ARC 2019-09-16_8a Assist Home Loans signsMEMORANDUM
TO: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER
BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT
19-008; REPLACEMENT OF ONE (1) EXISTING WALL SIGN AND ONE
(1)EXISTING GROUND SIGN FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS;
LOCATION – 214 E. BRANCH STREET, SUITE B; APPLICANT –
ASSIST HOME LOANS; REPRESENTATIVE – CHRISTIAN STEARNS
D ATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Recommendation for future action by the Community Development Director will result in
new signage for an existing business in the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4)
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) review the proposed sign
plans and make a recommendation to the Community Development Director.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is zoned Public Facility (PF), is located in the D-2.4 Historic
Character Overlay District (Attachment 1), and requires review by the ARC for
compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character
Overlay District (Design Guidelines) (Attachment 2).
The ARC previously reviewed the proposed signs on August 19, 2019. The ARC was
supportive of the design, location, and materials proposed, however the Committee
expressed concern that the proposed colors did not complement the color scheme of
the building, as required by the Design Guidelines. (Attachment 3).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to replace one (1) existing wall sign and one (1) ground sign
on an existing monument for an existing business. The proposed signage is subject to
the regulation of the Design Guidelines, which state the preferred materials for sign
Item 8.a - Page 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 19-008
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
PAGE 2
construction are wood, metal, or a simulation of these materials. The wall sign is
proposed to consist of high-density urethane (HDU) letters and company emblem
surrounded by a border. The ground sign will be a scaled down version of the wall sign
with the only change being a slight change to the border. Both signs are proposed to
have raised lettering that reads “Assist Home Loans” with a border to provide some
depth and dimension to the sign.
The only change to this proposal is to the colors, which have been revised to
complement the building’s color scheme. The resubmittal proposes the word “Assist” to
be painted black, the words “Home Loans” to be painted metallic gold, the company
emblem to be a combination of these colors, and the dashed line in the background to
be metallic silver and surrounded by a black border (Attachment 4). All of the individual
characters will be mounted on backing that is proposed to be an off-white color. Paint
and material samples will be available for review at the meeting. The design and
materials for the signs are as follows:
Wall Sign
Materials: 1” thick, carved HDU (high density urethane) lettering
Painted aluminum backing
Colors: Main lettering and trim: Black (semi-gloss finish)
Secondary lettering: Metallic gold
Company emblem: Black and metallic gold
Backing: Alabaster (matte finish)
Message: Assist Home Loans
Size: 5’-10” x 2’-8” (15.5 square feet)
Locations: Above the main entrance
Illumination: None
Ground Sign
Materials: Carved HDU (high density urethane) lettering
Colors: Main lettering and trim: Black (semi-gloss finish)
Secondary lettering: Metallic gold
Company emblem: Black and metallic gold
Backing: off-white –“Alabaster” (matte finish)
Message: Assist Home Loans
Size: 3’-3” x 9.5” (2.5 square feet)
Locations: One (1) co-located on monument sign near the main walkway
Illumination: None
The proposed signs meet the specific regulations for business identification signs
identified in Table 16.60.040-A of the Municipal Code. The ARC should consider
whether the proposed colors comply with the Design Guidelines and complement the
color scheme of the building.
Item 8.a - Page 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 19-008
SEPTEMBER 16, 2019
PAGE 3
The proposed sign has not changed in dimension or location on the structure. The
proposed signage is in conformance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) in
regards to the size, location, and amount of proposed signage.
AD VANTAGES:
The proposed signage has been revised to complement the building’s color scheme in
accordance with the Design Guidelines. The proposal complies with the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code for sign area, number and locations.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project was reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and determined to be categorically exempt per Section 15311(a) of the
Guidelines regarding the relocation of an existing sign within the same commercial
complex.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Project Location
2.Design Guidelines P. 36-38
3.Draft Minutes from the August 19, 2019 ARC meeting
4.Project Plans
Item 8.a - Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 8.a - Page 4
C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE GUIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS
Signs, Awnings and Rear
Entries
SIGNS
General
1.Signs shall meet all requirements of the
Development Code, and the provisions
of these Guidelines and Standards for
the district in which it is located. If a
conflict arises between the Development
Code and these Guidelines and
Standards, the most restrictive
requirements shall apply.
