Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993 04 07 DRB
1982 - 1992 uinw Ten Carat Decade Wit 6Y o/ Ya 2mienla DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California April 7, 1993 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute II. ROLL CALL IV BUSINESS SESSION A. Continued - Sign Approval 93-197; a request of JFK Memorial Hospital for approval of a deviation from the Master Sign Program and Sign Ordinance for the new JFK Sign Program at Plaza Tampico. B. Continued - Sign Approval 92-190; a request of Simon Motors for approval to install a new freestanding sign for the existing Simon Motors Car Dealership. C. Continued - Sign Approval 93-203; a request of Anchovie's Pizzeria for final approval of an awning and sign. D. Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza to develop a mixed use commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres zoned C-P-S commercial. E. Sign Application 93-207; a request of Clothestime for a deviation from the sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center to allow corporate signage. F. Conditional Use Permit 93-006; a request of Taco Bell for approval to construct and operate a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. G. Sign Program Amendment - One Eleven La Ouinta Center; a request of TDC for a deviation from the approved sign program. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Design Review Board Meeting of March 3, 1993, V. OTHER VI. AD.IOURNMENT U01 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING B I #A DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 93-197 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 3, 1993) APPLICANT: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI GRAPHICS CLIENT: JFK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, MR. HARRIS F. KOENIG REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE NEW JFK SIGN PROGRAM AT PLAZA TAMPICO. LOCATION: 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO (NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AT CALLE TAMPICO). BACKGROUND: On March 3, 1993, the Design Review Board examined the request of JFK Memorial Hospital to install a new freestanding sign and additional building signs at their facility at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive but prior to the meeting a continuance was requested by Mr. Harris F. Koenig, Associate Administrator of JFK Hospital. The Board voted to continue the request. However, prior to continuing the case to April 7th, the Design Review Board stated that the proposed freestanding sign (12-foot high and 42 sq. ft.) should be redesigned so that it is consistent with the existing standards of the Village Specific Plan. The Board expressed hope that the project identification sign would be redesigned before the next meeting. No new information has been received since the last meeting. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Staff cannot support the Applicant's request based on the adopted materials for this site, design, and ordinance requirements. If the Applicant wishes to deviate from the adopted provisions noted in the attached report the application must be reviewed by the Planning Commission per Section 9.212.120.C.1 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend denial of the current proposal, but if the Applicant would like to revise the graphics package, Staff would request continuing the matter to the May agenda. Attachments: 1. March 3, 1993 Report _t 01 DRBST. 085 002 LG STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 1993 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 93-197 APPLICANT: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI GRAPHICS CLIENT: JFK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, MR. HARRIS F. KOENIG REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE NEW JFK SIGN PROGRAM AT PLAZA TAMPICO. LOCATION: 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO (NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AT CALLE TAMPICO). BACKGROUND: The existing two story office/retail complex was approved in 1985. The existing site is developed with improvements which were made to the site during the development of Phase One of the property as required by Plot Plan 85-217 (Plaza Tampico). The westerly half of the site is vacant. The master plan approved for the site allows the ultimate development of 100,000 square feet. The six acre site is zoned C-V-N (Commercial Village "North"). APPROVED MASTER SIGN PROGRAM: The Master Sign Program for this site was approved by the City on April 25, 1989. The program was drafted by the Imperial Sign Company for the Plaza Tampico center. A copy of the approved program is attached. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant has requested new identification signs for the main tenant of the building (JFK Medical). The new program includes a 52 square feet freestanding sign on Calle Tampico and a 42 square feet building sign. Both signs are internally illuminated can signs. The 12-foot high freestanding sign is located at the southeast corner of the site and the new building sign will be placed on the west side of the building on the building parapet. The new signs will replace the existing on -site signs. The JFK corporate colors will be used (white and blue). DRBST.079 ®2 f) 0 I ' P juilast "General Retail Sales and Services, Business and Professional Offices, Eating and Drinking Establishments and Other Commercial Uses. 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, or fifty square feet, which is less. The aggregate area of all such signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet and sign area may not be combined among street frontages. b. (Not pertinent to this case.) C. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be twelve feet. 2. 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. EXISTING DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN: The Downtown Village Specific Plan (87-009) was approved in 1988. The plan covered approximately 100 acres and includes this property. The specific plan addressed many topics and it included development guidelines for on and off -site signs. These guidelines are attached. However, the C-V-N Zone code also states: "Signs in the North Subzone shall focus on commercial centers or complex identification, oriented to views from automobile traffic. Internal site signage shall be scaled appropriately to its purpose and function. Building identification shall be oriented to parking lot access. Uses within buildings shall be provided with pedestrian directories. It is not intended that all occupants of the C-V-N Subzone have equal signage exposure to the public right-of-way. All signs shall comply with Chapter 9.212, Sign Regulations, except that more restrictive provisions of the design standards for the Village shall apply." DRBST.079 a. 03 I The Applicant has requested a deviation from standards of the 1989 Master Sign Program and the 1988 Downtown Specific Plan requirements. The first issue Staff would like to address is the proposal by the Applicant to remove the existing "Plaza Tampico" monument sign from the project site in order to install the new twelve foot high multiple copy sign to the east of the existing identification sign. The existing low profile sign is located at the westerly -most driveway into the center on Calle Tampico. The existing sign (shown on Page 5 of 10 of the Master Sign Program) is consistent with the intent of the Village Specific Plan for signs to have a visual relationship to the building or its surroundings be indirectly lit and be wood or tile. The new sign generally meets the provisions of the Sign Ordinance, but it does not meet the intent of either the existing sign program nor the Specific Plan guidelines. Staff is opposed to the new submittal because it is out of character with the future design program for this area and it includes multiple copy graphics for the on -site physicians. Staff would support a similar sign to that which exists except with new copy identifying the "JFK Civic Center Medical Plaza" if properly designed. The second issue is the request for a new cabinet sign to replace the existing building mounted sign on the westerly side of the building. The new sign measures 3' X 14' and is located on the upper portion of the two story structure (see the attached plans). The graphics for the side of the building are located on Page 9 of 10 of the sign program. The approval allows a sign on the first floor level of the building versus the second story elevation proposed by the Applicant, plus only non -illuminated signs are not allowed. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Staff cannot support the Applicant's request based on the adopted materials for this site, design, and ordinance requirements. If the Applicant would like to deviate from the adopted provisions noted above, the application must be reviewed by the Planning Commission per Section 9.212.120.C.1 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend denial of the current proposal, but if the Applicant would like to revise the graphics package, Staff would request continuing the matter to the April agenda. Attachments: 1. Sign Exhibits 2. Letter from JFK Hospital 3. Excerpts from the adopted Village Specific Plan 4. Master Sign Program DRBST.079 3 04 1J 14 - :0 (.r..✓ DATE: March 3, 1993 ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION: TO: Gregg Trousdall Planning Department G FROM: Harris F. Roenig �"� Associate Administrator SUBJECT.' Reference 093-197 We are in receipt of the staff report regarding our proposal to install signage at 78-150 Calle Tampico. Based on staff s recommendation, we would request that this item be continued to allow us too confer with staff in order to modify our proposal so that it is acceptable to staff. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If there are any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to give me a call. kc �' 05 F�rL v, A O J TLC 15' ','JFKCIVICCENTER C l i r 0s 77� iE W" LU 7::. 3 T L. 07 003 08 00S JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 47.111 MONROE STREET INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 619•347•6191 February 11, 1993 To Whom it May Concern: Please be advised that Diversified Graphic Industries (DGI) is authorized to represent JFK Memorial Hospital with regard to the presentation for approval of signage to be installed at 78-150 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. This authorization is limited only to presentation of the signage plans. DGI is not authorized to enter into any conditions relating to the sign approval or modifications to the sign design that might occur as a result of the review without approval by JFK Memorial Hospital Administration. If there are any questions regarding this authorization, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 775-8019. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sin c ely, xs F. Kbenig Associate Administrator kc h t �' FEB 2 2 1993 ` Excerpt from the Village Specific Plan Signs Building Signs Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in its visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. Signs on glazed tile with indirect lighting are to be encouraged. Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited. The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to the minimum needed to convey the sign's major message and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. Accessory signs shall be given the same careful consideration of approval as that given for main signs. Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. Identification signs of a prototype design and corporation logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs. BOOK STORE BOUTIQUE RESTAURANT mir WORR 4.8.7 Signs Good signage is very important. Control over signs on private property will be handled through the City's sign ordinance and by the additional standards contained in this Specific Plan. But there is a whole array of signs that the City itself wit be responsible for, which include directional signs, street signs, traffic signs and Informational signs. The signs used in the Village should differ from signs used elsewhere in the City. This wig help to reinforce the uniqueness of the Village. Village signs should have a special design that reflects the character of the Village itself. Ideally there should be a special logo for the Village which will appear on all Village related signs. Directional signs to the Village should be placed at or near the main highway entrances to the city, Particularly Highway 111, Washington Street, and Jefferson Street. Since the Vlllage is not located on one of the major arterials in the Coachella Valley, people must be informed on how to get there. Hence the significance of the directional signs. Village directional signs should be Incorporated with other directional signing, in order to reduce sign proliferation. c� 10 oil o+TTACHP11M -1 P ri / or /O V� MASTER SIGN PPOGRAM FOR PLAZA TAMPICO Prepared For La Quinta Medical Plaza Ltd. By Imperial Sign Company, Inc. Indio. California EXHIBIT 4 . ,ge_CASE NO. JAN 2 6 1993 C�yvA�n•A�'V% RPpRQJE� "� ��n�,'s;,i►G Division 2 O` 2 of !0 -Fi-master BiOn-prvui aiu iQ. i'. d2a a,Mi.:ly is a u-espon@ neeessrLV.