The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - VAR 08-304 - Ntl Sign & Mrktng/The Evans Co (Carl's Jr) - 04/09/09 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission action denying a request for a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a third monument sign for Carl's Jr. in the University Village Center located at 36-879 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato MF��NG DATE____ � ` �� Principal Planner U GONTINUED TO_.,_� � '(_>C APPLICANT: National Sign and Marketing Edward C. Blend ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING________ 13580 5th Street Chino, CA 91710 The Evans Company ti��y�DA"�'E__ � ` � /' •C� 36-891 Cook Street ��$P��ED TO _ � � I v� � �C� Palm Desert, CA 92211 ❑ FR�aE�TO 2ND RE.ADil�G CASE NO: VAR 08-304 DATE: February 12, 2009 MEETItd� DATE � • �o� - L,�' CONTENTS: Resolution of Denial � ��r��UED TQ __" �� Legal Notice C� PASSfB TO 2N0 REAOIN6 City Council Staff Report, December 1 , 2008 --- City Council Minutes, December 11, 2 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 7, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes, October 7, 2008 Architectural Review Commission Minutes Exhibits of Retail Shopping Centers Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No oq-�2 reaffirming the action of the Planning Commission denying a variance requested by Carl's Jr. for a third monument sign on Cook Street located within the University Village. ME�TI G DAT� .!�,�, �� .. �� _�� CONTlNUED TQ � � CJ P�ISSEB TO 2ND RE�1DtiVG Staff Report VAR 08-304 February 12, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Executive Summarv: On October 7, 2008 the Planning Commission denied a request by Carl's Jr. for an additional monument sign at University Village located on Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. On December 11 2008, the City Council voted to continue consideration of Carl's Jr.'s appeal of the Planning Commission denial while a signage subcommittee reviewed whether the zoning ordinance should be amended to allow additional monument signs for large commercial centers. After the December 11, 2008, City Council meeting, staff researched the current sign ordinance and identified that it allows larger retail centers to have one additional monument sign on each frontage that is in excess of 1,600 lineal feet. Staff also investigated five shopping centers, including University Village, and found that all five of the centers were approved with more signage than the sign ordinance allows as part of the development plan. On January 8, 2009, staff presented these findings to the Signage Subcommittee, who recommended that the current sign ordinance for monument signs remain as is, and that the variance request by Carl's Jr. for a third sign be denied. Because of the review times needed for revising the signage ordinance, the Subcommittee recommended that the Carl's Jr. variance appeal be processed separate from the signage ordinance update. Approval of the staff recommendation would deny the applicant's request for a third monument sign in the University Village, consistent with the findings of the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and Signage Subcommittee. Discussion: On December 11, 2008, City Council considered an appeal by the applicant requesting a third monument sign for Carl Jr. located on Cook Street with the University Village retail center. After the discussion, the City Council directed staff to amend the current sign ordinance to allow more monument signs for larger retail centers, as well as addressing previous sign issues that have been discussed by the Signage Subcommittee. After the December 11, 2008, meeting, staff researched the current code and identified that the current sign ordinance does allow for additional monument signs for larger retail centers. The current code states: A. A building, commercial complex, shopping center or other commercial or industrial developments housing more than one tenant and having frontage on a public street shall be entitled to one freestanding sign on each street C:1Users�krussoWppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internel Files\Conlent.OuGook\POBMMTDK�Feb 12 City Council Report(2).doc Staff Report VAR 08-304 February 12, 2009 Page 3 of 6 frontage to identify the building, commercial/industrial complex, or shopping center. The area of such sign(s) to be determined as follows: E. Notwithstanding the limit of one sign on each right-of-way when a shopping center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street in excess of 1,600, then an additional sign shall be permitted subject to the signs being separated by a minimum distance of 400 feet. In the case of centers in the regional commercial zone having over 700,000 square feet of gross leasable retail floor area, the center identification signs may contain the name of tenants and/or activities conducted within the center which operate during the evening hours. (Ord. 637 §§2 (Exhibit A § 8), 1991: Ord. 272 (part), 1981: Ord. 129 § 4 (part), 1977: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 25.38-12.03(B)) Based on the current sign ordinance, retail centers with 1,600 lineal feet of frontage or more are allowed one additional monument sign. Staff then researched five larger commercial centers within the city to determine if the current code was appropriate for larger centers. The commercial centers studied were: • Westfield • Desert Crossings • Desert Gateway • Plaza De Monterey (Bristol Farms) • University Village Center Westfield: Westfield is located on north side of Highway 111 between Town Center Way and Monterey Avenue. The shopping center has approximately 2,246 lineal feet of frontage on Highway 111, 1,270 feet on Town Center Way and 1,015 lineal feet on Monterey Avenue. Based on the current code, Westfield is allowed two signs on Highway 111, one on Town Center Way and one on Monterey Avenue. Currently, there is one sign on Highway 111 and Town Center Way, and three on Monterey Avenue. The current code would allow one additional monument sign on Highway 111. The three signs on Monterey Avenue do not comply with current code, however, they were approved as part of the development agreement when the original mall and remodel were approved. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\VAR\VAR 08304 Carls Jr�Feb 12 City Coundl Report(2).dx Staff Report VAR 08-304 February 12, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Desert Crossings: Desert Crossings is located on southwest side of Highway 111, surrounded by Fred Waring Drive to the north and the Palm Valley Storm Channel to the southeast. The shopping center has approximately 1,224 lineal feet of frontage on Highway 111 and 605 feet on Fred Waring Drive. Based on the current code, one sign is allowed on Highway 111 and one on Town Center Way. Currently, there are two freestanding monument signs with multi-tenant panels for three individual businesses, and two landscaping retaining walls with the name Desert Crossings identified on them. There is one free standing sign on Fred Waring Drive. All freestanding signs were approved as part of the development agreement for the shopping center. However, the number of signs along Highway 111 does not comply with the current code. Approval of the development agreement allowed the additional signage on Highway 111. There is only one sign on Fred Waring Drive, which complies with the current code. Desert Gateway: Desert Gateway is located on the east side of Monterey Avenue and is surrounded by Dinah Shore Drive to the north, 35th Avenue to the south, and Gateway Drive to the east. The shopping center has approximately 2,593 lineal feet of frontage on Monterey Avenue, 1,690 lineal feet on Dinah Shore, 1,219 lineal feet on 35th Avenue, and 2,185 lineal feet on Gateway Avenue. Based on the current ordinance, Desert Gateway is allowed two monument signs each on Monterey Avenue, Dinah Shore Drive, and Gateway Drive, and one monument sign on 35th Avenue. The shopping center was built with two monument signs on Monterey Avenue, and one on the other three streets. All monument signs are designed with the name of the shopping center on them with five multi-tenant panels for individual businesses. The center complies with the current code, and is allowed one additional sign on Dinah Shore Drive and Gateway Avenue. Plaza De Monterey (Bristol Farms): Plaza De Monterey is located on the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue of Country Club Drive. The shopping center has approximately 405 lineal feet of frontage on Monterey Avenue and 841 lineal feet on Country Club Drive. Based on the current code, the Plaza De Monterey Avenue is allowed one side monument sign is allowed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. The shopping center was originally built with three monument signs. One on the corner of Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive, one on Monterey Avenue and one on G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\VAR\VAR 08304 Carls Jr\Feb 12 City Counal Report(2).doc Staff Report VAR 08-304 February 12, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Country Club Drive. The corner sign identifies the name of the center and Bristol Farms. The other two signs have three tenants and the name of the center on them. Based on the current code, the center has one extra sign at the street corner. The additional sign was approved as part of the development plan for the project. University Village: University Village is located on the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street. The shopping center has approximately 840 lineal feet of frontage on Gerald Ford Drive, and 1,534 feet of frontage on Cook Street. Based on the current code, University Village is allowed one monument sign on Gerald Ford Drive and one on Cook Street. Similar to Plaza De Monterey, the shopping center was approved with three monument signs. One at the corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street, and one on Gerald Ford Drive and one on Cook Street. The street corner sign is located between two buildings raised above the ground and identifies the name of the center as well as shops, Hilton and offices. The other signs on Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street only identify the name of the center. The property owner designed a monument sign program that did not include individual tenants like other large shopping centers. Carl's Jr. is requesting a variance to allow a third sign on Cook Street for one individual tenant within a large shopping center. Siqnaqe Subcommittee Meetinq: On January 8th° 2009, the Signage Subcommittee met to discuss the maximum number of monument signs allowed for larger retail centers, as well as the sign ordinance update. Staff presented the exhibits of the existing centers and stated that the current sign ordinance does allow larger retail shopping centers to have an additional monument sign. In addition, staff pointed out that most shopping centers have had additional signage approved as part of the development plan even if they did not comply with the current signage ordinance. University Village was approved with an extra sign consistent with previous approvals. If the property owner desires better visibility for the tenant businesses, they can redesign the monument signs to accommodate tenant identification. After the discussion, the Signage Subcommittee recommended that that the current sign ordinance remain the same, and that staff process the Carl's Jr. variance for a third sign on Cook Street with a recommendation for denial. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\StaH Reports\VAR\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr�Feb 12 City Coundl Report(2).doc Staff Report VAR 08-304 February 12, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Conclusion: In conclusion, the Signage Subcommittee and staff are recommending that the current ordinance regarding the maximum number of monument signs remain as it is today because it does allow larger retail centers to have an extra monument sign. In addition, large retail centers have been approved with additional monument signs as part of the development plan. The University Village retail center was approved with an additional sign at the corner of the Country Club Drive and Cook Street. Unlike other retail shopping centers, University Village designed a sign program that did not allow individual tenants on the three monument signs. Staff believes that the existing signs for Carl's Jr. are sufficient in size for identification of the business and the proposed monument sign would clutter the center. Approving such a request would set a negative precedent for offsite signage and would allow other shopping centers to request monument signs for individual tenants. Freestanding signs for every tenant in a large shopping center would create clutter and have a negative aesthetic impact on the City. The variance request has been denied by the Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission. Staff and the Signage Subcommittee are recommending that the City Council deny the appeal, reaffirming the decision of the Planning Commission denying the variance request for a third monument sign at the University Village retail center. Submitted By: Department Head: �� .�- Tony Bagato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development ApprovaL• � �� , ,�� Homer Croy ACM for Deve nt Services � � J ohlmuth City M nager G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Fieports\VAR\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr\Feb 12 City Coundl Report(2).doc RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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 THIRD MONUMENT SIGN IN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE CENTER, FOR CARL'S JR. LOCATED AT 36-879 COOK STREET. CASE NO. VAR 08-304 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 11tn day of December, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to February 12, 2009, to consider the request by Carl's Jr., for the above noted variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of October, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2487 denied Variance 08-304; 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 City Council 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 Gera/d Ford Drive and the generous size of the property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. No other businesses in the University Village have a monument sign. 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 high/y irregu/ar shape, and there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab/e to this property. Each property within the same zone is allowed a monument sign per frontage, the owner of the properly chose identification monument signs for the center, and not mu/ti-tenant signs. 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. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09_12 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 sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety or we/fare, or materia/ly injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Variance 08-304 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on the 12th day of February, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 CITV OF Pfll �l DESERT 73-5�0 FRF.D WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT,CAIIPOftN1A q2260-2576 TEL:��i0 346-06�� Fnx:760 34i-7oq8 infoC palm-dcsert.org _. ._. _. _..-—_ _ _ . .___---——--------------- CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.VAR 08-304 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission action denying a request for a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a third monument sign in the University Village Center, which currently has the maximum number of monument signs the code allows request by Carl's Jr. ._ _ ___..._______ CI of Palm Desert Ma i i i G � C 6 0 �O�A , t>7 Ro„� A � ��R o I= �Q A U � /� � //'" �O`� � �""-� C��\ �v��—��GERALD FORD DR---�---- \\ � `~ �� Cp.. ��;cM J��1u A,p .� G,` ��\ � �'�p�� , N � � ��t��.____.__ � i� BER6ER RD � p O i- U N / � Y � O V ,...--=� � _ _�_-_ SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 11, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in the 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 RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk December 1, 2008 Palm Desert City Council * Continued the matter to the � `ing of February 12, 2009, � .''with staff to work with Signage �ubcommittee on related Resolution No. 0 8-1 0 8 amen d men t s t o t h e zon i n g O r d inance in t he in ter im. , w�,.. .>:3.�,-� <�,_.�;� ��„�,� ��<�:�„r � ... CITY OF PALM DESE�T . / / .�� ,�,.,a� 3 u';�i� ..#'��..L./ � ' ' `� � � . ,,..` l � DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D�V� � f3E?M�� ;�:� � `,�� C� � � � ., .. � .:;� �.f �.��...: STAFF REPORT ; ° __. � . .� �..:�,�:.�� .,..,�.u.�.�<�..�.:�.:��„�,��,,.....�,.�u,��..� �, .�. ..,. . REQUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission action denying a request for a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a third monument sign in the University Village Center, which currently has the maximum number of monument signs the code allows, for Carl's Jr. located at 36-879 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner APPLICANT: National Sign and Marketing Edward C. Blend 13580 5t" Street Chino, CA 91710 The Evans Company 36-891 Cook Street Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO: VAR 08-304 DATE: December 11, 2008 CONTENTS: Exhibits Planning Commission Minutes Architectural Review Commission Minutes Recommendation: � That by minute motion the City Council reaffirm the action of the Planning Commission denying a variance requested by Carl's Jr. for a third monument sign located in the University Village. The project currently has the maximum number of monument signs allowed by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs. Executive Summary: Approval of the staff recommendation would deny the applicant's request for a third monument sign in the University Village. Denial of the staff � � , 4 Staff Report VAR 08-304 December 11, 2008 Page 2 of 5 recommendation would allow a third monument sign for Carl's Jr. in the University Village, which currently has the maximum number of monument signs allowed by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs. Discussion: I. BACKGROUND: A. Property Description: The property is located on the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive in the University Village Center. Carl's Jr. has frontage along Gerald Ford Drive, but is requesting that the proposed monument sign be located along Cook Street. B. Section 25.68.310 Freestanding Signs: Municipal Code Section 25.68.310-Freestanding signs- A building, commercial complex, shopping center or other commercial or industrial development housing more than one tenant and having frontage on a public street shall be entitled to one freestanding sign on each street frontage to identify the building, commercial / industrial complex, or shopping center. 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 ctassification. 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 August 26, 2008 the ARC reviewed the project. The Commission denied the request for a variance for a monument sign. The Commission had a discussion regarding the temporary for lease signs on site, and recommended approval for converting one for lease sign into a G:�Planning\Kevin Swaaz\Word\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr4;arls jr appeal to cc.doc f � �� Staff Report VAR 08-304 December 11, 2008 Page 3 of 5 temporary sign for Carl's Jr. for a period of one year. The motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. E. Planning Commission: At its meeting of October 7, 2008 the Planning Commission had a brief discussion regarding a third monument sign for the University Village. The Planning Commission agreed that the monument sign would create clutter along Cook Street, and would set a precedent for new and existing commercial centers. The Planning Commission also agreed with the Architectural Review Commission, in converting one for lease sign into a temporary sign for a period of one year. The Commission denied the request for a variance, the motion carried 4-0, with Commissioner Limont absent. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 25.68, Signs, to allow a third monument sign for Carl's Jr. The restaurant is located in the University Village, which currently has the maximum amount of monument signs the code allows. The University Village is allowed two monument signs per Section 25.68.