2.All signs, except Community
Development Director approved
window signs, shall be subject to review
by the Architectural Review Committee
(ARC).
3.Signs shall be oriented to pedestrians
and slow moving vehicle traffic. This
means that signs shall be smaller and on
more of a human scale than signs in
other commercial districts.
4.Painted wall signs are not appropriate on
facades of unpainted brick or stone.
Signs painted directly on unpainted or
unfinished walls are not appropriate for
the Village Core Downtown and Mixed
Use districts. Wall signs painted on
finished wood and/or painted brick,
stone or stucco surfaces are allowed
subject to ARC recommendation.
Removing or altering painted signs can
cause damage to the surface material.
Size
1.Signs shall not completely cover kick
plates or window transoms.
2.All signage is included in the sign area
allowed in the Development Code. This
includes window and awning signs,
logos and graphic representations that
identify the business, product sold, or
service offered.
3.Window signs shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the window area in
which they appear.
4.Sign materials and lettering styles shall
be consistent with the historic period.
Location
1.Signs shall be located in relation to the
bays on the façade. Signs shall not
36
Item 8.a - Page 5
C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE GUIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS
obscure architectural features of the
building.
2.Wall signs shall be located near the
entry to the building to better relate to
pedestrian traffic.
3.Window and door signs shall be applied
where they will not obstruct visibility.
4.Signs on awnings or canopies shall be
placed where pedestrians can see them.
Under-canopy signs are encouraged in
the Village Core Downtown District to
enhance pedestrian orientation, and shall
be counted as part of the total allowable
sign area.
Materials
1.Signs shall be built of wood, metal or
other materials that simulate the
appearance of wood or metal.
2.The use of wood-simulating recycled
plastic material is subject to
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
approval.
3.High gloss, shiny or reflective surfaces
may be used as accents, but shall not be
used as the predominant sign material.
4.Signs may use raised images or painted
images in their design.
5.Sign materials shall complement the
building material, and shall be in
keeping with the historic character of
the Village.
6.Signs painted on a signboard or other
thin material shall be framed on all sides
to provide depth and a finished look to
the sign. Sign frames shall include
carved or routed details or otherwise be
designed to complement the
architectural design of the building or
district.
7.Interior lit and metal canister, plastic
and vacuum-formed letters or sign faces
are not permitted unless specifically
recommended by the Architectural
Review Committee (ARC).
Colors
1.Sign colors shall complement the
building color scheme.
2.Bright, intense colors are inappropriate
including the use of fluorescent, “neon”
or “day-glo” colors on signs.
3.All applications for sign permits shall
include a sample of the intended color
palette.
37
Item 8.a - Page 6
C ITY OF A RROYO G RANDE GUIDELINES & S TANDARDS FOR H ISTORIC D ISTRICTS
Sign Illumination
1.Signs may be externally illuminated
with incandescent lights, or other
lighting that does not produce glare and
is designed to conserve energy.
2.Wall, canopy, or projecting signs may
be illuminated from concealed sources
or exposed ornamental fixtures that
complement the building’s architecture.
3.Window signs and window displays
may be illuminated from concealed
sources.
4.Neon tubing signs that approximate the
appearance of historic neon are subject
to approval of the Architectural Review
Committee. All neon tubing shall be
covered with transparent or translucent
material to prevent rupture or shall be
certified by the manufacturer for safety.
AWNINGS AND CANOPIES
1.Under-awning or under-canopy signs
oriented to pedestrian traffic are
encouraged as part of the overall
signage in the Village Core Downtown
and Mixed Use districts.
2.All graphics, logos, and signs contained
on awnings or canopies shall be
considered part of the total allowed sign
area as defined in the Development
Code.
3.Awning or canopy color and design
should be compatible with that of the
building on which it is attached and
complement those of adjacent buildings,
both in style and color.
4.Canopies and awnings shall be
consistent with the historic period in
regard to size, shape, and materials.
Aluminum, fiberglass and plastic
awnings or canopies are not appropriate.
