The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 09-63 - VAR 09-330 - 42210 Cook St. - C.Knox CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68, SIGNS, TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL SIGN ON THE SAME BUILDING FRONTAGE FOR CAMBRIA LOCATED AT 42-210 COOK STREET. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: Cambria Candice Knox 42-210 Cook Street, Suite M Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NO(s): VAR 09-330 DATE: December 10, 2009 CONTENTS: Draft Resolution No. 09-63 Legal Notice Planning Commission Minutes Dated, October 6, 2009 Architectural Review Commission Minutes Dated, August 11, 2009 Exhibits: Photo-simulations Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 09-63 reaffirming the action of the Planning Commission denying a variance for an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs, to permit a second wall sign on the same building frontage for Cambria located at 42-210 Cook Street. Commission Recommendation At its meeting of August 11, 2009 the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial on a 4-1-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Touschner voting no and Commissioner Gregory absent. Commissioner Touschner felt that one of the signs could be reduced and centered over the doorway. The other Commissioners believed that having two signs on the same frontage adds clutter to the building and is not compatible with the other businesses in the center. Staff Report VAR 09-330 December 10, 2009 Page 2 of 5 At its meeting of October 6, 2009 the Planning Commission denied VAR 09-330 by Resolution No. 2512 on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Schmidt absent. The Planning Commission could not make the findings for the variance and did not want to set a negative precedent by approving two wall signs on the same building frontage. The Planning Commission also agreed with the Architectural Review Commission comments and recommendation. Executive Summary Approval of staff's recommendation would deny the applicant a variance for two wall signs on the Cook Street building frontage. The applicant was cited by the City's Code Enforcement Department in violation for installing a second, non-permitted sign on the Cook Street building frontage. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the request and recommended denial. The ARC believed that two signs on one frontage creates clutter and is not compatible with the rest of the commercial center. The Planning Commission denied VAR 09-330. The Planning Commission believed two signs on the same frontage would set a negative precedent, especially since no other variances have been granted for other businesses in the area. Backqround A. Property Description: Cambria is located on the southeast corner of Cook Street and Green Way. The business is located in the Cook Street Marketplace shopping center near Jensen's. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: The property is zoned Planned Commercial District, Scenic Preservation (P.C.-2, S.P.) and the General Plan designation is Industrial-Business Park (I-BP). C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Service Industrial (S.I.) South: Service Industrial (S.I.) East: Service Industrial (S.I.) West: Service Industrial (S.I.) D. Section 25.68.260: The predominant idea in authorizing signs in the commercial and industrial zones is to strive for one sign per complex to eliminate clutter and to promote compatibility, proportion, simplicity, and sign effectiveness. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Cambria Wall Sign\cambria cc report.doc Staff Report VAR 09-330 December 10, 2009 Page 3 of 5 E. 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 properties 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. Proiect Description The building is located within the existing Marketplace shopping center anchored by Jensen's. The shopping center and building have excellent visibility along Cook Street. The building is a corner building with two frontages. One frontage is along Cook Street and the second faces the parking lot and Cook Street. The applicant is entitled to one sign per frontage per code. On August 13, 2008 the applicant was approved for installation of a total of two wall signs by staff over the counter. One sign is located on the Cook Street frontage below the roofline. The other sign is located on the corner of the building facing the parking lot. The applicant moved the approved sign on the Cook Street frontage and added a second sign on the same elevation, giving the business a total of three signs. The third sign is not allowed per the signage ordinance without a variance. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 25.68, Signs, to allow an exception for a second wall sign on the Cook Street frontage. Section 25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public hearing in instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional circumstances because of the type of location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect." The applicant must show that: A. The sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building; and B. The sign will not be detrimental to neighboring business or the community in general. Analvsis The applicant is requesting an exception from the Planning Commission for an additional sign on the Cook Street frontage. The purpose of the sign code is to eliminate clutter and not take away from the architecture of the building. Approving the proposed variance would set a negative precedent by promoting too much signage, which leads to visual clutter. The building has visibility along Cook Street, and is approved for two signs. There is no unique or special circumstance that would deprive the applicant the same rights as surrounding G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Cambria Wall Sign\cambria cc report.doc Staff Report VAR 09-330 December 10, 2009 Page 4 of 5 businesses. The following findings responding to Patm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.78.010 explain the rationale for denying the variance: A. Findings For Denial: Section 25.68.730, Exception process, states "The Planning Commission may approve exceptions relative to size, number, and location of signs after a public hearing in instances where an applicant is faced with exceptional circumstances because of the location of business, or is trying to achieve a special design effect." The applicant must show that the sign will be integrated into the architecture of the building and the sign will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or the community in general, and: A. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ordinance codified in this title. Due to the property having visibility and frontage along Cook Street, and being able to have another sign facing the parking lot, there is no difficulty or physical hardship related to the properly in question. Cook Street is highly traveled and the existing signs are easily seen from Cook Street. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the properry involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generatly to other properties in the same zone. The property is not irregularly shaped, and there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this properry. The building is located within an existing shopping center and has excellent visibility from Cook Street. The building is positioned at an angle allowing two frontages viewed from Cook Street. 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. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Cambria Wall Sign\cambria cc report.doc Staff Report VAR 09-330 December 10, 2009 Page 5 of 5 The applicant received approval of two wall signs, one per frontage, that current/y exist The applicant installed an additional sign that was not permitted and allowed by code. The proposed sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Environmental Review The project would be a Class 3, Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no further review is necessary. Conclusion In conclusion, the applicant installed a second sign on the Cook Street frontage which does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Cambria is easily visible from Cook Street and is located in a multi-tenant commercial complex. Staff believes that an additional sign will create clutter, and the variance request was denied by the Planning Commission and four of the Architectural Review Commissioners. Fiscal Analvsis There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with denying VAR 09-330. Submitted By: Department Head: ��+- Z-- Kevin Swartz, Lauri Aylaian, Assistant Planner Director of Community Development CITY COUNCILA,CTION APPROVED �� DFNiED Approval: RECEIVED OTHER I � w� MEET�1�G DATE � ` ��n YES. � , cu��' Y7�t" Jo ohlmuth, City Manager NOES: � ABSEN'I: --�� * aiv further reading and adopt ABSTAIN: ' "� ~ R lution No. 09-63, as amended to �RIFIED BY: � � include the Applicant have the choice Original on File with City erk'a O�ce of decid� which two of the three signs they wish to keep. 3-2 (Kelly and Spiegel NO) G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Cambria Wall Sign\cambria cc report.doc CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 09-63 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 SECOND WALL SIGN ON THE SAME BUILDING FRONTAGE FOR CAMBRIA LOCATED AT 42-210 COOK STREET. CASE NO. VAR 09-330 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10t" day of December, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Cambria, for the above noted Variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 6t" day of October 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the said request and by its Resolution No. 2512 denied VAR 09-330; 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 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 having visibility and frontage a/ong Cook Street, and being ab/e to have another sign facing the parking /ot, there is no difficu/ty or physical hardship related to the property in question. Cook Street is high/y trave/ed and the existing signs are easily seen from Cook Street. 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 irregular shaped, and there are no extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab/e to this property. The building is /ocated within an existing shopping center and has excellent visibility from Cook Street. The building is positioned af an ang/e allowing two frontages viewed from Cook Street. 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. 