Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-12 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES August 12, 2014 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 Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 15 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 14 1 Paul Clark X 14 1 Gene Colombini X 15 Allan Levin X 13 2 Michael McAuliffe X 14 1 Jim McIntosh X 14 1 John Vuksic X 14 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 22, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the July 22, 2014 meeting minutes with minor changes. Motion was seconded by Chair Van Vliet and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and McIntosh and Vuksic absent. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 V. CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. CASE NO: MISC 14-199 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: HERB JACKSON, P.O. Box 12665, Palm Desert, CA 92255 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a single-family home at a proposed height of 18' located on a vacant lot. LOCATION: 637-320-030; a vacant lot on the south side of Robin Road, east of Warner Trail ZONE: R-E Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission that this was continued from the last meeting to allow the applicant to add more articulation to the front of the home and to provide massing around the windows. He stated that the applicant has complied with that request. He presented photos of the changes, as well as the updated roof plan. The Commission and the applicant discussed the window surrounds, fencing, and the multi-colored concrete tile. The Commission was concerned with the color selection for the house because it was really yellow and requested that the applicant submit additional color samples for review. Commissioner Clark suggested to deny the color and the applicant can work with staff on a color selection. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to approve subject to: 1) applying multi-color roof tile as shown on color board; 2) roof vents shall be painted earth colors to be compatible with roof tiles; staff to review and approve; and 3) denial of the yellow exterior color - applicant shall work with staff on color selection. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 5-0-3 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, and Van Vliet voting YES and McAuliffe, McIntosh and Vuksic absent. G d Ian ningJanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 2 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 2. CASE NO: SA 14-234 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KAISER GRILLE PALM DESERT, 74-040 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of the color for six awnings; Kaiser Grille LOCATION: 74-040 Portola Avenue ZONE: C.1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this was an awning color change for Kaiser Grille. He presented photos of the restaurant's current awning color, as well as the previous awning color. About a month ago, the owner switched the restaurant from Chop House to Kaiser Grille. Staff approved the new wall signage and the new awning color. The orange awnings match the wall signage on Portola Avenue and Highway 111. However, staff has received a complaint regarding the color. Mr. Swartz said this building doesn't scream restaurant and the color draws attention to the building by giving it some pop. He passed around a sample of the awning fabric by Sombrella and suggested that if this fabric fades over time, the applicant should maintain this color and change it out when necessary. He also pointed out that the awnings were not tight on the frame and suggested that the applicant talk to the awning company to have it stretched tight. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said the code requires that a new color be approved. When staff saw the original photo simulations without a sample, it appeared to be similar to the previous awning color. Mr. Swartz said staff is looking for direction from the Commission. MR. ERIC MORCUS, owner, said he and his family have owned restaurants for quite some time here in the valley. At first he was going to keep the red awnings from the previous restaurant, but after doing some research on restaurant colors he learned that red was the wrong color for a fine dining restaurant. He then decided that orange would be the best color. So when the wall signage was approved by the City, he decided to go with orange awnings to match the signage. He pointed out that he did not add any additional awnings. Commissioner McAuliffe said the orange is striking. It's a very bold move and is sophisticated. He thinks the sign is fantastic and the Portola elevation works really well. The awnings frame the signage GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.doex Page 3 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 and don't compete with it. However, on the Highway 111 elevation there is so many awnings proportionate to the amount of the arcade and the glass it's shading that the orange is just screaming; almost to the point that it is competing with the signage. He suggested looking to their logo in between the text on "Kaiser Grille" and pulling color cues from it. There is a nice balance with the amount of orange within that square, as well as a neutral gray. By pulling some of those colors out of the logo, it will clearly identify this building as your brand. He thought they could use some of those colors on the two awnings directly below the signage. He didn't think orange in itself is the issue; it's just the quantity of it. MR. MORCUS talked about removing the awnings on Highway 111. Chair Van Vliet asked Commissioner McAuliffe what this would look like if they were removed. Commissioner McAuliffe said he actually likes what the awnings do for the building and thought it wouldn't enhance the building by removing them. He again suggested using colors from the logo for two of the awnings below the signage and the other two would be orange; like bookends. The Commission and the applicant discussed his suggestion. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case SA 14-234 subject to the applicant choosing another color for two of the awnings based on the Commissioner's comments. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners McIntosh and Vuksic absent. 3. CASE NO: SA 14-252 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: TUESDAY MORNING, 6250 LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75240 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of wall and monument signage; Tuesday Morning. LOCATION: 44-250 Town Center Way#C-11 ZONE: P.C.-(3) Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a proposal for wall and monument signage for a new Tuesday Morning. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the building and the location of the signage. When the applicant first came to the City, he was G F anning Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 4 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 proposing 30" letters for the front elevation and although it meets the square footage, staff was concerned with the actual text being red Arial bold. The applicant then reduced it down to 24". Mr. Swartz indicated where the signage would be located on the back of the building and said this is looking towards the mall so the store will get that traffic. The applicant originally proposed 30" letters on the back side and staff thought the letters were too large. The applicant then suggested 24" letters and staff still felt they were too large. The applicant then decided on 18" letters, which will be illuminated. MR. GARY WRIGHT, American Sign, said Trader Joe's has 24" letters on the rear and Tuesday's would like their letters to be the same size. Mr. Swartz said part of the issue is the font style and presented photos of the other stores with different font styles. Tuesday's could probably get a larger sign if they were willing to change their font style. However, this is Tuesday Morning's trademark lettering and that is what they want to go with. He pointed out that this complies with the sign program for that center. The Commission reviewed and discussed the placement of the signs on the building with 24" letters and the color. MR. WRIGHT said they would prefer 30" letters on the front. He feels they are being penalized for their font style and not getting the same amount of signage as the other stores in the center. He pointed out that they have 115 square feet of linear footage which allows them 82.5 square feet of signage, but they only want to go with 62.5 square feet of signage, with a 30" letter. Mr. Swartz said another issue is the uppercase letters in Tuesday Morning compared to the other stores that have lowercase letters. Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, said part of the sign code states that signs have to be compatible with the building so square footage is not the sole factor in approving signage. MR. WRIGHT said this font was Tuesday Morning's trademark font for 800 stores nationwide and they would not be willing to change for one store. Mr. Bagato said the City can't restrict a national logo, but we can restrict the size. The Commission and applicant discussed the linear footage, the size of the letters, and the style of the sign. MR. WRIGHT said the applicant feels that 24" letters are just too small and looks dwarfed; which won't do it justice. He asked if they could meet halfway between 24" and 30"; around 27" or 28". Commissioner McAuliffe said he didn't have a problem with the larger letters on the back of the building since it was such a large GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 5 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 wall. However, the challenge with the 30" letters is that the applicant is being penalized by having the font in all caps. Commissioner Colombini suggested 28" and asked the Commission how they felt about 28" letters. The Commission didn't see a big difference between 24" or 28". Commissioner McAuliffe said the front elevation is very large and thinks by putting letters that are too small up there would draw a different kind of attention. He suggested not centering the sign but placing it lower so the lettering can breathe a little, visually. Commissioner Colombini again suggested 28" letters and Commissioner McAuliffe said he would be comfortable with that. Commissioner Clark said his main concern was color matching the other signs in the center. MR. WRIGHT said he will have to take a look at the color criteria for the center and make sure it matches the colors that have been approved. Commissioner McAuliffe was concerned with the damage on the front and rear elevations from the removal of the previous signs. MR. WRIGHT said he would have to talk with the property owner to see if they will re-stucco prior to sign installation. Commissioner McAuliffe said that will need to be considered because to put a new sign over the damaged area would not look favorably on the new store. The Commission and MR. WRIGHT discussed the placement of the signs on the front and rear elevation. ACTION: Commissioner Colombini moved to approve subject to: 1) increasing the front facade letters to 28" and lowering the sign to be centered over the front elevation; 2) increase rear facade letters to 24" and lowering the sign: 3) re-stucco front and rear facade prior to sign installation; and 4) match color of signage to existing sign program. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners McIntosh and Vuksic absent. G J anningJanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 6 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 4. CASE NO: MISC 14-259 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue Suite 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of color modifications to an existing building; Flooring Innovations. LOCATION: 74-527 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, presented a color change for Flooring Innovations. He presented a PowerPoint of the building and said they are incorporating the colors of the building to match their logo. He then passed around a color board for review. He also stated that the signage for this building was previously approved. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission reviewed and discussed the colors. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Colombini and carried by a 6-0-2 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioners McIntosh and Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: None C. Miscellaneous Items: 1. CASE NO: N/A APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: ROTHBART DEVELOPMENT CORP, 10990 Wilshire Blvd Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90024 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Design discussion regarding the last pad building at Desert Gateway Shopping Center. LOCATION: Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive ZONE: P.C.-(3) FCOZ GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 7 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, stated this is a design discussion for a multi-tenant building on the last pad at Desert Gateway Center on Monterey Avenue that will go next to Panera Bread now under construction. The original theme for the center was a Santa Barbara mission style, which was something they struggled with. The applicant, Stan Rothbart, mentioned the potential of changing the design of this last building to be more contemporary. The plans will come back at a later date along with the enhanced landscape plan for the corner, which was one of the conditions when Panera Bread came in. And because this corner is an entryway to the City, staff wanted a more enhanced landscape plan for that area. MR. BRIAN POLIQUIN, Architect, said they were trying to get away from the same old thing because this building will be out on the corner and will receive a lot more exposure. This building is a 6,600 square foot multi-tenant building and having a breakup would give a little more individual identity to each of the tenants. Since this building is on the corner, they went with a little more playfulness and a little more play on the colors; not so much of the tans and browns. They are trying to experiment with color and be more aggressive. They understand this is very conceptual but wanted to put the renderings together to give the Commission a three- dimensional feel for the building. Not only is it the smallest building on the site, it is the most exposed building on the site and they believe that with enhanced landscape, it will be more vibrant on that corner. Commissioner Lambell said the pop outs and the recessed areas read well. She thought the height variances in the roof line will make a huge difference. She agrees that they can be more playful on the pad because it is very visual from four directions. She and the applicant discussed the placement of signage on the building. MR. POLIQUIN said they anticipated sign placement and pointed out those locations on the rendering. Commissioner Lambell asked if the tower was four-sided and MR. ANTHONY MOLINA, Architect, said it is a full tower and not a stage front. Chair Van Vliet said it looks like the backside of the building is facing the intersection, which is the most visible area. MR. MOLINA said these renderings show the inside view. MR. POLIQUIN said they will work on that elevation. GJ'anningJanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 8 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 12, 2014 Commissioner Clark said there are natural elements that were pulled in with the other buildings; tile roofs, wood elements, and trellises. He was a little concerned for this to be completely different, especially on that corner. They need to bear in mind their surroundings. MR. POLIQUIN said they will do the roof tiles and exposed rafter tails. The awnings may be wood with struts. Commissioner McAuliffe said to respect what was going on in the center and believes they are headed in the right direction. He said doing more of the same isn't necessarily an enhancement. He mentioned that development of the elevation facing the intersection will be critical. He suggested they show some level of treatment for the blank wall close to Panera Bread to reinforce the four-sided architecture because it will be highly visual. Commissioner Lambell left at 1:35 p.m. Commissioner Clark reminded the applicants that this is a high wind area. Commissioner Levin said they would like to see all four sides when this comes back because this is a highly visual intersection. In summary, the following recommendations were made by the Commission: 1) anticipate the sign placement; 2) consider wood elements; 3) be respectful of surrounding architecture; 4) development of the elevation facing the intersection will be critical; 5) show some level of treatment for the blank wall close to Panera Bread to reinforce the four-sided architecture; and 6) consider the high winds in this area. No action taken. VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic —July 23, 2014 Commissioner Vuksic was not in attendance. He will give an update at the next meeting. VII. COMMENTS The Commission and staff discussed the notice sent to paint contractors and local paint stores regarding the City's paint color requirements. GAPlanning\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 9 of 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MIIINUTES August 12, 2014 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Levin, second by Commissioner Clark, and a 5- 0-3 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, and Van Vliet voting YES, and Commissioners Lambell, McIntosh and Vuksic absent, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. cam_ l'',)NY BAGAT , PRINCIPAL PLANNER ISE-CRETARY i Ji!rN JUDY FLOC `RDING SECRETARY G:f'anning Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\140812min.docx Page 10 of 10