CITY OF PALM DESERT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
August 10, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 14 1 Chris Van Vliet X 14 1 John Vuksic X 14 1 Karel Lambell X 15 Pam Touschner X 10 5 Allan Levin X 14 1 Ken Stendell X 14 1
Also Present Lauri Aylaian, Director Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist Pedro Rodriquez, Senior Code Officer Christine Canales, Assistant Engineer Janine Judy, Senior Office Assistant
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 13, 2010 & July 27, 2010
Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to approve the July 13, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Van Vliet abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
Action: It was moved by Commissioner Van Vliet, seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to approve the July 27, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
V. CASES:
A. Final Drawings:
1. CASE NO: MISC 10-246
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): SEPHORA USA, INC. 525 Market St., 32nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a storefront façade remodel; Sephora USA.
LOCATION: 73-545 El Paseo, Suite 1620
ZONE: C-1
Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. She stated that Sephora USA, Inc. has proposed a remodel of the storefront façade located at the southeast corner of The Gardens on El Paseo where Banana Republic was temporarily located. This space has a small amount of frontage that extends to the east on El Paseo and more frontage that extends south on San Pablo Avenue. The applicant has proposed replacing these frontage walls with larger expanses of a storefront glazing system trimmed in brushed stainless steel frames. The corner tower element would be enclosed by moving the glazing system to the outer edge of the building. The entrance doors will still be located further back so open swinging doors do not enter the pedestrian path. Black powder coated metal canopies extend across all glazing systems nearly 11’ above ground, except between the lower glass and the clerestory glass located furthest south on San Pablo Avenue. This area is covered in black brake metal and lies flush with the adjacent wall covered in black powder coated brake metal panels. On the west façade some of the stainless steel frame is hidden by black break metal bands to continue the design of that façade. A black granite base is located beneath all windows and around the base of the corner tower feature. Over the black metal panels is an internally illuminated ‘S’ logo that fills the blank space of wall. The two pilasters on the front tower element are proposed to be resurfaced with a layer of black and white stucco forming a striped pattern at this location, while the remaining surfaces of the tower would be covered in black stucco. Six black light sconces surround the corner tower façade. Additional recessed lighting is illustrated under the main entrance overhang. The applicant has proposed
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 2 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
face-lit white pin-mounted ‘SEPHORA’ signage on the center tower façade and face-lit pin-mounted ‘SEPHORA’ signage along the west eyebrow. Additionally, the ‘S’ logo is further south on San Pablo within the blank space of the wall. Two blade signs are proposed, which are allowed under the current sign program. These signs must be located at a minimum 7’-6” above ground, be no larger than 3 sq. ft. and project no more than 3’ from the wall.
Staff believes the overall design enhances this tenant space at The Gardens, but is concerned with the amount of solid black stucco color extending the full height of the tower element. Although, this is one of the branding colors of the store, staff believes the amount of black can be reduced to effectively use their branding colors without overpowering the corner with this color. The proposed blade signs are slightly oversized and need to be reduced to a maximum size of 3 sq. ft. All other signs are within allowable signage limits. Tenant design criteria also require an awning or shade structure of glass, fabric or metal at Type 1 storefronts. Staff does not consider the black powder coated banding a shade structure, but rather an architectural feature. The bands have a depth of 6”, except for the location above the front door which is 12”. The front valance of this band should have a maximum height of 12”. The sign program additionally requires blade signs to hang from this structure and be externally illuminated. The applicant is expanding the glazing and these bands should be increased in depth to create more shade relief as indicated in the tenant design criteria. Staff does not see a problem with the internally illuminated blade signs and the 1’-3” height of the band. Additionally, the property owner has endorsed this application illustrating approval of the contradictory features. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the storefront façade remodel for Sephora USA, Inc. subject to commissioner comments based on the staff findings above.
Ms. Erin Auses, Store Planner said there a few material changes from the original submission and presented the changes to the Commission. On the original submission along the San Pablo elevation they were showing storefront glazing that was purely aesthetic. They are proposing to change the black break metal panel behind the “S” logo to granite so the recesses instead of the glazing will relate better to the context of the surroundings. She said they had some concerns with the black metal panels with the oil canning and fading so they thought the black granite would respond better.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 3 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Commissioner Touschner stated she has a problem with the black and the stripes because it is so different than anything on that block. There are some dark facades like Between the Sheets but it blends in with the color pallet of the whole campus. The sides look nice; indenting their symbols in black on the sides and it is an appropriate use of their branding and is still within the architecture. She feels there is a way for them to stick out and have their identity, but be a part of the whole. This is having an identity without having any respect for the whole. Ms. Auses stated that in her conversations with the landlord representative they asked us to claim that corner rotunda and make a bold statement. She said they do like to stand out and Commissioner Touschner said that is fair enough, but felt there is a way to do that and still blend in without sticking out. Ms. Auses stated that the striping is something they try to incorporate with their Sephora flame, as well as the stripes in their storefronts and asked how they could go about doing the stripes without standing out. Commissioner Touschner stated that part of it is the two columns; they look like legs holding up something. Think of it as a whole and have it work together not these two sticks that are holding up a top.