- il2 pr Oyf d.;1 CJo efa 3:i f5 that t�1c _aG�.i Grp :? fedf Ons:ble for _9 •� --Mart signage. -he J. fr=rent e_y- groups era as fo1lC.ws: Pr mare directional signs, Secondary directional signs, Tralfic regulatory, and Tenant signs. Ali oroposed Exterior Signage is to be submitted for approval to: La Quinta Medical Plaza LTD 500 South Sepulveda, Suite Y400 Los Angeles, California 90049 Once approved, the City of La Quinta Planning Department will have to see scaled drawings, supplied by a licensed sign contractor. In developing the Sign Criteria. one must keep the five basic categories of good signage in prospective, Direction, Information, Identification Regulation and/or Information Displays. SIGN GROUP "MONUMENT" The existing monument will consist of 10" Helvetica Medium Oxidized Bronze letters, stud mounted to both sides of base, to read: iPLAZA TAMPICO SIGN GROUP PP (Plot Plan) LANDLORD - SECONDARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: These signs are tp be located so that they follow and offer reinforcement to the Primary Sign Group. For instance, Directory Cabinet close to curb, listing Tenants within, along with A Plot Plan. Approximately 41W free standing Plot Plan Cabinet, located 2 inside the Tampico entrance, labeled PP. �� 3 EXHIBIT ? O)` y ,._CASE NO. ^Z- pG 3 GF 101 L f'!VLLiJn l' - FAFFIC REGULATOR'? Siu::S: Signs :ocatea within the ,iIci -z �egj..dtlry the -.-:w c+ crafl:: :e. ot_p signs, Do act Enter. or Gne way signs. nESE:NVEC PARKING ONLY Signs: To be located at "P" locations on t.`.e "PLOT PLAN". Approximately 711x14" double faced sign with :r_und and Brawn coo•:. Sig-S �o be installed on c f•:�c+t stee'. pc=_ts. SIGN GROUP VP (VisitDr Parking) VISITOR PARKING Signs: Aporoximately 18"x24" single faced signs. one located at Plaza Tamo.co entrance, to direct visitors to proper larking areas. SIGN GROUP S (Tenant Signs) TENANT Signs: Exterior mounted signage (City permit and Landlord approval needed). FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION: In general, Imperial Sign Company has written the sign program, and is familiar with Landlord and City requirements. All exterior signage is to comply with City of La Buinta's Sign and Building Codes in conjunction with La Quinta Medical Plaza people. Exterior signage is not to exceed one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of frontage, or for a total of 50 square feet. MATERIALS: 1/4" painted bronze aluminum letters for company name. Pictorial type Logos may be constructed from different type of substrate, if need be. ILLUMINATION/NON-ILLUMINATION: .� ")1 4 13 Tenant may illuminate signage indirectly with fluorescent rack lighting, with a low profile fixture to blend with building Colors. V yoF to / s^a:: Cc? _v =�rJC� a-r_ name rat`.er than aov=r=:s:nq sere-.ces. p'ic'=riai Leos are permitted as long a =ne -mac__ square foo.age is nc= exceede_. :OLI:RS; - Ali CrOV «i.'. be Tetium oronze color. Tenants will be able to use their corporate colors within their pictorial type logos Win. v. T'rFE .:T'rLE ANi CHARACTER HEIGHT: Tenant will be free to use their corporate type style, as long- as :t does not detract from the overall look of the structure. Character heignt for company name not to exceed 14". Pictorial Logo may be proportionally larger. ADDITIONAL NOTES: All type styles, pictorial type logos and colors, still need Landlord and City approval. All tenant signage is located on the submitted "Plot Plan" and is labelled "S". The proposed individual painted bronze letters will be stud mounted into plaster, at designated area on elevation print. I EXHIBIT Po CASE NO6-52- Zf }*L 01`, 14 106-544010 1 15 .UU of �y fC=L= o:)tdwvl 311v7 FT it ®�9 Y� In Z 1i W c K f J •— — i .10 W w Wth Y. ` r. N' swn 19t var�- P& G W IO 1 16 017 0 :g f wl N pCO -or- 10� r I PC.. g of . � 019 I itft 1 1 �S I 1 1 pt,; ,sell n •• j :f•::: i::u •sn4••. : •►• is I IMIII p■�i o. 0 go & 9 or jo .I �9 20 r^ ma PC p of 20 .��, 021 r Tq 4 78.106 CALLE ESTADO • LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • 1619) 664-2246 April 25, 1989 Mr. Mark Ross imperial Sign Company, Inc. 46-120 Calhoun Street Indio, California 92201 SUBJECT: PLAZA TAMPICO SIGN PROGRAM Dear Mr. Ross: The Planning and Development Department has reviewed the above -referenced program, and has approved it in concept, subject to the following conditions: 1. All signage submitted shall substantially conform to locations as shown on Exhibit A (6 sheets), and the descriptions as set forth in Exhibit B of the sign program, except where the following conditions make modifications, deletions, or additions. 2. Signage not poothe unprogram der hall conform to Chapter 9.212fLaQuintaniipalCode. 3. The following signage is permitted without further review or building permit(s) required: a. Monument sign as proposed, if non -illuminated; b. Any required or necessary directional signage for parking and traffic control purposes only. 4. reviewol(noinfee)igbyge theall Planningectand Development Department prior to installation: a. All tenant signage locations, size and design, and colors; b. Tennant directory sign. 2,1. 5. The Landmark sign/logo shown on the Building E south elevation (sheet 2 of 5) is not permitted pursuant -to 022 r G 2 of "L Section 9.212.120.C.1 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. An adjustment from the Planning Commission may be requested pursuant to 9.212.030.F for this signage. 6. Any illumination shall be limited to backlit lettering/logos or back lighting located underneath signage to be illuminated. Neon, channel -lettered, or can -type signage is prohibited. 7. No pictorial logo may exceed 30 inches in height, unless a written request to do so is approved by the Planning and Development Director. This sign program approval governs only the number, location, and sign types to be permitted. No specific tennant signage approvals are being implied; only the monument sign and parking/traffic control signs may be installed as a result of this approval. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Way Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner wN/ad cc: Bill Gates,. Code- Enforcement officer enclosures: Approved Exhibits A and B 22 023 c u G h N VH � 6N .P Y F 0 u V Y Y o C O t) O • C aD� Co N Mr C C `O Y MV y V � Y � a oo e. O Y L Y Y Sot O YO w4i V 000 O M 0 iV C i 4V W N Y • Y w I 4 plan`{�!{� Few A r kH M t,vr. 03 A 0 i Zcw-2 U L p T U R` i (408) 899-1805 (408) 899-0903 PAX PROPOSAL ONLY JUKE 6, 1989 Tower W idt��i ®/ LANDMARK LAND 0• 6 9 aw 18-140 CALLS — LA QOINTA, CA 253 )73- 371) TO: PAM _L' RE: TAMPICO SIGNAGE BRO NZE LETTERS TO BE CUT PROM 1/49 BRONZE PLATE SAME MATERIAL AS TREE,SATIN PINISH,DAR1s EDGES, AND TO BE SEALED IN A CLEAR -DURATHANE- MOUNTING SHALL BE 1/42 SOLES DRILLED AND TAPPED 1/4x20.BRONZE STUDS PROVIDED. COST FOR LETTERING ONLY 1,850.00 SALES TAJ(�PACKING Al SHIPPING CnR RS TO BE ADDED, ALLOW FOUR TO SIX WEEKS DELIVERY. EXHIBIT a SA CASE NO. 89-10r P; 2 5 2 4 . rr4Y III 6AZA-fAMPCO CALLE 'fAh1PICD VICINI Y ISM° N f. Ul I CALLE ArnimMfnrr- *q ,. 020 25 T,dy 4 4 Qawaj 78.105 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92253 - 1619) 564-2246 FAX (8191 664-6617 December 4, 1989 Ms. Lynn Jensen Landmark Land Company 78-140 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON SA 89-106 Dear Ms. Jensen: This is to inform you that that La Quinta Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 28, 1989, did take the following action regarding the above subject: By minute motion, the Planning Commission granted approval for Sign Application 89-106, subject to conditions as set forth in the Staff Report previously sent to you. A copy of the Conditions is attached for your files, along with the appcaved sign exhibits. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING 4 DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner WN/mr attachments cc: Code Enforcement Division Tom Hartung, Building Official MR/LTRWN 05 � 2 F Iu�AILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 1504 • LA OUINTA. CALIFORNIA 92253 .0 _, 027 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPROVAL NO. 89-106 NOVEMBER 28, 1989 1. Design and location of the approved signage shall be in conformance with Exhibits A and B, as contained in the file for SA #89-106, except where these conditions shall take precedence. 2. This approval for SA #89-106 shall be used within one year of the date of approval, or the approval shall become null and void. 3. Prior to installation of the approved signage, Applicant shall apply for and obtain a building permit through the Planning and Development Department. 27 BJ/CONAPRVL.028 1 0 2 S STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 3, 1993) PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 92-190 APPLICANT: SIMON MOTORS OWNER: MR. FRED SIMON REPRESENTATIVE: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI GRAPHICS REQUEST: TO INSTALL A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS CAR DEALERSHIP AT 78-611 HIGHWAY 111. THE SIGN IS 29-FEET HIGH AND APPROXIMATELY 129 SQUARE FEET. A SIGN ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE THE SIGN EXCEEDS THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE STANDARDS. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Board examined the request of the Applicant on March 3, 1993. A copy of the original report is attached. The Design Review Board reviewed Mr. Berg's perspective sketches of how the new sign would be visually blocked by the future development of the Simon Plaza project to the west of the Simon Motors Automobile Dealership. The Design Review Board also wanted to know if Mr. Simon was willing to remove some of his exterior building signs in order to build the new freestanding sign at the intersection of Simon Drive and Highway 111. At the meeting, Staff informed the Design Review Board that the Simon Plaza project, to the west of the car dealership, had expired. Based on this new information, the Board continued the project to April 7th in order to allow Mr. Berg time to discuss this new development issue with his client, and to prepare additional photo overlays which depict a 12-foot high sign at the site in addition to the 29-foot high sign proposed by the Applicant. No new information has been received since the March 3rd meeting. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot find any valid reasons to recommend approval of the proposed design or an adjustment for this sign based on the existing Sign Ordinance or site conditions. DRBST.086 1 01 029 RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board either recommend denial of the Applicant's request to exceed the provisions of the Sign Code based on the provisions of Section 9.212.030F of the existing Sign Ordinance or continue the project to May in order to allow the Applicant time to prepare additional photo overlays of the project per the Board's recommendation of March 3, 1993. Attachments: 1. Design Review Board report dated March 3, 1993. DRBST.086 2 02 030 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 6, 1993) PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 92-190 APPLICANT: SIMON MOTORS OWNER: MR. FRED SIMON REPRESENTATIVE: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI GRAPHICS REQUEST: TO INSTALL A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS CAR DEALERSHIP AT 78-611 HIGHWAY 111. THE SIGN IS 29-FEET HIGH AND APPROXIMATELY 129 SQUARE FEET. A SIGN ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE THE SIGN EXCEEDS THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE STANDARDS. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Board examined the requests of the Applicant on January 6, 1993. A copy of the original report and Design Review Board Minutes are attached from this meeting. The Design Review Board requested that Mr. Berg submit for their review, perspective sketches of how the new sign would be visually blocked by the future development of the Simon Plaza project to the west of the Simon Motors Automobile Dealership. The Design Review Board also wanted to know if Mr. Simon was willing to remove some of his exterior building signs in order to build the new freestanding sign at the intersection of Simon Drive and Highway 111. NEW SUBMITTAL: The sign designer submitted to Staff on February 22, 1993, new information on the proposed project. Mr. Berg has taken 13" X 20" colored photographs of the area and has added an overlay sheet to each exhibit which examines the effect of the future Simon Plaza project on the Simon Motors sign request. These exhibits are not reproducible but they will be available for viewing at the meeting. Attached is information the Applicant has also submitted on the existing Simon Motors building signage program. DRBST.078 1 03 031 STAFF COMAfENTS: The existing Simon Motors building has numerous illuminated cabinet signs and some non - illuminated signs on each of the street frontages for the car/truck dealership. Staff estimates there is approximately ±466 square feet of signage area on the facility at this time but this excludes some smaller supplemental services signs which were not counted toward the above cited number. The Applicant has expressed a desire to eliminate a few signs from the building if they are allowed permission to install the new freestanding sign at Simon Drive and Highway 111. However, Staff has not received specific information on this matter prior to preparing this report. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the perspective overlays which were submitted on February 22, 1993. The rendering exhibit that the new sign will not be visually blocked by the future development of Simon Plaza to the west of the automobile dealership. Therefore, the Applicant's original written statement that the main reason for the increase signage height was based on the future installation of the parking structure for Simon Plaza is not an appropriate argument for a sign adjustment. The photos show that the sign will be intermittently blocked by the existing palm trees on Highway 111 versus the future project. The Applicant's request to eliminate some of the building signs is commendable but the number removed does not diminish the overall square footage to something within reason to again justify a sign two and one-half times the existing sign code provisions. Staff feels there are other locations on the site for a freestanding sign if the Applicant would like a new detached structure within the provisions of the existing Sign Ordinance. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot find any valid reasons to recommend approval of the proposed design or an adjustment for this sign based on the existing Sign Ordinance or site conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board recommend denial of the Applicant's request to exceed the provisions of the Sign Code based on the provisions of Section 9.212.030F of the existing Sign Ordinance. Attachments: 1. Design Review Board report dated January 6, 1993. 2. Existing Building Signage Summary. 3. January 6, 1993, Design Review Board Minutes. DRBST.078 2 . 04 032 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 6, 1993 CASE: SIGN APPLICATION 92-190 APPLICANT: SIMON MOTORS OWNER: MR. FRED SIMON REPRESENTATIVE: MR. SKIP BERG; DGI GRAPHICS REQUEST: TO INSTALL A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN FOR THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS CAR DEALERSHIP AT 78-611 HIGHWAY 111. THE SIGN IS 29-FEET HIGH AND APPROXIMATELY 129 SQUARE FEET. A SIGN ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE THE SIGN EXCEEDS THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE STANDARDS. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SIGNS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311A EXISTING ZONING/ LAND USE: CPS COMMERCIAL - AUTO DEALERSHIP BACKGROUND: The existing dealership was built on the property in 1982. Presently, Mr. Simon sells General Motors vehicles on the property which includes Cadillac, Pontiac, Buick & GM Trucks. The property is located at the southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 111 and the dealership is on approximately 4.0 acres. SIGN REQUEST: The applicant has requested one freestanding pylon sign for the property since one does not exist. The sign is 29-feet high and 129 square feet in size. The sign identifies the dealership and the types of cars/trucks which are sold at the site. The corporate identification colors (blue, red, black, etc.) are proposed for the sign names and the cabinet background will be white. The sign support and frame would be blue & "chrome" in color. The sign is proposed to be located at the intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. DRB .002 ' 05 033 EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE: The existing sign ordinance requires that the applicant meet the following standards if a freestanding sign is to be built on the property: "Individual commercial uses, with a minimum of two hundred feet of street frontage and not a part of a larger complex, are permitted one freestanding business identification sign of up to one-half of the area permitted for attached signs, not to exceed fifty square feet. Freestanding sign area shall be subtracted from the total allowable attached sign area. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be twelve feet." SIGN ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: The applicant does not meet the requirements of the La Quinta Sign Ordinance. Therefore, staff cannot approve the applicant's sign request. The sign code does, however, allow the applicant the means to pursue a Sign Adjustment with the Planning Commission. The Sign Code states: Adjustments to permit additional sign area, additional numbers of signs, an alternative sign location, an alternative type of signage or additional height may be granted by the Planning Commission. The applicant for a planned sign program application must request the adjustment in writing on forms provided by the Planning and Development Department. The Planning Commission must find that one or more of the following facts exist when an adjustment is made: 1. Additional Area: a. To overcome a disadvantage as a result of an exception setback between the street and the sign or orientation of the sign location; b. To achieve an effect which is essentially architectural, sculptural, or graphic art; c. To permit more sign area in a single sign than is allowed, but less than the total allowed the site, where a more orderly and concise pattern of signing will result;ing or use; d. To allow a sign to be in proper scale with itse. To allow a sign compatible with other onformingtsigns in the vicinity; f . To establish the allowable amount and location of signing when no street frontage exists or when, due to an unusual lot shape (e. g. , flag lot) , the street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion to the average width of the lot. 2. Additional number, to compensation for inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance. DRB . 002 2 06 33/1 3. Alternative locations: a. On -site. To transfer area from one wall to another wall or to a freestanding sign upon the finding that such alternative location is necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by u lot or ale orientation of the front wall to the street or parking exceptional setback; b. Lots Not Fronting on a Street. To permit the placement of a sign on an access easement to a lot not having street frontage, at a point where viewable from the adjoining public street. In addition to any other requirements, the applicant shall submit evidence of the legal right to establish and maintain a sign within the access easement; c. Additionally, alternative on -site locations may be granted in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure. 4. Alternative Type of Sign. To facilitate compatibility with the architecture of structure(s) on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. 5. Additional Height. To permit additional height to overcome a visibility disadvantage. The applicant has applied to increase the height of the sign from 12-feet to 29-feet and an increase in sign size from 50 square feet to 129 square feet. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has reviewed the requirements which could necessitate a elarger sign reason or a higher sign that the standards of the Si Ordinance. However, to support the request based on the following summary: A. Additional Area: The sign location proposed is not in a location which is a disadvantag o the tt ho ee Lt h applicant. The sign is located in a highly visible locition location with excellent exposure to Highway ill, and no obstructions are apparent (e.g. buildings, billboards, landscaping, etc.). A traffic signal is also proposed at Simon Drive and Highway 111 in the near future which will help the exposure to the property once installed. The applicant presently has building signs on the property which are visible to passing motorists, and vehicles which are displayed in front of the building (outside) adds to the marketability of the center. The surrounding properties are presently vacant which further helps the visibility of the dealership. The applicant also has over on Simon Drive (easttof frontageon side of the site)1ighway to market 1 and his another 500-feet of frontage his products DRB . 002 S 07 �� Q3j B. Additional Height: No sight visibility problems are apparent at the site which would create a disadvantage to the proprietor. The Design Review Board should also be advised that the City has not approved any signs along Highway 111 which exceed the 12-feet height limit. Sight visibility problems have thus far not been an issue as the buildings are set back from the street 50 feet or more and the properties are also large enough to design a freestanding sign which is appropriate for the proposed business. We encourage the applicant to forego trying to identify all the makes of vehicles sold at the site and focus on designing a sign which specifies the dealer's name instead. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot find any valid reasons to recommend approval of the design or an allowance for this sign based on the existing Sign Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION* Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board recommend denial of the applicants request to exceed the provisions of the Sign Code based on the provisions of Section 9.212.030 F of the existing Sign Ordinance. Attachment: Vicinity Map Exhibits Letter from DGI Signs DRB .002 08 03P S"bomtweee be. ..� lamd"6" /; A emcv P.O. Box 1770 La Quinta. Ca. 92253 Voice: 619-564-1961 Fax: 619-564-1761 DIVE115IFreD c1RAM'"C *4MATRrta CITY OF LA OUINTA 78-105 CALL£ ESTADD LA OUINTA, CA. 92253 ATTN: GREG TROUSDELLI ASSOCIATE PLANNER RE: SIMON MOTORS DEAR GREG: 11-24-92 SIMON MOTORS WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL A PYLON DISPLAY AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF SIMON DRIVE, PERPENDICULAR TO HIGHWAY III - THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS THE PERTINENT OUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS OF SECTION 9.P12.030, -F- ADJUSTMENTS. 186 - 160 6 186 - 161 !A. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE FOR THE SIMON PLAZA PROJECT THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS WALL DISPLAYS WILL RE OBSCURED BY THE PARKING GARAGE WHEN APPROACHING SIMON MOTORS FROM THE WEST. B. OUR SIGN IS A DiN-X ICATE OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATE SIGN PROGRAM. WE FEEL THIS DISPLAY IS ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING- C. TIE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMODATE THE FIVE LISTED PRODUCTS AND COMPANY. THIS DISPLAY ALLOWS MOTORIST TO INSTANTLY IDENTIFY THE AUTOMOBILES SIMON MOTORS OFFERS. IT 15 A MORE CONCISE AND ORDERLY METHOD OF ADVERTISING. D. THE SIGN IS COMPATIBLE TO EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT. 2. BOTH THESE ITEMS ARE TRUE 10 P.O. Box 1770 La Quinta. Ca. 92253 Voice: 619-564-1961 Fax: 619-564-1761 DNERSIFIED GRAPHIC NDUSTR1ES 5. NE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IN ORDER TO ALLON THE MOTORIST ADEQUATE TIME AND VISABILITY TO COMPREHEND THE MESSAGE. THE OVERALL DESIGN AND PANEL COLORS ARE CONSISTENT KITH EXISTING COLORS AND BUILDING ARCHITECTURE. AVERAGE COPY SIZE FOR THE AUTOMOBILE NAMES IS 120. THIS PROJECTS TO A READABILITY DISTANCE OF 460' - 525' OR ONE BLOCK OR LESS. SINCERELYt DIVERSIFIED GRAPHIC INDUSTRIES D. G. I. M. S. "SKIP" BERG 11 039 Yli•KIV• w f•• xaeis !�• /�..�I..a. � II��i•«i. �.�w..l�l• i �r � C �� �1. • _• jli_i V _z -ISM loom 9 •W i�• a. A. sill I I I � ••r.