Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReview ARC Decision SA 05-44 CenterPointe Lending 73733 Fred Warring Drive, Suite 108CITY OF PALM DESERT Community Development/Planning STAFF REPORT REQUEST: City Council review of a decision of the Architectural Review Commission denying a deviating from the approved sign program. Property is located at 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108. SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stendell, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: CenterPointe Lending 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 Palm Desert, CA 92260 APPELLANT: CenterPointe Lending 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 Pafm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NOS. DATE: CONTENTS: Recommendation: SA 05-44 June 23, 2005 Recommendation Discussion Architectural Review Minutes meeting of May 10, 2005 Architectural Review Notice of Action, May 10, 2005 Plans & Exhibits That the City Council by minute motion affirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission dated May 10, 2005. Backcaround: The applicant is requesting a deviation from the approved sign program for the building located at 73-733 Fred Waring Drive. The sign program for the building defines locations, sizes and approved colors which are allowed for the building. At its April 12, 2005 meeting the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed an application for a deviation from the approved sign program to allow more square footage and a alternative color scheme for CenerPointe Lending. The applicant stated his business logo did not fit within the allowable sign area at Staff Report MISC. 05-44 Page 2 June 23, 2005 a size you could see legibly. The applicants logo has a 2 lines of text and in the approved square footage the letters would be very small and hard to read. The applicant also requested a deviation from the approved allowable sign color to allow his corporate logo colors (black and rust red). At the meeting, the applicant asked the ARC if any other areas on the building were appropriate for signage. The applicant felt the approved sign location had very little visibility due to the large amount of over-grown landscaping in front of the sign location. The ARC approved the additional square footage and color deviation and allowed staff to work wiih the applicant on an appropriate location. After reviewing the building, tlie applicant and staff could not come to an agreement on a location. Staff referred this case back to ARC for their review. At its May 10, 2005 meeting the ARC was asked to reconsider the deviation from the sign program, now looking at location. The applicant proposed either the east or west elevation at the top corner of the building, closest to Fred Waring Drive. Commissioner Vuksic stated, "There is a stepped detail at the upper portion of the building. The sign would look very cluttered in this location. Its not the location for a sign. The sign itself is very stylish, I'd rather see it near the Keith Companies sign (See Attached Pictures)." The applicant Scott Polimeni of CenterPointe Lending did not agree, stating, "my signage should be visible and not encroaching onto someone else's sign area." Commissioner Hanson suggested that the commission walk over to the site at the end of the meeting to look at the building and take a look at alternative locations. At the end of the meeting, the commission walked to 73-733 Fred Waring Drive to look at the building to identify an appropriate location for the signage. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the landscaping in front of the building had been trimmed substantially. It was determined by the commission that the approved sign program provided the best location for the new sign. The proposed location was noted to be too high on the building and looked cluttered on the stepped detail. II. Analvsis: Any exception to an approved sign program must be approved by the ARC. Exceptions are based on architectural merit and overall esthetics. ARC did not feel the stepped detail on the upper building corners was the best place to locate tenant signage. The ARC had granted 2 of the 3 exceptions the applicant was requesting and felt the approved location per the sign program was the most appropriate. The ARC denied the request by a vote of 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. .� Staff Report MISC. 05-44 Page 3 June 23, 2005 Staff is recommending that the City Council by minute motion affirm the action of the Architectural Review Board dated May 10, 2Q05. Submitted by: Ryan Stendell Planning Technician Approval: Homer Croy ACM Development Services Approval: Department Head: Phil rell Director of Community Development � Carlos Ortega � City Manager CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFO�AAEK� SEOFFICE Pf�lF1 DESERT, CA APPLICATION TO AP��L Q A 25 AM 9� 21 DECISION OF THE d� T�� ���C�CQ � (Name of Detertnining Body) Case No. .