Commissioner Gregory said that virtually all of the colors on most of the buildings are earth tones and the black is deviating from that; clearly an attempt to be noticed. Commissioner Touschner stated that Williams Sonoma is grass green and not earth tone. She thinks it’s possible to still have their brand, but it has engulfed their architecture. Commissioner Lambell stated that it is the amount of black where the Sephora sign is that is of concern. If it was not so black on this corner it will feel better and be more a part of the whole.
Commissioner Lambell made a motion to continue and Commissioner Touschner seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for further discussion.
Mr. Bob Fliday, The Gardens, said that black and white is Sephora’s colors, so they are not going to be able to change significantly to any other color. They may be able to change it to black and make it a little whiter. There will be striping involved and that is okay with the landlord. Commissioner Lambell stated that it is the amount of massing of the black that is of concern. Commissioner Touschner also suggested that they explain their banding; it should be wider.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 4 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to continue Case MISC 10-246 to redesign the striping and the amount of black massing. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent
2. CASE NO: SA 10-248
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD), 85-995 Avenue 52, Coachella, CA 92236
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a sign program for the new CVWD building.
LOCATION: 75-515 Hovley Lane East
ZONE: S.I.
Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is proposing signage for a new building located on Hovley Lane East in Palm Desert. Signage consists of one monument sign, one sign located on the exterior site wall, and one sign on a guardhouse. The monument sign would be located at the corner of Beacon Hill and Hovley Lane East facing northwest. The sign has a 42” x 36” CVWD custom cast metal logo along with the text ‘Coachella Valley Water District’ at 14” high and the address numbers at 8” high. These are all illustrated in a gold cast metal material to match the existing logo. The overall sign is 9’-6” to the highest point and has an overall length of 53’. Signage background materials consist of split face tan block, a green powder-coated corrugated metal, and blue powder- coated sheet metal panel. Ground mounted up-lights will illuminate this sign. No lighting specification or type of product was identified in the package. Wall signage is located on the north exterior site wall adjacent to the main entrance. The proposed signage consists of the text ‘Coachella Valley Water District’ in 10” high green lettering, the 26” x 30” custom cast metal logo in a gold color, and 8” high address numbers in a green color. These signs are illuminated by ground-mounted up-lights as well. No specification or type of product was identified in the package. A final wall sign is proposed to be located on the guardhouse located on the west side of the site. The text ‘CVWD’ will be 10” high and the address numbers will be 12” high, both made of cast black metal. No lighting
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 5 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
is indicated. The monument sign code allows up to 61 sq. ft. of sign area; therefore, the sign area is in compliance with the requirements of the code. The maximum height of a monument sign is 6’ unless topographic or other features necessitate a higher sign. Sign height measurement is defined as the difference between the adjacent grade and the highest part of the text area. The measurement to the top of the text is 5’-9” indicating compliance with the code. The Architectural Review Commission may approve and exclude decorative features of the sign from the measurement of sign height. Wall signage and guardhouse signage are within allowable sign area requirements.
Landscape plans are not included in this set; the landscape specialist will verify at the meeting whether the monument sign was accounted for in landscape plans for the new building. If not, a modified landscape plan may be necessary. Additionally, the sign appears to be located outside of the 40’ triangle necessary to maintain traffic views at the corner. Public Works requires that a 40’ triangle remain un-built upon to maintain clear traffic views. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Commission approve the CVWD sign program as presented.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the colors for the sign. Commissioner Vuksic asked how the sign was being lit and the representative stated that it was ground mounted in-lighting. Ms. Grisa said that the applicant will need to submit the lighting plan since there were no specifications of the lumens or the illumination levels.
