HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 220-10City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
6
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIl,
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 19, 2010
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
DEPARTMENT: PI,ANNING AND
COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 220:10
SUBJECT: Denial of an appeal by All Signs Services of an architectural review
approval condition to delete two ancillary, illuminated wall signs:
"Liquor" and "Photo" associated with a CVS pharmacy within the
CN(GF)(p) zone district located at 2701 Middlefield Road.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal by approving the consent calendar item,
thereby declining to hear thc appeal by All Signs Services and upholding the Director's decision
to approve the Architectural Review application subject to the conditions as recommended by
staff and the Architectural Review Board in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment
A).
COUNCIL REVIEW AUTHORITY
On March 9,2010, after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (ARB),
the Director approved with conditions, an application (09PLN-00314) for signage at the CVS
Pharmacy at 2701 Middlefield Road. On March 22, 2010, within the 14 day request for hearing
pcriod, the applicant, All Signs Services, submitted an appeal of the Director's approval.
Pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77.070, once the Director's
decision is made and an appeal is filed, the project is sent to Council on the consent calendar. In
!,he case of Architectural:Review applications, a minimum of three (3) council member votes are
required to remove the project from the Consent Calendar and set a hearirig for a subsequent City
Council meeting. If the item is not removed from the consent calendar, the Director's decision
stands and no hearing is held.
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2009, prior to the current application, the Director conditionally appmved an
application for six wall signs (two "CVS/pharmacy" wall signs and two sets of ancillary "Photo"
and "Liquor" wall signs) and painting of awnings to reflect the change of the business from a
Longs Drugs to a CVS Pharmacy retail store, upon stafflevel review. The approval allowed the
repainting of the awnings and required that the six signs not be internally illuminated, but be halo
CMR:403:09
illuminated, a method of lighting used for other signs in the Midtown Shopping Center. The
applicant did not appeal and the conditional approval was deemed effective as of August 27,
2009. The applicant however did not indicate acceptance of the conditions. Following the
approval of th~ permit, tJle applicant installed six internally illuminated signs without the benefit
of buildingpeimits and in violation of the sign permit's conditions of approval. The applicant
then filed the current application which is identical to the prior application that was conditionally
approved, because of a desire to retain and "legalize" the signs as installed. The application was
referred to the ARB for recommendation. This application was heard by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) on March 4, 2010. Consistent with the ARB recommendations, the
Director's approval allows only two halo illuminated "CVS/pharmacy" wall signs, and requires
the repainting of the awnings to a color consistent with the existing building. Additionally, the
conditions require the immediate removal of the two sets of ancillary wall signs and window sign
installed without permits ("Liquor", "Photo" and illuminated window signs). The Director's
approval letter is attached (Attachment C).
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION
At the hearing on March 4, 2010, the ARB recommended the use of halo illumination, removal
of the ancillary "Photo" and "Liquor" signs, and repainting the awnings. The ARB stated that
the ancillary "Photo" and "Liquor" signs were incompatible with the existing building and
created a cl uttered appearanec.
Staff has reeeived two letters from the public regarding the request. The first letter, from Ms.
Lynn Chiapella, requested that the sign application be denied. The writer objected to the sign
colors and proportions, as well as the ancillary signs. The second letter from the Midtown
Residents Association supported the conditional approval that required the removal of the
ancillary signs. The letters from the public are included as Attachment E to this report.
DISCUSSION
All Signs Service is appealing the Director's approval condition (condition 3) requiring the
removal of the ancillary "Photo" and "Liquor" signs. The appellant does not object to using halo
lighting or modifying the color of the awnings. The appellant requests that the ancillary signs be
allowed because: 1) the total sign area does not exceed the maximum allowable size for wall
signs on one elevation; and 2) the Safeway market on 2811 Middlefield Road was allowed a
similar ancillary sign ("Pharmacy") along its Middlefield Road frontage. The installed signs
advertise a "CVS/pharrnacy" on two wall signs and two sets of ancillary "Liquor" and "Photo"
signs on both the Middlefield frontage and the west parking lot elevation. The two primary
"CVS/pharmacy" wall signs measure 58.55 sq. ft. each. The "Liquor" sign is 6.71 sq. ft. arid the
"Photo" sign is the smallest at 6.19 sq. ft. The installed signs are internally illuminated channel
letters painted in the corporate red color. Six metal awnings have also been painted the CVS red
to match the new corporate colors. The applicant's appeal letter is attached to this report as
Attachment B.
The Sign Ordinance, PAMC Chapter 16.20, contains the provisions that govern the type of signs,
as well as the maximum sizes and locations of signs. However, per PAMC Section 16.20.020
(Design Review Required) and Zoning code section 18.76.020(bX3)(B), signs that conform to
CMR:403:09
applicable Code requirements are subject to Architectural Review and must meet the
Architectural Review findings (PAMC Section 18.76.020). The 'proposed area of the ancillary
and the primary signs would not exceed the maximum allowed area. Planning staff had
originally supported the ancillary signs because they did not exceed the maximum square footage
for walls signs and with the provision that they be halo illuminated. However, upon a field
review of the signs after installation, staff agreed with the ARB that the addition of the signs
created a cluttered appearance. Both staff and the ARB determined that the ancillary signs were
inconsistent with the immediate environment and improvements of the site area and therefore
with the Architectural Review findings. An analysis of the project's conformance to maximum
area allowed and number of signs per the Sign Ordinance is located in the ARB staff report
,(Attachment D).
