1991 12 04 DRBI
DESIGN REVX.KW BOARD
A G E N D A
A Regular Meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
December 4, 1991
5:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III
IV
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes of November 6, 1991, and November 14, 1991
BUSINESS SESSION
A. SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a
shopping center identification sign, directional signs and multiple
building signs for a future office commercial facility planned on five
acres.
B. SIGN APPLICATION 91-161; a request of the Beachside Cafe (Dale
Elmer) for approval of new signs for existing building located at 78-477
Highway 111 in the Plaza La Quinta shopping center.
V. OTHER
A. Street Name Signs for the Village; consideration of street name signs
for the Village Specific Plan area.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QIJINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
November 6, 1991
5:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Rice brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and
Boardmember Anderson led the flag salute. Chairman Rice asked for a
roll call.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, Paul Anderson, John Walling,
John Curtis, Ted Llewellyn, Planning Commission Representative
Donald Marrs, and Chairman Rice.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. Chairman Rice opened the nominations for Chairman. Chairman Rice
nominated Ted Llewellyn for Chairman, Boardmember Rice seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
B. Chairman Rice nominated David Harbison as Vice Chairman.
Boardmember Llewellyn seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Rice asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 2, 1991. Boardmember Curtis asked that the Minutes be
amended on Page 3, C.6, to show that he voted no on Plot Plan 91-466.
Boardmember Llewellyn asked that the spelling of his name be
corrected. There being no further changes, Boardmember Harbison
moved to approve the Minutes as corrected. Boardmember Curtis
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a
shopping center identification sign, directional signs, and multiple
building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on five
acres.
DRBMIN-11/6 1
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
Boardmember Curtis asked Staff if the sign program had utilized
the maximum amount allowed. Staff stated they were within their
limits with the overall program. He further asked if this
application had been approved by the Planning Commission and
if their approval would change the overall sign program they
were reviewing. Staff stated the Planning Commission had not
seen the program as of yet and the Design Review Board was a
recommending body to the Planning Commission.
3. Boardmember Walling stated there was not a need to make detailed
approvals for the sign program but approve a generic program
that gave guidelines to the Developer to proceed with.
4. Mr. Skip Berg, architect for the project, addressed the Board
and gave a brief description of the program. He stated they
would stay within the perimeters of what the City allowed. As to
the Simon Plaza sign and colors, he stated these were similar to
the Simon Motors corporate logo. He stated his only objections
to the Staff recommendations were the requests for reverse
channel lettering, and the color change.
5. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the signs and had no
objections to the color selected by the Applicant. His concern
was for the typeface of the letters. He preferred a less rounding
of the letters. Discussion followed with the Applicant relative to
letter styles.
6. Chairman Llewellyn stated he had no objection to the color
selected by the Applicant.
7. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the applied
signage to the building. He would rather it be on the ground or
walkway. He felt the big blue signs would detract from the
building. Discussion followed among the Boardmembers and the
Applicant as to various locations.
8. Boardmember Curtis stated he had no objection to the color blue
being used, but did feel the letters were to large and would
prefer a smaller sign overall.
9. Boardmember Walling stated he had no objection to the height or
color, but would prefer the Applicant use up -lighting instead of
backlighting to soften the signs. Discussion followed between
the Board and the Applicant relative to lighting techniques.
DRBMIN-11/6
J
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
10. Planning Commission Representative Marrs stated his overall
approval of the sign program. His concern was for the patrons
being able to locate the businesses. He felt the restrictions may
be to stringent.
11. Following discussion it was moved by Boardmember Rice and
seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-
036 recommending approval of Sign Application 91-159 to the
Planning Commission subject to Staff recommendation with the
elimination of reverse channel lettering and external illumination
being utilized, the typeface lettering no being rounded, and the
deletion of the last sentence to Condition #11. Unanimously
approved.
B. PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-012; a request of the Boys and Girls Club of
Coachella Valley for approval of plans for a Boys and Girls Club
facility.
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. Reuel Young, architect for the project, presented information
and a detailed presentation of the project.
3. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the project and
discussion followed relative to the use of the standing seam metal
roof .
4. Boardmember Walling inquired as to the location of the air
conditioning and cooler equipment. Mr. Young stated they would
be located in the wells of the roof for the most part.
5. Planning Commission Representative Marrs inquired how the
gymnasium would be cooled. Mr. Young stated that evaporative
coolers would be utilized. Discussion followed as to the cooling
of the building, building materials, and the desire for openness.
6. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt 'the design was well
conceived and very well presented.
7. Boardmember Curtis stated his approval of the design and the
roof materials being utilized.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Curtis
adopt Minute Motion 91-037 recommending approval to the
Planning Commission of Public Use Permit 9.1-012, subject to Staff
recommendation.
DRBMIN-11/6
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
Chairman Llewellyn asked to be excused due to a prior commitment and turned the
meeting over to Vice Chairman Harbison.
C. SPECIFIC PLAN 89-014 AND PLOT PLAN 90-434; a request of
Transpacific Development Company for approval of landscaping plans
for the 111-La Quinta shopping 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. Boardmember Curtis asked if the drive-thru shown on the plans
were approved. Staff stated they were not.
3. Mr. Coln Macken, representing TDC the Applicant, spoke
regarding the project and introduced Mr. Gary Begin, landscape
architect for the project who gave a brief description of the
plans.
4. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the location of the
"Theme Plaza". He felt its location was not accessible to the
walking public.
5. Boardmember Harbison asked that the Applicant not use the
fescue but rather stay with the Bermuda/Rye grass mix. In
addition the irrigation needed to be by conventional spray system
with head to head coverage. Discussion followed as to what the
plans showed.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Rice and seconded by Boardmember Walling to
adopt Minute Motion 91-038 recommending approval of Specific
Plan 89-014 and Plot Plan 90-434 to the Planning Commission
subject to Staff recommendation and the use of Bermuda/Rye
grass mix and changing the lawn irrigation system. Unanimously
approved with Chairman Llewellyn absent.
D. PLOT PLAN 91-468; a request of the Automobile Club of Southern
California for approval of architectural and landscaping plans.
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.
Boardmember Rice inquired of the Applicant if the Automobile
Club was moving their Indio office to La Quinta. Mr. Gary
Evans, representing the Applicant, stated they would be moving
the office.
DRBMIN-11/6
Design Review Board Minutes
'November 6, 1991
3. Boardmember Anderson inquired if the internally lit signs were
already approved. Staff stated they had been approved as part
of the overall project. He stated he would prefer to see the
uplighting instead at this location with its close proximity to
Highway 111.
4. Mr. Cohn Macken, representative of TDC, stated they would
prefer to stay with the already approved sign program rather
than making any changes.
5. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff what the height limitations were
for Washington Street. Staff stated there were no limits
regarding height, with only a policy for one story buildings
within 150 feet of the street.
6. Mr. Dennis Wehmueller, architect for the project, addressed the
location of the signs as to the Applicants desire to have them on
the parapet. Discussion followed with the Boardmembers as to
the location of the signs.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Rice and seconded by Boardmember Anderson to
adopt Minute Motion 91-039 recommending approval of Plot Plan
91-468 to the Planning Commission. Unanimously approved,
subject to Staff recommendations, with Chairman Llewellyn being
absent.
V. OTHER
A. Boardmember Rice informed the members that the signs for the
Marquessa project were a good example for the members to see. He felt
the City signs had too much "gingerbread". The consensus of the
Board was to put discussion off till the next meeting to give members an
opportunity to visit the Marquessa project.
B. Boardmember Anderson asked what the architects for the Civic Center
were doing with the City sign. Staff stated the City Council was asking
local architects to submit designs.
C. Staff informed the Boardmembers there was a need to have an additional
meeting this month. Applications had been submitted but there had not
been enough time to process the applications for this meeting.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
At the request of Staff, it was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by
Boardmember Rice to adjourn to a special meeting of the Design Review Board on
November 14, 1991, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board
was adjourned at 7:09. P.M., November 6, 1991.
