The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0171.091'. .. . ,.: .. -. . . ~-< - ~ ~ " .. e~ 7, 1991 HONORABLE CITY r.OiJNCIL p.le Alto, C,liforoi' ;';'; .,.. . ~~ ,/--' 340 poBJAGE AVENUE/3?ZS EL CAMINO REAl --OfF-SITE SIGN APPLICATION Meebers of the Council: Report in Bri ef On February 7, 1991, the Architectural R.view Board voted 4 to 1 to d.ny an applfcation for an off·site sign for Fry's Electronics. Fry's Electronics is located at 340 Portage Aye~ue, It the former Maximart site~ and th~ sign is proposed to be located It 3225 [j Camino Rell. The Director of Planning and COMUnity EnvlrDl'\IiJent f.s referring this application to the Citj' Council. as ,I lowed pursuant to Section 16.48.080(C} of the ARB ordinance, with a recommendation that Councl! approve tho .Ign. Regue$ted Actfoh/Backgrqund PriOr to occupancy of the fa,ility at 340 Portage Avenue, building si9n'90 for fry's Electronics w~s reviewed and approved b~ the Architectural Review Board on July 19, 1990. At that meeting, ARB member Jon Schint su.gested that fry's se.k approv,1 of an off-site sign on El CamIno R.al because of the difficulty the public may experience I, finding the Portage Road facility and due to tne expected reglonal attraction af th~ particular rlt.ileT~ No other Board members objected. but a mEmber of the community objected te the sU990.tion (refer to the .tt.ched .inute, of July ]9, ]990). An application was subsequently submitted, and the Board voted 3 to Z to de.y the application to install an off-site sigo ror Fry', Electronfcs. The Board expressed tnat Fry'. knew before they le.sed the facility that off-site signs were prohibited, and, in additIon, the Board did not believe that they could Make the substantial property right finding requfred for the sign exceptfon. Furt"ermore~ the Board expressed concerns lbout .ettlng • precedent for future applIcations. Tho three findings necessary under Section 16.20.040 to grant. sign exception Ire .s follows: . . . • -1. There are fxcept10nal or extrlordlnary circumstances or conditions ap91itobl. to the property In,olved that do not .pply gonerilly to property fn the same ~lstrict; -2. The vranttng of th! Ipplfcltion is necesSlr~ for t~e preservat~on and enjoyment of • sub.tantfll property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessar~ "ards~ips; '3. The granting of the 'ppllcltfon will not b. d.trlmental or (~j~r~oys to p~operty or 1~p~vements in the ~it;nity &n~ ~"1 not be detrimental to the public h~.lth, safety, genoral w.lfare or convenience.- Th. PlannIng Director then r.ferred the .pp1lca1 ion b.c~. to tho ARe for reconsiderltion p~rsu&nt to Section 16.48.080(2J. Tne reason for the referral was t~at subs!quent to OCCYPling the s+t., fry's received comments from their (usto.ers that this regional facility was in fatt difficult to find, given th~ narrow frontag~ of P~rtage Avenue providing vehicle ICttss to fry's located a ~lock off of (1 Camino Real. Staff ~oe. "ot believe that this •• gn sets, precedent beelu •• it would be grlnted through In exteptlon protess based on the unjq~eness of this partic~lar retail US!~ the size of the estab1ish~nt~ ond the reglonll customer base. '1v~n the split vote of 3 t. Z to den, t~. sign, the previeus odvlce to the applicant from I Board .. mber, Ind the st.ff's support for the granting of the sign exception, the D;reetor requested the AR! to ~COn$'~ir their pre~;ous recommendation. At the ARB .. etlng of Febru,ry 7, IgSl, the Board retonsldered the off·site sign application, and the •• jorlty of tho Board (f. 0 4·1 voto) did not f.el that they 'Duld .ake the necessary findings requlred tc grant the s'gr. exception. The Boord also Stlted that toe signlg. for Portage Avenue could be '~roved by adding sign'ge io the .. dfln of [1 Camino Re,l. Since [1 Camino Rell I •• stat. _ighway, ,Ignage oppl1cltlons would have to be ~ade to Clltrans. Tne Transportatfon Division does nat $UPpo~t slgn applications on El C .. lno Rell for Individual applicant, ,nd IS a pol!c, would support additional signage only on t~e £1 Camino Real median for ~ajor intersections. The Oireclor of Plann{n9 &nd Community (n~iron.e~t ~as not persu~ded b~ the Board's recommendation and therefore referred the application to the (ity Council, prpject Descrjptlop Tbe Ippl!t."t propose, to ;nstoll an internally·illuminated polo sign with t'e text for both the foot locker and Fry's Eleetron!cs on the coro.r of El CImino Real Ind Portage Avenue. Pllc .... t of I sign for fry's Eleotronies at this loe.tlon will req"iro t~at I sign exception be granted for an off'site Sign. Fry's is loclted • bloc. off El Camino Re.l down Portige Avenue. Stiff Is supportive of • sign I. this locotl.n for the following re.son.: I) fry's is I verI large regional retai'.r drawi~g customers from .any c~n1t1es 1a the 81d-per.insula area. Z} frl'S is an amortized non- t~.fo .. !ng .se vhith must le.ve by Ju1y of 1999; therefore, the off·site sign CIIR:171:91 CMR/REHRRAl 3/7/91 ·2- • will be te.porary. 