HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-21 City Council (18)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 CMR:364:99
SUBJECT:3825 EL CAMINO REAL: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DENIAL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR A SIGN EXCEPTION BY AMCOE SIGN
COMPANY TO ALLOW A NEW HALO ILLUMINATED SIGN
ADVERTISING MANPOWER STAFFING SERVICES.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council deny the appeal
based on the attached Sign Exception findings and Architectural Review Board findings
(Attachments A and E).
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a Sign Exception to allow a third wall sign to match two
previously approved wall signs, which consist of three inch deep, individual blue metal
letters advertising Manpower Staffmg Services. The letters would be halo illuminated. The
current proposal is for an additional wall sign for a total of three wall signs for the site. The
two previously approved wall signs would face E1 Camino Real and Curtner Avenue
respectively, and the third currently proposed wall sign would face the existing parking lot.
DISCUSSION
The site in question has some unusual or extraordinary attributes. It is located on a comer
lot and three sides of the structure are visible, with the side of the wall which faces the
parking lot being the first visible wall for pedestrians and drivers traveling north on E1
Camino Real. For that reason, staff originally supported the Sign Exception request.
However, upon further review and considering the ARB discussion of the proposal, staff
does not support the appeal and rather supports the denial of the project.
CMR:364:99 Page 1 of 3
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan,
(policy L-50) calls for the "encourage(ment) of high quality signage that is attractive,
appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs." The third
additional wall sign is unnecessary on the 5,500 square foot building. An additional sign
at the parking lot elevation in unnecessary to meet the visibility and aesthetic needs of the
tenant. The tenant could place an additional awning, window, or projecting sign on the
E1 Camino Real or Curmer Avenue frontages.
Second, the proposal is also not consistent with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. The
Guidelines state that, "The ARB usually approves one wall sign per building face and/or one
freestanding sign per street frontage. Three signs, one on each elevation, are not usually
approved." The proposal is for three wall signs, one on each elevation. Approval of a third
wall sign would not be consistent with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines.
Finally, the proposal is not consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Sign
Ordinance allows for signage only on street facing frontages for comer lots. The Sign
Ordinance does allow for exceptions, provided that the necessary Sign Exception findings
can be made (see Attachment E).
BOARD OR COMMISSION REVIEW
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) first reviewed the above application on June 17,
1999. The project was approved with conditions by the Architectural Review Board with a
vote of 3-0-0-2, Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo absent. The Conditions of Approval
required that one of the three wall signs be eliminated pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
16.20.170, which allows for no more than two wall signs per comer building frontage. The
signs must face the street rather than the parking lot because a parking lot fagade is not
considered frontage. Manpower Staffing Services signage was approved with one wall sign
facing E1 Camino Real and one wall sign facing Curtner Avenue.
The applicant returned to the Architectural Review Board on August 5, 1999, with a request
for a Sign Exception to allow a third wall sign facing the parking lot on E1 Camino Real. The
application for the third wall sign was denied because the Board felt that the Sign Exception
findings could not be made (see Attachment B). The Board voted 3-1-0-1 for the denial,
Chairman Peterson, opposed, Board Member Bellomo, absent.
ATTACHMENTS
B.
C.
D.
E.
Site Location Map
Sign Exception Denial Findings
Architectural Review Board staff report, dated June 17 and August 5, 1999
Excerpts of the ARB minutes of August 5, 1999
ARB findings
CMR:364:99 Page 2 of 3
F.Action minutes for June 17, 1999
PREPARED BY: Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAl. ~tQ a
EMILY
Assistant City Manager
cc:Amcoe Sign Co., Noel Marquis, 960 San Antonio Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303
CMR:364:99 Page 3 of 3
to Staff Report
Attachment A
Nomh
ATTACHMENT B
Sign Exception Findings
3825 El Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in
the same district in that the subject property is located at a visible comer on
a busy street. The building has two street facing frontages, E1 Camino Real
and Curmer Avenue, on which to place adequate signage for the site.