DRBMIN-11/6
U U U
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
November 14, 1991
CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Llewellyn
Boardmember Curtis
a roll call.
5:30 P.M.
brought the meeting to order at 5:28 P.M. and
led the flag salute. Chairman Llewellyn asked for
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, Paul Anderson, John Walling,
John Curtis, Fred Rice, Planning Commission Representative Donald
Marrs, and Chairman Llewellyn.
III. BUSINESS SESSION
A. SR ADJUSTMENT 91-004: a request of Linda Babior for approval to
deviate from the SR Zone exterior material and design requirements for
a remodeled single family residence at 51-065 Vallejo.
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. Ms. Julia Takahashi, architect for the project gave a
presentation of the project to the Board.
3. Boardmember Anderson questioned the architect regarding the
roof structure material. She stated it was wood framed with
curved light weight steel, steel decking, insulation, and a
standing seam roof. Discussion followed relative to the materials
being used and the method to achieve the curved look.
4. Boardmember Curtis asked if the architect had ever constructed
a house of this type before. Ms. Takahashi stated they
themselves had not but the firm they were jointly designing this
house with had completed several and she passed around picture
samples of similar work.
5. Boardmember Rice stated his concern for enough insulation. He
felt the design was interesting and could become a landmark for
La Quinta.
DRBMIN1114
007
Design Review Board Minutes
November 14, 1991
6. Boardmember Curtis asked if any of the existing building would
remain. Ms. Takahashi stated that due to the extensive amount
of remodeling, consideration was being given to rebuilding the
entire house.
7. Boardmember Harbison stated his approval of the design and felt
it was very attractive. He felt the existing landscaping enhanced
the project. He suggested the owner mix the bougainvilleas with
other plants due to the frost.
8. Boardmember Walling stated his approval of the project and
wished to encourage this type of work in La Quinta.
9. Planning Commissioner Marrs stated he was impressed with the
design.
10. Boardmember Anderson asked what type of stucco was going to
be used. Discussion followed as to types that work in the dry
desert, as well as discussion relative to the block glass usage.
11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Boardmember Walling to
adopt Minute Motion 91-040 recommending approval of SR
Adjustment 91-004 to the Planning Commission. Unanimously
approved.
B . Tentative Tract 24890; a request of J. M. Peters for approval of revised
perimeter landscaping plans for area on west side of Jefferson Street
and on the north side of 52nd Avenue.
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 Staff if the original
Conditions of Approval had been complied with. Staff stated
they had not complied with all the landscaping requirements.
3. Mr. Mike Martin, representing J. M. Peters addressed the Board
and stated that they would be complying with all the conditions.
4. Boardmember Curtis asked if the Applicant had any problems
with the conditions Staff had recommended. Mr. Martin stated he
did not.
DRBMIN1114
Design Review Board Minutes
November 14, 1991
There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Rice to
adopt Minute Motion 91-041 approving the perimeter landscaping
subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. Unanimously
approved.
IV. OTHER
A. Street Name Signs for the Village: consideration of street name signs
for the Village Specific Plan area.
Due to the scheduling of another meeting in the Council
Chambers, it was moved by Chairman Llewellyn to continue this
matter to the next meeting. Boardmember Walling seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Boardmember Walling and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to
adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on December 4, 1991, at
5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at
5:54. P.M., November 14, 1991.
DRBMIN1114
4 A. 009
DATE:
PROJECT:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
SIGN COMPANY:
LOCATION:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DECEMBER 4, 1991
SIGN APPLICATION 91-161
APPROVAL OF NEW SIGNS FOR RESTAURANT IN EXISTING
BUILDING
BEACHSIDE CAFE (DALE ELMER)
SIGNS BY BULL
78-477 HIGHWAY 111 IN PLAZA LA QUINTA AT SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET
The property in question is located within the Plaza La Quinta shopping center and
was most recently operated as The Huntsman restaurant. The Applicant intends to
open this restaurant as a full service facility offering breakfast, lunch, and dinners.
