Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0280.092- I""') , ~ stalfel3Ol1 I -----, JIJne 4, 1992 HQ"OR~BLE (111 COU~CiL Pa.10 Alta~ California APPEAL Of ARCHiTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DENIAL OF SIGN AT 3150 WEST SAYSHORE RO~Q ______ _ Members of the Council: REPORT IN BRIEF The project is dn appea1 by Mr. "'il1iam l. Mc.Clure, representing Datil.safe Corporation, of the Arcr.ltectuf'al Review Board denial of an illuminatf:!d wall sign for tne Data:;afe building located at 3150 West Bajshore Road. At the April 16, 1992 Architectural Review Board meeting, t~e Board voted 3-0, ",ith Soard Members. Wilsc-n and lyzwa absent, to approve-an al'lning and a monument sign for the DataS3ife t-lJi1dirl; at 3HiO west Ba)shore Road; but they voted 2-1 to deny a proposed illuminated wall sign for the building. the w~11 sign denied by the Board would be lS feet Tong, composed of 2S inch hlgh internally illuminated b10ck letters. and located at the tQ~ left corner of the front facade of the buiTding. Reasons given by Board members for def1y-;ng the proposed wal1 sign were that it is inappropriate to select the location of the sign strictly for its orjentation toward the hiohway rather than for architectural reasons, that the location of the sIgn at t~e top of the building is net consistent ~ith design standards the Board ap,D'~es t\l signs throughout town, that most signs along this street are Tocated Tower on the building and near the entry rather than at the top of the blJil.1ing. ana that the 51gn is too largz and should be more restra1ned and less intrusive_ Staff is recorIlllending the City Council uphold the MB decision and deny the proposed si9ns and the appeal. DATASAF[ SIGN PROPOSAL The proposed Sign, ~hich waS denied by the ARB and is the s~bject of th1S appeal, would be an illuminated wall sign, 2.1)( 15 feet, to b.e located on the CMR;280;92 L .j ! I I I , ! , \. - o top left corner of the frent of t~e building (i.e., the side facing Highway lCl). The sign "ould be composed of interr1ally i11'Jminated individual letters. The letters would be blod', style, 25 inches hIgh. The O,",TA portion of the sign would be black and w~dh striped, and the SAfE portion would be white. The letters lIIould be opaque and wot:ld be haTo 1ft frem behind, except the: wnite stripes in DATA which would trar.s.mit light. Tne Oatasafe sign applic.ation also lncl~ded a lTlonlJmC!l"'t sign anij an awning with the street number to be installed over the door. The monument sign and awni~g were approved by the ARB and are not part cf this appear. ARB ACTION The or!;inal Datasafe sign applic;.tiorl included two illuminated wall signs to be located at the top of the nortn and south end wal1s of the building, as well is the monument sign and awning. At the February 20, 1992 Architectural Review Board meeting, the Board continued the project. requesting the applicant to redesign the pro~osed wall signags so that it related more specifjcally to the architecture of the huilding, particularly the bu11ding entry, rather than being designed primarily for ~iewing from the freeway. At th~ April 16.1992 ARB meeting, the applicant presented a revised proposal. This included a monument sign, an awning and one wall sign to be located On the front of the building, rather than the two wall signs originally proposed {In tlie ends of the bui1ding, The AHB agreed to consider the wall sign separate from the monument sign and awning. The Board vcted 3-0, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Lyzwa absent, t~ approve the monument sign and awning. Howe ... er~ they denied the proposed wall sign~ 2·1, Ms. Maser opposed. While Ms. Maser did not support the ~1gn as proposed, ~h€ ~cted against the denial because she could not support the findings denying an exception to the sign ordinance f since she oid not interpret the sign ordinance to prohibit signs visib1e from the freeway. Subsequent to this ARB action, in consideration of the Sun Microsystems app~al at !to I San Antonio P,oad on May 18, 1992, the City Council, ~jth advice of t~e City Attorney. re~ersed the long standing ARB interpretation that Section 1£.20.100(f)(7) of the Sign Ordinance prohibits signs visiole from the free~ay. The reasons which the Board cited for denying the propcsed sign reli;te primarily to aesthetic considerati~ns of siz~ and Tocation of the sign, and only indirectly to the issue of freeway visibility {see verbatim minJtes of the April 16, 1992, ARB meeting, attached): Mr. Hise noted that the signs on other bui1dings along this street are smaller ~nd are iocated at the first level and usually near the e,1try. He painted out that signs located at the top of buildings are not accepted by the Board in any part of town, and that he could not accept this location for the sign even if it were not located next to the freeway. He