The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that the subject property
is allowed other forms of signage on the E1 Camino Real and Curtner Avenue
building frontages. An additional awning, projecting~ or window sign may be
added to either of the street facing facades. The applicant is not being denied
his fight to adequate signage.
The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity in that the additional signage is excessive and is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The Comprehensive Plan and Municipal code call for signage which is
appropriate for the site and signage which is for identification rather than
advertising.
Attachment C
Architectural Review Board
Staff Re[aort
AGENDA DATE:
To:
August 5, 1999
Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner Department: Planning
3825 El Camino Real [99-ARB-69]: Application by Amcoe Sign
Company for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and
recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for reconsideration and discussion of a Sign Exception for
the location of a new halo illuminated signs advertising Manpower
Staffing Services facing the existing parking lot to match previously
approved wall sign approved by the ARB on June 17, 1999.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage subject to the Sign Exception findings
set forth at the end of this report (See Attachment A).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the above item on June 17, 1999. The
project was approved with conditions by the Architectural Review Board with a vote of (3-0-
0-2). The Conditions of Approval required that one of the three wall signs proposed be
eliminated pursuant to P.A.M.C. 16.20.170, which allows for no more than two wall signs
per comer building. The signs must face the street rather than the parking lot so Manpower
Staffing Services signage was approved with one wall sign facing E1 Camino Real and one
wall sign facing Curtner Avenue.
The applicant is requesting that the original proposal for three wall signs be approved with
one wall sign facing E1 Camino Real, one wall sign facing Curtner Avenue, and a third wall
sign facing the existing parking lot. The Sign Exception is required because the Palo Alto
Municipal Code allows for only one wall sign per comer frontage. Frontage has been
interpreted as street facing frontage rather than parking lot frontage for the purposes of
signage. The applicants are requesting that a Sign Exception be approved to permit a third
wall sign facing the parking lot.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the ARB Standards for Review/Findings, the El Camino Real
Design Guidelines, the Sign Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive
Plan, (policy L-50) calls for the Encourage(ment) of high quality signage that is attractive,
appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The
additional proposed wall sign is appropriate for the large roof fascia and the proposed size
and location is similar to the previously approved signage.
Sign Exception
Staff recommends approval of the Sign Exception subject to the findings. (See Attachment
A)
Zoning Ordinance
The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the (CS) Commercial Service District.
The land use is office which is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has
been granted Conditional Use Permit to allow an office use of 5,500 square feet where 5,000
square feet is the maximum size for an office use in the (CS) zone.
El Camino Real Design Guidelines
The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with recommendations contained within
the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The signs will be a single color and will be halo
illuminated, as consistent with the Guidelines. The proposed amount of signage is close to
the maximum amount advised by the El Cammo Real Design Guidelines. However, the letter
height proposed is 1’-10" with a 3’ high logo which is larger than the letter height normally
approved on E1 Camino Real. The proposed wall signs are to be halo illuminated. The Board
does not encourage brightly lit signs (E.C.R.D.G.page 6, #8) and halo illumination is an
appropriate means of lighting the sign.
Sign Ordinance
The proposed project complies with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance for wall signs. The
area of the signs is shown below compared to the maximum sign area allowed by the Sign
Ordinance and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines:
Wall sign facing parking lot
Signs:
Proposed
Allowed by Sign Ordinance
Recommended by ECR Guidelines
Size:
51square feet
90 square feet
45-60 square feet
Location:
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Staff finds that the proposed wall signwith approval of the Sign Exception is consistent with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed sign with conditions complies
with the size recommendations found within the El Cammo Real Design Guidelines and the
sign complies with the size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The sign is halo illuminated
3825ecr.sr Page 2
as recommended by the El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is categorically exempt (Class
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11) from the requirements of the California
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper
of general circulation.
