1993 02 03 DRBv
A
1982 - 1992
( 1 , ,
Uln
Ten Carat]
to
•
A Regular Meeting to be held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
February 3, 1993
5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. BUSIT ESS 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.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR -
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Design Review Board Meeting of January 6,
1993.
V. OTHER
VI. ADJOURNMENT
- 001
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1993
PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 93-195
REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM SIGN PROGRAM FOR 111 LA QUINTA CENTER
TO ALLOW CORPORATE SIGNAGE.
APPLICANT: BASKIN ROBBINS
SIGN COMPANY: AWARD SIGN COMPANY
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN WASHINGTON
STREET AND ADAMS STREET (78-520 HIGHWAY 111)
BACKGROUND:
Baskin Robbins is leasing shop space in this center at the far west end of the existing shop
buildings just east of the new AM/PM. Because Baskin Robbins is a large national chain, they
are requesting approval to utilize their standard sign which does not comply with the sign
program which was adopted for the center. In approving the sign program, a provision was
included to allow national tenants with more than five outlets to use their standard sign with
approval from the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The Applicant's sign is one of their several standard signs utilized for their stores. The
Applicant proposes individual channel letter signs which are internally illuminated. Both upper
and lower case letters are proposed to be used with a "31" logo placed between the words
Baskin and Robbins. The Applicant proposes to have letters which are white plexi-glass faced
and outlined with slate grey. The trim caps and returns will be black. The "31" logo with a
partial circle around the top is proposed to have pink background with white numbers outlined
in slate grey. This logo will also be internally illuminated and have black returns and trim caps.
Because the location is a corner suite the Applicant is proposing two signs as allowed by the sign
program. On the west elevation the Applicant is proposing that the sign be a maximum F 8"
high by 17' long (27 square feet) and be placed on the facia of the covered walkway. The
second sign would be placed on the tower structure which is located at the corner of the
building. The sign program does allow signs to be placed on the tower structure. This second
sign would be a maximum F6" tall by 14' long (21 square feet). The highest point of the sign
DRBST.077 1
D02
is the half circle around the logo. The letters will be shorter than this 1'6" height. The total
square footage of the two signs would be approximately 48.2 square feet which does not exceed
the 50 square feet allowed by the sign program. The sign program does require that signs on
comers be separated by at least twenty feet. If this request is approved it will be subject to the
condition that the signs be twenty feet apart.
The Applicant is proposing an under canopy sign for use by pedestrians as allowed by the sign
program. Except for the copy, style and colors the sign is in compliance with the sign program.
The sign is proposed to be a sand blasted wood painted sign to match the main sign.
ANALYSIS:
As previously noted, national or regional tenants are allowed to utilize their standard sign design
if it is approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. As you will recall,
Payless Shoes was granted approval of two signs for their location near Wal-Mart.
In reviewing the signs, Staff feels that provided the concept of the signs is acceptable, the main
requirement is that the two signs be separated by twenty feet. The sign on the westerly elevation
will be visible from Washington Street. The sign on the south elevation which is slightly angled
to the west will be partially visible to Washington Street as well as the area further to the south.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff feels that the signs could be approved based on the sign program provisions and therefore
recommends approval of the two signs with the stipulation that there be at least twenty feet
distance separating the signs as required by the sign program.
Attachments:
1. Sign exhibits
2. Applicable sign code provisions
DRBST.077
003
+y� i V l
• ai` 'l ° 4 n�`F.
d _PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
759E
"AREA A"
NET SIGN AREA
C"
75%
m
AREA B" I `�
'NET SIGN AREAT
L-._--1
Leasehold Nc th I Leasehold Width
I (Varies) (Varies)
Lease Line --jl Lease Line —�
PURPOSE: MAJOR IDENTIFICATION
QUANTITY: ONE PER LEASE AREA FRONTAGE
CORNER END SPACES MAY SPLIT s;TO
1�
ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE SIGN AREA AMONG TWO SIGNS* 5 EOft'
NET SIGN AREA A: AS DEFINED ABOVE, NOT TO EXCEED 50 S.F. MAX. -by) yy„h, �11J I W�
(INCLUDING TENANT LOGO) oh lz
NET SIGN AREA B: AS DEFINED ABOVE (TOWER LOCATIONS). NOT
TO EXCEED 50 ST. MAX• • INCLUDING TENANT LOGO
LETTER STYLE: HELVETICA LIGHT OR AS APPROVED BY CITY AND DEVELOPER!
