The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0298.093- May 13, 1993 ~RABlf CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Appeal ~f a Conditior. of Architectural Revi~w Approval for lnstallatlon of One New Wall Sign for (itibank it ZSQ University Avenue Meltlbers :If the COUI'lC;': Report jn Brief 9 This report forwards to Council an app~al by David Von Kanern, representing CH?bankl of a condition of a~pro· .. al for instal1ation of one new wall sign for Citibank at 250 University A~enue. The sign approval grantee by the Director of Plan~ing and COll'lTlunity Environment. based on the recorrmendatiol1 of the Architectural Revie'. Soard (AR8). includes a condition that the appliccmt remove an existing s;g~ over Rodser's cafe in ~rder tc install the new proposed sign. Backarqynd On March 5, 1993, the appellant, \Ion Kohorn & Kitzmiller, submitted an applicatiDn for a ~1nor ARB approval to install one new ~al1 sign for Citibank located in Ramo:\a Plaza at zst) Llniversit.i Av~nue. Fl\1e letters were received from adjacent tenants supporting the proposal for an additional sign. The ippl~cation was subsequently recorm;ended for approval with conditlor'1s by t.ne ARB on April I, 1993. The appellant filed an appeal on April 11, 1993, objecting to the condition that they remove an existing sign in ~rder to install the newly proposed one. Slgn Propgsal The proposed new sign ~ould be locatea above the adjacent tenant's (G. lI:aney'$} storefront. The sign would be a wall si9n, 8.5 feet 'tIide, with 14-inch-high '~tters and iii IS.S-incn-high logo, and match the existing Citibank signs. The letters are indi¥1dually illuminated (halo 1 it) and have solid bronze face~ and satin bronze edges. The sign could not be placed on the wall that Citibank occupies, as there is too much architectural detail i.nediately over the banK to place it right on the bank's facade; and the CMR;298:93 L ';~~t~l· .. -".~,~. -.-".~-~~""""".,'--.. --. - placement of the sign over the adjace~t storefront is considered not :0 be misleading or conf~sing~ as the Citibank space lS right next door to G. Raney's space, which would be ~~ident to the c~stO~2r, All other e~'stir.g Citibank s19n~ are proposed to r~main. by the appellant. Anal ysis The appellant has based the appeal In t~o issues. One issue is the need additional signa9E is CTtibank has received clJstomer cC,'i1plai~ts that the hcqit~ is difficult to find and the eX'isting s1gnage is minima1 and inadequate to serve their needs. Citibank desires the ret~ntlcn of the ex~sting wall sign 1~cated above Rodger's as well as insta11ation of an additionil si9n~ the proposed Sign, to provide sufficient visibility. for CHibank fs located in the ari!o1 of Plaza Ra.mof1a, 'W!1ich is set back from Rarr.cma Street and differs from some of the other tenants by not having street frontage. The bank~ howe\ler, already ,",a,s fcur signs, tnree lIIall sig~s and a projecting sign. The existing wall signs inc1ude: 1) a sign above tne rEtail tenants, Rodger's and Sensnu, along Ramona AvenJe; 2) a sign aboye the rear entry of thE bank by Shearer PlaIa; ,uld 3) a sign above the Ramona Avenue double d~or entrance of the bank. The ARB was concerned that by adding on~ more sign, it win clutter and detrac.t from the Ramor,a Plaza enllironment. The sign plated abDV~ Rodger's tends to be mis1eading and confusing, as customers expect Citibank to be located in the same building is Rodger's, though it is actua.lly 1ccated ie' th.e (l.ext bui,ldir'lg, No other tenants in th~ bJ,JllcUng have as many signs as the Citibank tenant, which has four existing sign~, ar.d is proposing a fifth sign, a wa11 sig~. Tne second iss~e riised by t"e appeil~nt is that the number of s~9ns proposed on the buiiding at 250 University Avenue is not e~cessive ~hen compared to Fidelity Invest~~nts at 251 University Avenue, on the corner of UniverEity Avenue and Ramona Street, fidel:ty Investments has three large wall SigfiS, two brass entrince plaques. one door sign and eight window signs. The AR3 approved the Fide1ity sigr.age ?ropos~l b~cau~e several of the signs are conSidered graphic or ornamental d~tail on the building. This building also has d.ifferent characte.'!"'