Commissioner Touschner asked if there was a problem with it being 9’ high and Commissioner Vuksic responded that the code will let you go higher for artistic effect as long as the lettering is below 6’. He stated that the corner monument sign is a very interesting design and thought the lighting might be important, because the wrong lighting might wash out the colors. He also had a concern with the corrugated surface and said that putting signage on that surface is hard to read at night because of the shadows that the corrugation cast.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the size of the address compared to the “CVWD” on the guardhouse. Commissioner Touschner suggested right justifying the numbers with “CVWD” so it would look better.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 6 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Commissioner Van Vliet asked what can be seen on the back side of the 50’ corrugated sign and the representative stated that you would see the steel framing and channel supports. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would be exposed from not only the back side, but also from the street and the parking lot. He asked how thick the corrugated section component was. The representative stated that it can vary between 2 ½” to 3 ½” decorative metal. Commissioner Vuksic asked if it was the type of corrugation that was serpentine in sections and the representative said that it was and felt they didn’t need the thickness. Commissioner Gregory stated that from a structural prospective aesthetically it would look better if it was thicker and almost covered in the back. Commissioner Touschner stated that it was 9’ and thought that it would need some kind of support. She said to think about how this will be designed because of all the debris that can collect in there, as well as water.
Ms. Grisa stated that the head of the sign is typically 6’ and she wanted to explain that a part of the code reads that the lettering can’t be higher than 6’. The lettering is 5’-9” and with the Architecture Review approval they can exclude the decorative features that go above that height limit and should be a part of the approval.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) upon design completion, the 50’ sign shall return for staff review; 2) guardhouse numbers shall be right justified with “CVWD”; 3) thicken corrugated element and cover on all sides; and 4) all changes to return to staff for review. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
3. CASE NO: MISC 10-71
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KKA DESIGN GROUP INC, Attn: Esther Alva, 4201 Redwood Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a revision to a façade remodel: Mastro’s Restaurant.
LOCATION: 73-405 El Paseo
ZONE: C-1
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 7 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Ms. Grisa presented the project and stated that this case is coming back to change out the glass façade on the tower element with a blue aqua color with texture. It will replace the stucco background that was previously approved. The sign will now be located on the glass façade and on the corner as well. The other change will be the removal of a rock copper cap element and changing it to a dark bronze and aluminum.
Ms. Esther Alva, representative stated that this will be a chemical treatment to the existing copper that will help it turn. It will then be sealed so that it is finished and looks like dark bronze. They are changing it out so that it matches the approved bronze throughout the project.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Touschner and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Vuksic abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
4. CASE NO: CUP 10-218
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARK B. VALENTINO, ARCHITECT, 77725 Enfield Lane #140, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to demolish an existing 1,376 square foot general office building and allow a new 3,866 square foot general office building; St. John’s Lutheran Church.
LOCATION: 42-695 Washington Street
ZONE: O.P.
Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. About a year ago, this was approved for a two-story building totaling 24’ for an expansion and remodel to an existing multi- purpose room. However, due to the economy it was not built and a new proposal has been submitted. The existing office building totaling 1,376 sq. ft. will be demolished to rebuild a new building and incorporate it into the multi-purpose room. This new building meets all the codes. Staff feels this is a better design than the one originally proposed. The materials are similar to the existing sanctuary. They will be making some landscape changes which will be subject to landscape review and approval.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 8 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Commissioner Touschner mentioned the fact that there is no natural lighting into the new offices and suggested doing skylights. She had a concern with not having any space there for a vestibule or a gathering space and when all the rooms are occupied at the same time there will be a lot of people dumping out into the corridors at the same time. Mr. Valentino stated that Sunday will be crowded but not the reminder of the week. Mr. Vito Genovesa, applicant stated that this room will be shared with the youth and the choir. Commissioner Touschner understood but said she would hate to have them build something and then it not function for them.
Commissioner Touschner pointed out the food storage area that has an elaborate entrance compared to the other area that has no windows. Mr. Genovesa stated that this is the actual storage and distribution area for FIND. Every other week they serve about 60 families who come in for food. Commissioner Touschner also suggested that the covered walkway continues from the entrances of the new additions to the covered walkway across the way.
The Commission and the architect discussed the parapet height and screening of the A/C units.
Commissioner Vuksic suggested creating a slight recess on the long wall. Having a recess of a couple inches to break the surface allows you to create some kind of form or pattern and change the color. Another concern he had was their choice of roof materials on the slope roof. He pointed out that their existing sanctuary building is more modern or contemporary than it is Spanish and suggested making them standing seam metal roofs. They discussed the color of the roof and said that the color has to compliment; either greens or browns. Commissioner Lambell asked if they had an interior roof hatch and Mr. Valentino stated they did.
Commissioner Touschner asked if they would have signage for people to find that back area. She suggested that they align signage with the windows and the shapes they have made and not just plaster them on; keep a clean line.
Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) add natural lighting to the rooms in the back; 2) add a decorative element to the wall facing the Learning Tree; recessed to give it an artistic form, incorporating two colors in that area; 3) change roof to a standing seam metal roof in green or
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 9 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
brown tones; 4) screening of mechanical units on roof; 5) consider signage in the back near the food distribution area; and 7) landscape plans subject to landscape approval. Commissioner Van Vliet seconded. Commissioner Gregory asked for further discussion.
Commissioner Gregory asked if the Commission wanted to push the skylights when it is really not something they see from the outside. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it would give them more flexibility if the condition was removed. Commissioner Vuksic withdrew that condition and Commissioner Van Vliet agreed.
Commissioner Lambell stated there was no exterior lighting on the plans and asked if staff would review that. Mr. Swartz stated that the applicant has to submit a lighting plan.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) addition of decorative element to the wall facing the Learning Tree; incorporating two colors; 2) change roof to a standing seam metal roof in green or brown tones; 3) screening of mechanical units; 4) consider signage in back areas; 5) all plans shall be reviewed and approved by staff; and 6) landscape plans to be reviewed and approved by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent. .
5. CASE NO: RV 10-188
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TILLIE CHANDLER, 74-131 Velardo Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to park a RV in the side yard.
LOCATION: 74-131 Velardo Drive
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The applicant is seeking to park an RV in the west side yard of the residence. The applicant was cited by the Code Enforcement Division to apply for an RV permit. The RV ordinance states that a notice is sent to adjacent neighbors to inform them that no public hearing shall be held unless requested. If a public hearing is
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 10 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
requested, than the case will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff received one notice requesting a public hearing. The RV parking ordinance was amended for RV’s to be completely screened from adjacent property owners and the public right-of-way at the time of storage. This RV is not completely screened from adjacent owners or public right-of-way. As seen in the site photos, full grown landscaping surrounds the proposed parking location to the west and south. On the east side along Primrose Drive there is no landscaping and the 5’ wood fence does not completely screen the RV. Staff has received letters in opposition from the adjacent neighbors regarding the RV, and does not meet the screening requirements based on the new RV Ordinance. Staff has also been informed that someone has been living in the RV. Upon a field inspection performed by Code Enforcement, it was determined that the RV is set-up for sewer and water. Living in an RV is prohibited within the city. Staff is recommending denial of the request to store an RV at this location.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if the location of the RV is acceptable by the ordinance or is it just the screening. Mr. Swartz stated that it is just the screening. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the ordinance says it has to be 100% screened.
Ms. Tillie Chandler, applicant stated that she will replace the fence in time. Commissioner Gregory stated that when you have a fence that is 6’ and a trailer that is 12’ it does not work substantially to screen this large vehicle. The problem with it being in the back is that it is impacting many people. Mr. Swartz stated that with the new ordinance landscape has to be in place before the RV is in place. Commissioner Van Vliet stated they could screen the RV but the screening has to be 12’ and will be a lot of work to screen it. Commissioner Lambell stated that it appears that the trailer has not moved in quite some time and pointed out a swamp cooler. Ms. Chandler stated that her nephew spends time in the trailer doing homework, but doesn’t sleep there.
Commissioner Lambell made a motion for denial and Commissioner Van Vliet made the second. Commissioner Gregory asked for further discussion. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the reason for denial is that it is not 100% screened. You can park it back there if you can get the screening to work. Mr. Swartz informed the applicant that she would have to remove the RV and store it at another location until landscaping grows around the property at 12’ high. Then at that time she can reapply to bring the
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 11 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
RV back onto her property. Ms. Chandler asked how long she had to remove the trailer and Mr. Swartz stated 30 days.
Commissioner Gregory stated there was a motion and a second, and called for a vote.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, denied Case RV 10-188 due to not being 100% screened. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent. .
6. CASE NO: ZOA/MISC 10-228
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): KKE ARCHITECTS, Brian Arial, 8 Mills Place, Pasadena, CA 91101
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of exterior and interior modifications to the old Mervyns building for Vons grocery store and three future tenants; and a height exception for a tower element. The building totals 78,638 square feet. Vons would be utilizing 56,877 square feet; Vons.
LOCATION: 72-280 Highway 111
ZONE: PC (3)
Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. On February 14, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 91-5 allowing DSL Service Company to construct a 190,394 square foot retail and commercial center know as Waring Plaza. Mervyns was the previous anchor tenant for approximately 12 years. Today the building is empty and Vons grocery store is requesting to relocate from their Highway 111 location. Vons is requesting minor exterior modifications to update the building, and a height exception to increase the west tower element from 34’ to 40’. The applicant is requesting the tower increase for signage. The property is zoned PC (3), which has a maximum height of 35’. The zoning ordinance does allow for height exceptions for architectural tower elements to enhance the architecture not to create a taller element for signage exposure. In addition, raising one of the two towers would negatively impact the overall building design by creating two unbalanced tower elements at different heights. The exterior modifications are minor, but will revive the overall appearance of the building and the commercial center. Mr. Swartz stated that staff
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 12 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
will go to City Council on August 26, to request the condition be removed.