The Midtown Safeway's "Pharmacy" sign was approved at a staff level on August 14, 2008, as
staff determined that the proposed signage was consistent with the requirements of both the Sign
Ordinance and the Architectural Review findings. The Safeway supermarket has a frontage of
approximately 150 fcet and a total of 96.5 sq. ft of all wall signs along the Middlefield Road
frontage. The signs are placed only along the Middlefield Road fmntage. The subject CVS
Pharmacy site has a narrower 125 feet of frontage along Middlefield Road and a total of 71.45
sq. ft. of wall signs are proposed.
There are several differences between the Safeway supermarket and the CVS Pharmacy signs
and sites. The supermarket building has a longer street frontage and a more varied building
favade. Safeway's primary sign is located in the middle of the building fayade and the ancillary
signs are placed at the left and right edges. Safeway is also set back approximately 135 feet from
the Middlefield Road pr6perty line. The configuration of the building and location of signs,
including the darker color scheme of the signs, provide more separation between the four signs
and a more arehitecturally balanced appearance.
The CVS Pharmacy building has a shorter frontage and is located only approximately 35 feet
from Middlefield Road property line. The ancillary signs are proposed to be located directly on
both sides of the primary CVS/pharmacy sign. The three CVS signs on both the Middlefield
Road and parking lot elevations are proposed to be placed much closer together with a brighter
color scheme on both the Middlefield Road and parking lot facades. Staff and the ARB
members have both determined that the addition of the ancillary signs do not promote visual
environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The decision by Council to uphold the Director's decision would not result in any cost and/or
revenue impacts to the City. The appeal process and development review costs are recovered
through permit fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed signage is for a
retail use that is consistent with the site's Neighborhood Commercial land use designation .
CMR: 403:09 . Page 3 of4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
PREPARED BY: ~tL wW
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
Se' I
'W
'-'--"'·irector
Planning and Community Environment
B.· Appeal request from All Sign Services, dated March 23,2010
C. ARB Permit 09PLN-00314, approved March 9, 2010
D. ARB staff report, dated March 4, 2010
E. Public correspondence
F. Photo of existing signs
G. Location map
COURTESY COPIES
David Ford, Appellant
Duca and Hanlcy Properties, owner .
Midtown Residents Association
Lynn Chiapella
CMR:403:09 Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2010-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL
FOR 2701 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 09PLN-00314 (ALL
SIGN SERVICES, APPLICANT)
On April 19, 2010, the City Council denied the appeal of
the' Planning Director's approval of an Archi tectural Review permi t
to allow illuminated wall signs and fa9ade improvements, making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On December 22, 2009, All Sign Services applied for an
Architectural Review 09PLN-00314 'to allow the installation of six
internally illuminated wall signs and fa9ade improvements (the
project) for CVS Pharmacy located at 2701 Middlefield Rd.
B. Following staff review, the Architectural. Review Board
reviewed the project and staff recommendation on March 4, 2010.
C. On March 9, 2010, the Planning Director issued a
condi tional approval based on the Archi tectural Review Board's
recommendation to require that the internally illuminated wall
signs be removed and replaced with halo illuminated wall signs.
The approval also required two sets of ancillary signs to be
removed and the repainting of the awnings to match the building.
C. On March 22, 2010, the applicant appealed the Planning
Director's decision.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The appeal of the
Director's decision and the scope of this project are exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per
Sections 15270 and 15301.
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings.
1. The design is consistent and compatible wi th
applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan, in that:
The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Policy L-50:
Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for
the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
The design of the sign, materials, and colors, as conditioned per
the Director's approval, are attractive and appropriate for the
site and the surrounding neighborhood. The ancillary "Photo" and
1
"Liquor" wall signs would not be consistent or compatible because
installation would create a cluttered appearance when combined with
the primary wall sign.
2. The design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, in that:
The design and placement of the signs, as conditioned, are
consistent with the existing architectural style of the building.
The colors and materials have been conditioned to be compatible
with the existing building. The approved signs, as conditioned, are
located where existing signs were previously approved to be
located. The ancillary wall signs would not be consistent with the
existing architecture and therefore have been required to be
removed.
3. The design is appropriate to the function of the
project, in that:
The design, as conditioned, is appropriate to the function of
the project, in that the ,;;ligns provide identification for the
business for both customers traveling on Middlefield Road and those
in the shopping center. The design is consistent with the Sign Code
Regulation Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.20.
4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified
design character or historical character, whether the design is
compatible with such character, in that: .
The design, as conditioned, is compatible with such character
in that the channel letters and halo illumination are compatible
with existing signage at the Midtown Shopping Center.
Architectural Review findings 5 through 16 are not
applicable to the project.
SECTION 4. Archi tectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by
the ci ty Council pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Al to
Municipal CodE!.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Image National
Inc., titled CVS I pharmacy , consisting of eight pages, dated
December 19, 2009, and received April 8, 2010, except as modified
to incorporate the conditions of-approval in Section 6. A copy of
2
..
. .
these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be
printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the
Building Permit application.
SECTION 6. Conditions
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with the ARB-approved plans dated
received February 22, 2010 except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2. The ancillary signs ("Photos and "Liquor") shall be
removed.