TIMING ACTION LIMITS
Date project received:
Date application deemed complete:
Action time limit:
(60 days after project deemed complete)
Optional extension upon applicant[] s request:
(90 days after action date)
6/17/99
6/17/99
8/15/99
11/13/99
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: ARB Standards for Review/Findings
Attachment B: Sign Exception Findings
Attachment C: Conditions of Approval
COURTESY COPIES
Amcoe Sign Co.,Noel Marquis,960 San Antonio Ave.,Palo Alto, CA 94303
Prepared By:Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
Manager Review:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
3825ecr.sr Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/FINDINGS
3825 E! Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
The design of the proposal furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance because
the proposed facade changes would comply with the Standards for Architectural Review as
required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC in the following manner:
The design of the proposal is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the City[]s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #al). The signs balance visibility needs
with aesthetic needs as required by the Comprehensive Plan. The signs are visible for
both pedestrians and drivers along E1 Camino Real and Curtner Avenue.
The proposed signs will be compatible with the immediate environment of the site
(standard #a2). The proposed signs are a singular color and are halo illuminated.
The proposed color is unobtrusive and keeps the building compatible with the
surrounding environment.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The signs
enhance the visibility of the retail use for pedestrians and drivers of vehicles along E1
Camino Real and Curtner Avenue and halo illumination is appropriate for the site.
Standards #a4, #a5,#a6,#a7,#a8 and #a15 are not applicable to the signage proposal.
ATTACHMENT B
SIGN EXCEPTION FINDINGS
3825 El Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
1)
2)
3)
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the
same zone district. The existing building has four visible facades; however, only the
two street facing facades are allowed signage under the current P.A.M.C. regulations.
In addition, due to the existing architecture of the building, the applicant cannot place
additional allowed projecting signs or awning signs on the building.
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss
or unnecessary hardship in that the subject property’s most visible wall surface faces
a parking lot and the Sign Ordinance only allows signage on street facing frontages.
The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that
will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or
convenience in that an additional sign is a minor architectural feature. The
proposed third wall sign to face the parking lot replaces a wall sign that currently
exists in that location from the previous tenant. The third wall sign will effectively
identify Manpower Staffing Services for oncoming vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3825 El Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
General Conditions
Planning
1.The project shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted on May 6, 1999 on
fde in the Planning Department Office unless otherwise noted.
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
AGENDA DATE: June 17, 1999
To:Architectural Review Board
From:Amie Glaser, Planning Technician Department: Planning
Subject:3825 E! Camino Real~ 99-ARB-69 - Application by Amcoe Sign
Companyfor Architectural Review Board review and
recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for three halo illuminated wall signs advertising
Manpower Staffing Services. "
RECOMME~ATIO~
Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage subject to the conditions and findings
set forth at the end of this report (See Attachment B&C).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to install three halo illuminated wall signs, one facing E1 Camino
Real, one facing Curtner Avenue, and a third sign facing the existing parking lot. One of
the proposed wall signs shall be eliminated from the proposal as consistent with P.A.M.C.
16.20.170 which allows for only two wall signs for a comer building. Thr letters are
proposed as three inch deep, blue metal letters. See Attachment A for applicant project
description.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is not consistent with the ARB Standards for Review/Findings, the El Camino
Real Design Guidelines, the Sign Ordinance, nor the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan, (policy L-50) calls for the "Encourage(ment) of high quality signage
that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic
needs." The proposed wall signs are appropriate for the large roof fascia and the proposed
sizes and locations are similar to the existing signage.
3825ecr.sr Page 1
Zoning Ordinance
The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the (CS) Commercial Service District.
The land use is office which is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has
applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an office use of 5,500 square feet where
5,000 square feet is the maximum size for an office use in the (CS) zone.
El C:~mino Real Desi?n Guidelines
The proposed project, as conditioned,is consistent with recommendations contained within
the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The signs will be a single color and will be halo
illuminated, as consistant with the Guidelines. The proposed amount of signage is close
to the maximum amout advised by the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. However, the
letter height proposed is 1 ’-10" with a 3’ high logo which is larger than the letter height
normally approved on E1 Camino Real. The proposed wall signs are to be halo illuminated.
The Board does not encourage brightly lit signs (E.C.R.D.G.page 6, #8) and halo
illumination may be an appropriate means of lighting the sign.