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. When the owner of the University Village submitted for signage, the owner didn't want multi-tenant signs, and instead wanted project identification signs. Currently there are two existing monument signs which state University Village for identification. Carl's Jr. is located within the University Village, fronting along Gerald Ford Drive. The applicant is proposing to erect the monument sign along Cook Street located in the desert landscape area. The proposed monument sign would be located six feet from the face of curb from Cook Street, outside of the public right of way. The monument face will read "Carl's Jr." in red cursive writing along with their logo, which is a smiling yellow star. The monument sign is five feet in height and six feet in length. The proposed sign would be constructed of block to match the center, with a stucco cap and base painted to match the center. There would be an external ground lamp located two feet from the monument face to provide up-lighting for the sign. III. ANALYSIS: The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission action denying a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a third monument sign in the University Village, which currently has the maximum number G:�Planning\Kevin Swartz\Wurd\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr�carls jr appeal to cc.doc �� '� , ��, Staff Report VAR 08-304 December 11, 2008 Page 4 of 5 of monument signs the code allows, for Cari's Jr. The owner of the University Village chose not to have multi tenant signs, and instead opted for signs which identified the center. The owner has expressed to staff they will not remove the identification monument signs for a multi tenant monument sign. The Planning Commission found that the proposed signage will create clutter along Cook Street, and since other businesses in the area comply with the City's sign ordinance, 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: 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 Gera/d Ford Drive and the generous size of the property there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in question. No other businesses in the University Village have a monument sign. 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 applicab/e to this property. Each property within the same zone is allowed a monument sign per frontage, the owner of the property chose identification monument signs for the center, and not multi-tenant signs. 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. G:�Planning�Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR OS-304 Carls Jr4;arlsjr appeal to cc.doc . f, ffi � `( � Staff Report VAR 08-304 December 11, 2008 Page 5 of 5 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 sign wou/d not be detrimental to public hea/th, safety or we/fare, or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. IV. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, since Carl's Jr. is easily visible from Gerald Ford Drive and coming off the freeway going south along Cook Street, staff believes that the existing signs for Carl's Jr. are sufficient in size for identification of the business and the proposed monument sign would clutter the center. It would also set precedents for off site signage and number of monument signs that, when applied to similar businesses, would degrade the aesthetic quality of the city. Submitted By: Department Head: , /, � �.,.� 11� <� Kevin Swartz � Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director, Community Development Approval: f� � Homer Croy ACM for Development Services Carlos L. ga City Manager G:�Planning�ICevin SwartzlWard\VAR 08-304 Carls Jrkarlsjr appeal to cc.doc MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 private donors. With the current economic times, it typically translated to increase child abuse. Because of the lack of local resources and the great need to treat and prevent child abuse in the community, she asked that the Council give strong consideration to their CDBG in February. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel left the public comment period open for 30 days. B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68, SIGNS, TO PERMIT A THIRD MONUMENT SIGN IN THE UNIVERSITYVILLAGE CENTER,WHICH CURRENTLY HAS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS THE CODE ALLOWS, FOR CARL'S JR. LOCATED AT 36-879 COOK STREET Case No.VAR 08-304(National Sign and Marketing/Edward C. Blend, Applicant/Appellant). Assistant Plann Kevin Swartz stated Carl's Jr. was located inside the University Village Center, which was located on the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. He said the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68,allowed for one monument sign per frontage,and University Village has two frontage roads; Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. He said University Village currently had an existing monument sign at each frontage road; therefore, the applicant was asking for a Variance for a third monument. The Applicant didn't want multi-tenant signs, instead wanted public identification signs. Carl's Jr. fronts along Gerald Ford Drive, and the Applicant was proposing to erect a monument sign along Cook Street in the desert landscaped area, six feet from the face of the curb. The sign meets all development standards, but the Planning Commission agreed with staff that the proposed monument sign would create clutter along Cook Street and since all the businesses in the area complied with the Sign Ordinance, approval today would set a precedence for all businesses. The Applicant appealed the action of the Planning Commission for a monument sign. Staff was recommending that the City Council reaffirm the action of the Planning Commission denying the Variance requested by Carl's Jr. He added both Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission had a discussion for a temporary sign. Current lease signs were located along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive,which were approved at the staff level with a temporary use permit on a yearly basis. He concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions. Responding to question about the location of the Carl's Jr. monument 32 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 sign, he said the monument sign would be on Cook Street, and Carl's Jr. fronts on Gerald Ford Drive. Councilman Ferguson asked what legal findings needed to be made in order to support a Variance from the City's Code. Mr. Erwin noted those findings were set forth in the staff report as finding unusual physical hardship (dealing with dimensions of the property in some manner), extra ordinary circumstances applicable to this property that wouldn't generally apply to others within the same zone, strict interpretation of the City's Ordinance in the application would deprive the Applicant the privileges enjoyed by others in the same zone or location, and that the granting of the Variance would not be a detrimental public health, safety or welfare,or materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Councilman Ferguson asked if any of the four elements mentioned by Mr. Erwin found by the ARC or Planning Commission. Mr. Swartz responded that they weren't discussed. Councilman Ferguson responded it must of been discussed, because proliferation of signs was mentioned, which meant there wasn't anything unique about Carl's Jr.that wasn't different about Rock's Fire House or every other store along Cook Street. Mr. Swartz responded the ARC and Planning Commission did not find anything unique about Carl's Jr. Councilman Kelly noted he traveled on Interstate 10 towards Sacramento on Interstate 5, and it seemed that every off ramp had fast food restaurants listed on a sign on the freeway; he asked if the City's attempted to do the same. Councilman Ferguson responded he and Councilmember Finerty were on a Signage Subcommittee on what to do with these stores that sort of front the freeway, and the best conclusion they've come up with was a sign for everything that was at that intersection, but only one monument. However, they've been informal discussions thus far, but the Committee has met with Real Estate and Commercial Property individuals, and he agreed it was a good solution, but the City didn't have it yet. Councilman Kelly suggested meeting with State Highway Department, because the signs off Interstate 10 were Caltran's signs. He said 33 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 those signs identified hotels and restaurants thatwere adjacentto that interchange. Councilman Ferguson replied it was a great idea. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing oqen and invited the Applicant to address the Council at this time. MR. STEVE ROSEBLUM, Applicant representing National Sign Marketing Corporation, 1350 First Street, Chino, California, stated he represented CLK Inc., who was the operator of the Carl's Jr. restaurants in the Coachella Valley. He said he's had 10 years experience in the signage industry along with 10+ years in retail, and 2+ years working for a municipality. He said he would be calling on Mr. Carl L. Karcher, President of CLK Inc., and Mr. Fred Evans with The Evans Company, who's the landlord to speak. He said the original design intent on the project was to match the identification signs at the entrance to the Center. Their proposed design would utilize the exact same concrete block and lighting as specified by the developer in order to provide a sign that complimented the rest of the signage there, as well as provide a nice curbside appeal without creating clutter in that shopping center. The Applicant recognized it's a key important element for the City. Unfortunately, due to the site geographic conditions and reduced visibility on Cook Street, Carl's Jr. was disadvantaged from its competitors and merits the granting of this Variance for a monument sign. He said if someone happened to research and look up Carl's Jr. on Cook Street, which it did have a Cook Street address, they wouldn't find it because it actually fronted on Gerald Ford. The proposed signage they were looking for was designed to meet City Code requirements, which allowed similar businesses to have monument sign at their site. The key difference was that they were not in a shopping center. Councilman Ferguson interjected and stated Mr. Carl Karcher, who was also a good friend of his, was aware of the location of his restaurant, and he was also aware there were two monument signs for each frontage and those were already taken. He said if the Council followed the Applicant's logic, then the City would have the clutter that was mentioned by staff. MR. ROSENBLUM replied he will cover some of those facts. He displayed an image of the proposed sign, and stated the site had unique conditions; it was in a hidden area of the shopping center. He said Carl's Jr. received approximately 60%of its business through the drive thru, but if a motorist was driving down Cook Street, they 34 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 wouldn't be aware the other side existed because it was difficult to see. He said all the other competitors had street oriented signage and also enjoyed high visibility where Carl's Jr. didn't, which was one of those conditions they must meet, so they were at a disadvantage. They have established a team of support of the developer at the shopping center to add a monument sign due to the unusual characteristics of this. He noted Council was probably familiar with the intense research and proposals that went into the design of the shopping center, and when that shopping center went in, it was important for them to look nice. They worked together with the landlord to develop something because they were a key tenant to them. He said they would be the only tenant that would be allowed to have a monument sign, and