Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-18 City Council (11)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:OCTOBER 18, 1999 CMR:390:99 SUBJECT:301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S DENIAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION .BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE AND INCREASED LETTER HEIGHT AND ADDITIONAL LIGHTING FOR EXISTING SIGNS ADVERTISING WELLS FARGO PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council deny the increased signage and lighting based on the attached Architectural Review Board fmdings (Attachment D) and deny the request to install an automatic teller machine (ATM) based on the Director’s determination that the ATM is not an accessory use customarily associated with the permitted use at this site in the zone district. BACKGROUND Wells Fargo Private Client Services is classified as a "Financial Services" use at 301 University Avenue and it is an existing legal, non-conforming use in the CD-C(GF)(P) zone in that "Financial Institutions" are only allowed above ground floor in the (GF) Ground Floor overlay zone district. Financial Institutions have occupied the site for many years and predate the (GF) zoning regulations. The previous tenant at the site was Eureka Bank which was a typical branch bank offering general banking services to the public. Eureka Bank recently vacated the site. Wells Fargo Private Client Services is the current tenant and will continue the existing non-conforming use at the site. Wells Fargo Private Client Services is not a branch bank and does not offer typical branch banking services but rather offers specialized services for a limited segment of the public. The applicant is requesting that CMR:390:99 Page 1 of 4 larger and brighter signs be placed on the building. The existing 6 ½ inch letter height for "Private Client Services" would be increased to 10 inches and the lettering would be halo illuminated. In addition, the applicant is requesting that an external ATM be allowed as an accessory facility to the Private Client Services facility. ¯ DISCUSSION Wells Fargo Private Client Services is classified as a "Financial Services" use at 301 University Avenue and it is an existing legal, non-conforming use in the CD-C(GF)(P) zone. The applicant has stressed to staff that Wells Fargo Private Client Services is not a branch bank because it offers services only to a limited group of qualifying individuals. The business does not offer services for the typical Wells Fargo branch bank customer, for example, a walk-up teller window. The "Private Client Services" sign copy previously approved would normally be considered advertising and therefore would be prohibited. However, because of the specialized services offered at the site and the fact that the business is not a bank, the "Private Client Services" copy was considered a part of the business name and was approved by the Architectural Review Board on March 4, 1999. The applicants then returned to the Board on August 5, 1999, requesting increased letter height and lighting for the sign and the installation of an ATM. The request was denied and the applicant is now appealing that denial. The Architectural Review Board recommended denial of the increased letter height and lighting based upon two main reasons. First, the City Sign Ordinance allows signage for identification rather than advertising (P.A.M.C. 16.20.090(b)). The site is located at a very visible and well illuminated comer at University Avenue and Bryant Street and the enlarged letters and increased lighting will primarily advertise rather than identify the business. Increased signage is not appropriate for the use in that the financial offices located there do not require additional signage to draw pedestrians and drivers in the same way that a retail or restaurant use would. Staff has visited the site and the existing signage is visible and appropriate for the site and additional signage and lighting would be excessive in this pedestrian oriented zone district. Secondly, the sign proposal is not 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 additional letter height and lighting are unnecessary on the very visible University Avenue and Bryant Street elevations. The additional signage is unnecessary to meet the visibility and aesthetic needs of the tenant, as the site already has four approved signs to identify the business, two wall signs and two awning signs. In addition, the site is located within a pedestrian-oriented shopping and dining area and the increased letter height and lighting is not at a pedestrian scale. CMR:390:99 Page 2 of 4 The Director of Planning and Community Environment, with the concurrence of the Architectural Review Board, determined that an ATM is not an accessory facility customarily associated with the permitted use (Private Banking) at the site. Therefore the ATM is not allowed at this site. While Wells Fargo Private Client Services is considered a "Financial Institution," it is not a branch bank. The ATM is not appropriate at the site as-no services for regular bank customers or the general public will be offered. Wells Fargo will function mainly as an office offering appointments for clients to meet with Wells Fargo staff. In addition, the ATM would confuse drivers and pedestrians