DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
FOR BUILDING IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
MEETING DATE: November 10, 2005
TO: De'ign Review Board No.1
PREPARED BY: Milea L. Toledo
CASE NO: I-PDR 2005-151-A continued
ADDRESS: 1613 - 1617 W. Glcnoaks Blvd.
ZONE: C2 - Community Commercial Zone
APPLICANT: Arman Saakyan
OWNER: Rita Mardiussian
LAST DATE REVIEWEDIDECISIONIVOTE: October 13, 2005/Colltillued to Novelllbe,.
10, 2005/Vote: 4-0 (absent-Sussman).
PROJECT PROPOSAL.: The applicant is seeking approval of sign program for the
commercial building fronting Glenoaks Boulevard. The sign program consists of wall signs, one
ground sign, and window signs only.
The wall sign characteristics will consist oftenant name with logo. Combination of upper for the
first letter and lower case for each letter thereafter with "brush cursive and
Ariel" block letter font. internally illumina:cd with L.E.D., neon or florescent lamps and
externally illuminated with goose neck or equal lighting. The proposed color for these signs will
be yellow and orange. The signs will arca is as follows: single line of copy shall not exceed 36-
inches in height for logo graphics and first letter text and 30-inches maximum letter height for
remaining text (primary elevation), 24-inches in height for logo and first letter text. IS-inches in
height for remaining text (secondary elevation), and double line of copy shall not exceed 42-
inches in overall height or IO-inches in height for logo (primary elevation, and 30-inehes overall
height and IO-inches for logo (secondary elevation); maximum 75 percent of total storefront
area Double IinelS inches high and approximately 12 feet long which total 18 square feet or a
two line, 96 inch long and 28-ineh high wall Slgn, with logo. The individual cntity logos are to
be chosen by the tenant and will not be unifol1n with the other tenants. The tenant wall signs are
proposed to be located; 1) fronting Glenoaks Blvd, 2) two fronting the parking lot (one per tenant
space) for a total of three wall signs, and a fo~rth wall sight fronting the parking lot identifying
the nalne of the shopping center "Royal Plaza".
DRB Case No.I-PDR 2005·151·A continued
Address: 1613·1617 W. Glenoaks Blvd.
The proposed ground sign will consist of one monument sign fronting Glenoaks Blvd. The
b'Tound Sib'll is proposed to be located fronting Glenoaks Blvd. It shall be set back five feet from
the front property line, and will be 32 square feet total, and four feet high. The materials include:
single sided fabricated monument with smooth and metal finishes. The copy will be routed out
of sheet metal or aluminum and hacked with plcxiglass and the shopping center logo will be
illuminated upon the owner's preference and mounted to stone/concrete base. The type face will
be the same as the tenant wall sign, colors will match wall signs, with internally illnminated with
fluorescent lamps. The font type has not been specified.
The applicant is also proposing vinyl windows signs for each tenant as part of the sign program.
The windows signs include one entry sign per tenant which displays address or suite number
centered over the main entrance and tenanl hours of operation. These signs will be matte white
vinyl, six-inch high (I2-inch by 12-inch for address information and 12-inch by lO-ineh for
business hours). Custom tenant font type with owner's approval.
Tenant rear entry window signs are proposed to be vinyl letters on the door in contrasting color,
four-inch high for address and 2-inch high for tenant name (total square feet 2.5), customer
tenant font type with owners approval). In addition, other vinyl window signs are being
proposed to he allowed only upon owner's approval.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES: Urban Design Guidelines: The property is located
along West Glenoaks Boulevard which is characterized by highway commercial. The area is
represented by mixed commercial and residential uses, extending from Pacific Avenue, westerly
to the City boundary. A landscape parkway distinguishes this portion of Northwest Glendale and
provides a sense of identity. Retail uses dominate the area followed by commercial services.
Although the area lacks a concentration of services, residents are provided with a wide variety of
Signs should be designed to enhance the architectural character of the buildings on whicb they
are placed. The signs may be fabricated from a variety of materials including aerylic plastic,
fiberglass, tile, sheet metal, bronze, wrought iron, aluminum, and steel, timber, stone and
concrete. Reflective or bright color should be avoided. Further, typefaces should be chosen for
their simplicity, clarity and architectural appropriateness.
Sign programs should be compatible with the surrounding uses by not obstructing other
competing signs, detracting from architectural features ofthe neighhorhood, or creating visual
clutter. Further, the sign program should coordinate with the building architecture including tbe
use of intennally consistent materials, color, and textures.
NOTE: As of October 24, 2005, the applicant has not submitted revised plans or contacted
the case planner regarding this proJect.
DRB Case No. l-PDR 2005-l51-A continued
Address: 1613 - 16J 7 W. GJenoaks Blvd.
October 13, 2005 Board Comments:
1. Revise tbe colors to be consistent with the building colors.
2. Address all items in the DRB staff report fol' this project:
• The proposed yellow and orange sign colors do not appear to be compatible witb tbe
existing colors on the building. The overall sign program docs not enhance the
architectural character of the huilding which is one of the recommendations in the
• Based on the sign program, the applicant is not proposing directional and/or
• The applicant has advised staff that they are no longer proposing projecting signs as
part of the sign program.
• No font information has been provided for the ground sign.
• The applicant has noted in tenant wall sign section of the sign program, that
maximu m allowahle area for a wall ,igu shall not exceed 1.5 per lineal feet oftenant
store frontage which is not consistent with zoning code regulations. The maximum
allowable is 1:1. Hence, this information needs to he revised accordingly.
• The applicant should provide information regarding the sign colors by showing the
colors on a colored elevation.
• The proposed ground/monument sign is not clear regarding its exact location. It
appears that the location could possibly interfere with the front setbaek and parking
• The applicant has not provided photos ofthe new building and of the site.
• The window sign shall have the letters and details located on the inside of the
• The applieant has been advised to submit an enlarged, minimum lIS-ineb seale site
plan prior to the DRB meeting.
• The sign program docs not appear to be clear. The sign prog<am needs to be more
specific and provide clear information regarding the proposal.
Edith M. Fuentes
Milca L. Toledo