3. The wall signs shall be "halo-lit" (reverse pan
channel lighting, such that the illuminated sign face shall
appear essentially opaque) .
4. A Building Permit is required for the illuminated
signs.
5. The awnings shall be repainted to a color consistent
1f/i th the exis ting building subj ect to the approval of the
Planning Director.
6. The illegal internally illuminated wall and window
signs shall be removed immediately.
7. The directional sign shall not be used for advertising
services.
8. Wall signs shall not exceed a thickness of ten inches.
9. Not more than twenty percent of the total window space
on a wall may be covered by window signs at any time.
10. The plans submitted for building permit shall state,
"The contractor using the city sidewalk, alley or parking lot to
work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that
is safe for pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone
or tape-off the work area while still leaving adequate room for
pedestrians and vehicles to safely pass. If the contractor's
work area leaves insufficient sidewalk or alley space for safe
pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must apply to
Public Works for an encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or
alley. "
3
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: •
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared
"CVS/pharmacy", consisting of
and received April 8, 2010.
by Image National, Inc. titled
eight pages, dated December 18, 2009,
4
(
Attachment B
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City CIIIIk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION Of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENViRONMEIW
If!t.£ff>-::'''' P\'Il.
l V tid; > :_ C. . r-l r: 4 J
For appeals of, final decisions on Archllectural Review Board IVId Hom~ Improvement ExoepUon applications (rendeJed after public -,
hearing), !his ap~aI form shall be completed and submitted by ~l1ant witflln fourteen days from date of 1I1e DlreCtrir's decision,
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered affer IWbllc hearing) must be submitted wilhln ten days of lila
Director's decision, ComJ*!te forni, the current fee and a letter slaUng reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
oftha Planning Division, 5'> floor, Cily Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, eXC6ptfor 960 Fridays whenCily Hall is closed, when these
Items shall be submitted 10 Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across !rom Cily
Hall on lIIe corner of Bryant and Hamillon), ' ,
• Direclor of Planning includes hIs designees, whicih are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning Olnelal ,
Appeal ApplicatiOn No. dift.N -DDJ/'-/ RecelplNo, ______ _
Nameof~lIent J)AVI;z:>_L&-=v.?:.;;;''P::....... _______ Phone(?l~) ;S1il?-o~;;>_'1_,, __ _
Address /2'1 dUl0c;£€, 6-:-"f'o$lE'VuJ£!; C4 5'~7~'7
~ ~ ~P
LOCATION Of PROPERTY SUBJECT TO APPEAL:
SlreetAddress __ ' --.-2.'101 Ih/pp;.e,!..n..!.:;ie::""_",,,,,,p=-~..!.:/CP==-,-, ______________ _
Name of Pro~rty Owner (K other1l1an ap~lIant) _PU4::'!_LIi!!N'L!f.'L..L ;f<>~~J' _~_, ___ _
PropertyOwne(SAddress~?1 L-lrLCEI-A/ AytE. 5A"l..J~ C4 . ____ 95"/Zr
. ~ ~ ~
The decision of Ihe Director of Planning md Community Environment dated _._/J)/'1£~ ~ ___ , 2Q,....!../=.", __
~bythe application t>'lJ'<..;v-ooh1 by PA'VIP ;4/Q>
.. (61e numbe~ (ooginal projecl applicant)
.)l1li9 d/l"'.eo V~
(approvedldenled)
Date: W:>P'"
,Is hereby ~Ied for the reasons staled in the attached letter Qn dupficate)
o . ~.(.?/ 7":=-p Signa\U~ ¢ Appallant--,4Z:~~·:::::r'::::::::::::L...2~::"~""'(::r.
. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
~te ____________ _ Approved Dented __ _
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISlON (TO flE FILLED OUT ElY STAFF):
Oate _________ _ Approved !iented ___ __
Remarks and/or Condidons:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1. leIterstaUng reasons for eppeal ____ ReoelVlld !Jy: _____ . __________ _
2. Fee (currently $i5t.flO) _~__ Received by: __ ._.
ru..~
I
l
ALL SIGN SERVICES
March 23, 2010
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Ms. Lee,
124 Allimore CI.
Roseville, CA 95747
I would like to appeal the ARC decision on application #09PLN-00314 for the
CVS signage located at 2701 Middlefield Road.
While we are willing to work with some of the ARC's findings regarding the type
of lighting used on the signage (halo as opposed to internal illumination) and the
color of the awnings (red to match the tower roof and other architectural
elements of the building), we disagree with their recommendation on secondary
signage.
The proposed signage falls within the city sign ordinance, and was previously
approved by the Planning Staff under application #09PLN-000n (please see
attached) The use of secondary signage is currently being done by the Safeway
store in the same area (2811 Middlefield Rd.) where they have three signs
located on the front facade of their building (please see attached). We believe
that with proper spacing and location the proposed secondary signage can be
made to work with the large available signage area.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
f)~
David Ford
All Sign Services
(for Image National)
CVS -2701 Middlefield Road
We are proposing to replace the existing Longs Drugs signs located at 2701 Middlefield Rd. with new
signs for CVS!pharmacy. CVS has acquired the Longs Drugs franchise and is in the process of rebranding
all of the stores with new signs.