09-63 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 applicant received approval of two wall signs, one per frontage, that current/y exist. The applicant installed an additiona/sign that was not permitted and allowed by code. The proposed sign would not be detrimental to public health, safety or we/fare, or materially injurious to the properties 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 Commission in this case. 2. That Variance 09-330 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on the 10th day of December 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 CITY Of Pfll �l DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESEftT,GhLIFOftNIfl 91b60-b578 TEL:']60 ;46—o6n Fn�c:760 34i-7o98 � inEoC�palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.VAR 09-330 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by Cambria for approval of a Variance for an exception to Section 25.68, Sign Ordinance to allow two signs along the same frontage located at 42-210 Cook Street. ■ I ,"hP§' .:`' e it � —F . '�s � yW 1 �^ ,v,�.� �� S G�� . �� Q� "H� YLBY N E. ".l��!'. N�F:. < e ..yp�'y�` .. ��1,R- � �,^^^ 3 � p .�� P� ��p. .. ��;` 5 i?,+. �3 �.. # 1:� .o..�; ,� L°NNCSIM Pf.� � .�,,. 0 �.. � . i � m a I � o� "` �:` ';u�� t� � i � �I �I �J, :� �' �I �.: i ... .' � ... :... .v < . . �. n ' n a IT_ff � N �. VE � . ' .� .... �._... ...._. . r. . � .�� _rr.� v�i � : � �+ ,3, � +� �. �:i� �� a. A� rr � � , r � . ,a� � �- � g ,s. ' .. ' .. " V$4t _INAY e++, art �e: :H "� .�. � . . ., ` .,. � � .��^ 'i� . `� `�}L"'� :....: � " %'S1 V 4 u�i➢fi.t� �@. �. • l ` 7&a .:� �- 4��e; - � .t ' .,.. :r. � . . .. „ � �µ � a ,. lD . . .. ..._.,..,. ._ . .. G � �� a ,+ �', ..: �i.��1��. � :�i'�,c3i�i�� „ I ' NIIERL OR� ER4 DR � � , Cr � a � .� 1 _ �,'...,� ' k. , Q j_.;.. �; 4' " � ,,�� l:J A1 6 . ,. �"'u�j'�. ' � �, .. � . S , � � �, ��'y �ACtiv^�3... .� '��` W� -`;�� <� �a, ':�," .a,N' :R ,.. �'!�:..,�.._'�a�.�%:,.._ a ..,:�*"'a^ .t SAID public hearing will be hetd on Thursday, December 10, 2009, 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 City Council at; or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk November 28, 2009 Palm Desert City Council C� � � MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6. 2009 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the August 4, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case Nos. PP 06-18 and CUP 06-15—JOHN WANG, Applicant Request for approval of a one-year time extension for the Candlewood Suites Hotel located at 75-144 Gerald Ford Drive. Commissioner Limont asked if this extension fell under AB 333. Mr. Bagato explained that AB 333 applied only to maps, so they were asking for their own extension. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Limont, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). VIIL 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 09-330— CAMBRIA/ CANDICE KNOX, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow an exception to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 Signs, to permit a second wall sign on the same building frontage for Cambria located at 42-210 Cook Street. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz informed the Commission that the applicant submitted in writing, which they had in front of them, a request for continuance to the next meeting in November. When staff received the request, the legal notice had already been sent out and the meeting advertised. A staff report and resolution has been 2 ( MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6. 2009 prepared. If the Commission wished, he would continue with the public hearing, or they could continue it to the next meeting in November. Commissioner Campbell asked if there was anyone present regarding this public hearing. If they were, they should hear from them. Chairperson Tanner stated that it was his opinion that they should not continue it, but proceed and vote. Commissioners Campbell, DeLuna and Limont agreed. Chairperson Tanner asked for the staff report. Mr. Swartz reviewed the staff report. He noted that the Architectural Review Commission recommended denial based on the fact that they felt that the two signs created clutter on the building. Staff also recommended denial and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution denying Case No. VAR 09-330. Commissioner DeLuna asked if they had permission to move the Cambria sign from the center of the building over to the corner. Mr. Swartz said no. Commissioner DeLuna noted that there were actually two issues: they moved the sign over and then stuck another one on the same side. Mr. Swartz stated that was correct, but indicated that the signs meet the code, so if they shifted it over, all that the applicant would have to do was submit a new site plan and that could be approved. But the issue was the second sign that was added onto the building. Mr. Swartz noted that both signs on that elevation meet the sign criteria in regard to size. There were no other questions of staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or a representative was present to address the Commission. MS. CANDICE KNOX, the applicant for Cambria, stated that she worked at the design center at this location. They were asking for a continuance and were hoping they could have representation from their home office in Minnesota. But she was present. She said the bottom line of what Cambria is Iooking at is that they've come to Palm Desert to do business; they are a national American family-owned company. They employ ten people in the Palm Desert area and have been very active as far as giving back to the community. She respected the Architectural Review Board and the one thing she