3) Bocau.e of t~e difficult, that "1 be experienced by (w.tooers unfoaillar with the area, the place .. nt of the sign on [I Camino Rell will probably reduce the number of .ehlcl •• turning arc"nd Ifter missing the ... 11 Portage Avenue Intersectton. Sign Measur ... nt. Ar .. 52 sqUire f.et proposed 66 square f •• t allowed by the sign ordinance 33-44 square feet allowed the [1 Camino Real Guide'ines ~.i91lt 14 f •• t proposed 14.5 feet allowed by the [I Camino Rell Guidelines RITO!t!ENPAl!l!!! Stiff recommends that the City CounCil appro.e the project subject to the fallowing f1ndfngs and tondit~ons. findings: 1~ There ire exceptional or e~traDrdinir~ circwastances Dr ~ond;tions applicable to the property involved that do not appl, genera'ly to property in the sa.. district, in that fry'. [leetronics i. the only la~e regional retailer lotated on i large slte off E1 Camino Real. 2. The granting of the lppiication is necessary for the pres'~vation and enjoyment of a substanti.l propert' right of the applicant and to pre~ent unreasonable property loss or unnecessar} hardships. in t~at without the off-site ,ign, the c"stomers "nfamlli.r .it~ the area may hlye I diff!cvll time finding the site. 3. The granting of t~e IpplicatiDn .ill not b. detrimental or injurious to property Gr iaproveeents in t~e vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public healt~, safety~ general .e1fiTe or c~nvenlence, in that the sign has been designed to meet the City's sign ordinance, ond that ~l.cement of the sign on the corner of Portlge Avenue will reduce the nUMber Df vehicles turning aroynd It adjatent fntersections to reac~ th~ flellity. Condit Ions: I. The Foot Locker portion of the proposed pole sign shall be modified to dolete t~e running .In logo fro. the top of the sign or to incorporate the logo within the frame of the lntorn.ll, Illwain.ted cabinet. as it Is on the existing sign. CIIR:I7I:91 CllVREf ERP • .I.!. 3/7/91 ·3· .. 2. The fln.l design of the sign sh.ll return fer stoff rovle. prior to 1 nst. 110t Ion. 3. At the Iff.ctlve termln.tion d.t. of fry's Electronics u.e of 340 Portage A.enue, the Footlocker portIon of the .lgn shall be lowered to reploc. the Fry" porllon of the sign Ind the top of the pol. shall be .""",.ed. 3. Th. hOUT' of IllUMination shall be li.lted to the business hour. of operation. · ; Respectfully !ubaltled, rp£;{~ ROBERT E. HAl~Y ~ . .. t1 ~ ... ---~.,t! // '/ -~E[~~ 'lanner ,~~ Director of Planning and Community En~ironment As.l.tl.t City ""nl9'r Attochllent<: I.fonoallon Memorandum, ARB Keeting, Februlry 1, 1991. Trlnscrlpt Minutes, ARB Meeting, February 1, 1991 "Inute., A~B Keetlng, Dec.-ber 6, 1990 Minute., ARB Keetlng, July 19, 1990 location ft1:p Pl.n. (Couoc!) ~r. only) cc: Arch!tectur.l Review Board Bud Kobza' Assocl.tes (20B3 Old Middlefield Vay, Mount.in View, eA 94043) Rindy Fry (34D Portage Avenue, P,lo Alto, CA 94305) Deny Petroslan (443 Venturi Avenue '2, FlTo Alto, CA 94306) 00:171 :91 OUVRfFERRAL 3/7/91 -4- II. .E&UlJl~ AGEMOA INFO~TIONAL M£HORANOU~ ARCK!TEtTURAL REVIEW BOARD F.br~.ry 7. )991 3. 340 PORTAGE AY£NUE/3225 £L C~INO REAL 90-ARB-12S fry's tteetronfcs InstIll a~ Dff~sitr ~nument sign f~r Fry's Electron1cs an6 ~tw signage for tbe F~ot locker. The new .onument sign will ~ located at 3225 El Camino Re.l. USE CATEGORV: E.tenslye Retlil ZONING CS Service Comoerclal District ENYIRONMlNTAL IMPACT ASSESS~"T This project has been determined citegQrica1', exempt from (EGA review REQUESTED ACTION/BACKGROUND Tbe req~est fOT an off·site sign fer Fry's f1ectronics was continue~ frOG tne January 171 1991 Deeting it the app11canl's request In order fQr for the applicition to receive f~11 Board review. Since no changes have been prop~sed to the project s~nce the January 17, ]991, meeting, the text of that Informlt1onal ~nmorandum is repeated below. On·site sl9nS for Fry's Electronics were reviewed and approyed by the BOlrd at the July 19. 1990 .. etlng. Minutes of the July 19, 1990, .. ,tin9 .re included In your packet. At th.t ~eetin9 Jon Schink SU9gusted that fry's seek approvil of In off~site Sign on £1 Carnine Real because of the diffieulty .xperienced by the publ\c in finding Portage Avenue. At the December 6, 1990. ARB DO.ting the BOlrd voted 3-2 to deny the application to fnstall an off-site slsn for Fry's Electronics. The Plann1~g Oirector hiS thosen to exerctse bls Dption contatned in t~e ARB ordinance allOwing the Director to refer the application back to the ARB for reconsideration when he disagrees wit~ the Soard's reco~ndation. The ARB ordln.nce giYes the PlannIng Director the option to attempt to resol.e the difference, wit" the BOlrd or refer the application directly to the City Council. 