Presently the restaurant (primarily the interior) is being remodeled.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The previous restaurant had a sign hanging in front of the covered walkway facing
the parking lot, a sign over the main entrance facing the parking lot and a sign on
the roof dormer facing the parking lot to the east. The only approved sign was the
sign mounted on the wall of the entry.
The existing signs have been removed and will not be reused. The Applicant
proposes to add a circular pole supported canopy in front of -the entrance. On the
front of this canopy would be the sign "Beachside Cafe". The second sign proposed
would have the same script and be mounted on the stuccoed perimeter wall adjacent
to the outdoor patio area facing Washington Street.
Each of the signs would be identical, individual channel letters. Signs size would
be 9-feet long by 20-inches wide or 15 square feet. The sign light source would be
exposed neon. However, the neon would be mounted in a metal channel letter. The
inside of each channel letter which is uncovered and contains the neon would be
painted to match the neon color which is proposed to be grape. In the case of the
canopy mounted sign, the outside of the can would be painted to match the canopy
color. On the wall mounted sign, the outside of the can will be painted to match the
wall which is tan.
The canopy would be what the sign maker calls sea -foam in color which is somewhat
of a turquoise. The canopy would be 12-feet wide and extend. 12-foot 6-inches from
the wall of the building. It will be even with the covered walkway to ensure
visibility from all areas of the parking area facing Highway 111. The canopy will be
DRBST. 019
mounted to the face of the building and be supported at the other end by two pole
supports. The awning would be constructed out of a canvas -like material.
However, it will last much longer than normal canvas.
ANALYSIS
1. The primary function of the canopy is to provide a mounting location for the
sign.
2. The City has to date, avoided the use of neon for signage. However, due to
the use of the metal can around the neon, the general appearance of the sign
will be more similar to normal internally illuminated channel signs.
3. The sign on the patio wall faces directly at the driveway on Washington
Street. As such, Staff feels it is important that this signage if approved, is
not so bright as to cause a glare which could be a traffic hazard. Therefore,
it may be necessary to review this signage once it is installed to insure that
the brightness is acceptable.
4. Although there is a sign program for this center, the larger more individual
type users have been permitted to have signage that :is different than the
program. The previous user did have signs that were different from the
approved sign program. However, the sign hanging from the covered
walkway did match the sign program.
5. The proposed size of the signage is significantly below that permitted by
Code.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning and Development Staff generally feels that the requested signage is
acceptable. The signage is attractive and complies with size requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Design Review Board should review this request in light of the above Staff
comments. Should the Design Review Board approve this request, Staff would
recommend the following conditions:
1. The brightness of the sign on the patio wall facing Washington Street shall be
low enough so as not to create glare for on -coming traffic. If it is determined
after installation that the signage is to bright, the Applicant shall modify the
light intensity to the satisfaction of the City.
2. All signage and the canopy shall be properly maintained and repaired when
necessary.
3. A building permit shall be obtained prior to any sign installation occurring.
DRBST.019
2
Attachments:
Overall site plan of shopping center
Sign exhibits
DRBST. 019
V
g:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
DECEMBER 4, 1991
REQUEST:
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; SIMON PLAZA, PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM. REQUEST TO INSTALL A SHOPPING CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGN, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND MULTIPLE
BUILDING SIGNS FOR A FUTURE OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
FACILITY PLANNED ON FIVE AND ONE HALF ACRES
LOCATION:
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AT WASHINGTON
STREET
APPLICANT:
SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD
SIGN
DESIGNER:
MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: SIGN APPLICATIONS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15311, CLASS ELEVEN
PREVIOUS DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING:
The Design Review Board met on November 6, 1991, to discuss
this case. A copy of the past report is attached. Discussion
ensued on whether or not the building letters should be
internally illuminated or externally illuminated. After much
debate, the Board felt that the building(s) is close enough to
the street to warrant external lighting versus internal
illumination as requested by the Applicant and, further, the
group did not believe reverse channel letters would be
appropriate for this building complex. The Applicant did not
want to install reverse channel letters either- because they
require more maintenance (they get dirty) and are exposed to
natural elements since they have exposed parts. At one point
in the meeting Mr. Berg, the sign contractor, did state that he
would be receptive to rust letters if he could have internally
illuminated signage for the building. However_, this concept
did not gain approval by the Board.