recommended that the sign be located over the enti"Y where the temporarj sign is now located. CMR:Z80:92 6/11/92 p:l«nrlJIOO ..... ....., env Page 2 L r-I~. da. Rosa slated HOlt she couTd not support the sign ber,iu'S€ of its loc~tio ... , which appeared to ~al,le been selected only for highway orientation rathe-I'" tnan for architectural reasons, and th3t th'8re are other more appropriate locations for the sign on this building. Ms. Maser stated she believed the issue was not whether the sign cDuld be viewed from the ftee ... ay, but ~o"",· it is accomplished. She found the pr{lposed 5ig:1 to be too largE, an.d she thought the sign shou1d b~ more restl"'air.ed and less. intrusive, similar in character to the signs on the reSEarch and developmcr:t bu11dings along KighW'aji )01 in Menlo Parle:. RECENT SIGN APPRO~ALS ON ~EST 8~.YSHOR[ ROAD During the last three years, the Soard approved signs for four other buildlngs along ~~st Bayshore Road. These sign approvals illustrate the aesthetic standards which have been cDnsist~ntly applied by the Board. At three of the sites, signs are located at the first level of the building and are integrated into the building desigll in a way which calls attention to the bUilc!ing entry: 1. 3600 ",,'est Baysnore; appr.()ved May 4, 1989. Sigr.age consists of multiple te~ants listed on a monume~t sign at th~ driv~way ~ntrance and the street address in out-sized numerals on a pla~ter at the front entry. 2. 3460 W~st Saysnare; appro~~d March I, 1990. Name of the tenant. TFB/BBDO~ :n raised letters directly OVH the front entry. 3. 2850-2870 West Bayshore; apprcved October 3. )991. Three separate tenant spaces. Each tena~t's name in 1nd'vidual letters located on facia band over its entry door. At the fourth location, 3350 West 8ays~ore~ the Board apprDved, on O,tober 18, 1990, a wall sign for [mer) Wo~ldw~de located at the second level on the north end wa.ll of the building. The Board approved the sign in this location because it was the enly unobscured part of the bUilding, the rest ~f the b~ilding b~ing hidd~n behind a dense planting of redwood trees. Three Qther lDcations where signs ha .... e been approved high 01'1 the building tire Aion at 101 University Avenue, Pa~jfic Bell at 345 Hamilton A .... enue and, recently~ SUI') Microsystems at 9.01 San Antonio Road. In all three cases, th~ signs had a highly graphic quality. and the Board considered the Tocat;on of the signs to be the best design so1ution for a building ~ith unusua1 architectural characteristics. lANDSCAPING The app1icant has stated that if tnf prGposed wall sign is not located at the top of the building, it \11,11 be obs.cured by newly planted tr-ees and shrubs as they mature. However. 1t should be noted that there is a continuous row of st,.eet trees along West Baysnore Road, ""ith street trees in front of nearly CKR;28o;n 6/11/92 Page 3 .' , L o every site except the applical1t's site, wiler€' there ~r€ no street trE',es. There are street trees in frorlt of an three of the addres :>es cited above where low signs were recently appo .... ed, Within the past few months. eight mYGporum trees jn the frant setbJck at this site were removed and oth~r landscape changes were made without benefit of review. These landscape changes are in violation of a variance granted tv this site in i973 [73-V-24), which deferred le9 of the total 214 parking spa.::es required for the warehouse USE on the site. A condition of the variance requires that landscaping be installed c:nd maintained in i:lccordanc~ wit~ plans ap.proved by the ArchitecturOll ReO'ieJrl Beard. The parking requirement for the Datasafe warehouse use requires that the variance cor.tiniJe to be in effect. The applicant has stated that the landscape changes were made by the building o~ner. Th~ Jnsoectional Services Division has contacted the owner to info~ him of the variance conditiQn requiring ARB approval of la~dscape changes. Recently the appl icar.t 'informed staff that the owner has prov1ded him wi th plans for revised landscaping, showin9 the myoporum trees to be removed and new sycamore trees to be added across the front prop~rty line. Staff expects to re.ceiVe ttle new landscape plans, ",hich ·will be forwarded to the ARB for conSideration. When thes~ ne~ sycamor~ trees are installed. they will comp1ete tfte existing street tree planting along West Baysncre RO,jd. We would not expect them to be a factor in selecting a location f<lr sigr:s on the bdlding. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS PREPARED FOR COUNCIL ACTION At the time of He Architec.tural Rev;e...