CVS is proposing main signs that are a similar size to the existing longs Drugs signs (36" letter height),
and the addition of two anciliary signs on the main and secondary elevation (Photo, liquor). These
ancillary signs are 18" letlersets and are positioned to the left and right of the main sign. CVS is also
proposing to replace the transom vinyl on the two entrances, the receiving plaque on the back door and
repainting the existing awning to the CVS red.
Mat'Gh 9,2010
David Ford
All Signs SCTViceS
124 A1limore Court
Roseville, CA 95747
',. ;
Attachment C
~ity9fPalQN!Q
Department of Plllnnhrg anif
.Coltll1!!{nit.v E ntJiromnii1I./c
Sub:le(t: 2701 ty'liddlcjieIdRd. -Filll# 09PLN"003hl: Architectural Revie.w for siglls and
f!\.;adeimtlt:ovement~ •..
DearMI'. Ford:
On Thursday Mat'eh 4, 2010, the Arcl1i\ecwra1RevLewBoard (AI~g)I'evi~wed~n application for
fu<;:ade. and.bui1ding modifitatiut1s at270l Mid4.lcqcld:Iid., Pa,lpAho. The ARB l'cview@ thep1"Qject
and recomnwnded approval wlthcOn{jitionS' to, thepjret,t¢i' of Plahliing llt1d ComlTIuility
llnvironmenL On Tucsdliy M~ch:.9,.201Q, tM Directpr QfPJanning andComtnunity Enviroumenl .
conditieuuUy apjll'ove(i the projectasdcscribcd o.,Jow.
PROJECT DESCRIpTION
2701 Middlefield Rd, [O.!)PLN-iso3141l· Request by All iljgn~ Ser,YtgeS, on behalf of Dlloa and
HaIJleY Pl'Opeliies. Inc., for\\t<;hiieBluraL revie~ for of jl1l1niiti~!~£twall signs and fayade
impl'ovement$ for CVS l'harmacy, Exemp(fl'om the provisiprrl\.'Qf,;~'$;2A. Section 15301. Zone:
CN(OF)('p).i .. ~ ••.•.
FINmNGSFORAP.PROVAL .'
1. The approval is based'upon the pr(jjecti'!icompHllO~c WTththe:'A~Jfil~teq\lired findings as stated
in Allachment A. . . .
CONDIt'IONS OF APl'!WVAL
Planning »ivision .
L The plans s\lbmitted for BuiJaing,Permltshll11 QC in subst!lntialoonfmmance with. the ARB
approved plans dated received February 22, 2010 eXCept as modified 10 inCOrpOl'Nte these
conditions of approval.
2. A copy of the ARB approval letter shaH be. printed oht)leplahl: submitt\.ld for bulJdiflg pennit.
Plal1;njn~r
250 Hamiltl."HtAyt;·nue
P.O. Box 10250
Polo Alto, CA 94303
6.s0.329.2Ml
650 329.2154
''ra:hsp'bl'tatfon
250.HamUtonAvoJwo
P.O. Box 10250
Polo A ito, CA 94303
<150.329.2520
65Q.617.310<\
lltilkting
285. Hamilton Averru~
['.6. Box 10250
Palo"'l,">, CA 94303
650.329:2496
650.329.2240
2701 Middiefjeltl Rd,
ARB Mo<:Uog Dnte: March 4, 2010
09I'LN.OO3)4
3. The ancillary signs ("Photos and "LiqUor") shall be removed,
4. The wall signs shall be "haio-ilt" (reverse pan channel lighting. stich thnt the illuminated sign
taC;! shan appear essentially .opaque). .
5. A Building Permit is reqllired for the ilhmiinated signs.
6. The awnings shall be repainted to a color consistent with the existing building subject to the
approval of lhe Planning Director,
7, The illegal internally illuminated walland .w.indowsignsshall be remov.ed immediHtely,
, ' " . '. -
8. The directional sign shull not be used for advertising services .
. 9. Wall signs shall not exceed u thickness of ten inthes.
10. Not more than twenty pereentoJ'the lotal window Sll\lce on::\ wall mllY he.covcred lly window
sigllsllt uny lime. .
I I. Thcrlans sllbmitted f()r\Juil(jing pennit shall stllte, "ThccontrllctQ~ usjng the <;ity sidewalk, alley
or p,lrktng lot to work 01) an adjacent private building musl 40 so in a manner that is safe for
pc4csuians and vehicles. The contraotorn'lust cOileqr tape,off the W01'kar~ while still leaving
adequate room for pedestrians and vehicle.s to safely pass. If the contractor's work urea leaves
insufficientsidowalk O1'ulley space for sllfe.pedesliiaMlnd< vehicle passage, the \lontrac(or mllsl
applY (0 PubHcWorbfor an encroachment penni! to clQs~tlm Sidewalk cralley."
This Director's decision shall become final fot[j~.een calendar (t4)duys follOWing the date of this
leIter, uoless an :appeal is filed punruant to PAMe Chapl~.r 18.78. . ,
If you have any ques!ior\$ t-egaroing this ARB action, ple~~ do \lot h.e~it"te to epntact the projeet
planner, Elenll Lee, at (650) 617 -3196 or vill email at Elcna.l;ee@cityofpaloalto.org.