that was the key difference; no one else would be entitled to that. He said Carl's Jr. was specifically disadvantaged due to those unique characteristics. This proposal will help remedy the disadvantages and allow them to be a viable competitive business at a prominent location within a community. He said the client needed to be successful or it would be a disservice to the City, the development, and the business itself. He said they met the conditions the CityAttorney mentioned and Councilman Ferguson inquired about. Responding to question about how he met the conditions, he said, it was unique in that they were a fast food restaurant that fronts on one street, and actually had an address on a different street, and they would not affect another business or cause a slippy slope for those business. He was not well-versed on the conditions as the City Attorney, and stated they would not cause future difficulty for the City if this Variance was approved. Councilman Ferguson stated a Variance was almost impossible to meet; however if it was an exception or something else, it might be different. He said the Applicant faited to mention he was at an advantage by being the only drive-thru restaurants north of a frontage street parallel to Interstate 10 because of the City's Freeway Overlay Zone. MR. ROSENBLUM responded he could understand his point, but unfortunately with the immediate complications near by, it was certainly critical people knew they were there. Further responding, he said he was 90% sure Jack in the Box had a monument sign, which was the most immediate competition near Carl's Jr. Councilman Ferguson couldn't recall seeing a monument sign, but would take the Applicant's word; however, he found it difficult to believe. 35 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 Ms. Aylaian didn't believe Jack in the Box had a monument sign off the street. Councilman Ferguson noted the City had an agreement with the developer that he would have finro monument signs for his development. MR. ROSENBLUM stated that in orderfor business success in today's economic times, it was imperative they worked progressively towards opportunities to increase business traffic. He said granting the Variance was an opportunity for the City to help a local business succeed. During today's City Council meeting, it was discussed the City's number one revenue source was sales tax revenue. He said it was truly important the City worked together with its businesses to insure a strong financial future for both entities. He said the City Council's granting the proposed design will support the City's intent of supporting business partnership with responsible development. Finally, he said Carl's Jr. was part of the fabric of the Coachella Valley, specifically Palm Desert for more than 25 years. He concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions. MR. CARL KARCHER, President of CLK, Inc., stated they made a decision a number of years ago to be at the subject location, and one of the reason was due to the limited amount of drive thru space available in Palm Desert. At the time they chose the site, they looked at the infrastructure, mountains, office space, and short hills behind the site that were all slated for housing. So, they had envisioned employees working there, construction workers, and homeowners to be there. At their corporate board meeting on Tuesday this week, they had Mitt Romney, and former Senator James Talent from Missouri conference in to talk about the economy, and they felt the economy would not turn around quickly and the Country was in for a major recession; so it would be quite a while before the homes they had envisioned to be developed. He knew about the apartments and hotel going in, but their business needed critical mass to support a restaurant, because they were only doing about 1/3 volume of what was needed. He believed they met the four criteria points needed for a variance. He said Jack in the Box, Arco, and the Hampton Inn had monument signs. With regard to the clutter, he said the stretch at University Village from Cook Street to the Gardens, had one monument sign. At the Village, the Evans group decided their two monument signs would be non-descriptive, short, and with no tenants on it, even though they could, but they decided against it. He said if they had three tenants on that monument sign, one additional sign on 36 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 this huge stretch wouldn't create clutter. He hoped to obtain the Council's support and stated he was available to answer questions. MR. FRED EVANS, stated he viewed this situation with a different set of glasses, in that these were difficult times, and every idea brought to the table needed to be supported. He said every tenant was having individual challenges, and the most difficult challenge in today's market was leasing space; allowing those spaces to go dark would be the worse thing that could happen. He said as a landlord and developer, he had to take these opportunities with tenants who were trying hard, doing well, and had invested in the Center and the community. He said technically the City was correct, the Municipal Code allowed a certain number of signs, but everyone was in a condition where it needed to look beyond the Municipal Code and do what's correct for the community and tenants. He will continue to do whatever he had to do for his tenants because that was his job. He said all involved were in it together. Mayor Spiegel asked how Mr. Evans could guarantee only one sign would be there when there were other tenants that might one another sign. MR. EVANS replied they had an agreement with Mr. Karcher, CLK Inc., and it was already written in stone, and it was based on the fact that he was the only drive-thru tenant allowed in the Center by the City and the Evans Group. Further responding, he said the Fire House and others had already agreed not to pursue another sign, and those deals were already done. Following up to a comment made about freeway signs, he said Caltrans and Lamar Advertising had an agreement to not allow freeway signs because Lamar Advertising believed it would take away from their marketing dollars. Councilman Ferguson noted he represented Lamar Advertising, and stated the comment was patently false. MR. EVANS replied he hoped it wasn't true, but he was given that information directly by Lamar Advertising. MR. KARCHER stated they used to have a sign at the Bob Hope exit, and they came down last year and they were gone. He called Caltrans to find out how to get freeway signs, and they said it only worked if the City had a population of 6,000 or less. So he installed signs up at Thousand Palms where they had them up for years at the intersection. He said Bermuda Dunes,which was a small community, also had one sign up. He received a letter from Caltrans this past year 37 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 stating the signs were coming down because the outdoor companies objected to those signs, and because the Coachella Valley was larger than 6,000. He said Caltrans had specific requirements for those signs. Councilman Kelly encouraged him to follow-up with his legislative representative Senator Benoit, because there were more billboards from Monterey Avenue and Gene Autry Trail than there were to Moro Bay through San Bernardino County, through Los Angeles County, through Ventura County, and San Luis Obispo County. With no further testimony, Mayor Spiegel closed the public hearing. Councilmember Benson understood the Applicantwanting a third sign, but she didn't think the City needed to reduce their standards because of the recession. She said everybody in town was feeling the same thing whether it was a restaurant, walk-in, or drive-thru. She said it was just a sign of the times, and a monument sign wouldn't attract more customers. She said the City only had one drive-thru, and it was by design, which was why they created a zone by the freeway. She would be in favor of reaffirming the action of the Planning Commission. Councilman Ferguson stated he wished this was a closer call for him, but he knew the laws, and knew there was no way the Applicant was near meeting the standard for a Variance. He said the City had a quirky thing called "exception," which had a dubious legality in his opinion, but the Applicant wasn't asking for that, it was asking for a Variance. He said many had asked the Council to bend, twist, or change the City's Code because of the economic times. He said he and Councilmember Benson about 15 years ago created the Freeway Overlay Zone that allowed the drive-thru,and it was specifically meant to cater to people just coming off the freeway, and for years the City had a Planning Director that kept trying to stretch it further and further. He said the last time the Evans Company came to the City Council, they had a tenant called Bad Ass Coffee that wanted a drive-thru, and the Council said no because it was north of Gerald Ford Drive. The fact that Carl's Jr. even got a drive-thru was remarkable to him. However, the Applicant was now requesting a frontage sign that was 300 feet away from the Carl's Jr. on Cook Street, would simply not fly with him, in addition to the precedence it would set, and the law it would have to ignore. He and Councilmember Benson, and former Councilman Crites developed a view corridor at Cook Street with the Evans Company to writing the aesthetic gateway to the City, with the Universities on the other side where they wanted people to have a 38 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 visually easy enticing way to enter the City. They recognized sooner or later Cook Street would replace Monterey, particularly with the Walmart and Sam's Club there, and the traffic congestion at Dinah Shore Drive. So far, that corner had developed beautifully, so he was amazed the Evans Company would now come back and ask the City, on the basis of an agreement with Carl Karcher, CLK Inc.,which didn't prevent them from entering into an agreement with someone else. If it was a closer call, he would feel better because then he would find a way to help the Applicant. He couldn't support the request as presented. Councilman Kelly stated he viewed this different than his colleagues because there were extenuating circumstances. For example, a100-foot frontage allowed for one monument sign, and a 1,000-foot frontage also allowed for one monument sign, which didn't seem right to him. As far as other tenants coming to the Council for help, he thought they should come to the Council, and if there was something Council could do, it should help. He said that Center could create traffic, but he didn't see the same catastrophe. He's looking at all the acreage at that Center, which he estimated was 20 acres, and all those office buildings would not need a monument sign. MR. EVANS responded it was 26 acres with