1993 02 03 DRB Minutes
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINT A
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
February 3, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL 1"0 ORDER
A. Vice Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and
Boardmember Rice led the flag salute.
n. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, Randall Wright, Planning Commission
Representative Marrs, and Vice Chairman Curtis.
B. Boardmember Rice moved to excuse Boardmembers Anderson, Campbell, and
Chairman Harbison. Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
C. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Secretary II Crista! Spidell.
m. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Sign Approval 93-195; a request of Baskin Robbins for approval of a deviation
from the sign program for One Eleven La Quinta Center.
1.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2.
Planning Commissioner Marrs asked if there was color in the letters.
Staff stated that the face would be white.
3.
Vice Chairman Curtis asked Staff if their deviation was only within the
Sign Code the fact that they are not 2Q-feet apart. Staff explained that this
was one issue. The other was that the Corporate sign did not comply with
the Helvetica light lettering style.
DRB2-3
1
Design Review Board Minutes
February 3, 1993
4. Boardmember Wright asked if the sign program allowed two signs. Staff
stated that if you are on a corner you are allowed two signs. Members
discussed whether the store was on a comer and the location of the
sign(s).
5. Boardmember Rice stated the sign looked much better on the tower and
it was the logical place to place it. He was concerned that the tre\lis
would block the sign if placed on the facia facing west.
6. Staff stated that he had received comments from Chairman Harbison and
Boardmember Anderson. Chairman Harbison stated: "That the sign did
appear to stay within the Sign Ordinance and there is a deviation allowed
for a nationally recognized logo as long as they stay with the 20-foot
separation between the sign. Under the walkway sign appears to be fine. "
Boardmember Anderson stated: . After reviewing the proposed project I
have no objection or comments regarding the deviation. "
7. Vice Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant wished to speak. Ms. Chris
Kimpel, Award Sign Company representing Baskin Robbins, stated that
as she traveled south on Washington Street you are unable to see the
tower and you would not know the store was there and that is why they
are requesting the second sign. She stated they had no objection to the
size or the 20-foot distance requirement. She stated there was no room
to place the sign on the facia. She also stated that they were required
legally to stay with the slate grey instead of the black as they has been a
new court finding that no city may require any changes to a corporate
logo.
8. Boardmember Rice asked if this was to protect the trademark. Ms.
Kimpel stated this was to protect the trademark and color. They were
both the trademark.
9. Boardmember Wright asked Ms. Kimpel to define what part of the sign
was slate grey and what part was pink. Ms. Kimpel described the sign
colors.
10. Vice Chairman Curtis asked if the background would remain the same.
Ms. Kimpel stated yes.
11. Boardmember Wright stated they were individually fabricated letters and
asked what the illumination would be. Ms. Kimpel stated it would be
neon.
DRB2-3 2
Design Review Board Minutes
February 3, 1993
12. Vice Chairman Curtis asked if it would be the same Baskin Robbins sign
that is on all the other stores. Ms. Kimbal stated yes.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
13. There being no further discussion, Boardmember Rice moved to
recommend approval of Sign Approval 93-195 as recommended by Staff
with the exception of the corporate colors staying as submitted.
Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
CJ~ -1.)~"7
Vice Chairman Curtis asked that the Minutes of January 6, 1993, be amended on Page
4, Item #6, wording be changed to "that could not be seen". Also Page 5, Item F should
be changed to Item E, Page 6, Item #5 wording should read "that if the school facility
and City maintenance yard were located side by side so they could use common facilities,
the grade between the two would be the same. Otherwise there may be some differences
depending on the location.' Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and the Minutes
were approved as corrected.
V. OrnER
Vice Chairman Curtis asked why the Simon Motors sign program was not on this
agenda. Staff stated the Applicant asked that their application be continued to March 3,
1993.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Planning Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Boardmember Rice to adjourn
to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on March 3, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting
of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 6:10 P.M., February 3, 1993.
DRB2-3
3