Another topic by the Design Review Board was the lettering
style for the building signs. The Board thought the building
warranted a stylized lettering design instead of the Helvetica
Bold as presented by the sign contractor. The sign contractor
was amicable to the changes requested by the Board. A copy of
the lettering styles are attached.
The Design Review Board also approved the building plexiglass
letters which were presented by the Applicant. No color
changes were made by the Board.
DR$12/4.F1/CS
Finally, the Design Review Board felt the Fitness Center sign
location was acceptable since it was for one of the major
tenants of the complex and it did not hinder the architectural
elements of the project or reduce their character.
NEW SUBMITTAL APPLICATION:
On November 20, 1991, staff received a new sign package
submittal from the sign contractor. The new program includes
internally illuminated cabinet signs for the proposed
buildings. The cabinet signs vary in size from 2-feet to
3-feet wide and range in length from 14-feet to 36-feet. A
summary of the new sign program request is as follows:
Sign
E
3
x
24
feet
= 72
square
feet
Sign
F
3
x
36
feet
= 108
square
feet
Sign
G
8
x
16
feet
= 128
square
feet
Sign
H
2
x
14
feet
= 42
square
feet (irregular)
Sign
I
2
x
17
feet
= 34
square
feet
TOTAL:
384 square
feet
The signs will have white (Navajo) backgrounds with the copy
color matching the original program (blue with accent colors).
Staff would not support this new request because it is not as
architecturally attractive as other types of programs
previously mentioned at the Design Review Board Meeting of
November 6, 1991, and is not compatible with the buildings.
Another matter is the Applicants desire to increase the size of
the sign program from 146.5 square feet to the present request
of 384 square feet, an enlargement of 237.5 square feet.
In the present request signs E, F & G are larger than permitted
by the Sign Ordinance. An adjustment would be necessary to
permit these signs. We advocate the program as recommended by
Design Review Board on November 6, 1991, because this latest
proposal is not satisfactory for this building complex. We do
not believe the Design Review Board should approve this revised
submittal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board recommend
denial of the revised sign program, and uphold your
recommendation of November 6, 1991.
Attachments:
1. New sign program package dated November 20, 1991
2. Previous Design Review Board report dated November 6, 1991
DRB12/4.F1/CS -2 U1 v
New Application Submittal by the Sign
Contractor
November 20, 1991 Sign
Package
. 49 1 !'
all
MI 4� %mm
bL
alM
A Nil
FIG
-,5. 1, "1 ------
s�
I-
A
a
SE�L..111
WHIrE 500Y BLACK EVE 1 U,30-43 RED Ou -np a
3'C30- 25 vELLow LEtrS .
BACklaQOUNO 'i0 MATCM (oOl-ICTp f3wE
24' or
IT EN, ),LZA-LLLS\J
_sltr, C` NORn; ELEvanoN
_ LErrE¢S ?D MArGH x6p7-IC-
___ ON NAvANO Wu1fE pAUCC-i
SI¢N P NORT'H ELEVATION
I C
ELEyG�IOtJ UHST
CASE NO-T i
•,NEtT MErl L CAgo..ET g RElW eQ,-
FLJCQES,�EN1L 'IR
AN(xLE IQLA4 QEtNcpQC..EMtNT
LEXAN FACE
_ND SECTION (TT(I?)
IL
NOV
L�---.