�� �S- �'-� Date of Decision: Name of Appellant �T�.R�o��z- L�-��>>�cs Phone ,��'� Sco�- ��nc� Address '7 3---733 ��-v c�a.e�-J� l�p R�A`.,-. - Q ZZI�o Description of Application or Matter Considered: -�� �^�A � Lk�.t..o c��o� Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): �► ,a u�. �.�.s�-n; A . 2 _ C . �'.�.s•s � �+a-r �' ��. c�. S� v•v�+ a� � ••� �ni E S��+C,-u� l,ocs►.-��� T►.►,4--' �-4w c 1-iRy�, OLE J � S► i3 �`rT`� . > .Y_ ' (Signature of Appellant) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Appeal Filed: .S—o��-�� Fee Received: � l9 7� �� Treasure�'s Receipt No. �3 ��a Received by: � Date of Consideration by City Council o� City Official: �T'� Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk COPYTO�.�-nn ��� ,�� J � H:�rtciassemWPdaia�WPDOCSVFORMS�appl W appr.al.wpd Rev629tt12 DATE �� -�� � 5 � CI1V OF ��l�l D�SER1 � 73—S�O FRED WARWG DRIVE � PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25�5 � TEL: �60 346—o6�t Fnx: 760 34i-7oq8 info@palm-deser�.org May 10, 2005 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: SA 05-44 APPLICANT �AND ADDRESSI; SCOTT A. POLIMENI, 35325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 243, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PRpJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT:, Request approval for new location of business signage with deviation to the sign program. Centerpointe Lending LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 ZONE: OP Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission denied the request because the proposed location was too high on the building resulting in an inappropriate appearance and the approved location, now that the landscaping has been trimmed is the most appropriate location. Date of Action: May 10, 2005 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet 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. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted not later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. t� mn�eaucxuorua ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of revised elevations for the one-story office building. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Cook Street and Hovley Lane West ZONE: OP Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. � 4. CASE NO.: SA 05-44 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SCOTT A. POLIMENI, 35325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 243, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval for new location of b�siness signage with deviation to the sign program. Centerpointe Lending LOCATION: 73-733 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 108 ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that this item was before the commission at their last meeting where it was approved with the condition that staff approve a location for the signage. The applicant and staff couldn't come to an agreement. Mr, Stendell stated that staff wasn't comfortable approving the location that is shown on the information included in the commissioner's packets, which is why iYs being referred back to the commission for their review. The applicant has property owner authorization. The sign would exceed the 20' maximum height restriction, but if the ARC feels that this is an appropriate location, then it can be approved. The applicant's concem was that the visibility of the sign from Fred Waring was fairiy dismal being that there's so much landscaping in front of their suite. Commissioner Vuksic asked if anything can be done with the landscaping. I drove by the location and iYs not really clear in the photographs due to the angle is that there's a stepped detail at the G:Planning\Donna Quaiver�wpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISS{ON MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES upper portion of the building. The sign would look very cluttered in this location. IYs not the place for a sign. The sign itself is very stylish. I'd rather see the sign near the Keith Companies sign. Scott Polimeni, applicant, was present and stated that he would be encroaching on other people's signage. We had committed to this property and the corporate president gave us zero latitude on the signage and the ARC helped out by approving the colors of the signage at their last meeting. When we moved our business, we incurred a great degree of cost and the logistics involved were substantial. It was all for one reason; location, location, location. We wanted to be in Palm Desert and the signage on Fred Waring was the single most important factor on our relocation to the City of Palm Desert. My signage should be visible. The proposed location is the only place that I won't be encroaching on other people's signage and allowing my signage to be seen. The approved area for my signage according to the sign program is completely encompassed by foliage. I know that the sign is not supposed to go over a certain height, but in the scheme of things, I cannot think of another place that makes more sense. Commissioner Vuksic asked the applicant if he's talked about removing some of the landscaping. Mr. Polimeni stated that he can't imagine his landlord, Dr. Shah, ever spending a penny on allowing my signage to become more important than the rest of his tenants. Commissioner Vuksic suggested that Mr. Polimeni offer to pay for the removal of some of the landscaping which is pretty thick when you drive by. At the angle that you see it from Fred Waring, you can't even see much of the building because there's so much landscaping in front of it. Mr. Polimeni stated that these are very large trees and would be very difficult to remove. Commissioner Gregory stated that it looks reaily daunting, but iYs not as hard as it may look. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist, stated that the landlord has actually raised the heads of the palms, when typically he would've just had them "topped". Mr. Polimeni stated that the trees grow into one another right where the signage is supposed to go. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the commission walk over to the site at the end of the meeting to look at the building. The applicant commented that if the commission could find another place on that building that drive-by traffic without making undo effort to find the signage then I would be fine with that. ^�ng�Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgminWR050510.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES At the end of the meeting, the commission walked to 73-733 Fred Waring to look at the building in person to identify an appropriate location for the signage. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the landscaping in front of the building had been trimmed substantia{ly. It was determined by the commission that the appropriate location for the signage would be in the approved location, per the sign program for the building. The proposed location was noted to be too high on the building. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to deny the request because the proposed location was too high on the building resulting in an inappropriate appearance and the approved location, now that the landscaping has been trimmed is the most appropriate location. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van Vliet absent. 5. CASE NO.: MISC 05-21 APPLICANT IAND ADDRESS): YGNACIO HERNANDEZ, 37-675 Driscoll Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of the exterior paint color of a single-family home. LOCATION: 37-675 Driscoll Street ZONE: PR-5 Mr. Stendell stated that the commission looked at this case at their last meeting. The applicant is present and would like to know if he can keep the bfue on the trim and re-paint the rest of the house "Florida White". Mr. Ygnacio Hemandez, applicant, stated that the painter will charge him $4,000. instead of $7,500. if he just re-paints the walls. Commissioner Gregory stated that there are other homes with blue trim in the area. Commissioner Hanson stated that white and blue looks nice. Mr. Hemandez commented that he would also like to keep the wrought iron and garage door blue. Commissioner Hanson commented that she was concerned with the garage door being blue. She suggested painting around the garage door first and have staff come out and look at the contrast of the blue door and white wall. Mr. G:Planning�Donna QuaiverlwpdocsWgmin�l1R050510.MIN 5 � '� ;,:s. ,� - _ �., - x .��;.�:�: ., >,;, ; . ;,� ' - , -:�,. � � -, ����. �-. ,�� .�=;:;�,��:�.,;,�:.;<� ' t � f_'. `� s c.. ;� �7 x� � �' y . ,, . z `'y; �'f"�'l' � �i`k �'�'� fi:� '� Y J �"±: ! '�` -b � "y' --"�' 7�k.:r..�,y �{ ��` �� ��k � ��� v x� -`f y''��~_ .�i� ��� � .R',ti . .'�' si.�n3 �j�.- � �',� � ',� , � yis.:e��. w .¢ �_' � if� � `.a"ay. .�� : &t. Y , .. �,. +�' '^ '^ �.t M ��� h ,,.a:l � \ ri� `ri �:y; „� k t�`XS � � ���:. �� � �'`�'"rx-.. .. ... ryi'� ' ��?�^ ., � . � , , �:,� � � � , . � CY. l � �` �' i.. t3 a' �j i� ��! t. ._.�N�' .t C� . :+ '� i j_ ��,. � .Yi .';^' . +11� � M: „ � -: � .', _ , .:`� _ e.. .-,.,:%� ,�.� . ' _.: ir�+`alr4�✓.�`'t'' ,'��c?s�.a�'�,"'' ;; � = :.F ���a'iE ��,f�"•� _: i. ;( r,y .: , " - 1t�"-:?f� �` ��:i-a:r': . • _Sa_.i.:'t� �: i . . .�`y�'`f.+ ' _ e, / i / � O.f �S" �AY 1 � :^�� i `y i i �' k,�,.. �%i�': s !� — '� ��� ��'��; • ' „x �.�' � w�,'� � � ^ ��, „�. ��� � ��Y � ' � �.� ,� ��� , # � S , � �t'� �' , � y��� y . ' � � , . .. . W .'Sy��` 1' . . . .. ' , � *:;Y�i . � � ��` � :.�� . . . 3Y ,�µt�.�.�t t ,,� _'a � M c�eL . . . o{ #k � ,,, '� K��% �'� u . . �y , � � y � x � � .. . � ��� G`{,t�•Y�F. . - . ' , .. 5�.,'� ��y�.3`_�r �-:s"� ,,."..;,�. �"'�a , 7 �;, . Y . . � A�.ic4P ^t„��:. . , ! - " . - � %i� Y'R � f��,4 s. �. '`� � � . ' � � ... �'4 � "' �c� • ,��_ 4 t. �.. . . F � � � �X�• .. t4 � �� �. . . . - � , ti . :���� ���. � ,�. .. �...� ",-. � ` . . .�'. �� ,:.. , , � ��.��� � . , i��. . � �`'��' �x' . . , . . . �: . Yr� �� . � . .. {,� •,� �_: , � . 2T y "1 � �' �` C3 � ` �:: U. "��kr `"' Ky, � .. � � , �' . � - �>3 • }�r �i� �.� f �� .'�. 4r� .. .. -� ` ... ,.L�'tt- ' � C' � � . . .. . y �' '{�.X . lyA �" �. } � ��. �..` k'. �.�. ��� �,• f�' . h ��ii fa M. i�, '� 1.:. 1}.' i�i^ � yh, i lw 1� L.": . � � } . }}.: . ' � . ����'E . �;:, .. .. . x; y ; i: � � '".r � -< , 4. ; . . 4Y [:. f � : } � - _. ! � II `� • �-�►� • ` � , � � ' �� ^ r. � 1 . . '�'�.R;^'/i', � r ♦ 0 r � !