wanted to say was that it wasn't a unanimous decision. She understood 3 �( � MINUTES . PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 6 200q that the code strives for one sign per location with the criteria being that it is not cluttered and in proportion, which she believed was what they have here. So looking at the situation as it is, they still didn't have a unanimous decision saying that it's a problem. Ms. Knox said she had letters from the owner of the property saying that he is very happy with them being a tenant. Anybody within the empty spaces that are there is brought to their gorgeous design center. They just received three design awards from the American Society of Interior Design for three of the vignettes in their design center and their six vignettes were done by professionals of ASID here in the community. She would be having a board meeting for ASID. They open their doors at the design center for a lot of different community groups. The feedback they've had from the community is that they are a great asset. They think their signs are beautiful, their showroom is gorgeous, and she guessed for Cambria, their feeling is that they are just trying to do business here and their feeling that she was getting back from them is that they just want to do everything possible to make sure they can do business here. They believed with the way that they do their presentations and the way that Cambria promotes itself nationally and in Canada that this was the way they wanted to be seen by the community and to insure that no one misses them and drives by. They thought it was well done and in good taste and hoped it could stay there. That was their intention. Commissioner DeLuna expressed delight that they are here and welcomed Cambria to Palm Desert. She asked if they were aware that they were not allowed to have two signs on the same side of the building when they put the second sign up. Ms. Knox said no, she would not have been. They have a national sign company. She personally wasn't a parly to that and when it came up before Architectural Review, the representative from Cambria apologized. Commissioner DeLuna thanked her. Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairperson Tanner asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the variance. There was no one� and the public hearing was closed. Chairperson Tanner asked for Commission comments or action. 4 ( � MINUTES � • PALM I�FSERT PL4NNING COMMISSION OCTOBER_6. 2 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, approving the findings and recommendation as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). It was move by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2512, denying Variance 09-330. The motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Schmidt was absent). B. Case No. CUP 07-03— CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for revocation of an existing conditional use permit for a massage therapy massage establishment in a 928 square foot retail suite located at 73-891 Highway 111. Business Owner: Jeon Suyong. Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz reviewed the staff report, noting that a Declaration was submitted prior to the meeting and was distributed to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended revocation of Conditional Use Permit 07-03. (Staff note: The Planning Commission received and reviewed Declarations from David Harvey Brown III and Alan Livreri prior to the start of the meeting.) Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. CHADWICK BRADBURY, 41-945 Boardwalk, Suite A, in Palm Desert, stated that he is an attorney in Palm Desert and was recently retained by Ms. Suyong to speak for her today since she was unable to speak for herself. He stated that she does not speak English; she's a Korean national. She's a lawfully registered alien in the United States. It had been very difficult for him to communicate with her; he has had to go through interpreters, her daughter in Los Angeles, to understand what has happened. Mr. Bradbury stated that she didn't realize the seriousness of these charges that were pending against her, plain and simple. If they looked at the charges, they're largely administrative in nature. There had been no question of any moral or ethical violations. They were primarily administrative in nature; business practices. He felt that a revocation was an extreme remedy. She did not understand what she was facing and it is her only source of income. He had been 5 � ARCHITECTURAL R��_!EW COMMISSION � � MINUTES August 11, 2009 6. CASE NO: VAR 09-330 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• CANDICE KNOX, 42210 Cook Street, Suite M, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument signage: Cambria LOCATION: 42210 Cook Street, Suite M ZONE: SI Mr. Swartz presented the project and stated that this is a variance for two signs on one frontage and will have to go to Planning Commission. He explained that when Cambria first came in they were approved for two wall signs. Those two signs are currently on the building but they have since added another sign, which makes it two signs on one frontage. He pointed out that no other business in the complex has two signs. Commissioner Touschner asked what staff was looking for from this Commission and Mr. Swartz stated that the ARC would be making a recommendation to the Planning Commission for a variance. Commissioner Levin was at a loss as to