-Ooard decislon, Hie majorHy of the Board o.lieved that Section 16.10.100(f)(7) of the sign ordinance prohibited signs visible to the freeway. and so the findings were for a denial of an e~cept1on to that part of the sign ordinance. (Refer to ~erbatim minutes, April 10, 1992.) SubSEquently, in regard to the appeal of the ARB approval of wall si~ns for Sun Microsystcms at 90] San Antonio R~ad, t~e City Attorney clarified that the Sign Ordinance does not prohibit signs visible from the freeway provided, 1} that the sign is used exclus'vely to deSignate the name of the owner <lr occupant of the premises Qr identify the premises, and 2) that that the sign meets the ARB's deSign, location and dimensional requirements. (See City Attorney's report to Cay Council. May 18, 1992. attached to this reporL) ,6.5 indicated in the verbatim minutes of the April ]6, 1992 .'.RB meeting, ARB members did not support approyal of the proposed sign, primarily for design reasons, particularly t~~ size and location of the sign in relction to the architecture of the building, with freeway visibility only indirectly an issue. Staff has prep:tred additi:onal findings for denial. baSed or: the deSign related reasons AR8 m~mbers gave for not approving the propos~d sign, and standards for re~iew in the ARB ordina~ce. CMR:180:92 L 6/11/92 Page 4 - o RE C OI'I-IENDA T ION Staff recolT'.mends that the City Council support the Architectura1 Review Board d~cision and deny the pr~po5ed illuminated wall sign and d2ny the appeal with the fc~lowin9 finding~: fINDINGS 1. T,1e proposed sign is not compatible witt'l the immediate en'VirontTIent of the sHe in that wall signs on other similar buildings aiong West Bayshore Road are located lower on the buIlding and nearer to the building entry, not high on Hie but1ding, except in unusual circumstances whicn do not apply to this site. 2. The proposed sign is not compatible ~ith appro~ed improvements b~th on and off the site in that wall signs throughc~t the City are required to be integrated into the architecture of the building, which generally precludes signs being located at the top of tne bUilding. Signs on bUlldinys along Hignw~y 101 in Palo AltiJ and "'enlo Park which can be lliewea from the freeway are, by comparison, mere tasteful and restrained. 3. The proposed sign is net appropiate to the function of the project in that the SiZE, scale and location of the sign on the buildin9 is not appro~riate to the architectural composition of the building. the sign being too large and too intrusive. Respectfully submitted. ~ttd 'If -lkA I 1)' , 1~ VIR.IN~E!T SeniOJr Planner KENNUH R. SCHREIBER DirectJr of Planning 'lnd Comrnun i ty Em'i ronmen t ~I/, I .?\ r. 1>., i" j I \ V---..>'-"',"NV('" '-\ JUNE FLE!!iNG Assistant CHi Ma.naget· Attachments: CKR:lBO:92 :.··~L.····· . . -. Verbatim m'nutes of ARB me~tin9, April 16, 1992 letter of App€al from William l. McClure City Attorney's Report to City Council, May 18, 1992 Photos of s1te showing myoporUlT! trees Variance conditions, 73 V-24 Plans sho~ing proposed illuminated wall sign (Council Members only) 6/11/92 Page 5 _. >- ... '.- i I o cc: Architectural Re:vie'ltf" Beard Mr. William McClure, lIOO Alma Street, 5uit€ 210, Menlo Park, (A ~4025 Stephen G. Coultr.illrd, I\mcoe Sign Co., 960 San Antonio Road, Pal(l ,".lto, C.~ 94303 CHR:280:92 6/11/92 Page 6 ,", - --...... """ ... "'''-~-~ ..... ~-<--''''-, o P.rchitecturdl Review Board H€aring 3160 ~est Bayshcre Road Datasafe April 16, 1991 ARPliciiiit; 1 am Ste .... e Coulthard \\14th ~mcoe Sign Cor:lpany. After the last meeting, we went back t~ the drawing board. ~e deleted o~e of the signs at the top of the building and moved the other or.e to the front on the left hand corner. The cwner, Steve, still feels t~at it is 1mporta~t that th~ sign be up at the top of the building because of the la~ds(ap'ng and trees that he is going to ha .... e jn this a~ea. We still want to put the awning at th1:; 1ocatior.. We tooK your advice on the free~standlng mor.um~nt sign+ Instead of having it par~11el to the entrance road, we have made it perpendicular. Here is D little drawing of that. It would be in this area, perpendicular~ so that it ,..ill be se-en by the street traffic coming in here. In thls arEa, therE ~ill be iii halo-lit letter sa that at night time, there will be just a s~lhouelte of the letters at the top. It has the stripe effect on the data. T~is area ~ill be painted out, becaust! the color of the letters against the dark blue wO{J1d not show up · .. ery wel1. That is our purpose in ,-joing it this way. The on1,y thing on the aWfl;ng would be the address. lie thougllt the aWrli1"g w~uld Took good in this location. Ms.