COLORS: N-I TEIREDIBLUE/GREEWYELLOW OR AS APPROVED BY
DEVELOPER!
MATERIAL: PLEXIGLAS FACE, MATTE BLACK PAINTED ALUMINUM CAN. INTERNALLY
ILLUMINATED INDMDUAL LETTERS.
NET SIGN AREA C (ADDRESS):
LETTER STYLE: 6• HELVETICA LIGHT
COLORS'. TRAZEE', CZ•5WW A oY� 6 � I&V f &J-
MATERIAL: DIECUT FACED LETTERS � N Iti% VA VA W-10, 0V%
• NATIONAL OR REGIONA TS WITH MORE THAN 5 OUTLETS WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE
THEIR STANDARD SIGNANO TWO ADJACENT SEPERATE TENANT SIGNS SHALL BE THE SAME
COLOR WITHOUT CITY APPROVAL. ONE COLOR ONLY PER SIGN OTHER THAN LOGO UNLESS
APPROVED BY CITY.
22
oUr
#NE ELEVEN LA QUINTA
PROGRAM
PLANNED SIGN
PURPOSE: SHOP IDENTIFICATION
QUANTITY: ONE PER LEASE SPACE
SIGN AREA: 3.5 S.F.
LETTER STYLE: HELVETICA LIGHT
COLORS: WHITEIREDBLUEIGREEWYELLOW TO MATCH PRIMARY SIGN
OR AS APPROVED BY DEVELOPER AND CITY.
MATERIAL: WOOD OR WOOD LIKE MATERIAL
UNDERCANOPY SIGN OPTIONAL PER DEVELOPER
.� 00523
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
January 6, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 P.M.
A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M. and led the flag
salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Fred Rice, Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright,
James Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Adolph, and Chairman
Harbison.
B. Staff present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Associate Planners Wallace
Nesbit, Greg Trousdell, and Leslie Blodgett, and Department Secretary Betty
Anthony.
III. BUSINFSS SESSION
A. Tentative Tract 23269; a request of Century Homes for review of architectural
elevations for a proposed new Unit #5 to be constructed on 11 lots in Phase 5.
DRB1-6
1. Associate Planner Leslie Blodgett 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 Staff to clarify whether any of the units would
be made into models. Staff deferred to Mr. Bob Diehl, the applicant who
answered questions concerning models, square footage of the
house/garage.
3. Boardmember Harbison asked if this style and size of house was what the
market was buying. Mr. Diehl replied they were having a favorable
response to the house. Discussion followed regarding the cost of the unit.
1
0Oo
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
4. Boardmember Adolph asked if downspouts and gutters were to be
installed. Mr. Diehl stated they were using gutter diverters only to hold
their housing costs down.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice
and seconded by Boardmember Anderson to recommend approval to the
Planning Commission of Unit N5 for Tentative Tract 23269 for the 11 lots
in Phase 5.
Following the motion, Chairman Harbison asked the applicant if there
were plans to add more shading to the south and west elevations. Mr.
Diehl stated that on some of the units which had extensive sun exposure
they were adding the pop -outs, but again their objective was to reduce
their housing costs. Chairman Harbison asked if patio covers were being
offered. Mr. Diehl stated they were not offering this feature.
Following the discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
B. Plot Plan 92-494; a request of the Lube Shope for approval of a plot plan
application.
DRB1-6
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.
2. Boardmembers asked what the land use was on the pad to the south. Staff
stated there were no approval for this space at the present time. The only
project approved was the Shell station. Questions followed relative to the
Shell station being built at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and
Adams Street.