!stlcs than, the Citibar.l( 5pa~e. The 25.1 IJn'v~n~t)' Avenue is Situated on a corner lot and fronts both Uni~ersity A~enue and Ramona Street, There is one wa1l sign on eacn of the bwi1dillg e1E:llat;ons: o~e sign facing University Avenue, one sign facing Ramona Street, and one sign OJl the rear bUildfng wall. Th~ rema!nder of the 9rdphic detail and plaques, which the appellant refers t~ as ~ignagel appear either on windows which are well above eye level or at the bllnding entrance at University Avenue which are not legible wher. driving in a car or by the pedes.trian across the street 011 Ramona Street or Unh'ersity A .... enue. The ARB has required that the sign abo\le Rodger's be removed. By substituting the-cor,fu5ing sign near Rodger's for the new sign near G, Raney, the int€:l"nal" sense of order for occupants and visitors is improved, consistent ~;th Section 15.4B.120 (.)(3 and 7). Additionally. the amount of signag. remain, uncluttered on this veri elegant buildir.g. CMR:29B: 93 5/13/93 Page 2 j' - fjndinys and Conditions At its meeting of April l~ 1993, the ARB approved the fo1Tow',ng finding and condition. 1. Condition 1 is needed to meet the standards for reviel<r in Sectiorl 16.48.120 (I) 2, 3 and 7, in tniit the signage on the sil€ would only be compitib1e with tne elegant environment of Plaz.a Ramona if it remains understated ~nd is not exc€ssive. The signage design can be made more approprf~te t~ the function of th~ project if the proposed sign for Cit1bank is installed and the existing confusin9 sign near Rodger's is removed. By 'keeping the signa~e from becoming excess;',!!! for any single tenant in the p'jaza Ramona and by placing signag! where it better directs patrons to the ban~, the proposal .il1 create an internal sense of order arid provide iii!: desirilble environment for occiJ~ants, visHors ar,(j the general (ommunity. Condition: 1. The sign proposed over G. Raney's stere sha"11 be cer-tered oyer the door. and tMe sign over ~Rodger5~ shall be removed and the wall repaired. Recomendatjpu Staff recommends tn~t the City Council deny the appeal. and uphold the Oirector of Planning and Community Environment and ARB decision to approve t~e installation of the proposed wall sign subject to finding and the condition listed above. Respettfully submitted, if,/l L<At-e tCU.A'~ LORRAINE WEISS P1 annel'" J~G~ City Manager AttachllU!nts: Location map f:{,Nd £--<ldt, "k5 KENNETH R. SCHREIBEP. Director of Planning and Corrmunity Envi rOf1m€nt Excerpt verbatlm minutes of ARB meeting •. ~pr;l I. 1993 Appeal Appl ication and lett.· dateo 4/l2/93 Public CorrEspondence Project Plans (City Council ."'embers only) c:c: Appellant and Applicant CMR;298;93 5/l3/93 Page 3 ~ .. -'-~-,.---,~.-.--. ~., •. , , I I II .', r ,~,,~ J.f""""'·"-·· , .. (I)' "'. . , . . ""..", , ... - GP.~.pclC ~nAC,:f~ENT • c.;" 5llliS) 10 51AFF REPORT !FHo r,c' 93~I'RE~'4' PROJ~CT: 250 University A~en~e Wall Sign for Citiban~ L -"1' , i . .-1 . - o ARCHlrECTUR~l REW!f~ BOPRJ HEAR INC ~,pr"il 1> 1 ~93 250 University AvenuE Citibank I~stal1 ona new wall sign far Citibank butlQjng. ~Mase/"': .o.re thel's any staff c.omment:.? (NC1r1e) .A.rry board questi{l'1s for staff? (None) Then I would lj~e to have the applicant make a presentation. [Jalo'id Von Koho~n: I 3:n the c!esigner/fabriot.cr of this sigrage for Citibank. --fhTii--is Betsy Be':hte1 who is the mlnager of Citibank in Palo Alto. I am not going to talk too much about the materials, be(a~se it is the same sign as the EAisting one facing Ramona Street, bronze with halo lighting, and the S2~e size. The size, 1ncidenta'ly, is half of the allowed size, eleven square feet ~~ereas the allowed size for Vlat p1 ace 1s 2C square feet. I have SOlne photographs Uat I tooi< at the intersection of Uni~ersity Avenue and Ramona Street. They are basically from the four corners there, show;~g the entrance to Citlbank. The main issue is th~t the Custome~s of Citlb~~k apparentTy come in tM~re on a daily b3Sis and say, "You guys are hard to find. You need signs.~ The other te~ants in the building have experienced this, as )lie':. They all J.lfote le!.ters 1T1 support, becai.Jse pecp1e are coming in saying, "wher'::! is Citibank?" The prob1{!ffi, as you knew? is that it is in this little nook, set bad far from University A~·eni..!e and in from Ramona Street. !t is just a hard building to s19n properly. In their report, one of the tn;i1'~s staff cow.ented orl ',.;as that there are four signs now, and they think that is ampTe. J would agree. under normal cjrcu~stances, that four signs should be enough, although I counted the signs O~ Fidelity Investments right across the street on Universtt,y Avenue. There ~re twelve si:;;ns tt.ere. Six of th-em, granted, are window signs and are 5mall, but there are twelve signs altogether, and that is obvicus1y a m~ch easier building to locate. The thing with this is that even though there are four signs, the one at the back on Shearer Plaza, unless you are coming in thro:Jgn that little alleyway or you happen to look down as you walk by, you are not going to see it. The