~: Did we re~iew the color of the awning? ~r_ C.oulthard: Yes, the last tim€'. These two items are at the regular 10catio~ and we ..... .:.i"lted to bring them over and put them here. So this is an ex'1st\ng sign. There;s sometr'ling in the staff report about this might bi! too high. ~s far as traffic safety is concerned, WE' can cut that down to make the height fit. ~aRosa: Any questions for the applicant? ~,s. Ha'Ser: I have one. This blue band tl,at is indicated here, are yOL! just stopping the paint color behind the sign? Mr. Coulthar.Q: We wa.nt to stop from the two col umns so it kind of has a purpose instead of just stopping wlth the sign. ~e ~'ll keep it in this lGca.tion here in the cream color of the buiTding below so that it blends in, If you feel you ~ant to bring it up t~ the lett€rs, we can do that. Ms. DaRosa: Is there anyone from the PIJb1 io: who Ifish-es to comment on this item? {None) Seeing no or.e~ J will return tnis item to the board. Mr. Hise: J thought the way the discu5sion went the last time we re~i~wed t~is sign proposal, we were encouraging the appllcant to put the Datasafe 519n o ..... er the entry doors · .... here it is temporarily located now. At least at the t~me, the reasoniTlg seemed to be that for traffic on the frontage road, there was nc need for the sign to be at the top of the buildlng. It seems to fall into H.at category of signage tnat is meant to be read from Highway 101. 50 I am not happy with the Datasafe sigr,age at the top of the building. I would like to see it over tne door or on H.e awning. From the drawing that I had in my packet, at lea~t, I thoug~t that thE: -1- - ::;) IOOnument sign that was bein':) proposed was flot we11 desigrled. rt looks il little bette'l'" here in color. and I can somewhat iil1agbe "it as beifl9 rart of the; ... logo and the way in which their 10go 15 inco!"porated or. this black part. I would lik.e to t,ear the cO:J1ll.ey',ts of others on this po:op{Jsal. ~Mas __ eJ:: We ha .... e been strugg1ing .ith t~es.e proposa1s t"ra .... il'1g to do \1fith signs facing on Baysnore in four or fl"'€! dlfferent projects, and each one seems to b(! a renewed struggle. I still ha\le a ~er.y difficult time denying ttl,:; application, based on the way the ordinanc-e is written, as I think it would be unfair, ever. though it has been int€'rpr1!ted historically by the ARB i~ a certain way. It is not ~ell written, a~d it is c1~arly allowed that they ide .. tify their nanle -on the front of the b'Ji"icing, if you read the ordin""nce, word by frlord. So I do not feel a sense of dis-comfort ~~th this. because the ordinance is fairly clear in allowing it. If som~body is 9~ing to raise a~ issue with it because of th! way it has b~en interpreted in the past, t~ey might just as well rai 5e an 'isSlJe Itith Ue way the ordinance 'is written. ] have a problem with this particular application because ! thjn~ the letters are ~ery larg~. My feeling on the whole issue is not the fact of whether it is done or not, but how it is don~. In Menlo Park where failure Analysis and rnf~rmix and Network General and some of those companies hive tn!ir signs ~n that arel, they seem to be done tastefu11y. The letters are quite small, compdred to these. 1 am not sure of the exact height. I w~s hoping Mlchael wo~ld be her~, because I am sure he would know now ta11 the Fai!u~e ~na'ysis lett~rs are. They leok to be dane with some rest~aint and are very ~lndsome. My feeling is that these are just too big. What I ~ould like to see happening, if we are going to a1low this it all, is to see the lettering kept smaller and more ~n keeping wittl what they have done in Menlo PU'K. They are perfectly readabl~ and very handsome and not as intrusive. ! thlnk the style of this s ignage a.nd the way it is done is handsome. have no prob1ern with tnat aspect of it. It is just too large. Ms. DaRosa: 1. too, have difficulty supporting this applic.ation because of thE locatic-n of the sign. Julie has indfcated questions abollt the ordinance, but the last tjme that ~e re~iew~d this, we discussed the ordinance and the history of the ARB fnterpretiiti011 of these ~rojects. and it was clarified tha":. it was inappropriate to have signage that was oriented strictly to Highway 101. That is really what that Data.safi sign dDeS~ located at the top of the bui1djng. If that ~ere the only place t~at a sign could be placed on this building due to tne architecture of the building, then r could support it. But there are other options for signage on this bUilding, so I wi11 not be able to support this appl icati on. I have no problem ~ith the logo of the building. It is an attractive, very straightforward logo, but the location makes me unhappy. 1 would move for continuance or d:,;-nial of th~ application. Ms. lytle: let me interrupt briefly. The first thing we need t~ decide is if you are going to be denying this becavse you think it ;s an exception to our sign ordinance. Therefore, the findings for denial, should the appTicant choose t~ have the project denied rither than continu~ng it, ne~d to be phrased in that manner. We may need to take a -2- , - -------~--------------------... -~ o break to allow the staff to help draft some of those, ar we can do it here on the spot. So the Number One decision is if this is an exception, would ~ou be denying it on exceptic~ findings? Our interpretation was that this was architecturally an uppropriate plate. !t was that if you ignored th€ freeway. this .",'as a suitable pla<::e to put a sigr.. But I hear the board members going in an oppnsite directio:1, so we may n'O!