only two monument signs. Councilman Kelly reiterated he saw this situation differently, and thought the Council needed to go out there and help the Applicant to put another sign out on Cook Street in order to get traffic there. He thought the City could assist in designing a sign that wouldn't cause clutter. He said the City did so many other things like the Facade Enhancement Program where it gave money to dress up a building, so the City did things to stimulate business, but it didn't do it for everyone. He said that was the reason why the City had a City Council. It was not like an adding machine, where you pushed buttons and something came out, things weren't always automatic. He agreed the City had ordinances to adhere to, but the City Council was here to make decision in unique situations,which he believed this was. Councilman Ferguson agreed the Council awarded Facade Enhancement funds based on lineal footage of the frontage, and he thought it would be far easier and much more legal to amend the City's ordinance to allow for more monument signs through the process it was already going through for large developments. Every time he drove by Walmart and Sam's Club, he noticed they had a lot 39 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 more than two faces per side on that development, and he'd rather amend the Ordinance and allow for big shopping centers to have multiple monument signs, than to say they were so extraordinarily different to qualify them for a variance. Councilman Kelly agreed and stated it was a good point, and why not allow extra monument signs when there was a larger complex, like 26 acres. Councilman Ferguson responded the Committee was in the process of cleaning it up, so it's a great point to insert for the Council's consideration; however, it may take a little bit longer, but at least it will be done right and legally. Councilman Kelly suggested a temporary sign at that location while it worked on the Ordinance. He had read in the staff report that the Applicant did not want to consider a temporary sign. MR. ROSENBLUM replied they would agree to a temporary sign. Councilman Kelly thought for sure a temporary sign would help that Center. He said if people were being attracted into Carl's Jr., it would attract people into the Village Center, thereby helping the entire Center. Councilman Kelly moved to allow the Applicant to have a temporary sign until the Ordinance included language that would accommodate for larger complex to have additional monument signs. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and received a no-action on a 2-2 vote. Councilman Ferguson moved to refer this to the Signage Subcommittee and ask them to do frontage signs based on linear frontage and not just one sign per side regardless of how large the development was. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Spiegel asked how long it would take to bring the Ordinance back to the City Council. Ms. Aylaian replied staff currently had a number of signage related issues with the Zoning Ordinance they hoped to tie up and clean up with an update of a Zoning Ordinance, but if staff was reviewing just this particular issue, they could have it back in 30 days to address monument signage per lineal foot per frontage. Mayor Spiegel commented Mr. Evans would probably be able to place more than one monument sign with the size of his property. 40 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008 Councilman Kelly responded it could be adjusted accordingly. Councilman Ferguson stated if an ordinance was introduced in 30 days, by the time it reached the second reading, it would probably be 60 days. He said the City's been putting off the Sign Ordinance for so long that he would rather do the whole thing as a package. Ms.Aylaian stated if staffwould be working on the whole Sign Ordinance,the first week in February would be a more appropriate time. Mayor Spiegel questioned why not allow the Applicant a temporary sign until the ordinance was approved. Councilman Ferguson replied there would be a million people that would love temporary signs because the Signage Subcommittee was dealing with realtor's and commercial property owners. Councilman Kelly recognized he was not on the Signage Subcommittee, but he was expected to speak up and state his opinion on behalf of the people that elected him, and just because he wasn't on the Signage Subcommittee, his one vote had the same weight. Ms. Aylaian stated she had explained to the Applicant that he wouldn't need a continuance because if the City was amending it's ordinance, he wouldn't need a variance. Responding to comment, she confirmed the Applicant would still have to go through ARC and the City's discretionary review. Councilman Kelly asked if the Signage Subcommittee had business representation. Ms. Ayaian replied it had representation from broker's and businesses. Mr. Erwin stated the Applicant needed to agree to the continuance because there was a time limit within which the City needed to act. MR. ROSENBLUM agreed to the February 12, 2008 continuance. Mayor Spiegel re-opened the public hearing. Councilman Ferguson moved to continue the matter to the meeting of February 12, 2009, with staff to work with Signage Subcommittee on related amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in the interim. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Finerty ABSENT. 41 `, s ' CI1Y Of Pfl � �l DESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE - ��'�' ; PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2575 �L: �60 346—o6�t Fnx: 760 34�-7098 info�palm-desert.org PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 8, 2008 National Sign and Marketing The Evans Company Edward C. Blend 36-891 Cook Street 13580 5th Street Palm Desert, California 9221 1 Chino, California 91710 Re: VAR 08-304 36-879 COOK STREET The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its regular meeting of October 7, 2008: THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. VAR 08-304 BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2487. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONER LIMONT WAS ABSENT). Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. GZ--- � Tony Bagato, Ac ing Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission /tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal � L�mmoa��Faamnn� � �' �� . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2487 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 THAT WOULD PERMIT A THIRD MONUMENT SIGN FOR CARL'S JR. LOCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE CENTER LOCATED AT 36-879 COOK STREET. CASE NO. VAR OS-304 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7"' day of October, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Carl's Jr., 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 Gerald Ford Drive and the generous size of the property there is no ditficulty 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 properly is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no exfraordinary circurnstances 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. 2487 D. That the granting of the variance or adjustment wiil not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare� or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed sign would not be detrimental to public hea/th, safety or we/fare, 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 08-304 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on the 7"' day of October, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL, SCHMIDT, TANNER NOES: NONE ABSENT: LIMONT ABSTAIN: NONE � VAN G. ANNER, Chairperson ATTEST: �---"""- TONY BAGATO, cting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 ( 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 third monument sign for Carl's Jr. located in the University Village Center, which currently has the maximum number of monument signs the code allows located at 36-879 Cook Street. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner APPLICANT: National Sign and Marketing Edward C. Blend 13580 5th Street Chino, CA 91710 The Evans Company 36-891 Cook Street Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO.: VAR 08-304 DATE: October 7, 2008 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval of staff's recommendation would deny the variance requested by Carl's Jr. for a third monument sign located in the University Village, which currently has the maximum number of monument signs than Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, allows. II. BACKGROUND: A. Property Description: The properry is located on the southwest corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive in the University Village Center. Carl's Jr. has frontage along Gerald Ford Drive, but is requesting that the proposed monument sign be located along Cook Street. I, � Staff Report � Case No. VAR 08-304 October 7, 2008 Page 2 of 6 B. Section 25.68.310 Freestanding Signs: Municipal Code Section 25.68.310-Freestanding signs- A building, commercial complex, shopping center or other commercial or industrial development housing more than one tenant and having frontage on a public street shall be entitled to one freestanding sign on each street frontage to identify the building, commercial / industrial complex, or shopping center. Freestanding signs for buildings, commercial complexes, shopping centers and other commercial / industrial developments located on less than five acres of property shall not exceed one-half the total allowable signage of the front of the building and shall be subtracted there form and in no event exceed fifty square feet. Maximum height of these signs shall be six feet unless topographic or other physical features exist necessitating a higher sign but in no event shall total sign structure height exceed ten feet from the ground. 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 August 26, 2008 the ARC reviewed the project. The Commission denied the request for a variance. The motion carried 6-0-1- 0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 25.68, Signs, to allow a third monument sign for Carl's Jr., located in the University Village Center, which currently has the maximum amount of monument signs the code 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 G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�VAR 09304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission Statt Report.doc � . � ( Staff Report ' Case No. VAR 08-304 October 7, 2008 Page 3 of 6 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. The University Village Center is allowed two monument signs per Section 25.68.