HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR 08-304 - Ntl Sign & Marketing/The Evans Co. (Carls Jr.) 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 � , /� �C�
Principal Planner MEETING DATE
CJ CONTINUED TO _ � '��C!' 'G�
APPLICANT: National Sign and Marketing
Edward C. Blend ❑ PASSED TO 2ND READING
13580 5t" Street
Chino, CA 91710
The Evans Company �'������aA�---� � `�G �
36-891 Cook Street ����f�,����� � - �� . C"'�C�
Palm Desert, CA 92211
G� �AS�E�TQ 2ND R�OtNG
CASE NO: VAR 08-304
DATE: February 12, 2009 MEETING DATE � • �o� - L��.
CONTENTS: Resolution of Denial � ��d�o►dUEO TO ' l '�/
Legal Notice [� PASSEd 70 2ND READtN6
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 09-12 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.
,��� �� ��
h1EE1'I G DA7E,
l= �l /��
CUNTlNUEDTO��,.� / -�l✓�
i.� PASSEB TO 2ND RE�4DtiVG
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:\UserslkrussoWppData\Local\Microsok\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Conlent.OuUook\POBMMTDI(�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\StaH Reports\VAR\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr\Feb 12 City Coundl Report(2).doc
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 35t" 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 08•304 Carls Jr\Feb 12 City Coundl 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.
S_iqnaqe Subcommittee Meetinq:
On January 8t''° 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\Staff Reports\VAR\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr�Feb 12 City Council 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: � .
CITY COUNCIL��CTION
�,�' APPROVED DENIED ,..,,,..�. _....
�- �n ' R CEIVED OTHER���
•�u--- �.� �� ......._.._..
Homer Croy � ���'
ACM for Deve nt Services MEET G DA �- -
AYEs: '' her� ar r �
�� � NOESa
L ABSENT:
J ohlmuth ABSTAIN: -
VERIFIED BY: ' 1
City M nager Original on File with City rk's Office
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\VAR\VAF 08304 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 11 tn
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 properry fronting on Gera/d Ford Drive and the generous size
of the properly there is no difficu/ty or physical hardship re/ated 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 properly 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 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 wou/d 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 12t" 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
CI1V Of Pfll �l DESERT
73-5�0 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESEftT,GflLIFOftN1A gZZ60-2S78
TEL:�60 ;46-o6t�
FAX:�60 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 heid 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.
___ _...s.__.___.__ _
CI of Palm Desert Ma
� "i
4
� i
6 i
6 � ��'A ;
' '`°�
o �� c��Rw
a = o
A = �
{�
\ /�'"
o���c Q� +� �
R,�\ �v -�'"`�_-'^-GERqLD FORO OR--^--�-��-...�.
c����� . �� �
FC�. J~.
�R
G,`
��� �� �
y�..� N
� Y
a
4�rc
�W
'c�.�___ �
w � BERGER RD /
J f J
O y
� Q
�� O
'�` �� o
� _ _ -- ------____
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 befinreen 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, �
.pwith staff to work with Signage' �abcommittee on related Resolution No. 08-108
amendments to the zoning Ordinance in the interim.
,- ..�.... > -�>��.�. <,�.-.:,�,� �:�.�
f��
CITY OF PALM DESE�T / .�� � M1
i=� ' � °u'.'=i�� ..,��...�1� �
� .__
__ ._.�
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D�V v QPM��� ;�.� , � �� �C�'�
�
;
STAFF REPORT � '��'� ' tr`' ' ��':� �
,. .��� �_v=��.����.�...�..�.,�d�,.,�
�._�,,,��;,�a. ��..r� n,_.. �
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 Viflage. 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 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.
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 properry
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 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 Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Carls Jrkarls jr appeal to cc.doc
�� , � � �
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.
11. 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 Swurtz\Wurd\VAR 08-304 Carls Jrkarlsjr appeal m cc.doc
� � t
, . ,
Staff Report
VAR 08-304
December 11, 2008
Page 4 of 5
of monument signs the code aliows, for Carl'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 Gerald 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
Vil/age have a monument sign.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the properly 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 properly 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�ICevin Swattz\Word\VAR OS-304 Curls Jrkarls jr appeal to cc.doc ,
��
; � i'
, , �
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 would 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:
, .
�X/ � ..--
��
Kevin Swartz f Lauri Aylaian
Assistant Planner Director, Community Development
Approval:
.--'�'.-
�%''�.-
�r�j Homer Croy
� ACM for Development Services
Carlos L. ga
City Manager
G:1Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Carls JrVcarlsjr appzal m 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 forone monumentsign perfrontage,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.thatwasn'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 that were adjacent to that
interchange.
Councilman Ferguson replied it was a great idea.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing o�en 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 City Attorney 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 failed 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 two 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
whaYs 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, finrist, 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 iYs 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 Pfll �l DESERI
73-5�O FRED V�IARING DRIVE
`' PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2575
�L: 760 346—o6i�
Fnx: 760 34�-7098
in fo@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, Califomia 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.
�
Tony Bagato, Ac ing Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
�
C)nimo a�Facuo ruFi
! r,
\ �
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 difficulty or physical hardship related to the property in
question.
B. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
The property is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no extraordinary
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 ofher variances have been approved for signage in the vicinity. The
applicant is not deprived of any privileges that others enjoy in the same area.
1 f, .
b
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2487
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 detrimenra/ 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� Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That Variance OS-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 Ptanning 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.
��� � �
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 properry 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.
III. 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\Word1VAR 08-304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission StaH 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.
K
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 08304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission StaN Report.doc
;� r
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 to the property fronting on Gerald Ford Drive and the generous
size of the properly 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 properly is not of a highly irregular shape, and there are no
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab/e 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 app/icant 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 materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity.
G1Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Cads Jr\Planning Commission StaH Report.dce
(� ��'
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.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , denying VAR 08-304.
VI11. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action and Minutes
D. Exhibits: Plans and Photo-simulations
Submitted by: Department Head:
��'`v� �--� �
��
Kevin Swartz Lauri Aylaian
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Approval: �
/
,
� �� ,�
� .
Homer Croy
ACM for Develo ent Services
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\VAR 08-304 Carls Jr\Planning Commission Stafl Report.doc
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008
VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Reports and documents re/ating to each of the fo/lowing items listed on the
agenda are on tile in the Department of Community Development and are
available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday,
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Pa/m Desert, CA 92260, (760) 346-
0611.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW OS-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
ERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 2008
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
ERT 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 iYs there. You can drive south on Cook Street
and if you don't happen to glance to the right, if you are going �
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
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 008
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
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7 008
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
ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI�SION OCTOBER 7
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
LM DESERT PLANNING GOMMISSION OCTOBER 7
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 08-241 — 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. Campbetl 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 92260-257$
TEL: ']60 346-06<<
F�vc: 760 34i-7o98
i nfo@palm-desert.org
August 28, 2008
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NOS: VAR 08-304
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
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 responsibitity 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.
�
��nurto o�Riaato nnt
(�
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 FilesW Minutes�2008V1q080826.min.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 JudylWord FilesW Minutes�2008V1R080826.min.doc 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:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2008�AR080826.min.doc Page 10 of 15
i
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES August 26, 2008
The Commission reviewed 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�2008V1R080826.min.doc Page 11 of 15
i r
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:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2008V1R080826.min.doc Page 12 of 15