'I.,n the split vote of 3-2 to deny the sign, the prlYious advice to tht Ipplie~nt, &nd the Director's sypport for the granting of tne sign excoptlon. th, Dlrettor Is requesting that the Board reconsider their previous r.coasendatf~n. At tho December 20, 1990. ARB welting the BOlrd continued tho Pllnning Di~ctDr·s requelt for recDnsiderltiD~ beciuse of the absence of t~o Df the Board ... ber. who voted ,gal.st the .ff-slt. sign .t the December 6, 1990, .. etlng_ It ~as the opi.IDn of the Board .. members present at the -, • Oece~r 20 eeettng t~at the request for reconsideration warrented fu11 Soard rev I ..... DEStRlfTI~AKAlYSIS The applicant propo ••• to In.tall an Intern,lly Illuminated pvl. 'I~n with text for both the Foot lDcker I~d Fry's (lectrontcs on the CDrner of (1 C .. ino Re.l Ind Portage Ayenue. Pl,.ement of •• ign for Fry" ot this lDcat1Dn w~11 require I J1gn exctptiQn fOT an off-Jfte sign. fry's is located I block aff £1 C&mi~o Reil down Portage Ayenue. St.ff is supportive of a sign in this lo<ation for t~e felleving reasons: I) fry's is I very lirge re3fonal retaileT drl~ing customers from many co~unitfes 1n t~e ~;d-pen1sull arei. ZJ fry's is an amortized non-conforzfng ~se whic~ must leiv~ by July of 1999 t therefore, the aff-site sig" ~111 bf temporary. l) 8ecause of the difficulty that ~IY be experienced by customers unfamiliar with the area in trying to find tn. facility, the placement of a sign on (1 Camino Reil will probably reduce the amount of vehicles t~rntn9 around after missIng the small Portage ~venue Inter,eetlon. SIGH MEASUREl".ENTS AP.fA 52 5Quar! feet proptlse-d 66 sqLiar! fee-t ill1o .. "ed' by the sign ordH,.nce- 33-44 squ,rt feet .llowed by tn. El Camino Real G,ldl'n., HEIGHT 14 fe.t propo,.d 14.5 feet allowed by the EI C •• ino Rell ~uidljr.es REC~NDATlON Stiff requests that the BQard reconsider their previous rec~mmendat;cn ilnd Ipprove the sign !xce~tfon subject t~ following findin9s lnd conditfons: fil'ldh9S 1~ Tbere Ire eXt!ptfonll or extravrdinarl circumstances Dr conditions appllea~le to the property Involyed that do not apply general I, to propert, ia t~e same dfstrict. 1~ that, Fry's Electronics is the onl, 1.rgo regional retailer loeated on , l.rge sit. off £1 C •• ino ROll. 2. The granting of the appll,ation Is nec •••• ry for tho preser,ation and enjoyment of • ,ub.tinti.l propert1 right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss Dr une •• , •• ry bard.hlps, in thot, without the off-site Sign, tho customer. unf .. lli.r ~ith the ar •••• y haYe • very I dlffleult time finding the site. 3. The granting of the applltation will not bo detrimental or I.juriou, to properly or Improvements i. t~e Ylclnlt1 and will not bo detrimental to t~e public healto, saf.lJ, gener.l welf.,e or eonYenlente, in that, the sign w111 bo deSigned to .. et the City's -1 - , , .. I. s'9 n ordinlnce, Ind that p'lc~nt of the sign en corner of PQrtlg e A~ntnue vill redUCt the a=ount of veh1~les turn1n9 around at adjac •• t Intersections to rEac~ the facilIty. ,ondltlons I. Tho Foot locker portIon of the proposea pol. sIgn sh.ll be :odified to del.t. the r"no'09 ~an 1090 from the top of the sign or to InCorporate th£ logo wlt~ln the fra .... of the Int ... 111 111·Jm\Mted cabinet, as It Is on the existing "gn. 2. Tbe beurs of 111u.;.otlon 'hill be ll.lted to the business hour. of openllo n -a • FD2lIAR1' 7. 1991 .IJtarI'B(.1'OItAL RBYIn BOaat) aean mAUYBS '" 340 POftAGII: .DAD ~CBAEL LTZW&: Okay, regular agenda Item number three~ 340 Portage Avenue dash 3225 El C3mino Real~ Are there any additional _taft comments to this Item: Are there any .tafl ~~nt5 in reference to this regular agenda item: BOB R&LKT; The Board bad a5ked why is it coming back and why fa there no~ any new evidence presented. The Staff Eeel. the same Y~l based on tbe findings Ye just aade on the previcus project. Th~Y're very, very similar. Finding number tvo~ you jQ8t approved ie identical to it. Ein~1ng n~er one, t~e exceptional, extraor~inary cirCUmstances that the bank being locate~ wbere it, is very similar to the only l,arge retailer in Palo Alt.O, being located a b.lock off of £1 Camino on a very small 5tree~ that nee~s some identity. So, Staff feels co~fortab.le given the past action of the Board, that this Sign exception 1s also acceptable an~ in Staff's opinion, even .are appropriate for the granting of an exception for Off-site sinage than 250 university's request • .,CRASL LTSKAl Ok.y~ Thank you. Is the applicant here to make a presentation? LBOM3pn SABA~: Yea. My na~e is Leonara Sabatini. I'm with Fry's. r don't knOY if r should speak