Sign Ordinance
The proposed project complies with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance for wall signs.
The area of the signs is shown below compared to the maximum sign area allowed by the
Sign Ordinance and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines:
Wall sign on front elevation facing E1 Camino Real
Signs:Size:
Proposed 28 square feet
Allowed by Sign Ordinance 53 square feet
Recommended by ECR Guidelines 26.5 square feet
Location:
E1 Camino
E1 Camino
E1 Camino
Wall sign on left elevation facing Curtner Avenue
Signs:Size:
Proposed 5 lsquare feet
Allowed by Sign Ordinance 90 square feet
Recommended by ECR Guidelines 45 square feet
Location:
Curtner Ave.
CurtnerAve.
Curtner Ave.
Wall sign facing parking lot
Signs:
Proposed
Allowed by Sign Ordinance
Recommended by ECR Guidelines
Size:
51square feet
90 square feet
45 square feet
Location:
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
Parking Lot
3825ecr.sr Page 2
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Staff finds that the proposed wall signs, as conditioned, are consistent with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed signs comply with the size
recommendations found within the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the signs
comply with the size requirements of the Sign Ordinance; however, the Board may choose
to approve smaller letters as the proposed 1’-10" letters and 3’ high Iogo are larger than
what is normally approved on E1 Camino Real. The signs are halo illuminated as
recommended by the El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is categorically exempt (Class 11) from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC ~OTICE
Public Notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper
of general circulation.
TIMING ACTION LIMITS
Date project received:
Date application deemed complete:
Action time limit:
(60 days after project deemed complete)
Optional extension upon applicant’s request:
(90 days after action date)
5/6/99
5/6/99
7/5/99
10/2/99
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Applicant’s written project description
Attachment B: ARB Standards for Review/Findings
Attachment C: Conditions of Approval
COURTESY COPIES
Amcoe Sign Co.,Noel Marquis,960 San Antonio Ave.,Palo Alto, CA 94303
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Amie Glaser,Associate Planner
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
3825ecr.sr Page 3
Attachment A
Apr. 22, 1999
To:City of Polo Alto
Architectural Review Board
Polo Alto, CA 94301
Re:Manpower Staffing Services
3825 El Camino Real
Polo Alto, Califomia
Members of the board and staff:
Request is made for ARB approval of our application for a sign program for Manpower Staffing
Services at their new location at the subject address;
Proposed signage to consist entirely of 3" deep fabricated blue metal letters with white "Halo-
light" indirect illumination; - three signs total:
Ao North and south faces of building are to be identical design on similar 1888 sq. ft..wall
elevations; -. 51 sc~uare ft. signs "Manpower Staffing Services;w~ogo.to be mounted on
marquee fascia.
B.West elevation 30 sq. ft. sign (same construction, illumination) 1’-10" graphics: Manpower"
with logo to be mounted on front marquee fascia; Relevant building face area is 736 sq. ft.
Thank you for your consideration of our application.
Submitted by:
Noel Marquis, Amcoe Sign Company
960 san antonio avenue, polo alto, california 94303- phone (415)858-1221 / fax (415)858-2144
ATTACHMENT B
ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/FINDINGS
3825 E1 Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
The design of the proposal furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance because
the proposed facade changes would comply with the Standards for Architectural Review
as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC in the following manner:
The design of the proposaI is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #al). The signs balance visibility needs
with aesthetic needs as required by the Comprehensive Plan. The signs are visible
for both pedestrians and drivers along E1 Camino Real and Curtner Avenue.
The proposed signs will be compatible with the immediate environment of the site
(standard #a2). The proposed signs are a singular color and are halo illuminated.
The proposed color is unobtrusive and keeps the building compatible with the
surrounding environment.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The signs
enhance the visibility of the retail use for pedestrians and drivers of vehicles along
E1 Camino Real and Curtner Avenue and halo illumination is appropriate for the
site.
Standards #a4, #a5,#a6,#a7,#a8 and #a15 are not applicable to the signage proposal.