20 1991"
WY If
LA uUlt, A
PItT! I!+G
C FAITJE iT
m
�-- / �1(sN NO EAST ELEVAT70N
,o7-I4P 5LUG
,KGTlZ0'J MC
--4-
LETTERS lD ML�TCH "toD _Iu0 BW�,
6owuN4 ;3ALL - 3�7o-µ:: v�<ANGT� w; —"'
�ti;XC-:� BOLE`>. IJ(LINE 4
gpWLI N(� PINS - wNITE IN/ Pi LCGKG
Hntz7w5, -TRIM pROVNC' RN r<o - ✓
NAVANO WHIT'G DAD46r
r<ouN0 COLoR
ELEVDTIOn1_
S�� IN�RNpLL� ILLUMINATES 51(aNS
FA$RI(?,TED ALur�Ii�Ur✓1 :;+=3i1J�T { fzET6:NE�
PA'NTEO NAvpNO �1iNITE i'J 1,1nTLN f�l.I7ca..r.JR
CLEAR LFTnN F1G�S LVINTE •='-E<DNJ iu(i-Ci:L.E -
GL) ORS A$ NOM-0- N07'r-- L nA�'L'=0 n' ItE PRr1'�
jT OGDII�U>r . i-c�T h1f3$.
AILY ILLUP'IINpTED Wi µ.C). rLUoq-cC-EN
NOV 2 0 199
gloou-B rz2 ®f
Drewhq no.
ws�—
�>I MpN PI AZA 2
Job name Btl 2 0l
Addnu NOTED bete
ACID BQCT -DrownDY%' scab------
s.berep• ID- 1 R2 II-10•gt GWN/il.M'7,1. 4q.
Approved DY----R•vldon. CV. c���.� c/6 yyNS G IRWetR'
... ....•... b..eu. ovnen•I evv, vvpmllb! In vgscllen dM • Mepel Nv Iw 1N Ot 'Oel e.w b pVER91FEp OR�RIn6'
�. nm Elfebn.CNNvItiO Ie101688-0(
N
fvI
ma
r
o
0
r�
i[4- 4 ..
0
092
y
0
092
y
o�
m
O
--
O
n Q', rl,
0
N -
O
Z
,.0 ;0 1 1
924
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1991
D SIGN
REQUEST: p PROGRAM. REQUEST TO INSTALL A SHSIMON OPPING CENTER
. CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGN, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND MULTIPLE
BUILDING FACILITY PLANS FOFIVE ACRES
R RE OFFICE I COMMERCIAL
FACI
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY I11 AT WASHINGTON
STREET
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILLIP M. PEAD
SIGN
DESIGNER: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS
BACKGROUND:
At your last meeting, the Applicant's sign contractor, DGI, presented sketches of Board's review
the freestanding signs to the Board pursuant to the Design Review
Of Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019. It was recommended that the sign package
ate beevdefethe proposahe l.e to
Thereforemeeting , theue n ignage request was the members not vcarriedgover to this
meeting. Since the meeting, the Applicant has also submitted a building sign
package.
PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019:
The Planning Commission has not reviewed the project development at this time. The
Commission will review the project on November 26, 1991.
MASTER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM:
The Sign Ordinance requires the Applicant to obtain Design Review Board and
Planning Commission review of their program. Therefore, the Design Review Board
Planning
a recommending advisory board for the Planning Commission. The Applicant is
is,aware the Planning Commission review is required.
PROPOSED SIGN PLAN: eestanding center identification
n, a concept
The Applicant has sub and directional signs for the proposed multiple guse complex.
building sign program,
A. Freestandin Identification Signs: The free ly 50 squarne feet excluding is 12-feet in height
and the graphic sign cabinet is approximately
decorative arched top. The sign is internally illuminated and the cabinet will
be stuccoed to match the proposed building color (Navajo White). The "Simon
DRBST.013
02t
rtion of the
the decorative arched
will
be royaloblue (translucent will
over white plexi-glass). The cabinet base
will be tiled. The triangular sign will be located at the northwest corner of
the site.
B. Directional Parking Signs: The freestanding directional signs are three feet
in height and three square feet. The signs will be lighted and the design is
consistent with the center identification sign.
C. Attached Building Signs: The building signs are located on various areas of
the easterly -most building complex which will house the future bowling alley,
fitness center, and restaurant. The illuminated channel lettered signs are to
have blue plexiglass faces (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue) except for a slight
variation in the bowling alley sign adding orange/white/red to the blue. The
sign program will consist of:
I. Restaurant
a. Highway ill elevation = 12" letters (10 sq. ft.)
b. Parking lot elevation = 18" letters (22.5 sq. ft.)