betor~ or a£ter other public comments. ~CR&ZL L~~ Please do. Tou bave five =lnutes to make a presentation .. I~'RD S&D&Tx.!1 Okay. My responsibility to Fry'S is the design and construction phase of projects. That's vhat I do. I feel strongly about this, because I knOW how much time and effort ve've pet in to trying to create sometbinq unique in Palo Alto. 1 knOY one of the Board members last time, made the point that ve chose a lOCation for our O~~ reasons and we did, but within Pa10 Alto it's very dif~icult to find a space to have a retail operation such as O:lr s . We tried to take a building which doesn't have a real Eeel to it and create 8o~ething that we felt would be an asset to the community. We are a successful business. We bave~'t been in business that long. We're not a Wall Mart, or a Sears. We feel that ve do deserve to compete and be Buccessful~ We do need some Yay to tell people, here Ye are~ We are only going to be there now, about eight-and-a-hal~ .ore years~ We ~o fael that we need every advantage t~at we can get in order to be successful. Tbose are really my key points. We atill fin4, quite a bit, our cU5to~ers coming in .n4 Bay, ve didn't know you ye~e here. There isn't enougb 1.ndm~rk right there to say, we're not on University, which 18 a main street and ve don't have the advantage of baYing so.eone else where people can refer to. So. those are our reasons for feeling that ve really 40 need thi& sign and !t would be a Significant contributor to o~r success. !'hanks .. 1 ./' ~CBAaL LTZW&: Thank you~ Are there any Board member questions of the applicant? Ie there any public testl~ony on this proposal? ~lease fill out a car~ and give us your name and: a~~re88, please. Tbiln)c: you, Denny~ You bave five ~lnutes to address the Boar~~ plea5e. Than~ you~ »axwr PE7ROSI .. : I'm vec} disturbed about the decision thatta been made~ It seems the lign ordinance .hoQld 8tan~ on its own. Aa public process the involvement o~ the Pl~nning Department in this feels kind of louey and I t~ink it lertcuslY compro~ises the ARB process. The original StafE analysis of OCtober 18th_ says that the sign ordinance cl~arly prohibits off-sitE .jg~ and Staff did not believe it the necessary findings for a sign exception could be made~ These findings are very similar tc the findinSB needed for a variance and would be very difficult to make the findings vith the exception that is necessary for the preservation Qf the subst~ntial property right of the applicant to prevent unreasonable property loss and unnecessary hara&hip. Staff has st~ong concerns about the precedent that approval of this 5ign~ge 8ets~ Nothing has changed and so, I'm really mystified about this whOle proces5~ I don't think the findings have been convinc1ng~ On page seven of ~he stafE report regarding the non-conforming use issue I think that because it's a non-conforming use this argues for denial not approval and I thiJ),lt that vhether this bUsiness stays hEre for nine, or ninety years that other applications vill be encouraged~ Going down to finding number one, I don't think there are any extraordinary exceptional circumstance&~ This is not supposed to be encouraged in this location by a sign exceptlon~ The goa~6 here are residential and why give discri~inatory preference to a large ret~11er ~5 opposed to a small regional retailer, like the appliance store 00 Lambert. There!s a large appliance store on Lambert that is a regiona1 b~sine8a. 11M sure they vogld like to have a sIgn on El camino too~ There ~as an idea put Cor1liard for aD alternative locat.ion along the alecUan of El Camino gh"ing signi!llge to a number of businesses i~ that ~rea, but that g08S more in the directIon ident.ifying that area as a regional commercial district. which it 1s not supposed to be~ SO, tbat Yocld not be preferable. Finding number tvo, haraship, property 1055, difEiculty finding th~ s1te~ It'~ not goin9 to ~ake a great difference to have a sign tbere: otherYlse~ they "ouldntt locate where they are. It's a very strong Buccessful nitch bU5inQss~ People, pretty much~ have to find this place ana once they find it once tbey know where it i.~ EVen vith the s!gn~ this place i$ going to be hard to find. People who go there are Dot one-time cu&to.ers. Finding numbe~ three. I think tbe granting of the .ppllcation vill be detrimental and injurioDs to the general welfare of the c1ty~ And because of the g~.18 2 , that the city has for this area and I think that it will not .1~n1~icantly r.~uce the turn around at this .rea Rnougb to ju&tifylng mak1ng a finding like th1.