why they need finro signs since they seemed to be very visible particularly located on the corner. Ms. Candice Knox, Cambria stated that they are looking for a variance for the second sign over the terra cotta structure and respects that the city strives for only one sign per complex. However, their problem with the one sign is with the 70-foot frontage, as well as having two separate facades of different materials and colors. What they are finding is that it is very hard for people to find their location. The sign is great as you drive by but once you drive into the complex they cannot locate where the entry to the store is since the sign is located on the upper part of this huge complex. Having the sign down on the terra cotta structure would be much easier to locate the entrance. Mr. Swartz asked if they would be willing to remove one of the signs on the upper fa�ade. Ms. Knox stated that they would then lose some of the visibility from the street. She mentioned that she had letters from the owner of the properry as well as some of the business owners who are very happy with Cambria being there and G:1PlanningWanineJudylWordFileslAMinutes�2009WR090811min.doc Page 11 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIC. . COMMISSION �_ • MINUTES August 11, 2009 they have no problem with their signage. She also presented photos of the complex showing that no other business has two signs but no one else has the same criteria as Cambria with a 70- foot frontage, as well as two entry doors and two different facades. Commissioner Touschner asked about the existing signs. Mr. Swartz stated that all three signs are currently there, but they were originally only approved for two signs. Commissioner Touschner asked where the main entry door was located. Ms. Knox stated that it was under the terra cotta element and said that the other businesses have more of a balance where their entries are located. Ms. Knox stated that they have a sign that is high quality, very attractive and in proportion to the size of the space that they have. She pointed out that they made a calculated decision bringing Cambria to Palm Desert and to that specific location on Cook Street and really feel that they have enhanced not only the Cook Street Marketplace, but Cook Street in general. Commissioner Vuksic was worried about precedent because he thought they didn't need a sign over their entry and unfortunately they don't have a strong architectural statement telling them where the entry is. Ms. Knox agreed and stated that this is the difficulty people are experiencing when they are driving up. Commissioner Vuksic said that 70 feet isn't that big and couldn't imagine that people can't find their address. Ms. Knox stated that there is no Cook Street access so people enter. off of Greenway and come into the Cook Street Marketplace and then when they are in the complex they wonder where Cambria is located. Commissioner Lambell referred to one of the photos of Francis and Wane and agreed that this is not seen as you are driving through the parking lot parallel to Cook Street, but they have their name prominently on their front doors. Paper polls have something on their door and it is very visible from a car, Cambria doesn't have anything on their doors. Ms. Knox stated that when she was looking to see what the city wanted as far as beauty and simplicity, she felt that this wasn't particularly attractive. Commissioner Lambell felt that when you are trying to reach someone in a car that is where you would look, not up at the huge sign on the side of the building. She agreed that the big Cambria signs were wonderful and were great advertising out on Cook Street, but if they are trying to get someone coming up she suggested putting something on the door. G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR090811min.doc Page 12 of 18 , � ARCHITECTURAL �...IEW COMMISSION `� MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Touschner said that her concern with the terra cotta piece is that half of the letters are obscured because of the tree which is not doing them any justice. She thought it was smart of them to put the sign on the corner and felt they didn't need to have the sign on the terra cotta piece. Ms. Knox stated that it all depends on the angle and said there are trees that bfock the other side as well. She thought that this sign was attractive and simple. Commissioner Touschner agreed that the sign was attractive and tasteful and in the right location where you would want to put signage, but it's all about what Commissioner Vuksic said about this starting a precedent. Commissioner Van Vliet also agreed and said that the Commission would have to have a pretty compelling reason to grant a variance and go against the ordinance and he didn't see one here. He asked what would prevent other people in the future from coming in and wanting double signs in the front. Another representative from Cambria asked if the precedent was for the double signage or professional signage. He stated that the new sign was very professional and said that people cannot see the sign driving up. The first time he came to this location he had to turn on Cook Street and had difficulty finding their location. He understands that they can put signs in the windows but they like to have a very professional look. He felt that the precedence they are setting is that you keep this professional for companies located in a somewhat industrial