Family Fitness Center
a. Parking lot elevation = 18" letters (43.5 sq. ft.)
3. Bowling Alley
a. Highway 111 elevation = 24" letters (52 sq. ft.)
b. Parking lot elevation = 14" letters (18.5 sq. ft.)
TOTAL = +146.5 sq. ft.
ZONING CODE PROVISIONS (EXCERPTSI:
"B.
I. Freestanding Signs.
a. Each commercial complex containing a multiple -tenant
building or multiple buildings is permitted one complex
identification sign per street frontage. The area of any
one sign shall not exceed one -quarter of a square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of street frontage area ft all u e
feet, whichever is less. The aggregate
signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet and sign
area may not be combined among street frontages.
b. Not pertinent for this report.
c. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be
twelve feet.
DRBST.013
02r
M. Directional Signs. Nonadvertising, freestanding signs used to identify
street entrance and exit. Said signs must have three square feet of
sign area and be three feet in height.
Attached Signs
a. Each tenant within a multiple -tenant commercial complex
may have one attached identification sign not to exceed one
square foot of sign area per lineal foot of tenant space
frontage along a street, or frontage along a common use
parking lot where no direct street frontage is provided,
not exceeding fifty square feet. Corner, end, or separate
tenant spaces may split the allowable frontage sign area
among two signs."
STAFF COMMENTS:
The monument sign and directional signs are consistent with the design theme of the
project, and the proposed colors are appropriate for this area. The signs would be
architecturally compatible with surrounding S businesses uses. A summary of our
thoughts on the building sign package
A. Building Sign Colors: The blue copy of the building letters are a contrast to
the architectural style of the project and although the blue letters will be
legible during the day and at night, the color might not be appropriate for
this building. As the Board will recall, the building complex is painted Navajo
white with a brown and rust accents and clay -tile roofing. Our thoughts on
this program would be to use either a rust plexiglass or black/white plexiglass
for this project. The black/white plexi-glass is a newer product which is
black in the day and white at night. This type of product was used in a
commercial project in Cathedral City at Date Palm Drive and Converse Road,
ividual
ted to
tand it is verattractive if the he building. However, we will leave theletter color election pto the Board match.
B. Building Signaae Locations: The signs are located in acceptable locations on
the building except for the fitness center sign on the parking lot elevation.
This sign is sandwiched in between the second and third story windows and
designed to detract from the architecture style of the building complex. The
Side Ordinance does not allow signs on the building for second story tenants.
Staff would prefer that the sign designer and architect find another solution
for this business tenant. This might involve a revising of the first floor
elevation to accommodate the proposed sign.
C. Sign Lettering Height: Sign lettering is a key component of building
identification, but architectural compatibility is also an ingredient, as well as
human -scale. As noted before, the sign contractor has proposed lettering
heights of 12" to 24" for this project. Therefore, the legibility of the signs
from a distance will be approximately:
DRBST.013
Maximum
Readability
Readable
Letter Height
Impact
Distance
12"
120'
525'
11
150'
630'
1811
180'
750'
24"
240'
1,000,
NOTE: Red, black, or white letters (maximum) with 10% variation for other
colors (e.g., blue).
In summary, the size of the letters for the project will be easy to read for all
patrons in the parking lot area and for passing motorists on either main
thoroughfare depending on your direction of travel.
D. Reverse Channel Letter Signing: If the Design Review Board is not
comfortable with the proposed channel lettering of design of the Applicant,
the Board might want to consider a reverse channel lettering program for this
center. A reverse channel letter has an open back which allows the neon
lighting to be cast on the building thus ghosting the non -transparent face of
the letter. This type of sign creates a softer affect on the building than an
internally lit plexi-glass sign as proposed by DGI, Inc. Another type of sign
the Board might consider is a individual letter (cast, molded, etc.) which can
be uplighted from the front of the sign. In this alternative, the lighting
fixture is a critical element of sign design and if not developed appropriately
it can look unattractive.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
m the future
1 Each freestanding sign should be a minimum of five feet property line t abuts. No signs should be placed in the City srightrof-way
2. The master sign program should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
3. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sign
visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective sign.
4. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental
to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and
contrasting to the background it is affixed to.
l be
ed to
5 brightnesslwhich would l proposed lldistra t passing motorists luminated signs iand/olr pedestrians.
indue
Any and
6. The sign colors should be approved by the Design Review Board.
7. Any signs for the office building which fronts Washington Street on the
satellite restaurant/bank should be reviewed separately by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission since the sign package was not submitted for
review.
DRBST.013
02 S
8 The directional parking signs shall be limited to a single
word "parking" for each driveway access pointdirectional asshown on She t 01a
to
g. The proposed fitness center sign should be located in close proximity to the
first floor level of the building and located to be architecturally compatible
with the building facade. Revised plans to be approved by Staff.
10. Reverse channel letter "signs" should be encouraged for this project.
11 • No exposed raceways, crossovers, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc
should be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware should be behind
the building structure.
12. The Planning Commission should consider the Applicant's request for a minor
sign adjustment for the bowling alley sign on Highway I I l since it is slightly
larger than 50 square feet and if the fitness center sign is located on the
second story portion of the building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board approve the sign concept and
forward this matter to the Planning Commission for final consideration.
Attachments:
1. Sign graphics
2. Site plan sketch with sign locations
DRBST.013
,J�C
9
vacant
Existing -Traffic Signal
C Vacant land
Plaza La Quinta Parking
C
Point HaPPY Ranch
ew Br
r Vacant Building
aQ
T
Existing Tract Hones
Washington Street Frontage
Road
Raised Median
CASE MAP
CASE Na
SIMON PLAZA PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
ORT
SCALE:
03
1
a is
3
2 �
cA
x
i
I
031
r J1
3
ol
e
v�
v
r.,
T >
CN
owl
., wz
3l0
L
if
j
`?3/
T ,
I N
oar
I 3�
�w• � � Z 2Y1 ��F
r�\
A
tO
_
e
W
s L
z f\
°
c
z
f
i
�
n
0
1
Oi
CL
♦`
VDOL
>
tCL
10
cn
7
Z
I
v
VN
m
Lz
S
M V
�C--'
I 1'k
J. '
}. T
,_ 037
2
03�
FANCY STYLES --),
.....,.y............ ,
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUV WXYZ
0123456789
BLOCK STYLES
I
HELVETICA MED. A.K.REV.F
ABC DEFGHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
!"#S%&'*O"*-=c Ug):.,.i ?
HELVETICA BOLD A.K. REV.0
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPORSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
OPTIMA SEMI BOLD A.K.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
TUVWXYZ1234567890
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
!11$7o&,O-"Q f ®:; /?,.
1--iJROSTILE BOLD EXTENDE
A.K. REV. B
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
7uVWXYz
abcclef ghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
AVANT GARDE A.K. REV. C
ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdef g hijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
GENERAL SYMBOLS EXT, REV.F
0 ON:4p*0*81-
tyan4ls,to a&l`Y
®a/11p*+ItAQxr+.t699am:cIcm�
� E. N E .R E- JK E- r, le ®®Ai* V Wv'?k A'S IC
�U"9Cnabcde�g6t!kQmeopgns(uuwry�
0129496789
vurx��
adcde�glci�!¢l�xK o,trg satuvu<xq�
Olt 45670 !li°'�� �•.
UNIVERSITY ROMAN A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGIIIJKlMNOPOP IC\VI'XYZ
abcdcF,Sh klmnohyrsluVu'\�z
0123456789
CENTURY BOLD A.K. REV. A
AlICl)ERMIJKLMNOBIRSTUVWXYZ
abcdef z hi jklm nopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
CLARENDON BOLD A.K. REV. t
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV WXYZ
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwayz
0123456789
SOUVENIR DEMI A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX
VZ
abcdefghijklmnol)grstuvwxyz
0123456789
COOPER BLACK A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
TUVWXYZ
albcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456769
!44s&, )"—cf9:;,.?/
n3