~ the decision time at that £top light is just too shert to really make a turn B~ccesBful1y every time even if you know vbe.e you're going. This 18 a~l apart from the visual clutter that this Ie going to ~.ke at that particul.r place~ Nitb 8uddenly, three signs all together one on top of the other. Photo sign on the big brown bUilding at that corner .nd then the Foot Locker tnd the Ery'&~ It's just too much in one place. So, to me there is much more at stake here than just a sign. This buainess is on a quarter of a .tIlion sq~are reet of property~ which Is designed for residential and I think it '• the wrong message to give that our ordinances are e~lil1 broken, y!thQut a co~pel11ng reason .. I think it's a vary discouragln; message to give to residences who have been !nvQlve~ for 16 years to try an~ bring this area to the development that it ought to have. So, vith all due respect to the Pla~nlng Director, I urge this Board to do the public'a business here this .orning and uphOld the integrity of the City's ordinances aDd to stand by the original decisfon to deny a non conforming sign into a non-conforming business. I really don1t think that approval of this yoyld be a healthy deei.ion for the C1ty. ~CRABL LT.ZK&: Thank YOGI Denny. Is there anyone else ¥bo visIlee t.o address this? Please st.ate your name and address and you can fill this out afterwards. or right DOV. DAnD..JBtWG: My name is David Je-~:lg.. I live at 4056 Park BoUlevard. live lived there ~or 32 years.. Itm part of the neighborhood association ~nd the for~ation of the comprehensive plan in 1976, atten~ed ~any of the meetings in that area in question and a comprehensive plan vas made to get more re6identf~1 into that area and at that time Maximart was zoned commercial. And this seems to me this fa qOiLg the wrong direction. Denny 5~1s here theY're digging in and getting in more roots to restore th3t to commercial and I feel that this is going in the contrary direction of the comprehensive plan. Back then El Camino Real vas 4escr!bed as a visual chaos and I guess even the current co~prehen6ive plan .~111 desczibes it that yay. This is contributing to that. It i •• terrible precedence to have theee otf-site sigoa alo~g the El Camino saying verve got. business loc~ted Off of £1 Camino here, or those businesses on Lambert. I' •• ure •• bave the same rigbt that Fry'S would have. Ery·. iB just li~. going to your doctor. You ~on·t have signa directing you to • ~octor on the &treet. Yo~'re going to FrY'BI bee. use you vant to go to Fry's, not because lo~ just v.nt ~ wander around the D&lghborbood and I think th.t .nybody 3 • --. \. that is going there, Is going to find it Circuit City. Circuit City doesn't have El Camino Blying, hey, vetre • block off Come down and drop In. and It's .like a sign .fIIlong t.he of £1 Camino here. I think that 1~ ve want to ld~ntify Fry'£ Is on portage, t.ben fOU guys, yOll vi!.1 .ee the green sign that identity Margarita, Hata~aro, Hampton Wa7-Put a green sign up that •• Y. Portage. ~hat vould be Poore consiBtent Yitb the policy rather than ma~e • special exception for a non-conforming sign, juat to identify a bUsine85 along the l1r.e. I'm an owner there and I can't move anyvbere else, but I would like to see the comprehensive plan carried out, becaase thE pres8ur~ Is constantly there to change that residential area back into a commercial area and I can't see digging into that. III CIlABL L"fZ1I&: this proposal? hearing. Is there any £urt.her public testimony tor Seeing none~ I close it to the public BOB BALST; I~ Staff could just clarif7 a couple things for the Boa~d. Talking about the comprehensive plan an~ not being fo1~oye~ and the non-confo~ing use. The policies an4 objectives of the comprehensive plan are being carried out. Wben the City rezoned that property to multiple ~.~ily residential the eXisting gEeS were amortIzed. Fry's is a legal nOD-conEorming use, which must leave at a cpeci:rlc t.ime. M7C8AEL LTZR&; Aino, yould you ~i~e to begin, please? &IWO DAROSA; We~l. I've gone up and down E1 Camino 100king for Fry'. area and thought a great deal, especially since it came back to us to rethink. But. I'r. still unable to make the tin~ings for an exception. In the early ~lnutes. there vas some ~lScus5!on about oEf-site signage, vben Fry's vas first moving In there and Fry's at that point accepted the ~act tha~ they couldn't have off-site signage and tbey moved into an area knowing they couldn't have off-site slgnage and that vas an early, early discu6sion. Since then this issue has come ~p and it's al~ost lik~ a right and theylre much ~ore demanding of something that they were really quite accepting of in the beglnnlns~ in that, they Youldn't be able to have a sign. They do have unusual property, because the road looks like a drlve~ay. It's right ne~t to the parking lot ~or Foot Locker and it doesnlt look like a road and I think a lot cou1d be dace to Clarify the road ~1thout granting tbem a eign exception. That would help in both directions along £1 Camino to have a .lgn that would say portage Road as tha~ area and it's reall.y bard to fineS, particularl)" juxtapose~ t.o the Foot Locker. It doesn't look like a roa~. I'm not going to talk about tbe sign design. :f this a!gn location is approved. t~en I vou1d like to come back and talk about the design of the sign, becauEe I feel the design of tbe sign 1s greatly lacking. but at this point, 1 'm not aupport1ng the sign and it's design. 