The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA. VAR 08-254 Sign Designs Inc. and Longs Drugs CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a larger sign than the ordinance allows for Longs Drugs located at 74-527 Highway 111. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Sign Designs Inc 204 Campus Way Modesto, CA 95352 Longs Drugs 141 North Civic Drive Walnut Creek, CA 94596 CASE NO.: VAR 08-254 DATE: August 5, 2008 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of staffs recommendation would deny the variance requesting a larger sign than Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, allows. II. BACKGROUND: A. Property Description: The property is located on the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Drive. The site is currently vacant, but the property was approved for development of Longs Drugs under PP 07-01 by the Planning Commission on September 18, 2007. B. Section 25.68.270: Municipal Code Section 25.68.270-Sign area-Commercial and Industrial Zones states "Commercial businesses within one hundred feet of a public right-of-way which they face, or businesses which front only on a common Staff Report Case No. VAR 08-254 August 5, 2008 Page 2 of 5 use parking area, shall be entitled to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of frontage to a maximum of fifty square feet. A single commercial business having lineal frontage on any right-of-way in excess of fifty feet, shall be entitled an additional one-half square foot of area for each lineal foot of frontage in excess of fifty feet up to one hundred feet and an additional one- quarter square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of frontage in excess of one hundred feet." For the subject project, each building frontage (north, east, and west) has 130 lineal feet of frontage, allowing the applicant 82 square feet of signage per building frontage. C. Municipal Code Section 25.78.010-A (Variance) Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only due to special circumstances applicable to the property including when the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or the strict application of the title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance or adjustment granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated. D. Architectural Review Commission: At its meeting of June 24, 2008 the ARC reviewed the project. The Commission denied the request for a variance. The motion carried 5-0-1- 1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 25.68, Signs, to allow an exception for a larger sign than the ordinance allows. Section 25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public hearing in instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional circumstances because of the type of location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect." The applicant must show that: A. The sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building; and B. The sign will not be detrimental to neighboring business or the community in general. G\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Var 08-254 Longs Drugs\Planning Comm ssion Staff Report doc Staff Report Case No. VAR 08-254 August 5, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Longs Drugs fronts on three public streets (Highway 111, Deep Canyon Road, and Shadow Hills Road) allowing the applicant one sign per frontage. Each building frontage (north, east, and west) has 130 lineal foot of frontage allowing the applicant 82 square feet of signage per building frontage. The applicant is proposing three identical wall signs on each building frontage. Each sign is 29'-10" x 7'-2" totaling 209 square feet of signage. The top portion of each sign reads Longs Drugs in cursive writing with lettering height of 4 feet. The bottom portion of each sign reads Drive-Thru Pharmacy in block letters with lettering height of 1-foot 6 inches. The signs are LED illuminated pan channel letters with red acrylic faces with bronze trim. The applicant has provided a site plan and photos of the proposed signs (see attachments). IV. ANALYSIS: The applicant is allowed 82 square feet of signage area per building frontage. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Planning Commission for an additional 126 square footage of signage per frontage. The applicant is concerned that the signage allowed per code will not be visible or in proportion with the building. Staff believes the proposed signage is overwhelming and takes away from the architecture of the building. Other businesses in the area comply with the City's sign ordinance, and approving the proposed variance would set a precedent for all businesses. The following findings responding to Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.78.010 explain the rationale for denying the variance: A. Findings For Denial: Section 25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public hearing in instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional circumstances because of the location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect." The applicant must show that the sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building and the sign will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or the community in general, and: A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. G\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Var 08-254 Longs Drugs\Plannnng Commission Staff Report doc Staff Report Case No. VAR 08-254 August 5, 2008 Page 4 of 5 Due to the property fronting on three public streets and generous size of the property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The property is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property. C. That strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. No other variances have been approved for signage in the vicinity. The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area. D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed signs would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project would be a Class 3, Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary. VI. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, since Longs Drugs is easily visible from three public streets, staff believes that an 82 square foot sign per elevation is sufficient in size for identification of the business. G\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Var 08-254 Longs Drugs\Planning Commission Staff Report doc Staff Report Case No. VAR 08-254 August 5, 2008 Page 5 of 5 VII. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , denying VAR 08-254. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action and Minutes D. Exhibits: Plans and Photo-simulations Submitted by: Department Head: -_ r)6 Kevin Swartz Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of Community Development Approval: Homer Croy //, ACM for Developmeyf�/Services G\Planrnng\Kevin Swartz\Word\Var 08-254 Longs Drugs\Planning Commiss on Staff Report doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68, SIGNS, TO PERMIT A LARGER SIGN THAN THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR LONGS DRUGS LOCATED AT 74-527 HIGHWAY 111. CASE NO. VAR 08-254 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of August, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Longs Drugs, for the above noted Variance; and WHEREAS, said application is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further documentation is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of said request: A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. Due to the property fronting on three public streets and generous size of the property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. B. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The property is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this property. C. That strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity and zone. No other variances have been approved for signage in the vicinity. The applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed signs would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Variance 08-254 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on the 5th day of August, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 CITY Of 011111 DESERT • i . R ...... 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE • . I; rook PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 '= TEL:760 346-0611 ' '-.,- .. ..` .' FAX:760 341-7098 ' .,%!�:` nfo@palm-dcxr:.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.VAR 08-254 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by Longs Drugs for approval of a Variance for an exception to Section 25.68,Sign Ordinance to allow a larger sign than the Ordinance allows for Longs Drugs located at 74-527 Highway 111. Cl of Palm Desert Map y HIDDEN ,HIDDMSDR' .. , � B .'1 BADEN CT ..+410� • 'a 4111 I; DE ANZA WAV... 73 S_•r_sri 11rm1 11111 11 BIM Ilialimi I i-ALESSANDRODR ALESSANORODR'-'' ❑ III1 Tit 1 J L- _ :�:,r; :i. STATE NW/111 STATE HWY111 N^;,•..,'; I PAU/DESER T DR S .. LAIDESERTDRSSJ - �` � 1.' — 4 S EL CAMNO — %,,,.. 14$111111000 • A— 1Li®V �* 9 1 13=ffG� ram °-DRIFTMOODDR i Qj� � . CANDLEWDOD ST J I ._e • 4� liA IPit�� tilitspistr1 SAID pt1E1iZrhearing will be held on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in me Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian,Secretary July 24,2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission '`k , i ( 111 O ii1 M DESERT ,.-„, -f t June 26, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: VAR 08-254 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LONGS DRUGS c/o SIGN DESIGNS INC. 204 Campus Way, Modesto, CA 95352 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a Variance for a larger sign than allowed per Section 25.68, Signs; Longs Drugs LOCATION: 74517 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission denied request for a Variance. Date of Action: June 24, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2008 The Commission discussed the location of the generators. One generator is currently located there and they would be bringing in another. They also discussed the height of the four palm trees currently at that location. Mr. Bagato stated that there was no more room to put additional palm trees at that location. The Commission also reviewed and discussed other locations on the property where it could be relocated to work better. Mr. Bagato had a couple of other concerns and stated that Planning Commission has stressed that they would prefer to see mono- palms that have the antenna inside the trunk of the pineapple, not the outside rays. His other concern was that the proposed mono- palm has a large microwave that doesn't blend in with the palm tree. He recommended that the case be continued so that they can meet with the applicant. Commissioner Touschner questioned the block wall that was around the two transformers and stated that the elevation and the plans did not match. The Commission reviewed the elevation. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to continue subject to applicant working with staff on location and overall design. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent. 4. CASE NO: VAR 08-254 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LONGS DRUGS c/o SIGN DESIGNS INC. 204 Campus Way, Modesto, CA 95352 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of building and monument signage; Longs Drugs LOCATION: 74517 Highway 111 ZONE: C-1 Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. He stated the applicant is requesting an exception to the City's sign ordinance allowing additional square footage of signage. Long's Drugs fronts on three public streets allowing the applicant one sign per frontage. Each building frontage is 130 square feet allowing the applicant 82.5 square feet of signage per building frontage. The G\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Mlnules\2008\AR080624.mIn.dOc Page 6 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2008 applicant is proposing three wall signs with each sign being identical. The applicant is allowed 82.5 feet of signage per building frontage. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Planning Commission for an additional 126.5 square footage of signage per frontage; for a total for each wall sign 209 square feet of signage. Staff feels that with the architecture of the building the signage is overwhelming on the building. Staff understands where they may be coming from to ask for an exception by looking at the building. The building does have a large frontage to ask for an exception, but staff eels that from 82.5 square feet to 209 square feet is excessive. The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the size of the signs. It was noted that the applicant was not proposing any monument signage so all the square footage allowed would be on the wall. The applicant is proposing directions signs and staff did not have any issues with those. Mr. Bagato stated that staff can see why the building could use a larger sign per the code because 82.5 square feet looks small for that building. However, when we do a Variance for Planning Commission we have to consider not setting a precedent. Commissioner Gregory stated that the proposed sign is quite large and clearly looks over scale. Commissioner Touschner asked what their reasons were for wanting is bigger. Mr. Sam Spinello, representative, stated that Long's Operations felt that it would be more noticeable to the public and help to drive sales. The Commission felt that the plans were a little deceptive because it was black and white and not in red. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there were three signs on this building and typically on a regular building we would only have one on the front face so the applicant has a bonus by having three signs. That is a lot of signage and they could go with the smaller signs and make them pop. Mr. Bagato stated that Staff is recommending denial of the proposal and taking it to Planning Commission and shared our recommendations to the applicant. Mr. Spinello asked if there might be the possibility of a compromise between the two. Commissioners DeLuna and Touschner stated there wasn't a good enough reason for the signs to be bigger. Mr. Spinello stated that the applicant wants what has been proposed, however he had another version made that was bigger than the code but a little more commiserate with what would fit with the building. He stated that he came up with 128 square feet of signage compared to 85.5 G\Plannng\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Mmutes\2008'AR080624 min dot Page 7 of 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 2008 allowed by code. Commissioner DeLuna stated that if the sign was going to be red they would have to go a long way to defend why they want to make it bigger. Commissioner Touschner said that just to be bigger wasn't a good enough reason to approve the increase. There are two directional signs and three signs on the building and felt that it was well signed. She stated that part of the issue was that they had "Drive Thru Pharmacy" which has to be included within the size. If they took that away then "Long's Drugs" could be larger. Mr. Bagato stated that originally he had recommended that with the applicant. Mr. Spinello stated that Operations felt that may be problematic. The Commission discussed the sign locations and the possibility of making two of them smaller. Mr. John Vuksic, Architect stated that the signage shown at 128 square feet is actually smaller than the signage that was put on the architectural package. However, none of these signs were red. He suggested bringing them back as red signs and in 3D to see what it would look like from the corner so the Commission would really understand what they would be approving or not approving. Commissioner DeLuna felt that people would see Long's Drugs and recognize the brand and felt that they didn't need to defend a larger size. Mr. Bagato said that when you do a Variance it has to be something unique and special to this property that is not unique or special to anyone else in the city. In this case, this building is on three corners and if they removed "Drive Thru Pharmacy" from the front wall sign they would have a larger wall sign there or they can just have a monument sign and no wall signage. They could have 41 square feet of sign area on a corner monument sign and get full visibility. He feels that giving them a Variance just to have a bigger sign just because it looks better on the building is not something they can support at Planning Commission. Action: It was moved by Commissioner DeLuna and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to deny request for a Variance. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Hanson absent G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes\2008\AR080624.min.doc Page 8 of 9