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. When the owner of the University Village submitted for signage, the owner didn't want multi-tenant signs, and instead wanted project identification signs. Currently there are two existing monument signs which state University Village for identification. Y Carl's Jr. is located within the University Village Center, fronting along Gerald Ford Drive. The applicant is proposing to erect the monument sign along Cook Street located in the desert landscape area. The proposed monument sign would be located six feet from the face of curb from Cook Street, outside of the public right of way. The monument face will read "Carl's Jr." in red cursive writing along with their logo, which is a smiling yellow star. The monument sign is five feet in height and six feet in length. The proposed sign would be constructed of block to match the center, with a stucco cap and base painted to match the center. There would be an external ground lamp located two feet from the monument face to provide up-lighting for the sign. IV. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting an exception from the Planning Commission to allow a third monument sign for Carl's Jr. located in the University Village Center. The University Village Center is allowed two monument signs which already exist, per Section 25.68.310 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The owner of the University Village Center chose not to have multi tenant signs, and instead opted for signs which identified the center. The owner has expressed to staff that he will not remove the identification monument signs for a multi tenant monument sign. Staff believes the proposed signage will create clutter along Cook Street, and since other businesses in the area comply with the City's sign ordinance, 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: G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�VAR 08-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission StaH Report.doc � Staff Report � Case No. VAR 08-304 October 7, 2008 Page 4 of 6 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. Due fo the property fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and the 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 sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or material/y injurious to the properties in the vicinity, G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR OS-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission StaH Report.dce , i ,' Staff Report � Case No. VAR 08-304 October 7, 2008 Page 5 of 6 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 Carl's Jr. is easily visible from Gerald Ford Drive and coming off the freeway going south along Cook Street, staff believes that the existing signs for Carl's Jr. are sufficient in size for identification of the business and the proposed monument sign would clutter the center. It would also set precedents for off site signage and number of monument signs that, when applied to similar businesses, would degrade the aesthetic quality of the city. VI1. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , denying VAR 08-304, VIII. AITACHMENTS: 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: , �� J� FGie Kevin Swartz Lauri Aylaian Assistant Planner Director of Community Development Approval: ,� � ��/ � � . Homer Croy ACM for Develo ent Services G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR OB-304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission Staff Report.doc MINUTES ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Reports and documents re/ating to each of fhe following items listed on the agenda are on file in the Department of Community Development and are availab/e for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346- 0611. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 08-303 — DONALD AND KATHRYN BLACK AND STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust the rear lot line of Lot 1 north to allow use of area not usable by Lot 27 at 72-428 Southridge Trail (APNs 652-070-020 and 652-350-027). B. Case No. PMW 08-311 — GREGORY OTTO OLTA, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two existing parcels into one at 44-277 Portola Avenue (also known as APNs 627-131-041 and 627-131-043). Action: It was moved by Commissioner S. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner R. Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont absent). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. �„�,,;�,,,, A. Case No. VAR 08-304 — NATIONAL SIGN AND MARKETING AND THE EVANS COMPANY, Applicants Request for approval of a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 nnA third monument sign for Carl's Jr. located in the University Village Center which currently has the maximum number of monument signs the code allows located at 36-879 Cook Street. Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report. He showed the Commission pictures of the area, as well as the proposed signage. Staff was opposed to the request and recommended denial of the sign exception request. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if all of University Park had a Cook Street address, even though Carl's Jr. is on Gerald Ford. Mr. Swartz stated that was correct, they all have a Cook Street address. Reviewing the different pictures of the site, Commissioner S. Campbell pointed out that they have quite a bit of signage. Mr. Swartz concurred. Commissioner Schmidt asked if other tenants in the complex have applied for additional signage. Mr. Swartz said no. He stated that the owner expressed that this would be the only tenant that they would approve to go forward with a monument sign, but staff didn't want to set a precedent with it. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if staff had any feelings regarding the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) suggestion of taking down the "For Lease" sign and putting up a temporary sign. Mr. Swartz said ARC came up with the idea that maybe they could convert one of the For Lease signs along Cook Street into a temporary Carl's Jr. sign. Staff had not analyzed that since the application was for a monument sign. If the applicant was to come forward with that request, staff would look into it. Chairperson Tanner asked for and received clarification on the location of the temporary sign that ARC suggested. Mr. Swartz also explained that staff approves temporary signs for a one-year basis. There are about five of them on Cook Street and five of them on Gerald Ford. ARC's suggestion was to replace one of the For Lease signs with a temporary Carl's Jr. sign. Mr. Swartz reiterated that staff reviews these signs every year. Commissioner S. Campbell asked if that application would come before the Planning Commission again because the current application wasn't for a temporary sign. Mr. Bagato explained that temporary signs are approved at a staff level, so it would not come before the Planning Commission. ARC's suggestion was to just replace one of the current signs in lieu of a monument sign while the economy is down and some more build out occurs in the area. With the apartments and the hotel approved in the area, hopefully there would be more activity out there in another year. But the temporary sign was something staff would approve over the counter. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008 He indicated that staff supported the idea at ARC, but the applicant still wanted to go forward with the variance request. ARC's alternative was to deny the monument sign and allow a temporary sign, and staff concurred. Commissioner S. Campbell asked how many temporary signs would be allowed, if it would be just one, either on Gerald Ford or Cook Street. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. They would allow one on Cook Street. He said they were for one year, but were reviewed on a year to year basis. Mr. Swartz pointed out the location which he thought would be the logical sign to convert. Commissioner R. Campbell asked if it was close to the driveway location and near the monument sign for Cook Street. Mr. Swartz said yes, and pointed out the location. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. STEVE ROSENBLUM with National Sign and Marketing Corporation, 13580 5th Street in Chino, California, as well as Kelly Karcher with CLK Inc. at 74-478 Highway 111, No. 187, in Palm Desert, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rosenblum said they tried to work with staff, as well as the property owner. The way the project is situated, unfortunately there has been an incredible down turn in the economy. Right now what they were looking to do was create information that there is a dining option here at this shopping center that is available to the motoring public. Unfortunately, if you're headed in either direction, either north or south bound on Cook Street, unless you are fairly familiar with the area, it's pretty hard to know that it's there. You can drive south on Cook Street and if you don't happen to glance to the right, if you are going p through the traffic signal, you're never going to see the Carl's Jr. project. If you are headed northbound, you're definitely not going to see it. What they were looking to do is create awareness. They have the landlord's support. This is the major tenant for the center. Staff did create a couple of suggestions to do this, possibly a multi-tenant sign, and things of that nature. But because this is a major tenant for the center and for the simple fact that the landlord didn't want to open that slippery slope to a whole bunch of different monument options, they thought a tastefully designed monument that complemented the center, matched their signage, met code, was small in nature, and kind of subtle to blend in with the landscaped area, it would be an ideal way to promote business, as well as keep in mind what the City would like to have. Something that was not going to create a slippery slope. He said it's the only drive-thru 4 MINUTES LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 oriented business in the center. The way that Carl's Jr. operates, and several fast food establishments, about 75%-80% of their business goes through that drive-thru. What they could do in approving this project is stipulate that this is being approved because it is a drive-thru oriented business and therefore they aren't creating that slippery slope that anyone can have it. They could stipulate that it has to have a Cook Street address. Again, this is a unique situation. This is a business that fronts on Gerald Ford and has a Cook Street address. Without that visibility he thought they were doing a disservice to the motoring public. As much as signs aren't always the favorite thing, if you are driving around and are looking around for somewhere to eat or maybe gas, it's pretty important to find what you are looking for. So they tried to design something that was simple, met the needs of the community, and at the same point in time met the needs of the business. He asked for any questions and hoped they could move this forward. Commissioner