Mr. Brian Arial, KKE Architects stated that as you know retail today is very difficult. One of the reasons Vons was attracted to this project was this building. They feel it offers good visibility along Fred Waring, but limited visibility along Highway 111; which is the major thoroughfare. The increase in the tower height is important to them because of visibility. The building sits backs close to 400’ off Highway 111. This tower is internal to the project but it also offers an icon for people shopping in the center to find the front doors of Vons, as well as a visual element as you are driving by. The symmetry of the building is problematic it is a 300’ store front with two matching towers on each side and we feel that the height difference breaks up that symmetry. We feel adding the extensions onto the canopy further break up that long mass. They are hoping they can get the tower increase. They feel that it is this community’s advantage for Vons to do well in this location so there isn’t a dark box several years down the road.
Mr. Swartz stated that the existing building is 78,638 square feet and Vons would be using approximately 57,000 square feet of the building. The remaining square footage would be divided between three future tenants. He also pointed out that the current onsite landscaping has not been maintained and is in need of being replanted. The applicant has submitted a preliminary maintenance landscape plan, which has been reviewed by the Landscape Specialist. Comments from the Landscape Specialist have been returned to the applicant. There is also a path of travel that is shown on Highway 111 that the applicant will have to show that it meets current ADA standards.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn’t have a problem with the tower because from the Highway 111 elevation he likes what it does. From a composition standpoint, a tower is forced to be down near the height of the rest of the architecture. Mr. Swartz stated that staff was concerned because the tower is where the signage would be located. So the increase of the tower is basically to put up a larger sign. He asked the applicant if this is granted an exception but the sign has to be lowered, would they still go forward with the tower. Mr. Arial thought so, but he would defer that decision to his client. Commissioner Vuksic felt that it wasn’t appropriate to have a tower just to have a sign on it, but he liked the tower.
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 13 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Commissioner Van Vliet asked what height the sign can be and Mr. Swartz said 20’ and as proposed it is 34’. He also pointed out that the entire building would have to go through a sign program. Commissioner Van Vliet didn’t have a problem with the tower. Commissioner Lambell stated that if you are going westbound on Highway 111 you are never going to see the Vons sign on the front of the main entrance. The only place you can see the Vons sign is on Fred Waring. Coming eastbound on Highway 111 is even worse because you don’t have any glimpse of that corner. You are not going to know it is there unless there is a monument sign placed somewhere. Mr. Swartz stated there is a monument sign on the corner and their name would appear on that. Mr. Ariel stated that Vons did some sight studies with their signage company with visual drives and flags to identify the proper height of the tower. Commissioner Lambell said she sees the need for signage.
Commissioner Gregory asked if the height mounted sign wasn’t allowed would they still want the tower and Mr. Arial thought so, but would have to defer that decision to Vons. Mr. Arial believed that the current Mervyn’s sign is higher than 20’; closer to 30’ plus. Mr. Swartz stated that the sign program changed earlier in the year.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Lambell, to grant approval of exterior and interior modifications and a recommendation to the City Council for a height exception subject to: 1) review and approval of ADA path of travel; and 2) landscape reviewed and approved by Landscape Specialist. Motion carried 4-0-1-2, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
7. CASE NO: SA 10-252
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VILLAGIO PIZZERIA, 37-029 Cook Street, Suite 1, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of a logo cabinet; Villagio Pizzeria.
LOCATION: 37-029 Cook Street, Suite 1
ZONE: PC (2)
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 14 of 15 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES August 10, 2010
Mr. Swartz presented the project and summarized the staff report. The sign program for this building came before the Commission previously for the Vineyards Commercial Center. Per the Commission’s request the stylized logo cabinets are returning for review and approval.
The Commission and the applicant reviewed and discussed the cabinets and the logos for the pizzeria. The green cabinet is push through letters and the box is 4” thick. He stated that “Pizzeria” is a logo box itself. “Villagio Italian Kitchen” will be standard face lit channel letters. The only word lighting up at night is “Pizzeria”.
ACTION: It was moved by Commissioner Lambell and seconded by Commissioner Touschner, to grant approval. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent.
B. Preliminary Plans:
None
C. Miscellaneous Items:
None
VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Lambell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
TONY BAGATO PRINCIPAL PLANNER
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\Word Files\A Minutes\2010\AR100810min.doc Page 15 of 15