area. Commissioner Vuksic felt that they could enhance their entry with special paving or landscaping where they don't want people walking into the store; making it clear to the public where they should enter. Commissioner Vuksic explained what he meant by precedent. The Commission's concern is what they will say to the next person wanting the same thing because the public can't tell where their door is. Ms. Knox said she understands that the city strives for one sign per frontage, but she felt they met other criteria. Commissioner Levin had a problem with them coming back asking for forgiveness not permission. They went ahead and consciously did it without permission and now they are coming back and trying to justify it under professionalism. He asked why they didn't come to the Commission initially and request another sign. The representative agreed that they made a mistake. Mr. Swartz wanted to point out that the Commission will determine if it is compatible or if it creates too much clutter, then staff will take their recommendation to the Planning Commission. G:\PlanningUanineJudylWordFiles�,4Minutes�2009WR090811min.doc Page 13 of 18 ARCHITECTURAL REV�. ! COMMISSION �� • MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Van Vliet stated that there is no question that the sign is professionally done, but felt that it could be done in other ways. For instance having directional signage or signage on the doors could direct people to the entrance. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a monument sign for this complex. Mr. Swartz stated that there is one near Jensen's on Cook Street. Commissioner Lambell asked if their name was on the monument sign and Ms. Knox said that it was not. It currently has the Nail Company and California Closets which doesn't leave much room for Cambria, other than the space six inches above the dirt. She felt that it wouldn't work the way it was situated. Commissioner Levin didn't think that would help anyone find Cambria. They already know they are there because the signs are visible coming from both directions on Cook Street. He wasn't sure how someone would have a tough time finding Cambria if their signs were over the corner of the building. Ms. Knox stated that from a design standpoint she thought the new sign looked more in proportion to the rest of the complex. She presented photos of the other businesses in the complex. Commissioner Touschner said she was struggling with Ms. Knox's statement that this sign is more proportional. The signs may be in the same place but none of those businesses have finro signs on one singular fa�ade. Ms. Knox stated that they could not have another sign because they do not have the same architectural design as Cambria. She felt that the Cambria sign is compatible and proportional to their space. Commissioner Touschner said that the issue isn't that the sign doesn't look great; the issue is their reasoning to have two. She said that the signs look great and probably don't create clutter, but Commissioner Vuksic had a good point that the front door needs signage to identify it as the entrance. She also pointed out that there is handicap parking which identifies it as the entrance. Commissioner Touschner made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that this sign does not create clutter and is compatible to the building; however there is no strong reason for having two signs on one elevation. Commissioner Lambell said this needs to be a recommendation for approval or denial and felt that this is not compatible to the complex. The other businesses whether they have one or two arches, only have one sign. So for Cambria to place one over the door, one in the upper corner and one around the corner doesn't seem to be compatible. She agrees that the clutter is not the issue, but the compatibility with the other stores G:\Planning`JanineJudylWordFilesVlMinutes12009�AR090811min.doc Page 14 of 18 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�.�EW COMMISSION � MINUTES August 11, 2009 becomes an issue. Ms. Knox said that the design of the other stores would not allow them to put a secondary sign. It would be different if they all had the same and Cambria was the only one who had two but when you look at the design of the complex Cambria was the only one that could actually put a second sign and have it look good. Commissioner Levin asked if Cambria had any architectural input in the way the building was designed or did they came in as a tenant. Ms. Knox stated that they came in as a tenant. Commissioner Levin stated that if they had centered the sign over the left side it would have made it more visible from Cook Street and then you could have eliminated the upper sign. It would then become a question of picking one or the other signs. Ms. Knox stated that they are not interested in removing one of the signs. She said that she hasn't looked into other options and appreciated Commissioner Levin's input. Commissioner Vuksic said if the corner feels like the entry and that is where people go he asked if they have thought about rearranging the interior. Ms. Knox stated that would be a huge expense because they would have to change the layout of the design center. She said they really have a beautiful facility and are pleased to be in Palm Desert and a part of the community and are here to stay and invest in Palm Desert. They bought a beautiful space and a beautiful sign and hopes there is a way to keep it up. Commissioner Van Vliet mentioned that Commissioner Touschner made a recommendation and asked if there was a second to the motion. Commissioner Touschner said that when you look at the photos of the businesses in the complex they all have a sign centered over their entrance. The Commission discussed the complex and the locations of their signs. Commissioner Touschner restated her recommendation that Cambria be allowed to have three signs and that the third sign is located directly over the entrance for consistency with the complex and that this approach does not allow clutter. Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he still had a problem with the sign and felt that there were other ways to do it. He thought something in the window or a small directional sign, or pots on each side of the archway would give the entry way some definition. The vote failed 2-3-0-1 with Commissioners Lambell, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent. G:1PlanningWanineJudy\WordFiles�AMinutes�20091AR090811min.doc Page 15 of 18 f ARCHITECTURAL REV��..J COMMISSION 4`�. � MINUTES August 11, 2009 Commissioner Lambell agreed that there are other ways to go about this than having their name twice on the same facade. The two signs on the corners are in wonderful taste. They are beautiful and very visible coming up or down Cook Street and suggested being creative to get people to their front door. Commissioner Lambell made a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the third sign on the terra cotta adds clutter and is not compatible with the rest of the complex. Commissioner Van Vliet made the second and asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Vuksic asked if the Commission was recommending that Cambria have either the sign higher up on the parapet or the one over the entry, and not just that the one over the entry which makes it look cluttered. Commissioner Lambell stated that the one on the terra cotta piece is the one that was put up without an approval. Commissioner Vuksic stated that we have to look at this as thought it was never there and what will we accept. Mr. Swartz stated that with their original permit these locations were never part of the original approval so part of the recommendation could be to keep the sign on the terra cotta piece or remove the upper sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked Commissioner Lambell to consider broadening her motion a bit not just to say that the one on the terra cotta surface is unacceptable but may be acceptable if the sign on the upper parapet was removed. The representative asked if the Commission really thought that would look nicer. Commissioner Van Vliet said that they were giving them a choice to make that decision. Commissioner Vuksic thought it would look nicer because when you look at what is there now you see a lot of the same sign. The representative said that they were only looking at this from one angle. You have to think of yourself driving down and seeing the one sign more than the one in the front. Commissioner Lambell expressed to the representative that it's not this Commission's decision which sign stays or goes. Their decision is merely to decide if it is cluttered or if it's incompatible with the complex. She explained to the representatives that when they are preparing for the Planning Commission that they give that some thought. She asked them to be able to define their entry in a more visible way as opposed to the sign. She didn't think she wanted to change the motion to say one has to stay or go. It needs to say that it is cluttered and that it is not compatible; which is what G:1PlanningWanina JudylWord FilesW Minutes�2009WR09p911min.doc Page 16 of 18 ' ARCHITECTURAL R�..cW COMMISSION � MINUTES August 11, 2009 the Planning Commission wants to hear from this Commission. She said that her motion stands and Commissioner Van Vliet stated that his second stands. There being no further discussion, the vote was taken. ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to deny Case VAR 09-330 subject to two signs on one frontage adds clutter and is not compatibte to the rest of the shopping center. Motion carried 4-1-0-1, with Commissioner Touschner voting NO and Commissioner Gregory absent. NOTE: Staff requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda. The Commission concurred. It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, adding Case No. SA 09-316 to the agenda. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioner Gregory absent. 7. CASE NO: SA 09-316 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHAPMAN'S FINE MENSWEAR 73-740 EI Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of new awning and signage; Chapman's Fine Menswear. LOCATION: 73-740 EI Paseo ZONE: C-1 SP Ms. Grisa presented this project and stated that this item came before the Commission at the last meeting. This item was continued subject to: 1) all underside brackets & connectors neatly installed; 2) underside of canopy with light piece to be continuous from wall to wall and painted out black to blend with canopy; 3) no shelf on light box; and 4) submitting installation shop drawings for canopy. Mr. Jim Sadler, American Awning stated that the reason they went with a shorter light box was so that you wouldn't see it from the side. The back of the box will go all the way up to meet the back of the framing; without a ledge. It will be completely enclosed with