Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-14 ��•�� CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ' MINUTES October 14, 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 18 Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 17 1 Paul Clark X 16 2 Gene Colombini X 17 1 Allan Levin X 16 2 Michael McAuliffe X 17 1 Jim McIntosh X 17 1 John Vuksic X 17 1 Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director, Community Development Tony Bagato, Principal Planner Eric Ceja, Associate Planner Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Supervisor Janine Judy, Recording Secretary Cancelled meeting:09/23/14 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 9, 2014 Action: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the September 9, 2014 meeting minutes. Motion was seconded by Chair Van Vliet and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Lambell, Clark, Colombini, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 V, CASES: A. Final Drawings: 1. 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 due to a complaint regarding the awning color for Kaiser Grille this color change came before the Commission back in August. He reminded the Commissioners that the owner switched the restaurant from Chop House to Kaiser Grille and changed the awning color to orange. There are two awnings on Portola Avenue and four awnings on Highway 111. The concern at the last meeting was with the two signs directly under the sign on Highway 111. The Commission recommended that the applicant incorporate the grayish silver in the "Kaiser" sign into their awnings and leaving the two awnings at each end with the orange color. The applicant has decided not to change the color since the interior of the restaurant is orange and yellow. Mr. Swartz said even though they have only received one compliant for the orange color the owner has received several compliments from customers. Staff is recommending approval with the suggestion that the apron is pulled taut. He also mentioned that the property owner would like to make a change to his sign program where all the awnings in the center will match the lettering colors in the signs. Commissioner Vuksic said from one angle it appears there are four awnings, but if you are driving west on Highway 111 you will only see three awnings. He felt that changing two awnings to silver/gray will not look balanced. He agrees that the orange color freshens up the building and makes it pop. He feels that the color looks better with the current signage. Commissioner Clark said he is concerned with the frumpiness of the awnings that hang down and thought it would look better if it G\:anninc\JanineJudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141014min.docx Page 2 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 was tightened up. MR. ERIC MORCUS, owner, stated that the sign company removed the bottom band and is in the process of repairing and making them taut. Commissioner Vuksic said he liked how it looked without the apron. MR. SAM SPINELLO, property owner, said the ownership would like to keep the apron because all the other awnings on property had aprons. Ownership is looking to maintain consistency in structure, style, and color. The Commission and MR. SPINELLO discussed the framework for the awnings. Commissioner Vuksic referred to the proposal by Mr. Spinello to change the sign program so that all the awnings in the center will match the lettering colors on the sign and felt this was not a good idea. MR. SPINELLO explained that they inherited this sign program from the previous owner and they have continued with it. He explained that the primary color of the sign would become the color of the awning. Commissioner Vuksic stated this works for Kaiser Grille but didn't think it would for the remaining stores where it could be orange, green, or red. He didn't think this would be a good strategy. MR. SPINELLO stated they are worried that they will end up with too many colors if they allowed the signs not to match the awnings. The Commission and MR. SPINELLO discussed the sign program. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that the property owner discuss this further with staff. Commissioner McAuliffe discussed the concept of going to a silver/gray color on two of the orange awnings. He still feels that the amount of orange is overpowering the signage. MR. SPINELLO talked about the issues of colors on the other stores and said if he allows the awning to go silver/gray, he loses a legal or political argument of not maintaining consistency from a landlord standpoint. If he allows MR. MORCUS to alternate his awnings from orange to silver/gray then he will have other tenants questioning why they can't have two different colors. Commissioner Levin said that request would come back to this Commission for review. MR. SPINELLO and the Commission continued to discuss the apron and framework. ACTION: Commissioner Levin moved to approve the color subject to the apron being pulled taut. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 7-1-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and Commissioner McAuliffe voting NO. G1PlanningWanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141014min.docz Page 3 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 Commissioner Vuksic abstained from this project and left the conference room. 2. CASE NO: SA 14-298 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: BEST SIGNS, INC. 1550 S. Gene Autry Trail, Palm Springs, CA 92264 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a comprehensive sign program: 11" Bank. LOCATION: 73-000 Highway 111 ZONE: C.1, S.P. Mr. Eric Ceja, Associate Planner, said the applicant is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign program for the 1st Bank; a two- story office building. The building has primarily operated with a single tenant; however lease space is available for other perspective tenants. The sign program is intended to address sign needs for future tenants by providing two new sign locations for new building-mounted signs. For uniformity the sign program proposes sign size and illumination standards for all existing and proposed building signs. In addition, the sign program provides standards for non-illuminated directional signs and the existing monument sign. Review of a sign program is necessary as there are four existing channel letter signs for 1'c Bank and two new channel letter signs being proposed on the second story of the building. All signs are within the allowed maximum sign area and illumination standards set in the City's sign ordinance. The proposed sign for the new tenant, Lee & Associates, is in scale and works at this location on the building. They are proposing two signs; one on the north and one on the east side of the building. The sign program not only provides flexibility for specific criteria for Lee & Associates, but also for another tenant if Lee & Associates moves out. Mr. Ceja indicated that the Commission is considering the entirety of the sign program since they are setting up the standard for all signage on the building and providing the specifications for the Lee & Associates sign. Staff is recommending approval. The Commission and staff discussed the number of signs allowed on this building. Mr. Ceja said the four existing signs shown in the exhibit for 1st Bank will remain as well as the two new building signs for Lee & Associates. If they wanted a third sign that wasn't addressed here, they would have to amend the sign program. G:'."I:inning\Janine JudyWRC\1Minutes\2014\141014min.docx Page 4 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to approve. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McIntosh and carried by a 7-0-1 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, and Van Vliet voting YES and Commissioner Vuksic absent. B. Preliminary Plans: 1. CASE NO: CUP 13-179 APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T MOBILITY, Attn: Mitchell Bryant, 16150 Scientific, Irvine, CA 92618 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary discussion to approve proposed location of a mono-palm located at the Heather James Fine Art gallery. LOCATION: 45-188 Portola Avenue ZONE: C.1, S.P. Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this is for a new 55' tall monopalm located on the Heather James Fine Art property on Portola Avenue (Portola) and Highway 111. He presented a PowerPoint exhibit showing the proposed location on the Portola side. He stated this has been a long process working with AT&T. The initial proposal was for a 71' tall monopalm in the parking lot in the rear of the building, but staff had concerns that there wasn't enough screening in that area. Then they proposed a tower element on the building for a 55' tall stealth monopalm. Staff had concerns with that design because the City does not have any two- story buildings in that area and this was out of character and proportion to the building. Staff preferred the area on the Highway 111 side because of the tree cluster in that area, but in researching the area staff realized that would not be a viable location because of the bus shelter and several easements in that location. They are now proposing a location in front of the building on the Portola side. He pointed out the location and said staff was concerned because the applicant doesn't know at this time how many palm trees would have to be removed to get the monopalm in that area. He said the equipment shelter, designed to look like the building, will be located on the north side of the building and would take up some of the parking stalls. He pointed out the City's property line and said that the monopalm has to be about 5' away from the building. GAPlanning\JanineJudy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141014min.docx Page 5 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 MS. TERRY GRISENTI, Coastal Business Group, said the edge of the footing needs to be at least 5' away and it is 5' across. From the property line to the building, there is only about 11' so it wouldn't be efficient. Part of the foundation will be on the city right-of-way and the fronds and antennae will definitely be over the city sidewalk. Some of the landscape area is also city property. The Commission and staff discussed the property line and easement situation on Portola. Mr. Swartz stated in order to get the monopalm in that area a sculpture will have to be relocated and some of the trees will have to be removed. Chair Van Vliet asked if they can determine what trees will be removed and what trees will remain before they start