~d to write up some staff findings to support your dir~ct;Dn. The other thing I want to point out 'rIas tt)at the Tast time we struggled with this, we will continue to struggTe with that pa,ticular appl ication bec.au5e ft was appealed last week. Sun Mic.rosyste:ns 111111 be goin.g fol""wtard to the city council. Ms. Maser: That mar be appropriate for this Hem. Ms. Lytle: It may be i way to finally resolve this issue 7 once and for .11. ~DaRpsa: This particular .ppiication should not come as a surprise, as we disc~ssed it i few weeks ago. Mr. Hise: J droye by tl'1ere again this morning. In tnat .. hole section of Highway !01, most of the signs are smaller and at the midpoint of the bullding, somewhere O'\ler the entry. There was one tnat had it on the Side of the buiiding because there were so many trees across tne front. but it seemed to be er. bot~ sides of the highway, except for some very old signs t~at had been there for a long, 10ng time. lhe signs conform to the way we have been interpreting the ordinance. Maybe we should take Nan~y's lead and take a minute for them to draft a motion for us. Ms. DaRosa: ~hat does the applicant want to do? Did you understand whdt your options are? We can continue this item for further design. Or.e can deny this project as presented, and you can appeaT it. Mr. Coulthard: We prefer that you deny the project. ~s. DaRosa: That seems to be the direction in which llie are going. MOTION: Mr. H1se: I move that we deny tne propcs;J-1 as submitted, in that the 'IIIay we have been interpreting the sign ordinancp.. this would take an exception to the ordinance, and we cannot make a finding for an exception for the Datasafe sign age at tne top of the building. Ms. lytl~: You need to put the findings of YOI,r motion irlto the format of an exception. Ihere are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in that the property is similar to other properties, etc. You need to spell it out in those terms. If you lfrIish to wait, we will try and dr,:jft somE! wording for you. (A break is taken for this purpose) Bill McClure: I am an attorney for the applicant. We want to address some of the issues tnat were raised by you during your comments. One of the things I would like to present to you are some pnotographs. This shows the condition of the building before some of the landscaping w~s removed~ very Similar landscaping. Some trees have already been planted -3 -- ". '.'':'.:., " :::-:,:../<;. .. r-.<~,-. :'-;/i~~f;'-~ at the front of the prop~rty. As you can see, thE! landscdping there wou1d totel1)' ob:.ctlre the awning sign. If tt!E!' sign we.re r-equ1r-eod to be mlJl,led do~n to the awning or to a lowEr locatiDn on the building, ultimdtely it win be tllta.lly obscured by t~e la.ndscaping. It wili not be visible e;t~er from the frorrt3ge road or from t!'1e freeINay. So the the cancer" is that this is e5sentially a two·story bullding and that the ~ign really needs to be l:ocated at a hi'9hpr lellel So') that it win be .. risible. The second Hem I would PO)f1t out is in regard to the ordif1ance. unde-rstand your possib 1 e pre ... ious interpretdtian, boJt there is nothing in the ordinance that pronibits the II;sibility of the sign from identifY1ng the occ.upant of the b:.Jilding from the free\tj'ay. It is not an adllertising sign. It is only ad-.. ert1sing the name of the bl.lsiness. It is !'lot indiclting what s~rvices they provide or anything el~~. ~e belielle it is fully COf"\;;1stent -with th.e. pro"1siGr!s of the ordina.nce. The intent was to really modify the proposal. As you recall, pre ... iously there were two signs at the front and side of the building~ like the old P~relli sigrls, as well 35 the monum~nt sign on the front. The applicants have realTy done ellery thing they can to meet the concerns that lItere rai sed preOliously. The other; tem is that Steve indicated that the,,"" were irwoTvea in some of the other signs that were talked about and the size of the signs~ The Inform;,( 5i;II in Menlo Park. is the same sizi! as th~ proposed sign. Mr. C.oulthard: It is a thinner stroke letter j which makes a difference. This is a heavier stroke, and it 10aks bigger. Mr. Mc~: He said they have aiso done some of the ot~er signs i~ Henlo Park sud as tne Failure Ana1ysis sign. He does r1c.t know the e,xact size of that sign, but he belielles it is fairly comparable in sizE. It may just be the letterin9 type. We believ2 we have met all the requirements. We do not b~11eve you have a legal baSis fa;" denying ttds, based on your existing o~dinance. It is a problem 'IIIith the