Steven Turner
. Advance Planning Managl'lr
ce. Duea & Hanley PJ'opclties,. Ihc" 1091 Lincoln Ave" San Jose, CA 95125
Attachment:
A. ARB findings
<\T'l.' ACHMENcr A,
. . ... FINJ)lNqSFQR ArJlROVA,L ..
A,ltCIIITEC'ruRAL l{EVlltW llOARDSTAN])ARDS FOR REVIEW
2701 MiddlefieldRd./Flle No. 09FLN-00314
ArchitcclunilReview Finding~
The design and architecture Qfthe pmI10sed i{llprOvements,llscllndltioned, complies with the
FhidingS fQr ArchitecrLlral Review as required in Cbapter 1836 onhe PAMe.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with upplicaple Clements of the' Palo Alto
CO,m]ll;etrensive J'lan. The pl;ojeot is (;onsistent with PoJiQY 1,..,o: Encourage, hi&~ quality sign age
that is ,(ttntclivc, appl'opriate'foJ: the loc(lIionuhd b,illillces visJ15ilityneeds with aesthetic needs.
The design of Ihc'sign, materials. and co.\ors IItc·attractive and uppropliatc for the site und the
s1l1'l'0unding neighborhood.
(2) 'fhe design i~ compatible with the immediftte envitonment of the site. T)le design nnd
plaGcment of the ~ign is consistent with the existing architcctund style tjf the bllilding. The
colors and maielials have been desi,gned to be comlililtibk with the existing building. The
proposed signs are located where existing signs were ]JrevlQusly approved to be located.
, (3) 'rhe design is appropri!\l\: to the fUnction of th~ proj~et. io ll1ilt the s;ignsprovide identificatioJl
for the business for both CUstOflll:)l'S traveJlng oil Middlefield ,Road and those in theslmpping
cellter. The sign is consistent with the Sign Code Regulation Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter
16.20.
(4) In areas consid¢red by the board a$ 11aving ~l unified desjgn character or histOl'kal cllaracter,
the d¢sign is cOI11P(llible wiJIi stlchch;ifacter in that the c.hannel letters and halo illumination are
cQmpatible with existing signage at the Midtown Shopping Cli'nter.
Arcilitecr.ur(1./ Review finding,I' 5filrtJugh 16 (we lWt. applicable to thli project,.
2071 Middlefield Rd./09PLN-00314
... l' 4M
Agenda Date: March 4, 2010
From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Attachment D
Architectural Review Board
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: 2701 Middlefield Rd. [09PLN·00314]: Request by All Signs Services, on behalf
of Duca and Hanley Properties, Inc" for architectural review and recommendation
to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of internally ilIurninated
wall signs and fayade improvements for CVS Pharmacy. L.one District:
CN(GF)(p)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommcnds that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning
and Community Environment approve the proposed project with the attached findings based upon
modification of lighting and attached conditions, including conditions requiring halo illumination
and the immediateremoval of all unapproved signage.
BACKGROUND
Site Information'
The existingCVS drugstore is located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Middlefield Road
and Bryson Avenue. The building, which previously was occupied by Longs Drugs, is located
within the Midtown Shopping Center. The eenter, which includes a Safeway supermarket and
Walgreens drugstore, is a neighborhood serving, pedestrian orientep center. Currently, internally
illuminated wall and window signs have been illegally installed on site, without the benefit of
building permits and contrary to the conditions of approval issued with the sign permit approved in
August 2009.
Project Background
On August 13, 2009, a staff level Architectural Review was conditionally approved for the
installation of six "halo-lit" wall signs (measuring 58,55 sq. fl., 6.71 sq. ft., and 6.19 sq. ft.), two
window signs and one direetional sign. The pennit also included the repainting of three existing
metal awnings, This permit was associated with the rebranding of the sit,e from Longs Drugs to CVS
Pharmacy. The pennit was not appealed and was deemed effective as of August 27, 2009. The
original application proposed the six wall signs to be internally illuminated with light emitting diode
(l.e,d.) lights. However, the pennit was conditionally approved requiring the plans to be revised to
show halo light fixtures, The City approved a similar permit for halo lit wall signs was approved in
August 2009 for the University Avenue CVS Pharmaey. The applicant has filed this application
because of a desire to "legalize" internally illuminated wall signs they haveinstalled instead of halo
lit signs and because the period to appeal the restrictive lighting condition for the previous approval
has ended. Because the applicant has submitted a new application, any decision from this
,
application would supersede the previous penuit.
Project desclliption
,The purpose of this application is to ask the City to reconsider the internally illuminated I.e.d. wall
signs instead of the halo-lit signs. The project includes the installation of two sets of signs consisting
of three internally illuminated wall signs on the Middlefield elevation and the west parking lot
elevation. Each set of signs consists of a larger (58,55 sq. ft.) "CVS/phannacy" sign in the center
and flanked on either sides by a smaller 6.71 sq. ft. "Liquor" and 6.19 sq. ft. "Photo" signs. The new
, signsconsistof channel letters painted in "CVS million dollar red" to match the corporate colors.
Six metal awnings would be painted to match the new corporate colors. A new receiving door
plaque sign would be installed on the north elevation and a new non-illuminated vinyl window sign
would be affixed on a west elevation window.