ATTACHMENT C
ARB CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3825 El Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
1)The applicant shall remove one of the proposed wall signs so that the proposal is
consistent with P.A.M.C. 16.20.170, which allows only two wall signs per comer
building.
The project shall be constructed as shown on the plans submitted on May 6, 1999
on file with the Planning Department office unless otherwise noted.
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Architectural Review Board
Thursday, August 5, 1999
Council Chambers
Verbatim Minutes
3825 E! Camino Real [99-ARB-69|: Application by Amcoe Sign Company for
Architectural Review Board (ORB) review and recommendation to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment for reconsideration and discussion of a Design
Enhancement Exception of the locations of three new halo illuminated signs advertising
Manpower Staffing Services, as reviewed by the ORB on June 17, 1999.
Chairman Peterson: Amie.
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner: Staff recommends approval of the proposed sign
exception findings the end of the report and its actually a very simple application. The
applicant is proposing to put a third sign on the building facing the parking lot. It requires
a Sign Exception because we had determined that a street-facing frontage is not a parking-
lot facing frontage. The applicant is asking for a third sign which needs the exception.
Chairman Peterson: I don’t know whether we need an additional presentation by the
applicant or is it clear to everybody what the issue is here? Would you like to make a brief
presentation.
Applicant: Noel Marquis: I don’t have anything else to add to the staff report but I am
available for questions.
Chairman Peterson: Alright, thank you. Let me return to the Board for any questions we
might have. Frank, I guess I would like to start with you, if you have any.
Boardmember Alfonso: I wasn’t here at the original meeting so I would have some quite
a few questions but maybe some of the other boardmembers should go first.
Chairman Peterson: Yes, let’s do that. Cheryl.
Boardmember Piha: I guess I am confused, what is staff basing the findings on?
Ms. Glaser: Basically, we based our findings on the fact that you are allowed two signs
per street facing frontage and its one of each type of sign so they could do a awning sign
and a wall sign. In this case, there’s really nowhere to put awnings because of the
building’s architectural, there’s really nowhere to put a projecting sign because the
projecting sign has to be underneath a roof overhang or underneath an awning. So they
are sort of stuck as far as signage and in addition to that putting a second sign on either of
those two elevations that have signage as it is might be a little too much. Also the sign
1 that faces the parking lot is visible to people coming down E1 Camino and I think, that is
2 probably the most important part, that’ll be the front of the Manpower’s parking lot. It’s
3 just before the building so it will help them directionally to turn in and know where the
4 building is.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: To add to that, the unique characteristic is that this is a
corner lot that has an exposed parking lot and an exposed side of the building that is
visible from El Camino. The situation doesn’t exist on most lots so that is the unique
circumstance or characteristic.
Chairman Peterson: Lee, do you have any questions?
Boardmember Lippert: Yes. How would that differ from somebody who had a zero lot
line configuration where their building abutted two other buildings on either side their
parking was in the rear of the building and they merely had limited frontage off of E1
Carnino?
Ms. Grote: I don’t believe they would be requesting additional signage. They would
have a front sign along the street frontage, they may have a small identification sign in the
back but that wouldn’t require a Sign Exception, whereas this does because they’ve got an
additional sign on a non-street facing front.
Boardmember Lippert: I guess my line of questioning is its no worse than a situation in
which case somebody has a zero lot line facade that was abutting two buildings on either
side with frontage on El Camino. In fact, they are better off‘because they have a corner.
Ms. Grote: Except that a site which has a zero lot line and only street frontage
visibility, doesn’t have the situation where the building will be visible before the signage.
Whereas, someone who is looking for this particular business is going to see the side of
the building with no sign. So, I think its going to be harder for them to be identified, or
could possibly be harder for them to be identified.
Chairman Peterson: Even with the three signs, they are within their square footage limit
and how does this compare to something like a shopping center where you have multiple
faces and we do allow them signage on multiple faces as long as the ratios are correct and
the overall amounts are the same, is that correct?