ord1n~fI(f) i'!1d nClt • ... ith th"\~ sign. The sign h fully c(lnsistent. If you don't want SigfiS oriented toward the freeway, you shou1<i' not be ippro~'jng S'9!'1S 1i.k.e the Emery Fre'ight sign which is II'isible from tne fr~eway, in that same 'ricinity. There haye been some ether signs approved in Palo Alto tflat are oriented toward the freeway that seem to be consistent with this sfgn. If you don't ~ant that to happen, you realTy ~ught to change the ordinance. If j'OU are going to deny tl1e 5i9~, we would request that you approve the awning, the numbering on the awntr;g and the monument sign at this time, so that we can proceed \rIIith those signs. Then we can have two separate actions and appeai the tssve of the bui1ding sig~. ~ll_ser~ I 'ffou'd be wining to do tha.t, to SP.-parate them into two separate items. t'ls. DaRosa: ln looking at this photograph 1 there is a lot of dense IIegetation sh.own in it, but when I go by that bunding Mr. McClure; It has been removed, but some ne~ trees have been planted, -4- o and additional tree:> "Will be p"~intc::d. Sa what is goi{Jg to happen is that you will have the same prob1.em wht:'n tho:! landsc.apir'l.g matures. it will obscure any sign put or the a~ning unless .'IOU dun't 'Want any lands.oping in the front of the building. and have a big, blank building. My und€rstand~n~ is that the-city prefers to nav.e maturE landscaping thiit lfIil1 soften the imoact of the b'Jilding along the location of th€ frontage road. Those t,*,c desi~'es are inconsistent. You need to have iii sign that is visible, once you have mature landscaping in, like th~ £mery Freig~t building. where they have a: sign U",t is \i'isib1e and they have the land'scapiflg. So even if you feel this ,"equ;res ar1 I?;(ceptton, we-feel this lTluts the requirements for the ~xception fer the landscaping. Mr.1U!;E": I would l:ic.e to get some con~ensus here. that Pie wO:Jld approve 'the monument sig:1 and awning? sign and de roy the building sisn? Are we in agY'eement Or just the monument Ms. Ma<:.er: let's make two motions. I am willing t<l break. it up. MOTION: MrL_Hise: My first 1flotion is that ~e separate tI'1is item ir.t(J two submittal's and approve the monument sign and the awning as one submittal, with the concitions that staff has recommended f<lr the monument sign, ~ich talks about the transportation divlsion reviz~ing it and approving the height. SECOND: ~_~. Masei": I second the mot ion. Ms. DaRosa: The applicant has alreadj' agreed to the staff conditions. There is a motion for approval of the m-on<Jment sign, the awning and the staff condit lcns. All in failor? Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Hise: 1 '",ant to sa)' Hat I would r.ot support this sign, eve!'! if Highway 101 were not there. rersClnally. I would be looking for this sign to be located somewhere else, if this were on any other secondary street in Pala ATto. If ~e loo~ at soma of the ether signs we have approved arour,d town, we would nGt even be cJr1sidering a sign that nigh on the building. In my mind, it really does go to the heart of \iII.hat the sign ordinance says aboi.lt signs that are oriented toward 101. Sign.s that can be seen from r01 are not really addressed. rt is signs that are oriented toward 101. I realTy fee1 strongly that this is oriented to~ard l01, so I cannot personalTy make a finding for an exception. 1 wouTd like to call upon Nancy Lytle to read into the record the three conditions that address. the code in terms of the findings for an exception. The applicant then can appeal thIs denial. fits. lytle: lhe firs.t finding is that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions; applicable to the property in~oliled that do not apply generally to prop~rt;es in the same area in that the property is similar to other properties ~1th frontages along West Bayshore Road and h~ile similar ilisibility and access. The second finding is that the granting of the app1 ication ; s not necessary f(}r the preservation and e-r:joyment of the sl.Jbstantia.l property rlgnt of the applicant and does nQt cau)e unreasonabl€ property loss or unnecessary hardship in that it is not nec~ssa~y to locate the signage at -5- - the top of the buil-ding. that the building has ether options for signage, such as over the door, and that land~caping can be maintained 50 is ~ot to obscure 'iiSibilitj of these opt.ions. Tnese options~ whtle they wculd be i~cidentaily ~isib~e from the freeway, WJuld not be directed €~clusively t~ the free~ay and would b~ more approprlat~ for the archttecture of the building. The third fi:"lding is that the grantil"lg of the application "ill be detrimental and injurious to property improvements in the vicinity and will be detrim€ntal to the public health, saf~ty and general we1fare and convenience in that the 5ignage is high up ~n the building, direct~d at freeway