, Project review
, 'Applications for the location and construction of signs are considered 'minor architectural review
projects, typically reviewed at an administrative level without a pubic hearing, although any member
of the public may request a hearing once a tentative decision has been made (Palo Alto MUnicipal
Code 18.77 ,020(b». Because the applicant has objected to staff's approval requiring halo lighting,
staff is seeking ARB and community feedback in a public hearing, rather than rendering a tentative
decision: The ARB may visit the site after dark to evaluate the installation.
DISCUSSION
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.20 regulates signage, including placement and
size. According to PAMC chapter 16.20.090(b), signs also cannot advertise or display "the
make, brand name or manufacturers name of any product, article, or service unless the same
assists in and is done incidentally to the naming, designating or identifying of said business
'enterprise or calling." Bl?cause the "Liquor" and "Photo" signs are typically part of identifying
tne CVS businesses and they do not constitute "make, brand name or manufacturer's name", they
are therefore not prohibited. The proposed signs meet the size requirements of the PAMC, as
indicated in the following table, Per PAMC Chapter 16.20.130, there may be any number of wall
signs,butthey cannot exceed the maximum square footages identified in Table 3 of the Sign
Ordinance. The proposed window sign would be allowed provided it does not exceed 20% of the
total window space. The University Avenue CVS store is within a regionally-oriented shopping
area and the halo-lighting appears to be sufficient for advertising the store.
Sign Proposed Maximum Allowed Consistent
Middlefield Elevation 71.45 sq. ft. total 80 sq. ft. Yes
• (Wall Size: 1740 sq. i
. ft.) !
,
... ~-----
West Elevation 71.45 sq. ft. total 100 sq. ft. Yes
(Wall Size:, 2500 sq. !
ft.)
Because Midtown is one of the four identified neighborhood centers in Palo Alto serving the
surrounding local neighborhood, signs have been subject to more detailed review than other areas,
2701 Middlefield Rd. Page 2
similar to the downtown. The importance of the neighborhood character of the Midtown shopping
center is rccognized in the Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, Program L-39 states that a plan
should be developed for the Midtown area with a special emphasis on public improvements, parking,
street furniture and' signage. Currently, no master sign program has been adopted for this area. As
indicated above, the proposed signs meet the size requirements. The primary issue is the source of
illumination.
The majority of signs at the Midtown Shopping Center are not illuminated and are compatible with
the neighborhood serving focus and the buildings. The signs lnMidtown that are illuminated are
done so with halo lighting fixtures. The Midtown Walgreen signs were approved in 2002 to be
illuminated with external lighting. The Midtown Safeway sign was also approved in 2002 with halo
lighting. The original Longs Drugs sign was approved in 1997 to replace internally illuminated signs
with new design featuring halo illumination. The property owner was cited in 1999 for the illegal
installation of internally illuminated signs and required to replace the signs with the approved halo
lighting. The August 2009 approval recognizes the prevailing Midtown lighting pattern.
Rather than approve the application with a lighting condition and wait for the applicant's hearing
request, staff now requests ARB feedback and recommends the conditions of approval requiring
modification of the plans to incorporate halo lighting and removal of all illegal signage. The ARB
may wish to comment on the proportions and composition of the signage and thc background ~hey
are mounted on, even though the proposal (with the condition for.halo illumination) was previously
approved. Although the proposal does not exceed the maximums described in the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, one of the responsibilities of the ARB is to review and ensure per PAMC Chapter
. 18.75.050 Finding 4 that "in areas considered by the Board as having a unified design character or
historical character, the design is compatible with such character". Should the ARB find thesigns
and internal illumination to be compatible with the Midtown lighting and signage design context,
findings can be made by the ARB after public testimony is received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15301, Existing Structures.
ATIACHMENTS
A. Draft ARB Findings.
B. Draft conditions of approval
C. Location Map
D. Previous Sign Approval (09PLN-00077)
E. Applicant's project description lettcr
F. Project plans (ARB members only)
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Elena Lee, Senior Planner r§l-~
Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planninti../
COURTESY COPIES
David Ford, All Sign Services
2701 Middlefield Rd. Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
• 2701 Middlefield Rd.! File No. 09PLN-00239
Architectural Review Findings
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the
Findings for ArchiU;ctural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage
, that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
The design of the sign, materials, and colors arc attractive and appropriate for the site and the
surrounding neighborhood.
1
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The design and
placement of the sign is consistent with the existing architectural style of the building. The
colors and materials have been designed to be compatible with the existing building. The
proposed signs are located where existing signs were previously approved to be located.
(3) The design is apjJropriatelo the function of the project, in that the signs provide identification
for the business ,for both customers traveling on Middlefield Road and those in the shopping
, center. The sign is consistent with the Sign Code Regulation Palo Alto Municipal code Chapter
, 16.20. . '
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character,
the design is compatible with such character in that the channel letters and halo illumination are
compatible with existing si gnage at the Midtowp Shopping Center.
Architectural Review findings 4 through 16 are not applicable to the project,
2071 Middlefield Rd./09PLN-00314
j
Attachment B
2701 Middlefield Rd.: CVS Pharmacy
09PLN-00314
Draft Conditions of Approval
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with the
ARB-approved plans dated received February 22, 2010 except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2. The wall signs shall ~ "halo-lit" (reverse pan channel lighting, such that the illuminated
sign face shall appear essentially opaque).