who may be looking for regular bank teller services while traveling on University Avenue. Automatic Teller Machines have been allowed in the City at uses such as retail establishments and grocery stores open to the general public because the ATM is an accessory facility in that on site customers will use the facility. The ATM at the proposed site would not be an accessory facility customarily incidental to the permitted use, as regular bank customers will not be served on the site. BOARD OR COMMISSION REVIEW The Architectural Review Board (ARB) first approved the wall signs reading "Wells Fargo Private Client Services" on March 4, 1999. The Board recommended approval with a vote of (3-0-0-2), Board members Peterson and Piha absent. The letters on the two wall signs were approved with halo illumination only for the "Wells Fargo" copy and not the "Private Client Services" copy. The awning signs reading "Wells Fargo" were approved on June 3, 1999 with a vote of (4-0-0-1), Board Member Piha absent. The proposed increased letter height and lighting were denied by the Board on August 5, 1999 (3-1-0-1), Chairman Peterson opposed, Board Member Bellomo absent. The Board did not believe that the required Architectural Review Board Findings could be made to support the increased letter height and lighting and that additional signage was advertising, and was not compatible with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board agreed with staffthat the ATM is not a permitted accessory use customarily associated with the Financial Service use. The "Private Client Services" copy on the signs was allowed on the building specifically because the applicant argued that the use at the site was not a bank. The business offers no typical branch bank services; therefore, an ATM is not considered an accessory facility to the permitted use and is not allowed by zoning. The applicant is now appealing the denial of the increased signage height, lighting, and ATM (See Attachment B). ATTACHMENTS A.Site Location Map. B.Applicant’s Appeal Letter C.Architectural Review Board staff report dated August 5, 1999 D.Excerpts of the ARB minutes of August 5, 1999 CMR:390:99 Page 3 of 4 E. ARB Findings for Denial Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Amie Glaser, Associate Planner ~Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~ ~f~~~...~ ~tvianager (,,.~.__~ cc:Erwin Antonio Jones, Mina Tree Signs, P.O. Box 8406, Stockton, CA 95208-0406 CMR:390:99 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Project: 301 University Avenue Graphic Attachment File #:Scale: 1" = 300’ to Staff Report North A I0 August,1999 Attachment B MINA-TREE SIGNS INCORPORATED To: The City Of Palo Alto Planning Division Re:File Number 99-ARB-94 301 University Avenue Wells Fargo Private Client Services From: Mina-Tree Signs Inc. c/o Erwin Antonio Jones i. In response to the Architectural Review Board decision on the 5th of August, 1999 regarding our proposal to install a new Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) and increase the size of existing individual wall letters to illuminate them, only to complete the entire message we are trying to convey to Wells Fargo customers and the general public,we whole heartly agree to appeal this decision. We believe the increase and illumination of rest of thezmessage "Private Client Services" is required not for advertising purposes but to inform Wells Fargo customers as well as the general public. As for the ATM it serves a dual purpose,first and foremost it provides an appreciative service for residents and vistors to your city,second, private clients for Wells Fargo would be given the opportunity to conduct a simple tranaction without traveling to a another full service location or using an ATM of a competitor resulting in additional fees for their customers. We ask that you ponder the above before coming to your next decision. Thank you for your time and patience. 2.If you have any questions or comments,please call me at (209) 941 - 2921 extlll. ones rdinator 1233 East Ronald Street ¯ Stockton. CA 95205-3331 ¯P.O. Box 8406 ¯ Stockton. CA 95208-0406 ¯(209)941-7921 Attachment C Architectural Review Board Staff Report AGENDA DATE:August 5, 1999 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Amie Glaser, Associate Planner Department: Planning 301 University Avenue; 99-ARB-94 - Application by Erwin Jones for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a new Automatic Teller Machine facing the University Avenue elevation and for replacement of the 6 ½ inch "Private Client Services" copy with 10 inch halo illuminated letters on the University Avenue and Bryant Street building elevations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the Automatic Teller Machine and of the enlarged "Private Client Services" copy based on the findings and subject to the conditions set forth at the end of this report (see Attachment B & C). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The above item was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on March 4, 1999. Two wall signs were approved, one on the Bryant Street building elevation and one on the University Avenue building elevation. Awning signage was then approved on April 15, 1999. The applicant is currently requesting that the approved "Private Client Services" copy on both the Bryant Street and University Avenue elevations be enlarged from 6 ½ inches and non-illuminated to 10 inches and halo illuminated. The proposal includes the addition of an Automatic Teller Machine on the University Avenue elevation. The proposed location of the Automatic Teller Machine was determined by the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, see Attachment A. An additional small, approximately 1 foot by 1 ½ foot plastic faced Wells Fargo sign will be placed at the upper left comer of the Automatic Teller Machine. The Conditions Of Approval from the April 15, 1999, Architectural Review Board meeting are still in force. The applicant must repair the damage to the brick facade from the previous sign as a Condition Of Approval. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City of Palo Alto Sign Ordinance specifically prohibits advertising on signs, P.A.M.C. 16.20.090(b). The site is located at very visible comer on University Avenue and Bryant Street and the enlarged letters will primarily advertise rather than identify the business. Increased signage is not appropriate for the use in that the financial offices located there do not require additional signage to draw pedestrians and drivers in the same way that a retail or restaurant use would. The existing letters are visible and appropriate for the site and further signage and lighting would be considered attention-getting and not for identification. The use of the building is financial office. An Automatic Teller Machine is associated with a full service bank rather than a financial office. The financial office would not support the Automatic Teller Machine customers in the same way that a full service bank would. The two uses are not compatible. 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) 6/25/99 6/25/99 8/23/99 11/21/99 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The project is categorically exempt (Class 1) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Description Attachment B:ARB Standards for Review/Findings COURTESY COPIES Erwin Antonio Jones, 1233 East Round Street, Stockton CA 95208 Wells Fargo Bank, 633 Folsom Street, 6~h Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107 Prepared By:Amie Glaser, Planning Technician Manager Review:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator 3 0 luniv.sr Page 2 25th June,1999 MINA-TREE SIGNS INCORPORATED To:The City Of Palo Alto Department Of Planning And Community Enviorment 250 Hamilton Ave Re:Wells Fargo-Bank 301 University Avenue Palo Alto~California From:Mina-Tree Signs Inc. c/o Erwin Antonio Jo~es Tsunami Ponder Design I. This Project proposes the addition of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to the exterior of 301 University Ave. The location of the ATM has been determined by,physical limitations of a multi-tenant space and Wells Fargo’s programmatic needs. The materials for construction were selected to blend in with the building as naturally as possible. A bronze metal plate/panel to match the existing storefront will be used as a badking for the fiberglass ATM surround. This project does not change the occupancy type,however, traditional banking is replaced with investment banking services. Wells Fargo wants to provide limited banking facilities,that will not be available with the Investment Banking Group,for its investment clients,banking customers,and the general public who might require convenient ATM services. 2. If there are any questions concerning this project please contact me at the number provided below. Thanks for your time and patience. ~nes ~inator 1233 East Ronald Stree[ ¯Stockton. CA 95205-3331 ¯P.O Box 8406 ¯Stockton. CA 95208-040o ¯,2.09 941-2921 ATTACHMENT B ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/FINDINGS 301 University Avenue, 99-ARB-94 The design of the proposal will not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance because the proposed facade changes will 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 Comprehensive Plan encourages high quality designs that are Oriented to pedestrians. The proposed enlarged letters and increased lighting are unnecessary advertising. The design is not appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The use of the site is primarily financial office which does not benefit from or require increased signage in the same way that a traditional retail or personal service use would require signage. The Automatic Teller Machine is nit appropriate for the function of the project as the use of the building is a financial office and an Automatic Teller Machine would give the appearance of a full service bank which the financial office is not. Standards #a2,#a3,#a4, #a5,#a6,#a8,and #al 5 are not applicable to the proposal. Attachment D Excerpt from Architectural Review Board Meeting of August 5, 1999 Item #1 301 University Avenue [99-ARB-94]: Application by t~rwin Jones for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a new Automatic Teller Machine facing the University Avenue elevation and for replacement of the 6 ½ inch "Private Client Services" copy and replace with 10 inch halo illuminated letters. Amie Glaser, Associate Planner: The staff report distributed in your packets had an error, staff actually recommends denial of both the enlarged sign and the