sign code the applicant would have to shrink the wall sign. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested this be continued to allow the applicant to come back with the revised signage in the correct location. Mr. Bagato also suggested that they make the panels non-illuminated with routed out letters. Commissioner Stendell asked if there is an allowable variance for lots that are proportionally deeper than they are wide. It would be a whole different thing if this project fronted Highway 111. Mr. Bagato stated that the old sign may have been calculated from Highway 111 and they may have been given a little larger area. He suggested that staff could calculate the new sign from Highway 111 to see how much more square footage it would give them. Commissioner Stendell thought if this was a doable situation it would encourage occupancy, which in turn would create TOTs. Mr. Bagato said staff could research the previous approval to see what the square footage was based on. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded, to continue Case SA 10-380 subject to reducing both signs to conform to sign code and shown in correct location. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Gregory absent. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2011WR110208min.doc Page 6 of 6