� I I J -c n208&� is — •. mr._�. yr� � t♦Vr W EXISTING BUILDING SIGNS (A Thru H) A = Simon - 25 sq. ft. (2) = 50 sq. ft. (non -illuminated) B = Cadillac/Pontiac = 50 sq. ft. (illuminated) C = Simon Motors =168 sq. ft. (illuminated) D = Buick = 50 sq. ft. (Illuminated) E = Used Cars = 18 sq. ft. (illuminated) F = GMC Truck = 24 sq. ft. (illuminated) G = Simon - 25 sq. ft. (2) = 50 sq. ft. (non -illuminated) u = Simon = 56 sq. ft. (illuminated) �4�1 jiL 1 @1 TPL17K L/F t--rj 13 04 Design Review Board Minutes J-. Commissioner Adolph asked if the north end of the building encroaqft into the setback area. Mr. Knutson stated it did and they had appl' for ariance for the setback. Commissioner Adolph asked had A licant w lanning to use pepper trees near the sidewalk area. Knutson ctat would refer the matter to the landscape architect. 7. Commiss\wash. ph asked the applicant if the bays Auld have hoists. Mr. Knuthere were no hoists and th ould be no major automobirk done at the site. Commis ' er Adolph also asked if the trece to the car wash ould create a nuisance. Mr. Knuh anted the tree to n the amount of concrete in this aussio ollowed as t e actual processing of cars through th. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked \metal d any environmental problems. Mr. Knutson stat lained their recycling program. 9. Commissioner Adolp sked roll -up doors. Mr. Knutson stated the s would door painted to match the split face co ete block. 10. Boardmem Campbell inquired about the thickn f the arches and sugges at the tower needed to stand out more. Knutson stated he wo add more bright colors to the tower if the Boar ted him to. it. re being no further questions, Boardmember Anderson ed and dmember Campbell seconded a motion to recommend appro the Planning Commission for Plot Plan 92-494 subject to the sign pro returning to the Design Review Board review. Unanimously approv Sign AppnnA 22-190; a request of Simon Motors for approval of a freestanding C)C.g sign on Highway I11. 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. DRB1-6 3. Mr. Mark Simon, owner, stated his reasons for his request and that they 3 �� OQ Design Review Board Minutes 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 I11. 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. SDrcific 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. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in DRB1-6 ' p� O43 BI #C DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: AWNING CO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING APRIL 7, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 3, 1993) SIGN APPLICATION 93-203 ANCHOVIE'S PIZZERIA PALMS TO PINES CANVAS; ERNEST BROOKS TO INSTALL AN ILLUMINATED AWNING SIGN 77-110 CALLE ESTADO At the last Design Review Board meeting, the Board conditionally approved a new awning sign at the Anchovie's Pizzeria across the street from City Hall. The Board requested that the Applicant install the awning with temporary fluorescent lighting and with temporary exterior lighting so that the Board could review the new structure plus the proposed lighting prior to the April 7th meeting. The awning has been installed. The installed awning is slightly different than the attached sketch, but the Board can review whether or nor the new design is consistent with last month's approval. Staff did not review the new design before its on -sit installation. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the awning during the meeting and vote whether or not fluorescent lighting should be permitted for the existing canopy sign. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Awning exhibit DRBST.084 1 044 Existing Library Parkins Lot Project Site .. r°° "oj5A, Ydo Vac in cant/0 t - 0� t OS I .I 6 It+err O n lI ss°, h' i •--�CALLE ( `ESTADO Fortuna .., k W m Ci Halll© TV91. CityHal can ,vc It •. 'M r• CALLE — �, t. 5 SL 0 •' - �� t ..... Z S O /w ? CASE MAP CASE N0. Plot Plan 92-484 AM CUSTOM BUILDERS ° 0 ORT SCALE: nts 043t 9 STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93-495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) PREVIOUS CASE: PLOT PLAN 91-466 (REVISED) (EXPIRED) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK SUBJECT: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 5.6 ACRES ZONED C-P-S COMMERCIAL. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING, A 44 LANE BOWLING ALLEY, A FITNESS CENTER, A RESTAURANT OR BANK, AN EYE INSTITUTE OR OFFICE, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE, AND RELATED AT -GRADE PARKING. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER DRBST.083 1 01 047 BACKGROUND: This project was reviewed by the City in 1992, as part of the review and approval of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised). The project received approval by the Design Review Board on October 2, 1991, the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992, and the City Council on March 2, 1992. However, the final design approved changed from ±165,000 square feet to ±125,000 square feet and various buildings were shifted on the property to increase visibility into the project. The initial plan is attached for reference. The original Conditions of Approval required the applicant to begin construction of the project within one year or apply for a one year extension of time which required review by the Planning Commission. The original case expired on February 25, 1993. On March 11, 1993, the applicant refiled the original plans with Staff and paid the necessary fees to return the project through the necessary stages to have the project reviewed by the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council as a new application. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed ±5.6 acre site is comprised of seven parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors Automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The development proposal will include a four story office building on Highway 111 which is attached to the three level parking structure abutting the Simon Motors property. On the southwest portion of the site (also attached to the parking structure) is the second story fitness center and one story 44 lane bowling alley. The other two buildings on the site are a restaurant/bank building at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street and a one story eye institute. The project is broken down in the following fashion: DRBST.083 2 02 Offices = 60,880 sq. ft. Restaurant = 8,000 sq. ft. Office/Eye Institute = 5,000 sq. ft. Fitness Center = 12,000 sq. ft. Bowling Alley = 40.531 sq. ft. 126,411 sq. ft. (550 parking spaces) ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with at -grade parking in the center of the facility. A multiple level parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. CIRCULATION/PARKING: The developer has proposed access driveways on each respective public street. The two-way driveway on Highway Ill and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 102 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the four level parking garage (two floors above grade with a roof top parking area and one subterranean level) located at the easterly property boundary of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 448 cars. The parking ratio for this project is (126,411/550) one on -site space for every 229 square feet of leasable floor area. IMAGE CORRIDOR: On October 6, 1992, the City updated its General Plan to include some new standards which are pertinent to all properties in the City. The new plan designates the frontage streets along the exterior portion of the site as "primary image corridor" thoroughfares, and the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 as a "gateway" image intersection. A copy of the adopted material is attached. The primary function of the program is to provide boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavily landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street rights -of -way. The General Plan states that "primary image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Quinta's agricultural past and desert environment". Overall, the applicant's request is generally consistent with the intent of the General Plan except for the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. We would recommend that the applicant enhance the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to include an area for a public art piece surrounded by palm trees. DRBST.083 03 049 BUILDING FLOOR AREA RATIO The new General Plan for the City established new policy requirements for the City on the amount of building coverage a project could have on a site. Table LU-4 of the Land Use Element states 0.35 is the ratio for Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) properties. This project proposes 126,411 square feet on approximately ±5.3 net acres or an F.A.R. of 0.54. This figure does not examine the parking structure as a building for this equation. The project should be downsized to meet this new building floor area to project site area ratio which is based on net land area (after street dedication) versus gross floor area (e.g., 82,000 sq. ft. - 230,868 = 0.35). STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant allowed the original case approval to expire in February, 1993. Therefore, the Design Review Board can request changes to the proposed resubmittal if you believe they are necessary. Staff would also like to point out to the Design Review Board that the applicant would like to maintain the past master sign program (SA 91-159 #3) which was approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission after the original review of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised). A copy of the original approval is attached. The City's Zoning Code Standards have not changed since the last review of this case. Should changes occur to the structures, it may be necessary to revise the sign program. Staff would recommend that the Design Review Board reconsider the Planning Commission approval of the triangular freestanding sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The current approval allowed a twelve foot high sign with three sides each having 50 square feet of copy. It might be more appropriate to relocate a project sign to the east and south of its present location and provide a different type of sign (e.g., double sided sign). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. The General Plan policy standards for "Primary Gateway Treatment" as outlined in Chapter 3.0 (Circulation Element) should be met since this intersection is located on an image corridor of the City. 2. A project identification sign should not be installed at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, since the area should be reserved for landscaping, public furniture, and a public art piece. No private property features such as a project identification sign should be permitted within 150 feet of the intersection. 3. The maximum F.A.R. for this project should be 0.35 as noted in Table LU-4 of the General Plan. DRBST.083 4 04 -�v 050 Subors/Webb be F. 4aaagsI L E. f� z t 1 z qaaa4S cwepy RECOMMENDATION: Staff is at the Design Review Board's pleasure on the matter and any new recommendations of the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review later this month. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (dated 3/15/93) 3. Master Sign Approval (SA 91-159 #3) 4. Excerpts from the original Conditions for Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised) 5. Initial site plan design (superseded) 6. Excerpt from the General Plan DRBST.083 5 05 ()52 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED EXHIBIT A SIGN APPLICATION 91-159, AMENDMENT #3 SIMON PLAZA - SIGN PROGRAM NOVEMBER 24, 1992 * Revised by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right-of-way. 2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sight visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective freestanding sign. 3. 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. 4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness which would distract passing motorists and/or pedestrians. 5. The sign colors shall be blue (#607-IGP Acrylite Blue) except for the other supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings. *6. The building signs can be internally illuminated. 7. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground. *8. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or Souvenir. Upper case lettering shall be used for all signs except for the medical complex building. 9. All attached building signs shall have channel letters (individually constructed). 10. All freestanding signs shall be double -sided and perpendicular to the public street they serve unless noted otherwise in the following section. SIGN ADiUSTI1IENTS: 11. a.) The Fitness Center signs (Sign #7 & #8) located on the second story elevation of the building shall not be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. At this time, the Applicant shall wait until the building is under construction to ascertain CONAPRVL.065 1 053 whether or not a sign(s) should be installed at the proposed location(s). The matter shall be reviewed in the future by the Board at the request of the Applicant. 