3. Boardmember Curtis stated the Board would need to see the sign program
for this project at some point.
4. Mr. Gary Knutson, architect for the project, stated he had no objections
to Staff s recommendations. He stated he was working with a landscape
architect to address the recommendation of Staff as noted in the Staff
report.
5. Boardmember Curtis asked the applicant to explain the length of the north
block wall as it related to the trash enclosure. Discussion followed
resulting in a continued block wall with an architectural feature at the end
of the wall.
2
007
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
6. Commissioner Adolph asked if the north end of the building encroached
into the setback area. Mr. Knutson stated it did and they had applied for
a variance for the setback. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant
was planning to use pepper trees near the sidewalk area. Mr. Knutson
stated he would refer the matter to the landscape architect.
7. Commissioner Adolph asked the applicant if the bays would have hoists.
Mr. Knutson stated there were no hoists and there would be no major
automobile repair work done at the site. Commissioner Adolph also asked
if the tree at the entrance to the car wash area would create a nuisance.
Mr. Knutson stated he wanted the tree to soften the amount of concrete
in this area. Discussion followed as to the actual processing of cars
through the car wash.
8. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant had any environmental
problems. Mr. Knutson stated they did not and explained their recycling
program.
9. Commissioner Adolph asked if there would be roll -up doors. Mr.
Knutson stated the bays would have a metal roll -up door painted to match
the split face concrete block.
10. Boardmember Campbell inquired about the thickness of the arches and
suggested that the tower needed to stand out more. Mr. Knutson stated
he would add more bright colors to the tower if the Board wanted him to.
11. There being no further questions, Boardmember Anderson moved and
Boardmember Campbell seconded a motion to recommend approval to the
Planning Commission for Plot Plan 92-494 subject to the sign program
returning to the Design Review Board review. Unanimously approved.
C. Sign Approval 92-190; a request of Simon Motors for approval of a freestanding
sign on Highway 111.
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.
2. Boardmember Wright asked how many existing signs there were. Staff
stated they were not certain but believed there to be nine.
3. Mr. Mark Simon, owner, stated his reasons for his request and that they
DRBl-6 3
00,E
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
would be willing to give up some of their present wall signage to gain the
larger freestanding sign. He further made a correction on one of the logo
sign colors.
4. Boardmember Rice gave a history of the car dealership for the Board.
5. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to explain how the future Simon
Plaza building would hide their signs. Discussion followed regarding the
location and view of the different signs.
6. Boardmember Curtis asked if the applicant had tried to build a sign within
the Code requirements. Mr. Skip Berg, DGI Graphics, stated this was
impossible because the sign graphics would be reduced to a size that could
be seen and still have it seen. Discussion followed regarding the height
of the sign and the concern for setting a precedent for other developers on
Highway 111.
7. Boardmember Wright stated that the future Simon Plaza sign was so
similar in letter style that motorist would tie the two projects together.
Mr. Simon stated he did not agree. Discussion followed regarding the
present signage.
8. Boardmember Anderson stated he could not support a 29-foot high sign.
He felt the applicant should submit to the Board justification that provided
the sign needed to be 29-feet to be seen.
9. Mr. Berg stated that the 12-foot high Code requirement should only be a
guideline, as all developments would not be able to meet that requirement.
10. Boardmembers discussed with the applicant how the future Simon Plaza
building would block Simon Motors signs. Following the discussion, it
was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember
Curtis to continue the Sign Approval to the next meeting to give the
applicant time to submit line of sight graphics, graphics showing the
existing signage, and giving examples of what the different height signs
would look like. Unanimously approved.
D. Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490; a request of E.F.P. Corporation (Ed
Carnes) for approval of development standards for a future shopping center and
approval to develop a +251,272 square foot commercial shopping center located
at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111.
DRB1-6
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
4
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Boardmember stated their concern that the applicant was not present.
Discussion followed regarding the lack of the necessary information
needed by the Board to make a decision about. The plans again did not
show complete elevations as they should relate to the site plan and in
addition they were not consistent.