S. Campbell said that she was driving around that area earlier, around 1:00 p.m., which was lunch time. Starbuck's was empty. Jack in the Box was empty. Where Carl's Jr. is, that whole area is still empty; there is nobody there. She is in retail and business has been bad. She could ask for more signage for her business, but that wasn't going to be granted. That's the way the economy is right now, and she was wondering if there was a freeway sign out there right now before Cook or anything like that. Mr. Rosenblum said unfortunately there wasn't. They would love to have freeway signage; that would be wonderful. Commissioner S. Campbell noted that once the businesses come, they will be busy, but right now it is empty there. It's brand new and might be empty for a while until people learn about them. All the other places were empty, too, so it wasn't just his business. Chairperson Tanner asked if they had considered the temporary signage as an alternative to the monument sign and if it was something they would be agreeable to. Mr. Rosenblum said they considered it. Temporary signs would be a huge positive compared to where they were right now, but the downside to temporary signage for his client is they are throwing good money in on something that is eventually going to be thrown away because it is considered a temporary sign. And even if it continually got approved, a temporary does wear out and does look 5 MINUTES QALM_Q�SERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008 bad after a certain amount of time. The design they are looking at is something that is simple and would look good for a long time. One of the things with a temporary sign that is also a concern is vandalism and things of that nature. It tends to attract problems versus a permanent sign which is much longer lasting, is a simple block design and performs the same function, but just looks nicer. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed signage. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Schmidt was concerned that the restaurant wasn't near where the sign would be. It's way on the other side of the center. It also seemed to her that it would create sort of a dangerous precedent in that the ordinance is pretty clear. She knew business was bad, but there were other marketing things to do other than putting up a sign. She didn't like the precedent it would establish and she was less keen on a temporary sign because that would simply encourage others in the center unless it was worked through the ownership to have a directory sign. She didn't think it was a good idea for them to do it. Commissioner S. Campbell concurred. They have adequate signage that is allowed by ordinance right now. This business is new, the whole area is new. With what they were shown, she would not allow a third monument sign. It was hard to tell from the pictures what a temporary sign would be, but again, if they put a temporary sign there now, there's a sandwich shop and a coffee shop that would probably want a temporary sign also. It's a new area and it takes time to develop. She has been in her business for 21 years. It takes a long time and she was sure when people learned about the business, they would know where to go. Commissioner R. Campbell basically concurred with the other Commissioners, except he would be willing to promote the temporary sign because he had not yet seen any damage. He was out in that area and he knew there was an additional cost. That cost might bring in enough customers to offset that cost. But he would not vote to approve a new third monument sign. Chairperson Tanner wanted to promote business in Palm Desert, but also wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission does what they're supposed to do and that is to make sure they follow the ordinance and variances weren't something they were very keen on granting. Regarding the comment on vandalism, the University Park has been there a long 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008 time and they do have temporary signs and he hasn't seen any vandalism to those signs, at least at this point. Again, he wanted to promote business in the city of Palm Desert because that is what really runs us. He would not be opposed to putting up a temporary sign on Cook Street, and Cook Street alone, with the understanding that it is a temporary sign. Once that center is active, it is going to be something that probably won't need advertising other than what is on the building. They might also end up with signs on the interstate if it becomes available. He would be in favor of not a monument sign, but a temporary sign in a fashion designed at least for one year. He asked for a motion. Mr. Swartz explained that the request tonight was for a variance for the sign, so it would be a resolution denying the variance, but direct staff to work with them on a temporary sign; it wouldn't be a resolution for the temporary sign. Chairperson Tanner reiterated that it would just be working with the applicant for a temporary sign. Commissioner Campbell asked if that sign would be lit at night. Mr. Bagato thought there would be some sort of landscape lighting to help light it at night. Commissioner Campbell said it wouldn't just be a wooden sign, it would be nicely done. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. The ones out there are fairly nice and would match those. Commissioner Campbell said it wouldn't be cost prohibitive; Mr. Bagato said no. Chairperson Tanner asked if they denied the variance, but conditioned it with a one-year temporary sign, if that would have to come back to Planning Commission or if they would just direct staff to work with the applicant. Mr. Bagato noted they couldn't place conditions on a denial. The variance was for a monument sign and they could deny that, and then they could direct staff to work with them on a temporary sign. The temporary signs out there were already approved under Phil Drell with a temporary use permit that is reviewed on a one year basis. At this time there haven't been any issues with them, so they have been renewing them. They were just going to replace one of the For Lease signs with a Carl's Jr. sign under the temporary use that is already there. Commissioner Schmidt asked how many tenants were in the complex now; about 20? Mr. Bagato wasn't sure about the retail component, but the office component in the back would probably put it around 20 or more. On the front part he didn't think there were more than 10. But they had specifically said it could only be for Carl's Jr. Commissioner Schmidt said they couldn't do that; they couldn't deny someone else the same opportunity, and that was her concern. Once they allow any kind of signage, they open the door for the other tenants to seek the same. Mr. Bagato said that if it became a problem, they could revoke the TUP and 7 MINUTES DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008 they wouldn't get any signage. Those signs were out there just by staff approval. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it wouldn't be a new sign; i# would replace an existing commercial For Lease sign. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont was absent). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmidt, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2487, denying Case No. VAR 08-304. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Limont was absent). Commissioner Campbell said she would recommend that staff work with the applicant on a temporary sign for a one-year period. Chairperson Tanner noted that they didn't need to vote on that. Mr. Bagato concurred. Chairperson Tanner hoped that would work for the applicant and wished them the best of luck at that site. B. Case No. PP/CUP OS-241 — RON HENDERSON / MICHAEL JOHNSTON, Applicants Request for approval of a Precise Plan of Design and Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single family home to an office building for Farmer's Insurance located at 74-426 Alessandro Drive. Mr. Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report. The recommended action was to adopt the draft resolution approving Case No. PP/CUP 08-241, subject to the conditions. He noted that there was a typo in the conditions of approval. On page 6 under Department of Public Works, Condition No. 8 referred to Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code; it should read Chapter 27. He asked for any questions. Commissioner R. Campbell said he visited the site and went to the back parking and thought that is awfully tight and asked for clarification on how many parking stalls would be there. Mr. Swartz said it was 8 parking stalls. Commissioner R. Campbell noted that if someone drove in there, they wouldn't be able to turn around; they would have to back out onto a street, which could be dangerous. Mr. Swartz clarified that they would be 8 (, CITY OF �il �l DESERT 73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25�8 TEL: ]�i0 346—o6ii Fnx: 760 34i-7og8 i nfo@palm-desert.org August 28, 2008 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NOS: VAR 08-304 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING CORPORATION, 13580 5 Street, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument sign for: Carl's Jr. LOCATION: 36-879 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission recommended denial of the Variance request for an additional monument sign. The Commission approved a temporary sign for a period of one year, for which design and any extensions of time will be reviewed by staff and the temporary sign will replace one of the "For Lease" signs on site. Date of Action: August 26, 2008 Vote: Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining (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 no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. � �,IIIIIRD OM IfR(I[U 1111t (} ARCHITECTURAL RE4iEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 5. CASE NOS: VAR OS-304 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING CORPORATION, 13580 5 Street, Chino, CA 91710 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a monument sign for: Carl's Jr. LOCATION: 36-879 Cook Street ZONE: PCD FCOZ Mr. Swartz summarized this project. He stated that this was a request for a variance for a monument sign on Cook Street and because of the variance it will have to go to Planning Commission for approval; it is here today for the architecture. He explained that the way the code reads is that you get a monument sign for a large center such as this for frontage. The owner wants a sign at the corner of University Village for shops and retail and currently they have one on the entrance off of Cook Street, so any new sign proposed has to go through a variance. One option could be if the owner were to remove one of the monument signs then they could do a multi-tenant sign. Staff feels that due to clustering they didn't want to set precedence of approving the monument sign and having another business come back and want the same. Mr. Steve Rosenblum, National Sign & Marketing Corporation, understands staff's concerns and felt that they have an option to work with that by creating a sign that compliments the rest of the shopping center. It is designed to match the monument signs in the center. He mentioned that they have a really unique situation for this site. The site is actually fronting on Gerald Ford; however it has a Cook Street address. The downside to a site like this is that they have this great location with no traffic; no one even knows the restaurant is there. He explained that Carl's Jr. operates with about 75% to 80% of its business in the driveway but if you can't communicate to the motoring public who travels up and down Cook Street it doesn't do so well. A monument sign is really needed out on Cook Street to notify the motoring public that we are there. He stated that most businesses in the valley that are free-standing restaurants have monuments signs. This restaurant provides a service to the public and brings in revenue to the city; and they feel that this is a fairly important thing. We worked with staff and the landlord, who is supportive of the project. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�,4 Minutes�2008WR080826.mi�.doc Page 8 of 15 (� �� ARCHITECTURAL REviEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Mr. Rosenblum explained that they have designed the sign to match the center's signage down to the exact same brand and style of ground lighting, the same block materials. He provided photos of both day and night views showing the traffic both north and southbound on Cook Street. The code meets all code requirements and height requirements for a monument sign. It is a simple sign to create business success in that center. He mentioned that all the other sites have Cook Street oriented signage, whereas Carl's Jr., doesn't have anything that you can see while traveling down Cook Street. Commissioner DeLuna suggested a multi-tenant sign that had the Carl's Jr., logo and would be a better option than sticking a big monument sign over on Gerald Ford. She was concerned with the next applicant coming in to request the same thing. Mr. Rosenblum stated that staff can condition that and stated that it must be for a drive-thru oriented business only. Mr. Fred Evans, Developer, stated that it is important to understand that this is relative to the size of the center. This is an anchor for us and is our largest tenant to date and it is important from a landlord's point, a city point and staff and residential point that we support these businesses that are down there on Cook Street and Gerald Ford. We should be doing everything that we can to get their businesses as successful as possible. He stated that they have worked real hard to come up with a design that works with the center; it matches the center and works with the current signage. It is really important that we are working together with Carl's and that we support the sign and we support the location. We are not going to re-do our existing signage and add multiple tenant signs on a sign because it goes against the concept of what the center is. He stated that they pushed the building against the street so that the tenants can get signage and that street wouldn't be riddled with signs. This is something that he thought would support their major tenant long term and short term. Right now on Cook Street you have three to four times the traffic as you do on Gerald Ford and he felt that the public needs to know and that they have a viable eating option 200 feet off the street. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2008WR080826.min.dx Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Commissioner DeLuna asked when they purchased that site were they aware of what the requirements were at that time. Mr. Evans answered yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if there was something that has changed that causes them to come now and request a variance. Mr. Evans said yes because our economy is in the tank. He explained that when they built the site, they came out and projected that there would be "X" number of houses around the neighborhood and there is none; it has dried up, so we have do everything we can to support these tenants between now and when that housing starts back up. Commissioner Hanson asked when the housing goes back up, can the sign come down. Mr. Evans answered no. Commissioner Hanson asked why not, because then that defeats his whole point. The Commission reviewed the other buildings in the center. They talked about other restaurants or drive-thrush coming into that center. Mr. Evans stated that in their CC&Rs there will be no other drive-thru restaurant in that center because the buildings are designated as office. He stated that if the houses had gone in their sales would have been much stronger, however we would probably still be asking for a variance because the amount of traffic on Gerald Ford is so much less than that of Cook. Commissioner DeLuna stated that the real estate market will turn and when the houses are built then the City has a precedence sitting here that is no longer an issue because you now have the traffic that you are concerned with now, but yet the sign stays. Mr. Evans agreed because the conversation of setting precedent has been a historical conversation with them. Right now in our current condition we need to do something. We are competing against a Jack-In-The- Box on the next block up that has a monument sign on their building that is so big they can park a car under it. We are asking for a very small sign that matches the center. He mentioned that they have designed a sign that is appealing and not large. Mr. Rosenblum stated that if the City was concerned about setting a precedent, it's a positive precedent you want to set. Think of all the monument signs in the city. Commissioner Hanson stated that the Commission doesn't like monument signs. Mr. Rosenblum stated that this is simple block to match the rest of the center. Mr. Evans stated that they were just as sensitive to the Commission's concerns about monument signs. G:\PlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2008WF080826.min.doc Page 10 of 15 ( ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 The Commission re�iewed the locations of the proposed sign and the entrances to the Center and discussed the visibility of Carl's coming off the freeway and coming down Cook Street. Commissioner Gregory asked about a multi tenant sign and not establishing precedent. Ms. Aylaian, Director of Community Development stated that if the landlord wanted to change the monument signs to identify three tenants they could do that in a single monument sign on Cook Street. Mr. Evans wanted to clarify that the Commission did not want to see a monument sign, but would rather see a multi-tenant sign verses a single tenant sign. Commissioner Gregory stated that the problem is with the variance issues. Ms. Aylaian stated that they would have to remove their existing monument sign because they can only have one monument sign on that site. Mr. Evans stated that he would never get ownership's approval of removing those entrance signs and making one multi-tenant sign. He stated that considering that Carl's is one of their majors they thought it was important to request a variance for a single tenant sign in that location. Ms. Aylaian said the existing ordinance stipulates exactly where you get signs and does not have provisions for drive-thru or vehicle oriented businesses. She stated that what they are trying to do is guide businesses through this difficult economic time with an eye towards the future so that we don't make decisions in the short term that will be bad in the long term for the community. She said that the most valid suggestion that she heard is the suggestion by Commissioner Hanson to put it up for a limited period of time after which it will be removed when that area is developed. The Commission discussed the length of time that the sign would stay in place. Ms. Aylaian stated that the center currently has a very aggressive temporary signage program and suggested that they use one of the several "For Lease" signs on the site. Mr. Evans stated that if that is part of getting this Carl's sign approved he is more than willing to do that. Ms. Aylaian stated that what we don't want to do is build clutter upon clutter and with the temporary signs we are over that threshold. The Commission discussed the temporary signs and the length of time that the temporary sign would be there. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2008WR080826.min.doc Page 11 of 15 i ( ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 2008 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he would be opposed to a temporary sign out there because it just adds clutter. He felt that their best solution would be to modify their other monument sign on that side and add Carl's Jr. to it. Mr. Bagato stated that they could issue a Temporary Use Permit for the temporary sign and review it after one year. He stated that nothing can be temporary that requires a building permit; because once they get a building permit it would be permanent. Ms. Aylaian indicated that the temporary sign would have to be professionally and nicely done. Ms. Kelly Karcher, Carl's Jr., mentioned that Carl's Jr., has been here in the valley for over 30 years. They enjoy being here as a part of the community and being active in it. She understands that the City doesn't want a permanent sign on Cook but feels that the presence of Carl's Jr., is important to the community and local schools. She stated that if their presence on Cook Street is know, then that would be increased and they would definitely be there for everyone. Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant could decide not to seek a temporary sign and go on to Planning Commission with ARC support or denial since this isn't the final step. He asked the applicant if they wanted to wait and try the temporary first and then come back later on the variance or move forward on the variance. Mr. Rosenblum stated that they wanted to move forward. Mr. Bagato suggested that the Commission make a recommendation on the application for variance. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner recommended denial of the Variance request for an additional monument sign. The Commission approved a temporary sign for a period of one year, for which design and any extensions of time will be reviewed by staff and the temporary sign will replace one of the "For Lease" signs on site. Motion carried 6-0-1-0, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining. G:\Planning�.lanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2008V1R080826.min.doc Page 12 of 15