The use of loose valances and traditional
vintage-stripped awning material is
encouraged. Canopies and awnings
consisting of materials stretched taut
over a rigid framework are not
appropriate.
REAR ENTRIES
1.Rear entries are traditionally plain and
unadorned. Common materials include
brick, stone, boards and battens and
wood siding, and these are acceptable
for new construction or renovation.
38
Item 8.a - Page 7
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2019
ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
ARC Members:Chair Warren Hoag, Vice Chair Bruce Berlin and Committee Members
Jon Couch, Lori Hall and Kristin Juette were present.
City Staff Present: Planning Manager Matt Downing and Assistant Planner Andrew Perez
were present.
3.FLAG SALUTE
Committee Member Hall led the Flag Salute.
4.AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
Vice Chair Berlin made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Couch to approve the
minutes of the August 5, 2019, Regular Meeting as submitted. The motion passed 5-0 on the
following voice vote:
AYES: Berlin, Couch, Juette, Hall, Hoag
NOES: None
8.PROJECTS
8.a. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 19-002; COMMERCIAL FAÇADE
APPROVAL FOR ENTITLED DRIVE-THRU; LOCATION – 1570 W. BRANCH STREET;
APPLICANT – RICK GAMBRIL, ARROYO GRANDE COMMERCIAL LLC;
REPRESENTATIVE – ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS (Downing)
Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report, briefly described the approved
Amended Conditional Use Permit that increased the number of tenants and allowed for the
addition of the drive-thru pad. He provided details about the design of the building, proposed
materials and colors, lighting, landscaping and intended locations for signage.
Tom Jess, project representative, spoke in support of the project and explained that the design
of the building uses similar architectural concepts, materials, and colors as the primary
structure on site. He also provided details about the screening of the rooftop mechanical
equipment, and use of vegetative screens to hide the service areas of the restaurant.
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 8.a - Page 8
Minutes: ARC PAGE 2
Monday, August 19, 2019
The Committee spoke in support of the project and was supportive of the massing, colors and
material choices. The Committee also appreciated how the architecture of the drive-thru
complemented the primary structure on site and found the landscaping appropriate, especially
the use of the vegetative wall.
Vice Chair Berlin made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Juette, to recommend
approval of the project to the Community Development Director as submitted, with the
suggestion to include patio trees in the outdoor dining area and to extend the length of the
proposed planters underneath the vegetative wall in order to capture water that may drip down
when the plants are irrigated.
The motion passed 5-0 on the following voice vote:
AYES: Berlin, Juette, Couch, Hoag, Hall
NOES: None
8.b. CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 19-008; REPLACEMENT OF
ONE (1) EXISTING WALL SIGN AND ONE (1) EXISTING GROUND SIGN FOR AN
EXISTING BUSINESS; LOCATION – 214 E. BRANCH STREET, SUITE B; APPLICANT –
ASSIST HOME LOANS; REPRESENTATIVE – CHRISTI AN STEARNS (Perez)
Assistant Planner Perez presented the staff report and provided details about the number,
location, materials, and colors of the proposed signs. He also described how the proposed
signage is potentially inconsistent with the Design Guidelines.
Randy Brownell, project representative, spoke in support of the project, provided additional
details about the sign type, materials, colors, and the rationale for going away from a sign
consisting of individual letters to a one-piece sign.
The Committee spoke in support of the change from individual letters to a one-piece sign.
However, the Committee struggled to find the sign in compliance with the Design Guidelines
because the proposed colors failed to complement the color scheme of the building.
Specifically, the Committee felt the white was too stark against the beige color of the building,
and suggested toning down the white to better complement the building’s color scheme.
Vice Chair Berlin made a motion to approve the project with conditions, but the motion failed
to secure a second.
Chair Hoag made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Berlin, to continue the item to a future
meeting to allow the applicant to refine the colors to better complement the building’s color
scheme.
The motion passed 5-0 on the following voice vote:
AYES: Hoag, Berlin, Hall, Couch, Juette
NOES: None
Item 8.a - Page 9
ATTACHMENT 4Item 8.a - Page 10