4 ," , , '. I . IIICIIAn LTZ1Q, Thank you. .:r~l!e. JULIA MaSER: Well, I really am having a har~ time yith this one too acd I, from the very beginning, I did soppcrt the .1gn there~ because I felt that it vas going to limit the vehicular confusion at tbBt corner. Witbo~t that big truck there with the Fry's written on it, I think a lot of people ¥oul~ find it very difficult to get to Fry l 5. To know where they're going at that co:nera I Quess there have been no accidents there, 80 far and I gue •• this has happened at other locations, that Ye've had .Sailar circum6t~nCe&, but it vool~ certainly help in my .1b~, just fro~ a pr&ctical atan~ point~ to have some kind of identity, because there are so ~a~y people going to this place an~ looking ~or it and it's not clear as to where it 10. I do agre~ vitb you, Aino~ I was there yesterday and that handicap ramp that jets out into the natural tlow of the street is a dangerous thing. It seems to me it COuld be designed to allow aome more easy passage through that area. It'. kind of a hodgepodge of confusion back in there. So, I think a lot could be done to help. in general. with the exterior environment of Fey'S. My feeling about the sign, is itls not great, but without that little bubble on the top, it could be pretty c1ean looking and unobtrusive and maybe even better l~king than vhat's there now. vhich is this funny-shaped sign yay up on top of a pole, 80 I think it could be ~es!gned to be not detrimental visually. The third thing that IB syinging me in favor of going along with this, is the t~ct it is a temporary situation. Granted, eight years doesn't souna terriblY temporary, b~t it's not going to be here forever. And I think the overriding thing 1n My ~lnd is, it wl11 belp ease confusion an~ potential problems at that corner with the numbers of people that vant to get to this place. 80, I vill probably vote in favor of it, even though I find that thIs whole question has been ~Dfgsing. The Staff's change of heart ~ldstream 1s confusing to me and I's nell' on the Board', but I onderstl,nc:l' this f s unprecedented. I .ould hope we wouldn't have to dea~ ~ith something 8S fUZZy as this in the future. ~C&AEL LTZW&= Than~ yoo, JCli~_ Harn!? ~ BARKBS= First of all, I vant to express my sympathies to the applicant. I think that, basically, the applicant bas gotten the run-around here, st~rting from this auggestion, apparently, emanating from the Board ~e~her and then the Staff's position flip-flopping and now the Director .ending it back to us. So, I want to extend my sympathies to the client for th1. kind of pLocedure and I hope it does~'t h~ppen _gain. I have looked at this again and again and cannot support the second fInding of ~he substantial property right loss is not .pparent to De. Clearly, this is a judge~ent call, 5 • because there are other peop~e who are finding that. but 1 ~raonal1y cannot 8upport the variance. I think the .uggest!on of having a .ign that say6 portage fn the median .trip, vb1ch bas been done aloog El ca~fno, fs an excellent one and that vill clear up that it'. not an entrance to • parking lot. That it i8 truly a city street and that that would solve the problee yhen anyone at Fry's is trying to say ho~ to get bere. You go to Portage and you turn right, or, which ever direction youlre coming from. That seems to be to be a very simple solotion an~ voul~ be tbe direction I YOOI~ vant to go ~nd I cannot 8ypport "ho sign. ~CRAKL LTZWA: Thank you, Marni. Shirley? SRIRLBY~: I concur vith Aino and HarDi. In reading back over the minutes, Mr. Scblnk, vhen he ~~e the co~~ent, and I quote. A small sign might be appropriate. This is hardly a small 8ign. I 8upport --an4 I think it's e8sential that something is done about the Portage Avenue, or street, ox whatever it's called, sign on the ~edi~n. I don't like the design o~ the sign proposed and the remova~ of Fry's sign in the futgre woald leave an even vorse sitoation, I think, for this Foot Locker sigc up so high. 1 don't have anything else to say. MZCBAEL LTZM&: Thank yo~, Shirley. Won1d anyone care to :make a action? XARMI BAaNBS: I have one additional comment I would like to make to Staff. ~CBAEL LTZW&~ I have notbing else ~o add that hasn't already been s~ated. Sc~ I wonlt va~te ti~e. 11m Borry~ di~ you want to -- MARXI BAKWBS, Yeah. I JUBt vanted to respond a little bit to what Bob had said about the process of coming back to UB. I think when an applicant says, we want to come back ag~in and a~ain, that tbey do change and amend things and it is different and I t.hink the Pl.aza Ramona sign is a classic example of that. They ca~e ba~k a multitude of ti~es and every ti~e it vas a little different and there vas something else to look at, so~e changes tbat ha~ been ~ade~ And I haven't seen that. I mean, there were in the early stages some cbanges in the sign. but basica11y. I don't see those two as analogous for me to re-revlev something. aARCY LYTLE: 1£ I may explain yhat happeeed on this process. r don1t think -it vas so much of a flip-flop of Staff, it eimply vas a decision tbat vas reversed by our highest level management. We had written our original Staff .emo yith my approval that recommen~ed denial. ~en had read the ARB memo and he made the decision that we should be .upperting the sign. It's not that that's a precedence. Il can happen in any citr when policy 1s being lmple~ented,even on a nationa1 level. As ve 811 know. the State Department first responded to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq as being an inter-Arab dispute &nd we're DOW at ~ar. 6 fbi. vas ~.nl. call and he has referred it back tQ you .6 Seetlon 16.48.080 (2), alloYs him to and h~ will alvlYs do that before ~ing on to the Council, because the Code requires it. He obviously has interaction at levels that the rest of us don't have .n~ bas knowledge of lnner City fSlues that the rest of U6 don1t h.ve. He's working r!gbt now on econoaic outreach and considerations that may bave 1nfluence4 hi. opinion a little bit and that'. vith Council direction acd 8p~clal City Manager assignment, BO that'. the explanation, rather than us changing our ~inds Euddenly and going hgme one night ane laying, we really can support tbis. 8&IRLBY~: Well, I Yould like to address it couple of those things and: go erl record saying I do recogni.ze that, tbis business is a substantial econo~lc pl~& for this community and the neighbors should realize that. I a180 feel that I'z ~ul17 aware of the kina o~ advertising that this bcainess does and tbat there is always a ~ap in their advertising and I think that Is a very vlab1e way to deal with 8ometb1ng ~ike tbat~ Pry's Is a real destination shopping center. People don't atop, becacee tbey've seen it. They know vh~t Fry's can do ~or them as far as merchandise and price and they're going ~o go find it and I think that that approach of prGper street Signage Is the appropziate one B~d I'm very in favor of baving them here and am very cognizant of tbe economic J.sues. MTCBAEL LTZKa: I move for denial of tbis sign. A11 those in favor? All those opposed? (lIHDl!!JPCR'. MICHAEL Lrz1IA. ADlO DAIIOSA. nmu IIlIlHBS lIIID DIllLIn' Ifl.LIIa. VERB OPPOSED TO DIS SlGB lIIID JULIA JUlSD DS Dr F ... l'Oll OF ftI S SIGJI PROPOSAL.) , DECEMBER 6~ 1990 ARCHITEC'I11RAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES 4. 340 PORTAGE AVENUE/322S EL CAMINO aEAL 90-AF.B-12S rry~. ElcetroDics rnstell an ctt-site ~on~~ent sign fo~ Fry'& Electconics and nev .ign~ge for the Foot Locker~ The nev ~nYment ~lgn vill be located at 3225 .£1 Camino .Real. This proposal was DENIED. 3-2. as presented. Comments Erom tbe public were as rcllOYs: Ms. Denny Petrosian 433 Vent~ra Avenue Ms. Petrosian 5tmte~ to the Board that she feela there is an incredib1e amount of pole signs fa this area and that tbis particular boslness is large eDcugh an~ that a sign OD El Camino Real is not necessary. Board co~ments were as follovs: Ms. Barnes state~ tnat she sympathizes with Fry'S, but also £eels that part of being a retajler is picking the location and having prior knowleage of its pro~imity to El C~mino Real and; therefore. sees no reason vhy this retail 6p~ce shou!d be grante4 an exception. Ms. daRosa concurs witb Hs~ Barne's com~nts and does not sypport this ~pplicatio~~ Hs~ Kaser ~t~ted she is in support of this prcposal due to vehicular confusion that bas· occ~rred for customers trying to 10eate this frequently visited' retail store and also bec~nse it is temporary for the duration of the Fry's lease of this property. Hr. Lyzva concurs with Hs~ Maser's comments an~ also is in suppo~t of this proposal. Ms. Wilson expressed concern over the proposal. In gene-ril. a:he lias persuader! by the put-·lie apea'kec and ~elt a need to ~e consistent with previous BOArd .