ATM, this originally came to us as an office request, and in the findings we determined that an ATM is not necessarily appropriate at an office site. Chairman Peterson: Is there an applicant here, if you would come forward. Board Member Lippert: Before the applicant makes his presentation, I have a question for staff: It said in my report that there was an attachment A, I don’t see an attachment A here. Ms. Glaser: inaudible *** AMIE INSERT HERE WHAT YOU SAID*** Chairman Peterson: In the staff report is says that you recommend approval of the ATM, but denial of the letter size, are you now saying denial of both? Ms. Glaser: Yes, that was the initial draft, then we went through and findings and decided that an ATM was not necessarily appropriate at this site. Chairman Peterson: Are there other ATM’s on University Avenue, do you know? Ms. Glaser: On University Avenue, I know that there is one inside of Walgreens, aside from that, I am not sure. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: There are probably about three (3) or four (4) ATM’s located along University, on of the reasons why we reconsidered this recommendation, and are recommending denial, is that when this application originally came in, part of the reason for approving the "private client services" on the signage, was that this is not a bank. This is not suppose to be offering typical bank services. That is why staff recommended and the Board ultimately approved the extra wording on the signage. So to come in now with an ATM, would seem to be contrary to that original thinking that this is not a bank. Therefore, staff does not feel the ATM is appropriate at the site. Chairman Peterson: One more question, What is our prerogative here? Would we need to have findings of some sort to approve this if we decided to? Ms. Grote: If the Board felt that approval was appropriate, yes, you would need to make the corresponding findings. There are draft findings in your reports for denial; you would need to change those to be for approval if you felt that was appropriate. Chairman Peterson: Thank you. Alright, you have five (5) minutes for your presentation. Ms. , Designs: I am representing Wells Fargo Bank. Apparently the original intent was not to put an ATM or any type of banking facility there, because they did not want to create confusion between their investment center and their banking facility. The problem was is that they are trying to offer some customer service and a lot of people see the Wells Fargo logo and we are very concerned that if they come into the facility, it doesn’t have any type of teller station or any type of banking, it is basically a reception area. They are trying to come up with a way of providing customer service for those people who just wanted to have a quick transaction rather then sending them to the Wells Fargo three (3) or four (4) blocks away. A lot of people stop there thinking it is a bank, so they did want to provide that additional service. They do not want to have it inside their building since they are an investment center. That is why they are suggesting having the ATM on the street. That is the reasoning behind the decision, and there, is an ATM across the street in Walgreens, and they are willing to have it removed and put into this facility so that there is no confusion. So basically it is a customer service effort. They did not want to alienate those people who do take the time to find a parking space and come into that Wells Fargo facility and find that they can not make a simple transaction. Prior to Wells Fargo going into that facility, there was another bank, Ureka Bank and they did have a lot of ATM’s there. Now all of those have been taken out so Wells Fargo felt that maybe putting one of those back in would be ok. Chairman Peterson: Do you have anything to add about the increase in size in the signage. Mr. Jones: Yes, our clients are concemed that the signage presently on the building, Is not clear at night. Currently the only signage visible from the street at night is the ’Wells Fargo’ and this again would create confusion, so without illumination the message would be incomplete for customers that pass by at night. Our clients are also willing to forgo the signage on the awnings to decrease the signage proposed to be on the building Chairman Peterson: Thank you, we will retum to the Board for questions. Lee would you like to start. Board Member Lippert: The previous bank that was in that location, they had an ATM machine, but it wasn’t it enclosed in a vestibule area and not on University street side, in fact on the Bryant Street side? Ms. : Right it was in the backside, and there were about three or four ATM’s there. In this current plan we were trying to figure a way to put the ATM’s on that side also, but the current plan on the inside, would not allow that to happen. So the location in the front, there is one window panel, so we are trying to make it fit fight into the building, we are not doing anything major to the outside structure. Just set it into the window to be as simple and as clean as possible and purely it is just for customer service reasons. Board Member Lippert: Would it not be possible to incorporate an ATM into the interior of the building on the curved wall, or inside the customer service office lobby? Ms. : Originally