'b.) Signs #3, and A'14B, shall not be allowed because they are not necessary for the center nor its patrons, and they degrade the architectural character of the project. •c.) The La Quinta Medical Center sign (Sign 1/6) located on the third story elevation of the four story building shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings. d.) The La Quinta Medical Center freestanding monument sign (Sign k5) located on the north side of the four story building shall be permitted provided the sign is one-sided and is constructed with the same materials as Sign Art. "e.) The Milauskas Eye Institute sign (Sign #12) on Highway I I I shall be permitted. The sign shall be constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2, with height lowered and logo on top reduced in size to be proportional with main center sign (maximum height 7 feet). f.) The 'Fine Dining Restaurant" sign (Sign k18) shall be permitted provided the sign faces the parking lot and is constructed in a similar fashion to Sign #2. One side of copy is permitted. One attached building sign shall be installed at the entrance of the restaurant for patron identification. The size of the sign shall be approved by Staff. 'g.) Sign #2 (Main identification sign) shall be three -sided, and include three sides of sign copy. MISCELLANEOUS: 12. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety Department. 13. Each tenant and/or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style, color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues. 14. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 15. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit is issued. 16. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally illuminated CONAPRVL.065 3 08 054 signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets industry specifications. •17. Signs N14A and "C" shall be internally lit. The background for the signs shall be opaque. •18. The freestanding parking signs (1116, and #17) shall not be permitted because they are not necessary to the success of the commercial center. Sign k15 is allowed provided the directional sign states "Entrance". 19. All freestanding signs permitted shall include similar architectural elements to those of Sign #2, and the sign proportions shall be downsized accordingly (e.g., 12-foot high to 9-feet, 7 feet, and 6-feet) so that the smaller signs exemplify the sites main identification sign. 20. No attached building sign shall be greater than 50 square feet on the side of the building it serves. 21. The channel letter returns shall be painted to match the exterior color of the building on which it is affixed. 22. If deemed necessary by City, Applicant shall provide location for City entry sign in front and below main identification sign, as required by the Planning and Development Director. 23. The overall height of each freestanding sign shall be measured from the abutting street curb elevation height. CONAPRVL.065 3 09 055 Excerpt from the Original Case File (PP 91-466) 25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e. , Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). C . Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. •D. A one story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed building structures. �) U 10 aaa■■■■■■ Ol C N 3 ai C co ,O N d MI Policy 3-4.12 Pnimary Image corridors shall be defined as sheets in the roadway netw wwhich are the major urban design statements of the City. Primary linage corridors shall consist of boulevard streets with raised, landscaped medians and heavy landscaped areas within and contiguous to the sheet rights -of --way. Primary Image corridors shall include landscape themes which are reminiscent of La Ouinta's agricultural past and desert environment Primary image corridors may include vertical landscape elements such as palm trees complemented with a shade -producing understory of canopy bees, such as indigenous, drought tolerant desert species. More water Intensive understory canopy trees, such as various citrus spece4 should be used 'sparingly in nodes at key locations as highlights and reminders of past agricultural activities. Ground plane landscape materials should evoke a lush image through the use of drought tolerant low maintenance plant species. Turf should be used in a manner consistent with citrus trees —sparingly and in high visibility locations. Primary image corridors shall include street traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters, street name signs, and raise bermsrbarriers which are designed in a coor- dnated and consistent theme unique to La Quinta. At key intersections, primary image corridors shall include treatments which may include special roadway paving, hardscape/screen wall arrangements and displays of public art Policy 3-4.1.3 Primary image corridors shall include the following roadways: ®• Washington Sheet • Jefferson Street ®• Highway 111 • Fred Waring Drive • Calla Tampico • Eisenhower Drive (from Calla Tampico to Washington Street) Policy 3-4.1.4 Secondary image corridors Shia# be defined as streets in the roadway network which are the secondary urban design statements of the City Secondary image corri- dors shall consist of streets with raised, landscaped madam and landscaped areas within and contiguous to the street fight -of -way. Secondary image corridors she# be consistent with primary image corridors relative to simlar landscape materials, sheet traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs. However, secondary street image corridors shall emphasize the use of laver profile Indigenous canopy trees, accentuated with the use of citrus trees in various nodes. The use of taller, vertical landscape elements shall be de-emphasized and shall occur in nodes, primarily at street intersections. Policy 3-4.1.5 Secondary image corridors shall include the following roadways: • Miles Avenue • Dune Palms Road (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Chaime!) • Adams Street (south of the Coachella Valley Stormwater C hameq • Avenue 48 • Avenue 50 • Avenue 52 • Eisenhower Drive (south of Calle Tampico to Avenida Bermudas) Policy 3-4.1.6 Agrarian image corridors shall be defined as sheets in the roadway network which are designed to evoke a Waal ambiance and to provide a strong linkage to the Crtys agricultural past These corridors are to be located in dose proximity to areas designated 'Rural ResidenbaP on the Land Use Policy Diagram bin the Land Use Element Agrarian image corridors she# incorporate equestrian trails and shall include design Memos representative of rural areas, such as shaded country lanes which utilize lower profile indigenous canopy trees accentuated with various citrus species. The use of taller, vertical landscape elements, such as palm trees, shall be de-emphasized. Where possible, Me use of vertical curbs on the outside lane of the roadway shall be minimized. Sheet traffic signals, street lighting systems, street furniture, bus shelters and street name signs shall be similar to primary and secondary image comdors, but it possible, shall incorporate more of a rural character. Policy 3-4.1.7 ,agrarian Image corridors shalt include the following roadways: • Madson Street • Avenue 54 (from Jefferson Sheet to Monroe Street) Policy 3-4.1.8 Primary gateway treatments shall be defined as street- scape treatments at key intersections leading into the City and into the Village area. Primary gateway treatments may Include special paving, street furniture, BRW, Inc. Chapter 3 - GiculaUon Element City of La Quinta 4,,,,,a,,,,, 3-21 General Plan 053 12 hardscape/screen wag arrangements, displays of public art, monument signage, landscaping and street fighting. Primary gateways are intended as dramatic design statements indicating the entrance to the City and the Village area Primary gateway treatments shall occur at the following street intersections. • Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street ®• Washington Street and Highway 111 • Jefferson Street and Highway 111 • Calls Tampico and Washington Street • Eisenhower Drive and Cane Tampico Policy 3-4.1.9 Secondary gateway treatments shag be defined as streetscape treatments which are similar to primary gateway treatments except that an emphasis is placed on a less dramatic entry statement. For example, secondary gateway treatments may not Include special paving, street furniture or hardWAWscreen wall arrangements. The secondary gateway treatment may rely more on the use of landscaping, street fighting and monument signage as the major elements of design. 3-4.1.10 Along primary, secondary and agrarian image corridors the City she// establish appropriate building height emits to ensure a low density character and appearance. Policy 3-4.1.11 Landscaped setbacks are necessary to ensure a high quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for wells, buildings and parking areas may vary, it property designed, but shag generaly be as follows: �• Highway 111 - 50 feet • Other Major Arterials - 20 feet • Primary Arterials - 20 feet • Secondary Arterials - 10 feet • Collector Streets - 10 feet Landscaping within these setback areas shall be consistent with the appropriate image corridor designation, if applicable. Policy 3-4.1.12 Special fight -of -way width and design treatments will be identified for streets wittdn the Village Area, recognizing established set -backs of adjacent developments and the maturity of existing landscaping materials. The following streets wig be permitted to remain at a maximum fifty (50) foot right-of-way width: a) Cadiz b) Barcelona c) Amigo Policy 3-4.1.13 Wag openings to allow views into projects from image corridors are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 3-4.1.14 The City may require adequate parkways, vistas into walled communities, and other features as appropriate. Policy 3-4.1.15 Where desirable, the use of existing natural vegetation including afros trees, date palm groves, eucalyptus windrows, and oleander hedges should be considered for retention in image corridor landscape designs. Policy 3-4.1.16 Special design treatments for major elements of the Ciy's street system shag be considered in all approvals for related development Policy 3-4.1.17 The Ciy's streetscape quality shall be improved by undergrounding of utilities wherever possible. Policy 3-4.1.18 Prevention of visual blight shag be enhanced by the administration of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Public Transit Policies Background - The provision of public transit is an Integral part of La Quinta's multi -modal circulation system. Increased use of public transit in the future will provide benefits such as reduced congestion and improved air quality. For transit to be successful, it should be properly planned so that it is convenient and accessible to users and operates in a timely fashion. The following policies are Intended to provide guidance In establishing an expanded transit system to serve the needs of the City and region. BRIM, Ina Chapter 3 - Circulation Element City of La Ouinta uwrmuowr 3-22 General Plan 053 13 J E oft -��� E ` 9 I— 'g 06�� - rs - Le- 3 cm I I o l x N �O Q N N 'ld yl LL Z LL $ LL LL F C E E E 8 E 8 E E 31 fig Id BI #E STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 93-207 REQUEST: DEVIATION FROM SIGN PROGRAM FOR ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER TO ALLOW CORPORATE SIGNAGE. APPLICANT: CLOTHESTIME SIGN COMPANY: APOLLO II SIGN CORPORATION (C/O PARAGON SIGN COMPANY) LOCATION: ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY lit BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET (78-900 HIGHWAY 111). BACKGROUND: Clothestime is leasing shop space in the Center adjacent to the west side of Wal-Mart. Because Clothestime 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 this 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. Clothestime is presently operating in the Center and has installed two signs due to their corner location, which comply with the adopted sign program. The Applicant now desires to change the existing signs to their standard signs. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The Applicant proposes individual letters which would be internally illuminated. All letters would be capital letters with the sign facing south towards the parking lot being 24-inches high and 17-foot 10.5-inch long (36 sq. ft.) based on 50-foot frontage of the store. This sign is within the allowable maximum area. Along the west facing wall of the shop the Applicant proposes a 16-inch high by 11-foot long (15 sq. ft.) sign which would match the front facing sign. Based on the 40 feet of frontage, the sign would be in compliance with the allowable size. The sign face color would be the same red that is presently existing. The trim cap and returns would be black. DRBST.087 1 061 ANALYSIS: As previously noted, national or regional tenants are allowed to utilize their standard sign if it is approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. As you will recall, Payless Shoes and Baskin Robbins were granted approval of standard signs for their locations. In reviewing the signs, Staff feels that provided that the concept of the signs is acceptable, the main requirement is that the two signs be separated by 20-feet. Staff would note that we see no real reason for replacing the signs since they are readily visible. RECOMMENDATION: Review the request and determine acceptabilities. Your recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The signs may be approved based on the provisions of the approved sign program. Attachments: 1. Sign exhibit 2. Applicable sign program provisions DRBST.087 2 062 � PoEa E 6y P m � t UV ER�c�G '.1MPRjf � �eol N,pN TONE �p%Jt GR i Exit Z Q, rty. . c �iP�� 5• s G.c � � 1a.. of 1IQp IL* EX 159 yF 5k0c) C g5. 50' 1 , INM �` Vc ENS8�- Q G /�V 0 • � t1 Q b9 O Q O O g1 .50 .58 AIL a 1 W 1 63g Y-Y too' I oeo — o PAD 9' 54 SF 0(H.[R I U SIGp _A IF 0 LAN NOT TO CXafe •SCKr $r �• 1 l._ ' o o t ^ DH 11 -o 8 "� 064t S r- m m a £ �1 m 4) 71 am PI Fit f <, !_ T, j 066 m I BI #F STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 CASE NO: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-006; TACO BELL APPLICANT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. (MS. NINA RAEY) OWNER: WASHINGTON/ADAMS PARTNERSHIP (AGENT: MR. COLM MACKEN, T.D.C. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) ARCHITECT: SCHUSS & CLARK (MR. RICK CLARK) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: BEAU SHIGETOMI & ASSOCIATES ENGINEER: MR. J. RONALD WHITE & ASSOCIATES, INC. REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU. LOCATION: 78-932 HIGHWAY 111; NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 AND +900 FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET, IN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 89-150) WAS APPROVED FOR THE OVERALL 111 LA QUINTA CENTER OF WHICH THIS SITE IS A PART, BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1990, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-257 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS NEW CASE BASED ON THE ATTACHED PLANS. DRBST.082 1 r)s SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: BACKGROUND: NORTH: C-P-S/EXISTING WAL-MART STORE WHICH IS PART OF THE 111 LA QUINTA CENTER. SOUTH: C-P-S/VACANT (FUTURE WASHINGTON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER). EAST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND WHICH IS PART OF THE I I I LA QUINTA CENTER. THE SITE IS PLANNED FOR ANOTHER FAST FOOD RESTAURANT PER THE PROVISIONS OF SP 89-014. WEST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND WHICH IS PART OF THE 111 LA QUINTA CENTER. The site is a part of the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center (SP 89-014) which was approved by the City Council on April 17, 1990. The specific plan was amended in October, 1992 to allow drive-thru restaurants on the pad sites with the Ill La Quinta Center. This specific plan indicated a restaurant with a drive-thru facility at the site proposed by the Applicant. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is a rectangular shaped (±160' by : 235') parcel containing approximately 36,224+ square feet of area. The site fronts directly on Highway 111 and is bordered by a full movement entrance at the southwestern end of the property. Future buildings are anticipated directly to the west and east of this site, and the existing Wal-Mart development is located to the north of this site. New off -site improvements have recently been installed along the frontage of the property (i.e., 8-foot sidewalk, landscaping, etc.) by the master developer. STATISTICAL DATA: 1. Building square footage 1,989 sq. ft. 2. Parking spaces required and provided 20/27 4. Seating provided (indoor only) 68 *NOTE: * 1. Additional parking available within the shopping center. 2. Drive-thru lane not counted as parking. 3. Parking calculations based on 50% of the building being dining area. DRBST.082 2 PROTECT PROPOSAL: The Applicant has submitted a plan for a fast food restaurant with a single lane drive-thru on pad site F-2 of the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. The restaurant will serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner. No alcoholic beverages will be served on -site. The single story restaurant will accommodate walk-in customers plus patrons who wish to use the drive-thru facility. SITE LAYOUT: The Applicant has laid out the restaurant on the north side of the site with the drive-thru lane on the south facing Highway 111. The building is laid out parallel to Highway 111 with parking to the east and north (or front of the building) and the restaurant is approximately : 40 feet from the south property line. Access to the drive-thru lane will be from the west and egress will occur at the northwest corner of the property. CIRCULATION: The project can be accessed from an approved Highway 111 driveway. Additionally, the site can be accessed from the shopping center. Due to the facilities location within the shopping center, in addition to the on -site parking spaces available, additional parking will be provided to the west and north. LANDSCAPING: The Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the property. The plant materials consist primarily of native and other low water usage plants. In the perimeter area between Highway 111 and the site, the landscaping will need to be coordinated with the perimeter landscaping which is being provided by the master developer of the shopping center. The landscape material was selected based on the master developer's plant list. The Applicant has provided a mounded landscaping to screen the view of the site from the street. SIGNAGE: The Applicant has indicated sign locations for the property. A freestanding menu sign is shown in the landscape area adjacent to the drive-thru lane and other miscellaneous signs and logos are on the building. Numerous directional signs will be necessary due to the circulation pattern proposed. DRBST.082 , 3 06g ARCHITECTURE: The architecture of the project is contemporary Spanish Revival, in nature, with exterior materials consisting of exterior plaster and a clay tile roof. For the most part, these materials and colors match the main shopping center buildings, based on the revised submittal to Staff on April 2, 1993. REVISED SUBMITTAL: On April 2, 1993, Staff received a revised architectural submittal addressing several of the development issues which are addressed in the next section of the report. However, based on the fact that the information was received just prior to our report deadline, we have left the report unchanged except for the recommendation portion of the report. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: A. Drive-Thru Lane - The drive-thru lane location was conceptually approved by City Council in October of this year when the specific plan document was modified to allow three drive-thru pad sites on the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center site. The final design solution would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council through the conditional use permit process. The City Council also required two pick- up/delivery windows for each future drive-thru restaurant pad site. The location and design of the drive-thru is consistent with City design standards with the exception of two areas. The first area is the Off -Street Parking Code which requires the project to have shaded areas for the vehicles being serviced for each pick-up/delivery window of the project. In this design, there are two windows; therefore, two shaded covered areas are required. The new submittal rectified this problem. The other area is the visibility of the drive-thru lane and its relationship to Highway 111. The adopted specific plan requires the lane to be fully screened with a retaining wall next to the drive- thru lane and the perimeter mounding bermed up to the wall. The Applicant's landscape plan does show mounding and trees for this area, but in Staff's opinion, the lane is only partially screened. Staff recommends additional measures as approved in the Specific plan modification be taken to rectify this deficiency (e.g., masonry wall). B. Building Design and Awnings - Various awnings have been proposed for the exterior of the Taco Bell Restaurant. The awnings are yellow, green, and red. The awnings add color to the building and it reflects the corporate identification program that is prevalent in many of the existing restaurants in Southern California. The awnings typically are opaque but fluorescent lighting is used behind the awning to accent the building and for pedestrian lighting. The colors match the colors which are used for the building signs. DRBST.082 4 079 Staff is not comfortable with the multi -colored awnings over the exterior windows. The awnings should be in keeping with the colors of the shopping center. The colors for the shopping center did not include yellow or red. The shopping center is designed to reflect a southwestern design theme. The new submittal rectified this problem by incorporating the double diamond (polystyrene) cornice molding around the building in place of the multiple colored "corporate" awning which was shown on the initial submittal. C. Roof Desian - The roof design is in keeping with the general style of the shopping center. However, the facade arch should have a two step design motif versus a one step design in order to match the design elements of the shopping center. D. Sign Program - The applicant has proposed various signs for the project, they include: 1. Buildin Signs iens 4 - Taco Bell. (red) 4 - Logo (yellow, red, & green) 2. Directional Sign (Various) 3. Menu Sian (1) - ± 10 sq. ft. (ea.) ± 4 sq. ft. (ea.) 3 sq. ft. (ea.) (to be submitted at the meeting) The site is part of the Transpacific Development Company project, therefore, the proposal is required to meet the provisions of the approved sign program (excerpt attached). The approved sign program allows a maximum 24-inch high letters with the length being 75% of the frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet. The approved letter style is Helvetica Light or as approved by the City. Approved colors are white, red, blue, green, yellow, or as approved by the developer and City through a modification. The approved material is a plexi-glass face, matte black painted cans for returns, and internally illuminated letters. National or regional tenants with more than five outlets are allowed to use their standard sign if approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. Additionally, only one color per sign is allowed unless specifically approved. The sign proposal is consistent with the adopted sign program for the shopping center with the exception of the drive-thru menu board sign. This sign is not permitted. The existing sign code allows a menu board sign to be attached to the building or window but the size should not exceed three square feet. In order to permit the request, a sign adjustment will be necessary. The Planning Commission shall evaluate the merit of the request during the review of the conditional use permit application. DRIVE-THRU LANE STAKING: The drive-thru lane forms a half circle around the southern portion of the proposed restaurant. The lane can accommodate approximately 11 to 13 vehicles from the entrance to the exit on the DRBST.082 5 east side of the facility. The only shortcoming of this design is the placement of the menu board sign and its relationship to the stacked vehicles waiting to be serviced. In the current design, only two vehicles could be in the 12-foot wide lane placing orders before the east/west two-way lane would become congested and unusable. The City's design standards call for seven spaces to be provided to prevent vehicle stacking from impacting vehicle movement. However, based on the fact two pick-up windows will be utilized based on the provisions of the adopted Specific Plan (89-014), Staff is comfortable with four car stacking before an order is placed based on the overall design of the facility and its relative size (±2,000 sq. ft.). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: I. The drive-thru lane is required to be screened by both a landscaped berm and masonry retaining wall along the entire length of the proposed drive-thru lane. A screen wall should be built along the drive-thru lane so that the top of the wall is approximately four feet above the finish floor height of the restaurant. 