fabric the full width of the canopy. The frame will be painted black G:\PlanningUanineJudy\WordFilesVlMinutes�2009V1R090811min.doc Page 17 of 18 LAKESIDE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, L.P. 56-830 Merion La Quinta, Califoroia 92253 fY601ZT1-0080 • Celi f9491285-5606 August 4, 2009 To Whom It May Conern City of Palm Desert I think you will agree that the Cook Street Marketplace has proven to be quite an attra.ctive development, especially for a predominantly industrial area. As a center for design products for home related building and improvement,the center has become both a showcase for the area and designer's destination for the entire valley. We have the finest tenants representing a broad range of residential products. Cambria is one of our finest additions to the center. Their presence has added greatly to the center's diversity with the finest products around. Since they were new to the area, it was important that they have good visibility. I approved their signage because it looked very clean, bold and professional. The two signs did not clutter the storefront appearance and seemed to fit the two elevation changes. This also allowed pedestrians to view the name of the store better. Hanging pendent signs can be dangerous and painted letters on the windows is not very professional. I totally support Cambria in their request for sign approval and urge the City to do the same. I'm not positive but believe they are in conformance regarding area and linear perimeters for signage. They certainly look great proportionately. I hope you will take into consideration these other factors which contribute to their overall looks. Sincerely, G�\ Robert L. Green General Partner Lakeside Investment Properties, L.P. Francis and Wane Inc. August 6, 2009 42210 Cook St., STE. J Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-568-9673 City of Palm Desert, As a business owner and tenant at the Cook Street Marketplace, [ am happy to have Cambria as a neighbor; the Design Center is a welcome addition to the center. Cambria's signage is attractive and compatible with the overall image of the complex. I have no problem with the second Cambria sign and in fact believe it enhances the look of the entire complex. As an anchor tenant, on the far corner of the strip, the second Cambria sign over the additional front fa�ade balances the large frontage space and aides customers in finding the entrance. Cambria has increased traffic flow to the Cook Street Marketplace and the in-store events have increased visibility to neighboring businesses. Overall I am very pleased with Cambria, the Design Center and their signage; I support and applaud their efforts to do business in Palm Desert. Respectfully, Jay Andrews Mark Von Iderstein Partner Partner � � r� ¢L1�� i t �..4F !S Ya.Y\-.F " �:,y1. ,�j �E �� ytty.3Tn� �;� �� '� ��"�'� a t��P-,r' � , -+, � � �� r ��.� ,„ �y�'4.�.� . � - � i ' �" � �' �� e � � ��- � � � h �' S a � �` � ��i �. � � ,;� , i ,�.�' � ; 4 ��` � 'ii , `� ' � -� .� .r.��L'y�;, . . 'ti a �' Y. . , . *,�: p� �-. , .a "tr� ,,` '.&y� +„�` . i:y � 4+5;. �' ,�j � �� r. 1 � � � ��, ' 1"�-.. . . . , . . � $` �E��- y --'=� � ' t 3n11 f r`� - R"' � d . . . . ...� . . �� '��.� �{+`�� ' . �, ,� ��1"�Y� . w � � � � }�y .• � •_ Y(� � • 1 �. .1� .. {ly .lp'Ya.� *., i . ��'!�'t___f1y J_ �. . . . , . , .� �� ?4�J"^' `� - . .i'_I� �• r ��°� I � �.� �; . �i' .rF�, . .�. ._ �'f'9 � }��'��'� ��I " � �� .. { .�,:.f. � o _� -� : � � � � �� t� = � � �� t „3 �..,:, r :�- ' � _ r i �, I�^ �� .. � � K" °`�� t y4 � �b. �+ t . . Y':�� .. ,x` a X �£. _ # ,�,. �_._ r , � { � _. � � � , i � 'P �.a� #'-" K � <,.., . , . . ... �.- , ��_:�-., ... � I g . j:. � � �" ��Fa� .:�� qi� � _ ��.A ( � � �' I �; �,'t r �:I' ^^x�T � � e - _ . N �yt .,I t . a •�� „' r�4� e '" � ai �'.� . . '� r"?t ,�{,�y,�. � t scsi � ,� W a'iR4��iT"" .. -. ... . + ': t� ' �� . . :€:;�� ,.'� �� ; ��,' � � �,. . .. y ,. .,. . —o�.�..-.s r,°!�a�"""_ -- _. ... . .. ... . . ..... . ... , _ _.n �` < . .' ' r.r, ?� 'I� ,r�, ��. ...._. - `^ �'. +Ar", � j� . �6 .'�aa� .w�a`.y.`� � '� x �� f� �7 F � a �', � ' na � 461, +�. '� 31" �� ; b� !�f y„� , � �~ Cf � �' � 1�� ly,c I � .a,, "^�."'"'_"".. -- " �. .. � - _.. . "'r 4 �; � s,� � � �y��1��; s C � � F e ^� ' .c �� w.+ . v� rv�. .� .tF � � .in ��IR3'95fe- ...IJ. ` :. Fb' .__ �� l.• V4�qFrr.. � . p �I . .. . . �. . �� . �� i ....r.v..u:no A�'IRfi 5 tl- �.=,�u.ni�v .im-.r.,.. :�,w_s.��. -�. �..,,._.-.. .--w..:_,_ .. ,� ��ti �,�;�,.� � � � � -� _ �; � ,.� , ....:.: . � _.<.: ._.__ __ _ t u �., � � � �*�M�► fi, � ;', '�• r '�� ,(° k� ��t '' � �.� - H �� ' � Y� � 1 . .il: t I � �P14i F M1 d. � .yP' � `! �/ � 1 I , 1 ��1' � � r . � 1 ` '' � • ' , l�r; � Di� ,- Y w , e� , 1 - �.M,a.n,,,�-- u ==:,�� , ��:�. - � ., �� r,r,.� .,4 ^^"�" �� .. - � � :-..:rtl tr . ...... .. . .._. ._.. , . .. � � .. a_ . s� _ _ . .� ��`.�7��.L VRl• � t . �ltl+:l.�•� �F `y. y.: . . . n rt �� (. }y' .' tg L ,.-: : 1 - �{�P T` n{ 4'.. • �� .s i .«.�. ,, i: .. ,.w,.. <_._�.,x-..:-^�-��. . .. �� . �, y. � #. � �A "M�qp µ� q �o ��` �i� ,�' a K i" :� � i � F j j � � . r �� i�,�, .�:_ i �� , � ,� a. ,. . � . r a'�" ..'. 3u�, +.w�iWc Mf-'�&- , 1 _ . .�y �-' :. z . t�l�'�+r+.w�'a`—_' ._'_ �.u- .� x� .. .-_. �y� y...�i r _ �rv+�� r,*„ ,�r , , o� �.* . ....w ,wan+^ ' _J�1) nm+i�� . �ue�n�wr'uw.'. ey r5t* . �{tll�,'�T. .,rn,` ,J«z[�.'. _ � . ' ��' � '_ "' ? ,. . .�...� �:. �r� � ,:.�� dl .:.� ' . ._ ..�, .,,'�i�.. $ ;' • _"'„ww`i..�-.