users, and therefore serves more as advertiSing than b\Jildjr~g idenUfication. MOTION: Mr. Hise: So r reove for denial. based on th,se three reasons. Ms. Maser: I am not going to vote i~ favor of the motior.. r would like to reiterate my point. I find the findings to be really inconsistent with recent actions by the board and inconsistent with my interpretation of the ordinance. ] am glad; in a way, that this is happening, because I thirlK it will force the issue. I persona~ly cannot go along with the findings, so ] will vote against the mDtion. Ms. OaRosa: There is a motion for denial. JI.re thel'e any other cOll111ents'? All those in favor? That motion c.arrias t .... o to one. , :. r'~ ;;~ CiF::.P4lr-O "LTO ~f"~ 2 '1 1992 I 'affi;:;-a~O·r':'hitjtY'C!erk _ APPEAL fROM THE DECISiON OF D!RECTOR OF PLANNING " ,,; 'ANt> C0"1MUNrTY ENt-"C!"iME~;(~~§ZCTURAL REV,EW APPLICATIONS) : '; : I ',I r :", ~ '.; "-. -:....:.J c;r, _ To be fiied in duplicate qZ-A.R&~'~---c'",:"_"_';;..' .;.;.":..:;I.:.;'C",~ ___________ _ - Application No __ ~9 .'.-.A.R.B.-.'_ ?eceitJ1 No ___________ _ NameofAppellanr\;iUiare L,. _!".!£_~lure. fo'(" Datasaie Cerp. PiloneL~ __ ~ __ ~ ;''2~--'~nQD __ _ Address J 1M Alcoa Street. ~":.ti.te 21D Street LOCATION OF pROPERTY: AssessOf's Parcel No. Xo?I'1_10 Par!':_i City Zor.e-Djstr~c: Street Address ---1l..6.Q ____ Lm.Basshore 3d_ ---,_._--- Name of Prope=-ty O .... r,ei (if othfoi thai. appe:lam} AlmD~::' __ ~~~X' __ ~ rt i € S Property Owner's Address _J._~ __ ~O Little On:ha:cl St. San .~ o~,~' .~. __ ~' ~C2A __ --,9",511 (1 Stmet City ll~ The decisiol'" of tl'1e Director oi Prann1ng and Communrty Environment date-j April 21, 19 en 'Wheteby tl'1e app!lcation of 5 t ephen C9u 1 tha rdJ Ar!'.~T'l C~)_, ___ .. _ (orjgirlal appriC<3nll fer architectu:al review .... 'as c!enied !flo CITY COUNCIL DECjSION: Date ________ ~ __________ _ Approved ____ Oen[ed Remarks ar.d!or CO!1ditions SUBMlnAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED 1. PJans By ___ 2, labels By: ___ 3. ,A,ppeal Applicat,on F orm5 ----SiC _ " Letter -,--By: _ 5, Fee By: ---, 12/89 - ,,.. o ,Jo~at;"!Sr01if. COSc;.f:l.Ovt, SIEGEL. McC,I.-:Uf!:£ £,. 'FL..f.:GE.L.. ,t,;'i"rQ FIN [Y-S .r L. .... -'0 ...... 0 -,C''''01: ... 50''' .. 0 ........ cosa"'O'/i!: .. "'''''t'. S. SI[O[~ """~:"''' L. "'~::-u,"'f ..;0 ... "" L.... "'CCCOZ:_ L"'''''''!:!: "n .. o"o;; CiTY Cl~"" ~ (Irl IC£ April 27, 1992 , . , City of Palo Alto Offj ce of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 -i " Re: Appeal from decision of Director of Planning and community Environment (Architectu~al Revicv Application) 91-ARB-8 3160 w~ Baysh;::>re Rd. DataSafe Corporation Dear City clerlt: This letter ~il1 serve to accomp~r.y the Appeal Appl ication Form which ...... e are submitting on behalf of DataSafe corporation, appeal ing the decision of the Director of Planning and Community environment (Arcl:iitectural Re ..... iew­ Application) denying DataSa!e's application for a •• :all sign on the building located at 3160 W. Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA~ We are n£t appealing th~ decision of the Director of P~anning and community Environment for the aw-ning appea~ing above the entrance of the building or the freestanding monument sign located near the front of the building~ 'I'he reasons for the appeal are as follows: 1. We agree ~ith the staff's recommencation sign is consis-t-ent with the city's sign ordinance. and exclusive purpose of the sign is to identify Corporation, the occupant, of the building advertising purposes. that the The sole DataSafe not for 2. The City's sign ordinance is ambiguous in that the restrictions on signs visible from landscaped freeways are located within a subsection d~aling with signs within residential districts~ This property is not located within a residentia1 district. 3. DataSafe is open 24 hours per day in order that its clients can have access to vital records stored at DataSafe. Since most cf their customers travel to the facility ft"om outside of Palo Alto, it is important that they have as much visiDility as possible. t!" ,C:G·<'I.Fl ''''~: _,~ .. con? .' ; - o city of palo Alto Office of tne City April 27, 1992 Page 2. Clerk 4~ !f DataSafe is limited to locating a SigD on the ~wning above the entrance to the building, once the landscaping matures, the sign will not be visihle~ 5. This sign is si!O.ilar to signs vi~.ible frota the freeway for Palo Alto Joets and Emery Worldwide. 6~ The sign will not be detrimental to other properties vithin the vicinity of DataSafe and will not 09 detri~ental to the City of Palo ~lto. Enclased ~ith this letter are the following: a. Appeal Application Form sub~itted in duplicate. b. A duplicate copy of this letter. c. 15 sets of plans. d. A filing fee in the amount of $100.00. We would request that th~ hearing before the City Council on this appeal be scheduled either for May 11 or ;,Tune 8th as I 'Will be. una'/ailable on May 18 and June ~st and Hay 25th is a h~liday. If there is any problem in $cheduling the hearing date, please let me. know at your earliest possible conveni~nce.. cc: DataSafe corporation AlIlcoe 5 iqn Co. w:ut:xj Si~.,6er"elY. // A!ll c11/fL ____ William L. McClure -.