3. A Building Permit is required for the illuminated signs.
4. The illegal internally illuminated wall and window signs shall be removed immediately.
S. The directional sign shall not be used for advenising services.
6. Wall signs shall not exceed a thickness of ten inches .
. 7. Not more than twenty percent of the total window space on a wall may be covered by
window signs at any time.
8. The plans submitted for building permit shall state, "The contractor using the city
sidewalk, alley or parking lot to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a
manner that is safe for pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone or tape-off
the work area while still leaving adequate room for pedestrians and vehicles to safely
pass. If the contractor's work area leaves insufficient sidewalk or alley space for safe
pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must apply to Public Works for an
encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or alley."
Attacbment C
2701 Middlefield Rd.
Location Map
The eil" Qf
Palo Alto
This map is a product of the
C\ty 01 Palo Alto GIS
-. • H'
August 13, 2009
David Ford
124 Allimore Court
Roseville, CA 95747
Attachment D
City of PaloAlto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: CVS signage, 2701 Middlefield Rd., 09PLN·00077
Dear ML Ford:
On August 13, 2009, the minor Staff·Level Architectural Review application for the project
referenced below was conditionally approved by the planning staff on behalf of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment, as it was found to meet the applicable Findings set forth in
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) SectionJ8.76.0Z0(d).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request by All Sign Services, on behalf of Handley Properties, for a minor Architectural Review
for repainting of three metal awnings and installation of six "halo-lit" wall signs (measuring
58.55'sq. fL, ,6,71 sq. ft and 6,19 sq.ft.)"two window signs and one directional sign.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Zone District: CN(GF)(p).
F1NDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
The approval is based on the following findings:
1, The approval is based upon the finding that the proposed site improvements comply with the
Standards for Review (PAMC Chapter l8.76.020(d) and design guidelines adopted by the
. Architectural Review Board, Sign Ordinance (PAMC Chapler 16.20) and Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines.
2. The approval of this project shall be subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for Building Pennit shall be in substantial confonnance with the ARB·
approved plans dated received April 16, 2009 except as modified to incorporate these conditions
of approval.
2, The wall signs shall be "halo-lit" (reverse pan channel lighting, such that the illuminated sign
face shall appear essentially opaque during daytime hours).
Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
1i50,'!?9.?1.'i4
Transportation
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2520
6506173108
Building
285 Hamilton Avenue
PO, Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650,329.2496
650.329.2240
2701 Middlefi"ld Rd.
09PLN-00077
Page 2 0[2
3. Prior to a submittal for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a color and materials board.
4. A Building Permit is required for the illuminated signs.
5. The directional sign shall not be used for advertising services.
6. Wall signs shall not exceed a thickness of ten inches.
7. Not more than twenty percent of the total window space on a wall may be covered by window
signs at any time.
8. The plans submitted for buildingpermit shall state, "The contractor using the city sidewalk, alley
or parking lot to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for
pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone or tape-off the work area while still leaving
adequate room for pedestrians and vehicles to safely pass. If the contractor's work area leaves
. insufficientsidewalk or alley space for safe pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must
apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or alley;"
This Director's decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days following the date of this
letter, unless a request for a hearing is filed pursuant to'PAMC Section 18.77.070(b)(4). Please
contact the building division staff regarding building permits for the sign installation.
Should you have any questions regarding this action, please do not hesitate to contact the project
planner, Elena Lee, at (650) 617-3196.
Sincerely,
Hanley Properties. 1091 Lincoln Ave., San Jose, CA 95125
ATTACHMENT E
CVS -2701 Middlefield Road
We are proposing to replace the existing longs Drugs signs located at 2701 Middlefield Rd. with new
signs for CVS!pharmacy. CVS has acquired the longs Drugs franchise and is in the process of rebranding
all of the stores with new signs.
CVS is proposing main signs that are a similar size to the existing longs Drugs signs (36" letter height),
and the addition of two andllary signs on the main and secondary elevation (Photo, liquor). These
ancillary signs are 18" le!tersets and are positioned to the left and right of the main sign. CVS is also
proposing to replace the transom vinyl on the two entrances, the receiving plaque on the back door and
repainting the existing awning to the CVS red.
February 28, 2010
Lynn chiape11a
631 colorado Avenue
palo Alto, CA 94306
Architectural Review Board
City of palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
palo Alto, CA 94301
RE; 2701 Middlefield Road
Dear Members of the ARB:
AUachmentE
CVS ARB 1etter.txt
I hope that you had a chance to visit the Downtown and Middlefield sites of
cvs/pharmacy to compare the colors selected, daytime appearance, and nighttime
illumination.
The Middlefield Road signage of 23 bright orange red characters is harsh during the
day and eye-popping at nlght. At night this sign overwhelms all other signage in
the shopping center including it's competitor wa1greens just a few hundred feet
away. The size and proportlon of the sign is qUlte strlking as compared to any
other approved sign in this neighborhood commercial shopping area which is only a
few hundred feet from residences.
In case someone missed seeing the disproportionately large sign on Middlefield Road,
it is repeated above the front entrance door, along with another lighted sign that
page 1
CVS ARB letter.txt
says "MILK 289". At night the brightness of the cvs signs detracts from the lighted
architectural tower at the corner of the building and blinds shoppers from seeing
the other small shops with minimally lit rooftop signs, which are part ofa master
sign program. others have requested what cvs is requesting: bigger, brighter, and
bolder. compare that to previous ARB approvals for walgreens, safeway, and all
other small businesses in the area.