Ms. Grote: I am trying to think of examples at the sb/pping center where they do have
signage on multiple faces that are facing the parking lot. In those instances, I believe, they
still have street frontage because there’s a public street on the other side of the parking lot
so there is street frontage as well. I don’t know that we’ve issued Sign Exceptions for the
shopping center, I don’t know that there’s been a question regarding the number of signs.
Chairman Peterson: I am thinking of Bloomingdale’s. They also have signage on the
malls, don’t they in both street sides. I am not making a comparison that this is a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
shopping center but it is the same kind of issue. That is all the questions that I have, Frank
do you have any now?
Boardmember Alfonso: I was just going to say that I think a better application might be
the Macy’s men’s store. In fact, Bloomingdale’s internal to the mall site, we don’t
regulate that whereas the Macy’s men’s store is off of the Sand Hill road extension but is
really a parking lot right now.
Chairman Peterson: Alright, there are no more questions, let me ask whether there are
any questions from any members of the public on this issue. Seeing none, I’ll return to the
board for comment. Cheryl.
Boardmember Piha: Again, I just can’t support this Sign Exception. I feel we are all
working so hard to make the E1 Camino Real design guidelines work and I just can’t find
the exception to support this. I think its excessive advertising on a small building and I
don’t think you’d have any trouble with the trat~c speed on E1 Camino seeing signage on
the front of the building and I think its a recognizable logo. I don’t think its going to be
an issue and I just can’t support a Sign Exception or this kind of situation. I think its a
detrimental precedence to go forward with allowing it in terms of what we are trying to do
on El Camino. We are all working too hard.
Boardmember Lippert: I think Cheryl has said it all. I feel very much the same way.
Boardmember Alfonso: I actually feel the same.
Chairman Peterson: I think its time for a motion.
Boardmember Piha: I’ll make the motion to deny the project that’s submitted.
Boardmember Alfonso: I’ll second that.
Chairman Peterson: It has been moved and seconded so all in favor, say aye (4) and (0)
opposed. One absent.
Attachment E
ARB Standards for Review/Findings
3825 E1 Camino Real; 99-ARB-69
The design of the proposal does not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance
because the proposed facade changes would not comply with the Standards for Architectural
Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC in the following manner:
The design of the proposal is (not) consistent and compatible with applicable elements
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Standard #al). The signs do not balance
visibility needs with aesthetic needs as required by the Comprehensive Plan. The
previously approved wall signs are visible for both pedestrians and drivers along E1
Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. Additional signage is unnecessary and could be
considered advertising rather than identification.
The proposed signs will (not) be compatible with the immediate environment of the
site (standard #a2). The proposed sign is not compatible with the surrounding
environment in that the sign is facing a parking lot and other signs in the area face E1
Camino Real.
The design is (not) appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The use
of the site is office and a third sign facing the parking lot is inappropriate for an office
use. The sign would become advertising rather than identifcafion for the office use.
Standards #a4, #a5,#a6,#a7,#a8 and #a15 are not applicable to the signage proposal.
Attachment F
MEETINOS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16-
Thursday, June 17, 1999
REGULAR MEETING - 8:O0 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, lst Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Robert Peterson, Chair
Francisco Alfonso, Vice-Chair, absent
Cheryl Piha
Lee L Lippert
Joseph Bellomo, absent
Liaison:
Amy French, Planner
Staff:
Lille Lopez, Office Specialist
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Nancy Hutar, Contract Planner
Carolynn Bissett, Associate Planner
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:
¯Announce agenda item
¯Openpublic hearing
¯Staffreeommendation
¯Applieantpresentation - Ten(lO) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board
¯Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff
¯Public comment - Five(5) minutes limitationper speaker or limitation to three(3) minutes
depending on large number of speakers per item.