trenching. MS. GRISENTI pointed out the fire infrastructure and irrigation in this area. She said the applicant has surveyed this area and nothing has shown up on public record and they won't know what is underneath until Dig-Alert marks the utilities. Based on what they do know so far the sculpture will need to move to the edge of the patio and the tree that AT&T is proposing will go between the fire hydrant and the building. It will be AT&T's goal to not permanently remove any trees. Chair Van Vliet stated that locating the monopalm in this area doesn't make any sense because it is a beautiful and prominent building on Highway 111 and Portola. He asked the applicant if they have reviewed other sites that aren't quite so visible. MS. GRISENTI said they have been up and down the street and this was their fifth property owner they have talked to. Commissioner Clark pointed out the large parking lot behind the building further to the east which also serves US Bank and asked if anything would work in that area. He also asked if the monopalm could be better disguised. MS. GRISENTI said they have gone through several iterations on the monopalm itself and have looked at putting antennas inside the coconut, the date palm bulb on the bottom. Based on the type of palm trees in the area and the proximity of people on this property it just wasn't adequate as far as screening. Commissioner Levin asked staff if they can require them to replant the same number of trees when they are done. Mr. Swartz said the Commission can condition it that way. MS. GRISENTI said she would have a problem with accepting a condition like that. After reviewing the site for fire infrastructure, they may not be able to relocate or add more trees. G?'1 inning\.Janine Judy\ARC\1 Minutes\2014\141014min.docx Page 6 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 The Commission discussed the height of the monopalm, the tower, hiding the antennas, and the area in the back corner of the property. Mr. Swartz pointed out that the height of the existing trees on Portola is about 40' to the top. They will need additional live palms to start at 45' to help stagger and screen the antennas. MS. GRISENTI said the trees that are planted around it would need to be planted underneath the height of the antennas so it would have to stop at 40' to keep from blocking the signal. The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the rear parking lot. MS. GRISENTI was concerned with getting approval to cross the easement and removal of non palm trees in that area. Commissioner McIntosh said the whole concern is that it is so much on Portola and if it's back 100' that would make a huge difference. Commissioner Vuksic said they would then have a layer of things before you see it; landscape, parking lot trees, palm trees on Portola, and the buildings. The Commission reviewed previous plans for this location and suggested that the monopalm and the equipment shelter be placed in this same area. Mr. Swartz stated the applicant would have to talk with the gallery in reference to losing about four parking stalls for the monopalm, one or two live palms, and the equipment shelter. MS. GRISENTI said she will check out the easement in that area. Commissioner Clark said the applicant needs to look at it again and make sure that this is really the property where they want to locate the monopalm. MS. GRISENTI asked the Commission if moving it to the southeast corner would be better. Commissioner Clark said they have made several suggestions and they need to evaluate each suggestion. ACTION: Commissioner Clark moved to continue Case No. CUP 13-179 subject to exploring different locations either on this site or adjoining properties. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES. GAPlanning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2014\141014min.docx Page 7 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 2014 C. Miscellaneous Items: None VI. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES UPDATE (AIPP) — Commissioner John Vuksic Commissioner Vuksic reported the following at the October 8, 2014 AIPP meeting. City Council approved two sculptures from the El Paseo Exhibition that will be placed along Desert Willow Drive; the theme, "Palm Desert Through My Eyes", was chosen for the 2015 Student Art and Essay Contest; the sculptures from the current El Paseo Exhibition will be de-installed early October and the new sculptures will be installed early November; the three finalists (artists) were placed in order of preference to create a mural for the Carlos Ortega Villas project; and the Palm Springs Art Museum in Palm Desert will be offering free admission for the next two years. VI'I. COMMENTS The Commission and staff discussed the Walls and Fences committee meeting, and the awning at Beaux de Arts restaurant. VINI. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Commissioner Lambell, second by Commissioner McAuliffe, and an 8-0 vote, with Clark, Colombini, Lambell, Levin, McAuliffe, McIntosh, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES, the Architectural Review Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m. T :)NY BAGATO, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SECRETARY tat J , RDING SECRETARY G:\P';inning\,anine Judy\ARC\1 Min utes\2014\141014min.docx Page 8 of 8