v~e were thinking of installing a freestanding ATM inside of the lobby area, and again the space is not large enough for access because of the ADA codes and the slope there. We thought it would be safer and easier access having it at the sidewalk versus having it inside. Board Member Lippert: With regards to the size change you are requesting for the lettering, is it possible to take the six (6) inch letters and make them illuminated? Mr. Jones: That is one of the reasons we have requested an increase. It is not possible because of the size of the letter, they are actually a fire hazard, the tubing that needs to go in the back of the letter does not fit into those specifications on the 6 ½ inch letters, they would have to be 10 inch letters. Board Member Lippert: With regards to the hours of operation, is this going to be open 9 to 5, or is it going to open in the evenings? Mr. : It is an investment center, so it is 9 to 5. Board Member Lippert: So practically speaking, the evening hours, it does not have to be identified as the customer services branch, because customers would not be coming there in the evening, correct? Mr. Jones: During the winter months, when dusk comes a bit early, there would be times when the sign will be illuminated and the branch will still be open. Board Member Lippert: Thank you, I have no further questions. Chairman Peterson: Cheryl, do you have any questions? Board Member Piha: I don’t have any questions. Chairman Peterson: Frank? Board Member Alfonso: I guess this is for staff: What is the signage implication if the ATM is allowed? Ms. Grote: They could have Minimal signage on the Aq~M if it is allowed, advertising the services of the ATM. It is usually small, above, or along the side. Board Member Alfonso: Let assume for a moment that they were not going to come forward with this as an office use, but rather as an advertising of a bank, etc. which would then allow them to have and ATM, what implications would there be otherwise? Ms. Grote: When this originally came in, we had a discussion here at the Board about the verbiage "private client services" and whether or not that was advertising, and it was decided that no it was not advertising, because this really was not a bank and there are other types of services, so we had allowed the "private client services" to be there If they are now a bank, I would question whether or not they should have "private client services" on their signage, if what they really are is a bank, and then ’Wells Fargo’ will probably be sufficient to let people know, that this is a bank. Board Member Alfonso: So that would be the main signage implication. Ms. Grote: Right. Board Member Alfonso: Who is coming to the center that would need to use this ATM? Ms. : Basically Wells Fargo investors from different companies and corporations from around the Silicon Valley, private investors and corporate investors so it really is not a banking facility. It confuses people when they see ’Wells Fargo’ as part of the financial system that they have, but is not a savings facility at all. Board Member Alfonso: If it is not a banking facility, then why would you want to have that option? Ms.: They wanted to have it on the outside, not on the inside. Board Member Alfonso: Do you realize that there is a Wells Fargo ATM at Walgreens? Ms. : Yes, there is an ATM station there, they are going to consolidate it and just bring it across. Board Member Alfonso: So they are going to get rid of the one at Walgreens then? Ms.: I believe they are planning on doing that. Board Member Alfonso: Ok, .Thank you. Mr. : I just wanted to ask that the ATM at Walgreens does not accept deposits, so that they would not be able to go across the street to that machine to perform simple transaction, such as a deposit. Also not just for the convenience of the customer, not to have to say to them, "Sorry, you can invest your money’here, but you can’t make a simple transaction here" is not quiet right. Also, being on University Avenue, there is a lot of traffic and people still associate the word Wells Fargo as a bank, so we felt it would be a convenience for them. Chairman Peterson: Do you have similar circumstances in other locations, and if so what have you done? Mr. : Actually we have. Not only have we run into the same situations with Wells Fargo, but we have also run into the same situations with Bank of America and to a lesser degree with Charles Swab. They have branches that only affiliate with certain services. The signage that is on the building has to be clear, or else the individuals inside the building, it can be a bit stressful. I know of two jobs that we have done recently. On in the bay area and one in New York City were we have had to take the signage down, because of the confusion. Ms. : I wanted to add, that for Wells Fargo, in Sacramento we designed and opened and investment center, in a shopping center, and they did have a savings branch there prior and they decided to make it into an investment center and so they had an investment center sign and still had the Wells Fargo logo, and because it was a savings branch prior, they did not want clients to come into the investment center to do transactions, they did but two ATM machines outside for people who used it, as a customer service. They are just concemed that people will park and go in there thinking they can perform simple transactions and they are trying to make it easier for the customer rather than tell them to go across the street, of down a few blocks. Chairman Peterson: Thank you. Board Member Piha: I just have one question, would you consider at all if the importance of the ATM is greater than the importance of having the "private client services" signage, would you like to forgo the tag line for the sake of the ATM? Ms.