¯Applicant closing comments- Three (3) minutes
¯Closepublic hearing
¯Motions/recommendations by the Board
¯Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
1)Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA: Expressed her concerns
about 2701 Middlefield Road, if it has a temporary occupancy permit, or a non-
temporary one. Expressed concerns about the dying street tree, paint, canopy height,
City of Palo Alto Page 1
and parking; asked that it be reviewed for code compliance. Also expressed her
concerns on minor ARB staff approvals changing the quality of the original approvals.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES. Approval of minutes of June 3, 1999 meeting.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended item be continued to the meeting of
July 1, 1999. (3-0-0-2) Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
1. 2775 Middlefield Road [98-ARB-106]: Review of staff approval of a sign application by JSJ
Electrical Display Corporation (representing Starbucks) for revisions to conditionally
approved signs and sign lighting plans reviewed by the ARB on December 17, 1999.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the ARB review the revised sign and sign lighting
plans approved by Staff and evaluate the plans and staff action pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 16.48.050. If the ARB finds that the recent staff action was taken in conflict with Section
16.48.050, staff suggests that the ARB reverse the staff level action and:
(A)
03)
Recommend revisions to the proposed signs so that they will be consistent with
design guidelines adopted by the Board, OR
Require the Applicant to comply with the sign and lighting plans that were
reviewed by the ARB on December 17, 1998, for which conditional approval was
obtained on December 22, 1998.
Public Testimony:
1)Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA: Asked that the signs be restored to
plans approved by the ARB and expressed her concerns that staff approvals are down-grading
the quality of ARB approvals.
2)Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto, CA: Concurred with Ms. Chiapella regarding staff
approvals, and expressed his concern with the posting of staff approval notices.
3)Tom Foy, 2775 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA: Noted that he felt that there had been a
misunderstanding, and that the applicant could implement the ARB approved plans.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommends the applicant comply with ARB
approved pl~ns (approved December 22, 1998) thereby overturning staff approval of revised signage
on May 17, 1999;(3-0-0-2) Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
Public Hearings (Minor). None.
Public Hearings (Major). None.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Other Items. None.
NEW B USINESS.
Public Hearings ~nor).
2.955 Alma Street [99-ARB-51]: Application by DES Architects & Engineers for
Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment to allow facade modifications to an existing building, new signage,
and landscaping alterations for a new office tenant, Tarlton Properties.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed facade modifications,
new signage, and landscaping alterations based upon the findings in "Attachment A" and
subject to the conditions of approval set forth in "Attachment B."
Public Testimony: None.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval with conditions 1-8, (3-0-
0-2). Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
3.550 University Avenue [99-ARB-66]: Application by HPS Architects for Architectural
Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for renovation of an existing building for a new office tenant, Technology
Partners.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval subject to findings and conditions listed at the
end of this report (see Attachments A and B)
Public Testimony: None.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended the item be continued to the
meeting of July 15, 1999, (3-0-0-2) Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
4.3825 El Camino Real [99-ARB-69]: Application by Amcoe Sign Company for Architectural
Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment to allow for three new halo illuminated signs advertising Manpower Staffing
Services.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage subject to the
conditions and findings set forth at the end of this report (see Attachments B&C).
Public Testimony: None.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended approval with conditions 1 & 2. (3-
0-0-2) Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
Public Hearings (Major).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
5.3200 Park Boulevard[99-ARB-30, 99-EIA-7]: Application by Young & Borlik Architects
for Architectural Review Board approval to relocate 11,832 square feet of building area as
follows: (1) in Area 1 of the site - demolish an existing 11,832 square foot metal building and,
in its place, to install 75 new parking stalls and related landscaping; and (2) in Area 2 of the
site - construct a new 11,711 square foot metal building, thereby eliminating 66 existing
parking spaces.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment: (1) certification of the Negative Declaration, with
a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts (Attachment A), and (2)
approval of the relocation of building square footage and related improvements, based on the attached
findings and conditions (Attachments B and C).
Public Testimony: None.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommended the item be continued to the
meeting of July 15, 1999, (3-0-0-2). Board Members Alfonso and Bellomo, absent.
Other Items.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
¯Architectural Review Board representative at City Council meetings:
Pro~Meeting date Representative
Next Special Meeting: Thursday, June 24, 1999, City Council Chambers.
Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, July 1, 1999, City Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT.
Adjourned at 10:00 am
City of Palo Alto Page 4