The "cvs million dollar red" color has no relation to the mauve(?) or purple red
colors of the tower roof, cross bars holding the orange awning, decorative tiles
along the pedestrian walkways that were part of the LONGS approval (photos
included). You may recall that LONGS had to modify their signage color from
"corporate red" to a softer red. The Downtown CVS red background appears to be a
softer red color with blue or pink undertones as seen in daylight. Staff assures me
that at night it is a very bright orange red. However, it was not lit Sunday
2/28/2010 at 8: 30 pm when I drove Downtown to see the co lor, whil e the Mi ddl efi el d
sign in a neighborhood commercial area was brightly lit at 9:00 pm when I returned
home.
please reject the applicant's request to approve the current illuminated signage
and require the applicant to return with signage which is compatible with the
current building colors, tiles, architectural feature, mural, and with neighboring
signage. It would also be nice if the awning extended out further over the
pedestrian walkway to provide shade in the summer, reduce the heat island effect of
the front parking lot, and reduce the glare from the interior light bulbs.
The additional words "photo" and "Liquor", which appear on the Midtown sign do not
appear on the Downtown sign or on any CVS signs in LOS Altos or Mountain view that I
observed. The proportions of the cvs signage to building fa~ade at these other
sites seemed less intrusive and more graceful. only the Midtown sign has '
advertising of liquor and photos which adds significantly to the jarring proportions
of the cvs signage compared to any other ARB approved sign in Midtown or CVS signage
in other communities.
will you review staff findings, one through four, that the design of the cvs sign,
as approved on August 27, 2009, is appropriate for a small neighborhood shopping
area surrounded by housing and is consistent with the already approved signage in
the area? I do not recall receiving any notice concerning this sign in July or
August of 2009. If I had I would have requested a hearing or appealed the permit,
as mentioned in the staff report on.page 1, paragraph 3, ,sentence 4.
Lastly, the advertising of "liquor" and "photo" included in the cvs signage does
not meet the former interpretation of PAMC 16.20.090, as applied to other businesses
in palo Alto, and most particularly to walgreens and small businesses in Midtown. I
seem to kreca 11 that Wa 19reens al so wanted.to i ncl ude si mi 1 ar 1 anguage in thei r,
signage'.
It seems patently unfair to change the rules in midstream, especially when it favors
one competitor over another operating in the same shoppin!;! center. If this form of
advertising is allowed. then why shouldn't SAFEWAY advertlse their pharmacy and
liquor departments as p,art of their signa!;!e?And certainly Walgreens should be
allowed to add "Liquor', "photo", "GrOcerles", or "Cosmetics" to their signage. " .. page 2
CVS ARB letter. txt
please confirm with the city Attorney the interpretation of 16.20.090 so that all
applicants receive the same interpretation. especially when operating competitively.
sincerely,
Lynn chhipella
page 3
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Midtown Residents Association
RE: 2701 Middlefield Road, ARB Meeting of March 4, 2010
Dear ARB members;
March 3, 2010
The Midtown Residents Association (MRA) Steering Committee has the following comments about the CVS
request for changes to the signage of its store at 2701 Middlefield Road. We have heard from several residents
expressing concern about this issue.
Our concerns:
o CVS installed the cl,Irrent signage without any city approvals. We find this unacceptable.
o CVS must conform to the conditions of approval required when Longs opened at this site. Nothing about
the site has changed except the name of the company, thus the same rules shou.ld apply.
o The signage does not conform to the sign guidelines in place for Midtown. The current signage is too bright
for a neighborhood center in a residential ;area. At night the overwhelming brightness of this sign makes it
hard to see the signage of other shops in the center.
o Most residents think of CVS (as we did Longs) as primarily a drugstore and thus having the smaller signs of
"Photos" and "Liquor" unnecessary. While not prohibited, emphasizing Liquor in particular in a
neighborhood center frequented by teens is particularly inappropriate. This is not a strip mall where passing
drivers need to be lured in to buy alcohol. Ironically, the liquor sign is placed right next to the teenage mural.
o The current signage is ugly. The bright and garnish colors are suitable for a strip mall. They do not enhance
the Midtown neighborhood center. The signage is not suitable for this location.
We req uest that you:
o Require the applicant to immediately remove the unpermitted signage.
o Reject the applicant's request to approve the current illuminated signage as inappropriate for a
neighborhood center and inconsistent with the existing approved signage in the center.
o Require halo lighting (as they have 6n their University Avenue store). All other stores in Midtown with
illuminated signs have had to meet this requirement.
o Require that the signage be compatible with the Midtown Center's building colors, architectural features, the
public art mural, and other stores' signage.
o Confirm PAMC Chapter 16.75.050 Finding 4 that the design should be compatible with the character of the
Midtown Center. Require the applicant to return with sign age which is compatible with the current building
colors, tiles, architectural feature, mural, and with neighboring signage.
We support the Draft Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment B of the staff report.
Sincerely,
Sheri Furman, MRA Chair
Annette Ashton, MRA Vice-chair
Attachment F
The elq of
Palo Alto
Attachment G
Location Map
2701 Middlefield Road
CVS Pharmacy -. •