___._..2: I think they are both very important. It really is a private client investment center, and it is a new product that they are promoting. But, they don’t want to alienate their customers at the same time. So I think it is equally important and that is the difficulty. Board Member Piha: So no compromise on your part? Ms. : I would have to go back to Wells Fargo and ask, but the way I understood it, it was very, very important both be there. Board Member Piha: Isn’t Wells Fargo here represented? Ms.: No, I am it. Board Member Piha: You two gentlemen are not representing Wells Fargo? Mr. Jones : Actually we do represent Wells Fargo. Any changes we have to confer with our client before we can say yes we accept these changes. Ms. : Even if you did have a representative of Wells Fargo, they would still need to go back and speak to their management. Chairman Peterson: Is their any member of the public that wishes to speak on this item? Seeing none.., we will re~rn to the Board. Board Member Piha: I will try a motion. I will make a motion to support the staff recommendation for denial of this application for the ATM and the increase size of the letters for the signage. Board Member Alfonso: I would second that motion. Chairman Peterson: I would like to make one comment first. I understand the dilemma here. It is a dilemma of your own making, but it is a dilemma. Obviously if you had the client services at the main Palo Alto Branch that now exist, you would not have this confusion. So there is confusion. I assume you are not there for a variety of reasons-not enough room, etc. I also see this as a transition time we are going through. Who goes to ATM’s, what types of services are available and where. I do not have a problem with the ATM, so that is were I am. Board Member Lippert: I wanted to make a comment also. I am in agreement with the motion, but I do understand you necessity to have an ATM machine. I would encourage you to look again at the possibility of incorporating the ATM machine inside the building, or in a private vestibule area. Where it is not in the street, but accessible from the street. Chairman Peterson: Cheryl, would you be interested in entertaining a motion for continuance to allow the applicant to go back to management and try some of these other options. Board Member Piha: I feel strongly about the denial. I feel what they are asking for is not acceptable. Board Member Alfonso: I have to agree. This application has come before us many times and I fell that there needs to be a consistency on how we rule on signage applications, especially along University Avenue. I am in strong support of the staff recommendation for denial, and not a continuance. Chairman Peterson: We have a motion and a second, before we vote, do you have any clarification comments? We don’t need anymore defens’e, but if there is anything that is unclear. Ms:: I just wanted to ask, you are denying because both are issues, or just one or the other? Board Member Alfonso: IfI could answer that. There seems to be two different things that you are trying to convey to the public. One is that you are an ofrice center, and two is that you are a banking center. The ATM is what is characterizing it as a banking center. The signage that was allowed is strictly because you are an office center. So, in essence what you are asking is to have it both ways. And what we are trying to say is that there needs to be clarity so that there is consistency with all applicants along this street and that there is some order. And also perhaps, some clarity for your own customers. Chairman Peterson: All those in favor? (Aye- Board MembeLPiha, Alfonso, and Lippert) Opposed? (Aye- Chairman Peterson) So the denial passes three with one objection, and on absentee. (Board Member Bellomo- absent) Attachment E ARB STANDARDS FOR REVIEW/FINDINGS 301 University Avenue, 99-ARB-94 The design of the proposal will not further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance because the proposed facade changes will 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 Comprehensive Plan encourages high quality designs that are oriented to pedestrians. The proposed enlarged letters and increased lighting are unnecessary advertising. The design is not appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3). The use of the site is primarily financial office which does not benefit from or require increased signage in the same way that a traditional retail or personal service use would require signage. The Automatic Teller Machine is nit appropriate for the function of the project as the use of the building is a financial office and an Automatic Teller Machine would give the appearance of a full service bank which the financial office is not. Standards #a2,#a3,#a4, #a5,#a6,#a8,and #al 5 are not applicable to the proposal.