3. Following the discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and
seconded by Boardmember Rice to continue the matter in order to have
the applicant present. Before the vote was taken, the applicant arrived
and Boardmembers Curtis and Rice withdrew their motion.
4. Michael Hurst, architect for the project, stated he would answer any
questions the Board may have. Boardmember Anderson explained the
need to have elevations that were complete and showed their relation to
the site plan. Mr. Hurst stated he had submitted these plans in that
manner. Lengthy discussion followed regarding what the Board was
looking for and examples were cited.
5. Following the discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and
seconded by Boardmember Curtis to continue the matter to a special
meeting on January 13, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. Unanimously approved.
Boardmember Anderson stipulated that the plans must have complete
elevations that relate to the site plan with all colors and materials called
out succinctly.
F. La Quinta 66-Acre Master Plan; a request of the City for review of alternative
plans for the City owned property located northeast of the intersection of 48th
Avenue and Jefferson Street.
DRBl-6
L Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Boardmember Curtis suggested that the commercial site be moved to the
front of the corner of Jefferson Street.
3. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern for a night -lighted golf course
in close proximity to senior housing.
4. Boardmember Curtis inquired the width of the driving range. Staff stated
s
010
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
it was 400 feet.
5. Boardmember Anderson asked if there was a different grade between the
school facility and the City maintenance yard. Staff stated that
6. Boardmember Curtis felt the post office should be placed closer to the
senior housing.
7. Discussion followed regarding moving the well site between the fire
station and the City maintenance yard, the view corridor for the senior
housing, and whether Jefferson Street would be signalized.
8. Following the discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and
seconded by Boardmember Anderson to recommend approval of the
Master Plan utilizing the following changes:
a. Using the north side of the Wash of Alternative #1; and
b. Using the south side of the Wash of Alternative #2; and
C. Relocating the post office on Alternative #2 and the well site; and.
d. Put the commercial closer to Jefferson Street.
Unanimously approved.
F. Approval of Landscape Design for Center Medians; a request of the City for
review of landscape designs for center median on Washington Street between
Singing Palms Drive and 48th Avenue.
DRB1-6
1. Mr. Tom Doczi, TKD, presented the information contained in the Staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Boardmembers discussed the variety of plants/trees to be used as well as
those in nearby developments. Following the discussion, Boardmembers
expressed their desire to have the date palms used as much as possible.
3. Boardmember Anderson inquired if lighting would be used. Mr. Doczi
explained the type of lighting that was proposed.
4. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Adolph and
seconded by Boardmember Anderson to recommend approval of the
median design subject to the use of 20-foot Date Palms. Unanimously
approved.
9
Oil
Design Review Board Minutes
December 2, 1992
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Boardmember Curtis asked that the Minutes of October 7, 1992, be amended to show the
month that Boardmembers were excused from. In addition, the Minutes of December
2, 1992, be amended to show on the roll call that Chairwoman Barrows attended not
Planning Commissioner Marrs. Chairman Harbison asked that the Minutes also be
amended on Page 2, Item #3 to read "40-foot maximum Palms". There being no further
correction, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Boardmember
Anderson to approve the Minutes of October 7, 1992, November 18, 1992, and
December 2, 1992, as amended. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER
A. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented to the Board an example of a City
entry sign designed by Mr. Ron Nawrocki, La Quinta Lettering.
1. Boardmember Anderson asked for clarification as to what type of sign it
was.
2. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern whether the sign could be
integrated with the Simon Plaza sign which they conditioned to be
combined. Discussion followed.
3. Boardmember Rice stated his disapproval of the letter style. He would
submit different sample of letter styles.
4. Following the discussion, Planning Director Jerry Herman summarized the
Members concern:
a. The letter style be changed.
b. The location may be limited.
C. All the signs have the potential to be different due to the granite
piece.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Rice to adjourn to a
special meeting of the Design Review Board on January 13, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting
of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 8:44 P.M., January 6, 1993.
DRBl-6
7
012