2. A covered trellis should be built over each drive -up delivery windows as required by the provisions of the Off -Street Parking Code. The design and location of the shade structures should be approved by the Design Review Board at the meeting. 3. The satellite receiving dish on the roof should be screened so that it cannot be seen from outside the project boundaries. 4. Any roof lighting for the restaurant should be done with bullet fixture units to accent the clay roof tile and be subject to Staff approval. 5. The provisions of the Transpacific Development Company sign program should be met. A sign adjustment will be necessary for the menu board sign to remain, as proposed. The Planning Commission will evaluate the necessity to permit this ancillary sign during the review of the case. The menu board sign should be relocated to the south so that a minimum of four cars can be in the drive-thru lane without blocking traffic on the east/west two way driveway. 6. Two drive-thru pick-up windows shall be provided per the provisions of the adopted Specific Plan 89-014. 7. The drive-thru lane should be a minimum of 30-feet from Highway 111 so that it is similar to the Carl's Jr. restaurant approval on Pad I-1. 8. The future landscape plan should include both the proposed landscaping plus the existing parkway landscaping on Highway 111. 9. The exterior building colors and materials should match those used in the shopping center as approved by the Design Review Board. 10. The April 2, 1993, submittal is consistent with the requirements of the City. This packet of material should be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval. DRBST.082 6 - 072 11. The facade arch should have a two step architectural element on each side of the building arch to match the design motif of the existing shopping center. 12. All amplification equipment and lighting for the drive-thru lane should be screened by appropriate building materials or landscaping to muffle or conceal their existence. 13. The height of a future flagpole at the site should not exceed 40-feet. The American flag and California flag may be flown on the pole if it is constructed and the size of each flag shall not be longer than three feet by five feet. 14. Additional shade trees should be installed around the immediate perimeter of the proposed building to accent the low-level shrubs which have been proposed. 15. The final construction plans should be reviewed by Staff during plan check prior to the issuance of a building permit. 16. The landscaping planter on the north side of the building should be enlarged from two feet to a minimum width of five feet. 17. The trash enclosure gates should be solid metal and hung on four inch freestanding posts. The enclosure should be a minimum height of six feet. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the plans in light of the above comments and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Plans and exhibits 3. Excerpt from approved sign program 4. Revised plans date stamped April _, 1993 073 DRBST.082 7 CASE Na Wp� ;O,A,� M'l ti boa ,4' 7 "'b 4 4 %. 4 4.•\ .C� -p o 'sue CAR � all PAD S . ROVED -- — — --—— — N�iED Site Conditional Use Permit 93-006 Taco Bell Restaurant ORT SCALE: nts I I I .1 1 I I 75% "AREA A" N I — IN ET SIGN AREA. 75% i EOs in "AREA B" L! ET SIGN AREA L Leasehold Width Leasehold Width L (Varies) '� (Varies) Lease Line --� Lease Line MINOR TENANT SIGNS (PRIMARY PURPOSE: MAJOR IDENTIFICATION QUANTITY: ONE PER LEASE AREA FRONTAGE. CORNER END SPACES MAY SPLIT 11 ALLOWABLE FRONTAGE SIGN AREA AMONG TWO SIGNS.ir�'.^ f f NET SIGN AREA A: AS DEFINED ABOVE, NOT TO EXCEED 50 S.F. MAX' (INCLUDING TENANT LOGO) NET SIGN AREA B: AS DEFINED ABOVE (TOWER LOCATIONS), NOT TO EXCEED 50 S.F. MAX! - INCLUDING TENANT LOGO LETTER STYLE: HELVETICA LIGHT OR AS APPROVED BY CITY AND DEVELOPER.' COLORS: WHITE/RED/BLUE/GREEN/YELLOW OR AS APPROVED BY DEVELOPER! MATERIAL: PLEXIGLAS FACE, MATTE BLACK PAINTED ALUMINUM CAN. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED INDIVIDUAL LETTERS. NET SIGN AREA C (ADDRESS): LETTER STYLE: 6" HELVETICA LIGHT COLOMATERIAL:DICUTF CEDL:NANTS n o ��1 �vI�� MATERIAL: DIECUT FACED LERS _� Ft (� y '�j NATIONAL OR REGIONA WITH MORE THAN 5 OUTLETS WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR STANDARD SIGN 0 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 07 BI #G STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: APRIL 7, 1993 PROJECT: AMENDMENT TO SIGN PROGRAM FOR ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER (SP 89-014) APPLICANT: TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (COLM MACKEN) LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET BACKGROUND: In October, 1990, the sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center was approved by the Design Review Board. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the sign program in November, 1990. That sign program includes provisions for center identification signs, monument signs for the pad buildings, and individual building signs. The applicant has submitted an amendment request which pertains to the center identification signs and monument signs. AMENDMENT REQUEST: Presently a shopping center identification sign is approved for Adams Street just north of the first driveway adjacent to the Shell station. This center identification sign is adjacent to the recently approved "Lube Shop". The applicant is requesting approval to delete this sign and in place of it add an additional monument sign adjacent to pad M-3 adjacent to Highway 111 which is located approximately 450 feet west of Adams Street. Additionally, the applicant wishes to relocate the approved monument sign in front of pad G-2, which is proposed to be a McDonald's restaurant, approximately 200 feet to the west towards Washington Street. This monument sign is proposed to contain the names of Taco Bell and McDonalds restaurant to the east. The other monument sign which is being proposed in -lieu of the center identification sign is requested to have the "Lube Shop" and a second tenant on it. That second tenant would probably be the pad M-2 which is adjacent to the sign location. The proposed monument sign would be identical to those previously approved for use in other parts of the shopping center (see attached). ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Department Staff feels that the proposed relocation of the approved monument sign on Highway 111 is acceptable, although it would seem to make more DRBST.088 1 0 OF sense to have the sign midway between the two fast food restaurants. With regards to the new monument sign in lieu of the center identification sign, Staff generally has no problem with it. However, initially there was a desire to limit the number of monument signs on Highway 111. Staff does feel that it would not be appropriate to put "Lube Shop" on the sign since the Lube Shop will front on Adams Street and is approximately 350 feet away from Highway I I l and separated by a shop building. RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Board should review the request and determine the acceptability. Staff feels that the request is acceptable; however, we do not feel that the "Lube Shop" should be permitted to be on the monument sign facing Highway 111 since it fronts on Adams Street and is separated by a structure. Attachments: 1. Letter of request 2. Site plan revision requests 3. Approved monument sign exhibits DRBST.088 PI 0721 Transpacific Development C o m p a n N MAR 1 1 1993 March 9, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: One Eleven La Quinta Center Monument Signage Dear Jerry: Corporate Headquarters 2377 Crenshaw Boulevard Suite i(H) Torrance. CA Wjgl i;10)61F-36(U iz10) 1'11-924'_ F,, Please find attached a reduced copy of our 100' scale plan for One Eleven La Quinta Center. This letter is to request a relocation of the monument signs shown in our planned sign program. Specifically, we are asking for the following: We are requesting that we delete the center I.D. sign on Adams Street as shown on the attached plan, in lieu of an additional monument sign on Highway I I I in front of Wal-Mart. We currently have one monument sign approved for that location. As shown on the attached sketch, we propose to switch this to two monument signs. This is necessary based on the deals that are pending. One monument sign would have the names "Taco Bell" and "McDonalds" on it. The second monument sign would have the name "The Lube Shop" on it with one vacant space. We have attached, for your records, the proposed monument sign and center I.D. sign to be deleted. Your earliest attention to this request would be appreciated. Sincerely, WASHINGTONIADAMS PARTNERSHIP By: Transpacific Development Company Colin Macken Vice President, Development CM:bnp Attachments 07 7 I r � t fig+ I� *, • i2 t 1 ilk Ul t 'I \ H b IIi"t .=��� ♦" Z= ',i7 I L • . � � 1 r n .I ` c)3o >< N r z HO ICU + . \� ,.i . i-7► H[9 I-3 fy-i z O i. j'I 1 _�— �•C Je`,- _ �� +-1� t 0 to Tj -�i C` H a + � M 1 J aLy �i n h7 h7 CC9 \�^ O tz 0 g IeMl ton Aarnan Avenue Suite 250 r - f Ir.-x. CA 92715-10:f 1714) 553-1117 ~ x n a 0 0 0 H $` \ C 10 ° H .o 1-3H Z ttl G1 • y oz 070 J 91e � e, s 1 — FXt ED AC=F\'T NEON LPREC�CCRCRE7ECA OPnL\'TED RIC T iiACRFTE CAO E RIOR�7S CCO UACKG �C'_.D Cd OR E1 MINATED L`DIv1DCAL CYANN'ELL— I V11 ACCF%-Tr,LE I %`�� l�C@�� /'✓ U C:J EQOR CEMENT STUCCO PAL D COLL BASE PAINTED LIV I/QV©Q U L�LJ VQIJ V U ISI-O� ATION CENTER I.D. SIGN SCALE:1/4"_1'-O" DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH 12" HT. INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLASS LETTERS EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO. THREE MAJOR TENANT NAMES MAXIMUM ARE ALLOWED. TENANT LETTER COLORS & STYLE TO MATCH THEIR BUILDING SIGNS. PURPOSE: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION QUANTITY: 4 SIGN AREA: 150 S.F. PER SIGN LOGO COLOR: GREEN & PINK NEON BACKGROUND COLOR: BEIGE & CREAM WITH TAN BASE MATERIAL: EXTERIOR CEMENT STUCCO CV m ] ONE Q ' ;A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM PRECAST CONC. CAP -PAINT EXTERIOR CEMENT PLASTER TO MATCH BACKGROUND (PAINTED) 4"x4" ACCENT TILE C7 W Lu co- ] 7 ,7 MONUMENT SIGN SCALE: 38"-1'-O" DOUBLE FACED SIGN WITH 8" HT. INDIVIDUAL INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PLEXIGLASS LETTERS EXTERIOR CEMENT —j STUCCO. SCHEME 3 OPTIONAL ac 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 March 3, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. A. Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Planning Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, Fred Rice, James Campbell, John Curtis, Planning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Harbison. B. Boardmember Curtis moved to excuse Boardmember Wright. Boardmember Anderson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Staff present: Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. III. BUSINESS SESSION A. Conditional Use Permit 93-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant for approval of the drive-thru window shade structure. DRB3-3 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 Anderson asked Staff if the play structure had been resolved and if the overall height was to be reduced to the height of the eaves, not the parapet. Staff stated they had reviewed what was submitted and the structure would be two stories not to exceed 15-feet 7-inches. i 082 Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 3. Boardmember Anderson stated that since the wrought iron fence was to be enhanced, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to involve the Applicant with an artist as the Art in Public Places Commission is requesting. 4. Planning Commissioner Ellson stated she would rather see the artist design the play structure and leave the fence as is. 5. Chairman Harbison asked Staff to verify the height of the flag pole. 6. Boardmember Campbell asked if the tower element height had been resolved and if so why were they not shown on the new plans. 7. Mr. Frank Oley, representing Carl's Jr., stated that the building height had been reduced to 23-feet overall per the City Council approval. The patio structure had always been present, they only added the shade structure to match the drive-thru shade structure. He further stated that the wrought iron fence would be embellished. The working drawings were in process and would be submitted to Staff soon. They have already added the columns to enhance the fence. The submitted plans were not revised as some phases of the changes were still in the process of being redrawn. 8. Boardmember Anderson asked Mr. Oley what the size of the wood trellis members would be. Mr. Oley stated they would be 4" X 6" with decorative cut tips. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern about the wood holding up in the desert weather, but felt the 4" X 6" would hold up. He then asked Mr. Oley how he felt about working with an artist to design the fence. Mr. Oley stated this would be the last item to be installed and it would not be difficult to alter. Mr. Oley stated that to change the play structure would require all the approvals for liability from all the different agencies they had already acquired approvals from for the existing plans and this would be a great hardship. 9. Boardmember Anderson inquired about the landscaping. Mr. Oley stated it was in the process and would come back before them at a later date. 10. Planning Commissioner Ellson stated she had no problem with the design of the shade structures, but asked if they could be extended out east beyond the pay window. Mr. Oley stated he would work with the architects to see that the vehicles would be screened from the sun. He saw no problem with extending the structure 3-feet or moving the structure to the east. DRB3-3 2 n '� Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 11. Boardmember Campbell asked if the clay tile roof matched the shopping center tile. Mr. Oley stated it did. Boardmember Campbell asked if the shade structure ledger detail shown on Sheet 3 could have a treatment given it to match the decorative ends. Boardmember Anderson stated it should be the same as the decorative ends, the scroll cut. Mr. Oley stated that would be no problem. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked if the public telephones could be moved. Mr. Oley stated they were being moved along with the bike rack. 13. Boardmember Campbell inquired if the awnings over the windows on Sheet 3 were on the original plans. Mr. Oley stated they were. 14. Boardmember Anderson asked about the awning colors. Mr. Oley stated they will conform with what City Council approved. 15. Boardmember Anderson asked whether the columns of the shade structure would appear to blend in with the retaining wall. Mr. Oley stated that with the berming that would be provided on that elevation, the columns would not be visible from the street. 16. The Board encouraged the Applicant to utilize the services of an artist to provide the wrought iron fence desing. 17. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to approve the shade structure subject to the extension of the shade structure 3-feet to the east, and the detailed scrolling on the shade structure ledger. Unanimously approved. 18. Boardmember Anderson stated he would be available to help Staff review any aspect of the final plans when they were resubmitted. Boardmember Campbell agreed. B. Sign Approval 93-197; a request of JFK Memorial Hospital for approval of a deviation from the Master Sign Program and Sign Ordinance for the new JFK Sign Program at Plaza Tampico. 1. Chairman Harbison stated that Staff had received a request from the Applicant to continue this matter to a later date. As there was no objection of Staff or the Board, it was moved by Boardmember Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to continue the matter. 2. Planning Commissioner Ellson questioned why the new signage couldn't continue to use the same concept as the existing monument sign. DRB3-3 3 _ 084 Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 3. Boardmember Campbell questioned why textcoat and plexiglass letters were always being used by the sign designer regardless of the project situation. C. Sign Approval 92-190; a request of Simon Motors for approval to install a new freestanding sign for the existing Simon Motors Car Dealership. 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. Staff informed the Board that the Simon Plaza project to the west of Simon Motors had failed to file an extension of time and therefore the project had expired. This would eliminate the potential visibility problem Simon Motors was expecting. 2. Boardmember Curtis asked if the sign had been lowered as it appeared in the submitted pictures. Staff stated the request had not been changed. Discussion followed regarding the pictures. 3. Staff reminded the Board that the Applicant had stated he was willing to remove some of the existing signs in exchange for the pylon sign. 4. Boardmember Rice stated his concern that Simon Motors had been a leading sales tax contributor as well as a very important part of La Quinta's growth. He felt that the sign on the corner may be objectional, but he strongly felt a compromise should be reached to help local businesses. 5. Boardmember Campbell stated his recollection of the Board's suggestion was that the Applicant was to demonstrate why a 12-foot high sign would not work. Mr. Skip Berg, representing Simon Motors stated his understanding was that he was to prove the Simon Plaza building would block the car sign. Mr. Berg further stated that this request may be unnecessary due to the loss of Simon Plaza's application. He suggested this matter be continued until the Simon Plaza issue was resolved. He went on to say that Mr. Simon had agreed to remove seven of the nine existing signs if this would help obtain approval of the request. He then asked Staff if it wasn't true that they could apply for two freestanding signs (one per street frontage) if all of the other signs were removed. Discussion followed regarding the sign requirements. 6. Mr. Berg then requested a continuance of the application and he would instruct his artists to change the pictures to prove a 12-foot high sign would not work and also talk with Mr. Simon regarding the Simon Plaza application. DRB3-3 4 Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 7. Boardmember Campbell stated that if the Simon Motors tower were painted to be more contrasting, the Simon Motors sign would stand out more. Mr. Berg stated they wanted this signage removed also. 8. Boardmember Anderson clarified his request that the Applicant bring in graphics that prove why a 12-foot high sign would not be visible. 9. Planning Commissioner Ellson stated this was a landscaping problem not an issue of height. 10. Chairman Harbison stated he agreed the palm trees were the problem. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Planning Commissioner Ellson to continue this matter to a further date until the issue of Simon Plaza is resolved. Unanimously approved. D. Sign Approval 92-203; a request of Anchovie's Pizzeria for approval of an awning and sign. 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 Anderson asked Staff how far the awning extended in comparison to the present trellis. Staff explained it does not reach the columns. 3. Boardmember Curtis and Chairman Harbison asked for clarification on the height and color of the awning. 4. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern that the sign would be internally illuminated. He did not feel this was appropriate for the Village even though the sign was attractive, this could be setting a precedent. He felt this was an opportunity to use externally illumination instead of flourescent lighting. A discussion followed regarding what the members preferred in the Village. 5. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the externally illuminated sign would give a cleaner view of the sign rather than an "X-ray" effect. Members discussed the differences between the externally and internally illuminated sign. DRB3-3 5 Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 6. Mr. Ernest Brooks, Palm to Palms Awnings, representing the applicant stated he felt the externally illuminated lighting would became a spot light rather than an illumination of the sign. Boardmember Anderson stated that since the sign was recessed the lighting on the shade structure could accent the sign, where normally awnings protrude beyond the architecture of the building and the internal illumination would enhance the signs. 7. Mr. Brooks stated that the fabric was translucent and would glow. Members asked Mr. Brooks if he could build the awning and submit a detailed plan for both types of lighting. Mr. Brooks stated he would need to build the trough to hold the internally illuminated lighting during the construction of the awning. Mr. Brooks stated he would do this and at the next meeting members could visually look at both examples and determine which would be better. 8. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how high the canopy was from the sidewalk. Mr. Brooks stated six feet. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to approve the awning structure as submitted with the lighting to be reviewed at the next meeting of April 7, 1993, and subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. E. Tentative Tract 23269; a request of Century Homes for approval of landscaping plans for a new model and the model complex. 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 Anderson stated he personally preferred the diciduous trees. He then asked Staff if the trellis on the back of the new model was permanent or temporary. Mr. Bob Diehl of Century Homes stated it was permanent and for the model only. Boardmember Anderson stated that he preferred that the wood used for the trellis be a minimum of 3" X 3". 3. Mr. Diehl, stated that he noted Staff's recommendation that additional trees be required and that on their master street tree plans for the project the second tree and third corner lot are provided and would be planted. 4. Following a brief discussion regarding the landscaping pallette, Boardmember Anderson moved and Boardmember Rice seconded a motion to approve Tentative Tract 23269 landscaping plans as submitted. Unanimously approved. DRB3-3 6 08 Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 F. Street Medians and Frontage Road; a request of the City for review of landscaping plans for the frontage road along Washington Street south of Singing Palms Drive to the southern end of the Catholic Church. 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 Anderson stated he like the continued turf in front of the church, but something needed to be in front of the wall as soon as possible. 3. Mr. Tom McCormick, representing TKD Associates, landscape architects for the project, asked if there were any questions. Boardmember Curtis asked if the location at the end of the project was too narrow for the planting of trees. It could cause a problem with overhang into the street. Mr. McCormick stated the trees were high branching, single trunk trees to cause shading. A discussion followed regarding the type of trees used. 4. Chairman Harbison stated his concern for the amount of lawn area. He felt it should be reduced by half along Washington Street and additional ground cover on emitters should replace the turf. Boardmember Curtis suggested that a mow strip be used also. Discussion followed regarding problems with water overspray. 5. Boardmember Campbell asked if basket weave was to be used at the ends of the median islands. Mr. McCormick stated it was but could be open for discussion. It was decided that running bond would be utilized on Washington Street. 6. Following a discussion regarding setting a City signature, it was moved by Chairman Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to accept the plan as submitted with the turf being reduced by approximately half on Washington Street and the addition of a concrete mow strip. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Boardmember Curtis asked that the Minutes of January 13, 1993, be amended on Page 2, Item #10, to read, "Mr. Hurst stated there was ample parking for a one story structure and if a second story was added additional parking would be provided." Boardmember Anderson asked that Page 3, Item #12 be amended to read, "....and the greatest concern is to see the parapets run back to the neon and it run continuously through the building." Also that Page 3, Item #16.b. "tile" be changed to "style". In addition, Page 3, Item #18 be amended to include that Boardmember Wright, "Agreed that the above comments DRB3-3 7 1 1)S n Design Review Board Minutes March 3, 1993 were recommended as conditions". There being no further changes to the Minutes of January 13, 1993 and February 3, 1993, Boardmember Anderson and Boardmember Rice moved and seconded to approve the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. V. OTHER Staff informed the member that the City Council had set a joint meeting between the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and themselves for sometime in April, 1993. Members would be informed later of the exact date. VI. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Boardmember Rice to adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Review Board on April 7, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 7:30 P.M., March 3, 1993. DRB3-3 8 1-189