~tions on orc-site 51gnage. END OF EXCERPT / ;' JIILY 19, 1990 ARGl:!lT£C11JAAL REVIEW BOARO EXCERPT HI NtJT£S II. I.Q I'O!!TAGE AVfNU£ 90-~JlB-I05 fry's Electronics Instill two new free-stlndi~g 319n5 ~~d three ne~ wall signs for ~e~ fl~ctronl's store~ T~e applicant made I presentation and explained thefr req~ests (or s1gnage. They ha.e chosen to eli~inate the monument sign sn Pari 6culevzrd ind the sign on Park facing Califorcli A¥enue. De~ny Pelrosian spoke on this applfcation. Sne was very disturbed about it. Jt appears to be a p.eT1Nn.e~t fn.stallation~ yet t~e irea is up for ImortiZiiltion. The lrtlention ~f rezoning this sae fer housing was d~ne partly to reduce traffic i~ the aTea. Fry's £lectro~ics ~il1 bring i grezt increase of traffic jnto the are •• as it is a very large retail bus;ntss. She Questioned whtther t~i$ use conforms to the nonconfonaing Use crdinanc! 'jS.94~030. Nanty lytle respo~ds that the site or~g;nall, ~as occ~pied b1 a large retail ~SE. Since the site was never vacated ind t~ere was never ~r. int~rT~ptiDn of use. it did not lose its grandfath~rin9 ability for a Targ! retil1 use. They will have to vacate in ~ine years. Mi. Petras;an fDund it hard to belieye t~at fry's would invest I Jarge a~unt of mone} and ~aclte in nine years. Mr. fr1 replied that they definitely wo~ld leave after .ine years. Bob Moss r~pressed a concern about t~e Cabl~ Co-op parking area betng usurped b)' fry's f1ectrol'lics customers. The fry s1gn seems to indicate parki~g is available in the Cable Co-op area. He hop!s that nDt~ing on the street or on their building ~lll indicate parking in (able Co-op's iTei. which t~ey badly need for c~stomer5. trucks and st.ff. Mr. Schink suggested a smill sign en E1 Camino diretting peDple to frY·5, because Portage Orive f5 diffite1t to fj~d. Hr. Hess was concerned about that setting' precedent for off-sito .d,ortislng. Ms. Wilson welcome~ fry's to the community. She li~ed the signs and the red~(tion fa size. She frlt t~rrr is i defin;te need (or fr1~s to work wlth all of the other tfnlnts about their pzrting requfre-ents. The appliclnt indicat@d a willing~ess to do so. She .rso felt that for per,on. entering the parking lot, it should be clea~ as to w~ich entry ;s into rry's parking lot. 07/19/90 Hr. lJzwl felt that the one per 3S0 Clr parking ratio 's nowhere close tc bt1ng .dtQuite~ He en~lsioned It is ~ing r~diculousl1 low at busy tiaes suc~ IS Christ~s, ettA One per 1SO ~o~ld req~lre 40n parking spaces. and one per 350 would reQ~ire approximately 180. which is a diff~rence of 220 cars. Ms. lytle r~spDnded that since they are grandfithered in, thtre if nothing that can be done about the aDO""t of parking I.ailable. Mr. Lyzw. did appro.e of the signs. APPROVED' The board appro.ed the application IS submitted, 4·0, subject to the follo.ing con~itl.ns, 1. ModlfiLatiDn of ~Jll $lgn 11 tQ seven feet prQPoTtionatel~~ 2. Elimination of .all sign '2. 3. £lle,natlon of free·stlndlng sign 'I. 4. The slgns to be illuminated onl, during retail hou", of Dperation. 5. Inst.ll'tian of .... 11 sign on El Cam;no Real It Portage directlr.g people tc fry' •. 6. Llndsc_pir.g to be installed with stiff approval. Mich •• l LYZW' left the ... ting at this point. DiD OF EXCERPT ~. ~,'~t~~~::·,:., . '-~;1!~~1t_: '1"" ~_. -___ ~~ ....... -.. -•. -. -._,",."- i " _:::::::::: ~; :';;': -c;;;_;.)'~ , .•. ,;. ,-.~ 1\ o "1 \\~ - -r «J GRAPH j CAn ACfI'~EN T L·°:'3A~TE,,-:: :;;-.:;." '::'.--:' -::-::::&..;;;5CA;;,;l_E,;,,: _.;.r " ... ';,;""p' IP.;.'O;;;,' .. " __ of TO STAFF ~rpOR, I fILE NO. .0-..... ' •• I-:::PR=OJ::E::CY:-=-: ':"'_':"'U(!.ti:"':":n':"'O-N ,L:""~.~."':':""~':"'_S-'TE="-=G::'::. ::.:,OO==,.:....-.,..-.-L.-OTR-O-.. -O.-. ---J '\ . . . _ F.Y'S STCIIE IS LGCATfD AT 1010 PORTAGIE "OAQ; THE '''O'OUD t.OCAnOtt'OII nflE: SIGN IS un fl CAMINO "'.t.~ JilORTH I ij -: . ' . ; ~ .. " .. _I ""1 1 ~------l c.::-0''-. -,:: . ------. -==--.~ - ---- Hotice of Exemption • To: 0 o om •• olPlJo\run. an4 Rose=1l 1400 T_ 5 ..... Roo!o III ~1O.CA9sgt.l: C-UyCl..t Appendix I .. From: (PuM.~y) _________ _ """'"', ~~------------ P~~~.::------------------------------ ProjllC1 LocaIlOn·Spec'flC:: _________ -,-______________ _ F"'~ t..oc:aUon • City: Project Loea\lon • Coun!)r. ________ _ DescrlplJon of Project: __________________________ _ II-. of PubDc Agonc:y Aj>p!'OVlng ProJecI: _____________ . ______ _ II-. at Porscn or Agency Canytng OUt Projed: __________________ _ Ezompt -= «Iota_) 0-(See. ~I08O(bXI): 1'268): o D«Iare4 ~ (Sec. 21080(b)(3~ 13269('); o &>etJ:oq 'Project (Sec. 11080(bX4); ISl69(bXc»): o Coaepi<aI uomp<ion. s .... type and _ """,bet: DS"""""YExanpIion:. S=a>do: numbcr. ______________ _ Reasons wily project IS •• empt: ________________________ _ LudAgoncy ContactPerson: ________ _ A. ... Cod</Teleplou:lEx",rWon; ________ _ It m •• n, oppf_1: I. _ =aroed cIoalmem ~ ..... ptiao 1lndUIj. 2. Has. 00Iiee ot .......... boA filed by ohc pubfoc: '11<"'1 opprnvinllhe project? 0 Yes 0 No s; __ --,~ ________ _ 0...: ___ _ nile: _______ _ o s~ by Leod II .... , o Slpcd by Appr ..... •