-----~CL--.---------- r I I ll~- l : - 'l'HE HONOP,""~BLE CI'r'{ CClJ}lCIL Palo .Alto, CA May 18. 1992 RE: 901 San Antonio Road--;"ppe.al of .Architectural Revi!? .... Boa:r.¢LDecision _______ _ Dear Memb~rs of the Council: 8 In revi€:1,o{ing the staff report acco'l:1par'-Jrin9 this item (CMR:262:92), I noticed two matters di~cussed by th@ Architectural Review "Board {"A.'P.Blt} w"hich raise legal issues: The J..RB's interpretations of Palo 1>,.\to M'J.nicipa,l code: section 16.20.090 (o} and section 16.20.~OQ (f) (7). 'I'he A...'tU3 appears to have concern that. section 16.'20. [190 (bJ compels an inquiry into ~hether a business sign is, in fact, being ~u.5ed for advertising purposes of any kind" irLallm .. £j:ses. ';:0 the. contrary, the ve.ry n€.Y..t phrase of t.he. cc'linance provides ar-, exceptior:; for: lJ such signs as place of business na'ming, designating business, •... ft shall be located on a and used solely for or ident.ifying said Hence, • ... hether there exists any intent to C!dyerti5e~ or advertising value in a sign, is irrelevant under the PAMe, provided the sig~ copy is limited to the business name. The A....~B's second concern r-elates to the free ..... ay corridor sign restrictions set for-th in section l6.20.1GO (t) (7). Accord­ ing to the ordinance, the freeway corridor restrictions go r,ot .ru;m)...Y when a sign is used exclusively to designate the name of the c~ner or occupant of the premises upon ~hich the sign is situated, or to identify such premises. Accordingly, in such circumsta~ces, a free .... ay oriented sign is p@rmitted, subject, of course, to meeting th'2 AP.S·s design, location and dimensional requirements. :·'.·L.-. . • ~l J , - THE HONORAP·LE CITY COUNCIL May 18, 1992 Page :2 RE: 901 San ~.tonio ~odd--Appeal of Architectural B..~j.e'W Board Decisi.9Jl .... ____ " ____ _ In SUDl~ ,"'hite I appreciate th.e AP.B and staff"s sensitivity to previous interpretations of our sign ordinance, t~e Council should be a· .. ·are that~ in my opinion, it need not apply th~ Exception findings set .forth in the staff report in order to approve the SUbject signs. It the Council chooses to approve the exception process, in ~ffect rati!yirg the ARB's interpcetation of the ol:dinance, I .... ould strongly recommend. di recting cr-dir.ance amendments to clarify these impo:rtant issues involving constitutionally protected rights to conmercial speech. APC:bdc CC: A.rchitectural Review-Board Bob MOss, Appellant Respectfull v sl.lbmi tted, ~6,f!~- Citr Attorney Scott Ec;rn.an, Sun Microsystems, Applicant William Zaner, City Manager June Fleming, Assistant City Manager Ken."'leth schreiber, Director of Planning and CCmI:lunity Environ",c:-.t lJancy Lytle, zoning Administrator Virginia Warheit{ senior Planner , . I I r------ I _J - Variance 73-7-24 3160 ~~5t Bay&h~re Rd. V.u:ance Permit 73-V-24 ;'5 b~reby issued t" toe Bay Area Industrial C:~r-p. tc permit deferrlng the prcovision of 189 of the to!:al of 214 eft-street parking &p3CeS requi~ej for tbe location And COQst~~ction of ~n industrial b\.:iildiD@: at 3UG West Baysho'te Road .'Iubje.;;.t to the following ccoditicns: 1. l'bh: variance is granted upon t::he representation of the applicant chat the Dumber of off-street pa~king bpaces proposed ~~ll b~ adeq~te to serv~ tbe entire employee. custolller and visitor park­ ing deland and. that providing the e.xtra spaces ..... c,.lld unnecessarily require pavi~ areas proposed for landscaping. 2. ~nd5capiDg and fencing shall be installed in accordance vitb plans approved by the Palo Alte Arc'bitectu-raI Re\:iew .&card and sball be replaced, repaired, and maintained as necessary. 3. If at any t~e it appear~ to che Chief B~ilding Official of the City of Falo Alto that tbe deferred parking spaces, or arty part t!:Jereof. are required for the p:..lrpOSE'S of c.s!:'s made of the build­ ings and/or to prevent park1r.g or traffic congE'.stiDo on adjoini:Jg streets J the applicant. tbe:ir successors or a.ssigus sball provide Dff-street p.n'!dng spaces as recp .. .lit"ed by the Palo Alt<:l Zoning Ord­ inlll"..ce .... ichin ninety (90) C1!.ys pf cctificatioc. te· pro·.'i.ce addit.iDnal parking spaces by tbe Chief BUilding Official of the City of PaID Alto. The decision of the Chi2f BuildiIOg Official as to the need for additional parking shall be final. 4. Pl~ns for additional off-street parking stalls •. if aDd _n~n re~uired shall be revie~d by the PaLo Alto Architect~al Revie~ B0~rd cr successor autbor~ty and shall be cotl~tru~~ed as app~ovec.