other ho signs (you can se~ ar,e of them jL;.st barel), in t~e photo) you just don't see it until you are up to the entrance, until )'OU already know wher~ you are going. Then you see the one on the g1ass. ~~M_,Her: Do you r.lean t~e one right under the door? Mr. Von '::oilQ.cn: Yes., the OrlE-that says 24-hour banking. \rle materials are subtle. The size is understated, and that was done to keep within the architecture of the building. WE wal~ed ar~und and around and looked at a lot of different places, a~d I think that thi~ one, from those vantage points at that intersection, if you look down there, you will see that sign. It is th~n perpendic~lar to you instead of parallel. I think it would bji~g people down ~amona Street, and at that pOint. they would see the entrance. rt is tricky. This is my best ~hot • " , -',. ----_ ...... --...-- at it. I thir,k it is a gnoJ scluti0n, a~d I know it is one e~tr~ sign, but they reallj do ~eed to ha~~ th~jr custo~er5 find them. So we h0pe that the board will make findings far a~ exception . Ms. Maser: Wa will new ~o~e D~ to thp public hearing. Betsy Bechtel: I am the branch -arager of [itiban~. ~s you kn0~, I came-before you about t~Q yean. ago I'.'h,,'n we-f~ rst appl i ed _ Dur e)o~perts at C~t1bank know where to put a bu11ding th3t attracts people. w~ h~ve 120 branches UlrougnolJt Northern. Cal if::rj1ia. WllE<t YOLL war'lt is a promi'1e~t, \Jery v'isibll:-10ca:10n. Io.'e arl~'c:ed H,at this locatiD:1 at Plaza R~mona '5 Su(h an attractive building and the whole alley and pedestrian access is very important, a~d that it was a really good place. We feel it is important to b-e in that bl.!ilC!-ing, blJt w-e g::!ve up 50:~e things by being in tn3t building, As you know, ... hen we originally came before yOl), r beTieve we applie.j for Se\ie:l .si'~ns. H:e cO;T<!Jro'T1iSe '¥I'as Uat there were two wall sig~s. I t~ink t~e staff report says three. There are two halo·lit signs, one ver'j S:'.ila11 O!ttr::;,cti'~'.e si,gn o~~r the door, a:ld the third one \~hfch tr:·~ staff calls a 'l\'a11 sign which is realTy above Ol)r be~t location in the door. It is: an 2tch~d glass sign. not visible at all. You have to .stand opPosjte it about six feet away to see it. That is why ~e respectfully ask for an addition. We tried [0 figure Qut ~ow to p~t it on our building, The only way we could do it is to make it a vertical sign instedd of a hcrlzontal sign. That does not work with our 'ogo. Y'Qu know that two of tr.e letters are nooke-d together. the N and the K, so if you put it wertjc~lly, it doesn't work. We m.et "HIl G, Rarrey. Ot..:r bullding goes around here and is just opposIte her. She has 3bsolutely no problEm ~ith it. In fact, we have been talking ~ith her for the past year about it, and she keeps coming to me alld saying, "\,.Ih.err are you pLitt",ng the s19:-; up?" ! say that I do have to get permission from the city. That doesn't affect her at all. You might ask, why do we have a s'gri ever Rogers? As you know, that was a compromise, It is needEd for at least gettlng peapl~ to coms to Ramona Street. Let me tell iC~ that I was talking to a woman on her car phone. I told her exactly where to co~e. S~e found RamGna Street, and said she was now on Ram~~a Street, a~d she said, ~l cannot fj~d you.~ She was literallj stopped in front of t~e building, and co~ld n3t find us. I \\Iill be glad to anS\I.'er questions. ~~_,ser; Is anyone present from the p'Jblic to addr~ss this item? (Nor-e) Then I .. 111 return ttli s to t.he board for co;r"~ents. Any board questions for the applicant? ~s. Wilson: ~es, Are there any of jo~r $i9n5 that you would be ~illing to relinquish? Ms. Bechtel: You and I spoke about that last summer. 1 have thought about that very hard. (rn.audible remer-h) I ha.ve thought about whether ~e could 9i~e up the one at the b~ck in that tnner plaza, I don't think so, ti$. \Ililsor,: What about t.he one ov~r Rogers? 4/0]/93 ,2, , ':':'. 1~~~L.'m.' ",_~~ .. ,~_ -" Ms. Mase~; We will ret~r~ this itE~ to the bo~r~. ~ho would like to st~rt? ttt:. __ lY.z.:a: 1 ha..,;oo gi!JE!'1 this sigr1 a lot of tho'Jght. AT though I symp"thizE a great dea~ with the applicant fer DllSirj'2ss reasons and otherwisE, 1 remember ',€I), distinctly two years i3guo wDat we \oIent through, and the presentation of t~€ maste~ signage on the building. remember haw important it was for this applicant to have the signage needed to the stn,et _ as we i 1 as tc! tl;e ped.e-stri an aeee;s. We always ta1k€'d t .... o years a'~o about the djff~culty of s2e'ng the !>igrs as you drive by_ We all kno~ that as ycu sit in a car and your al191e is approximately 40 to 60 degrees, the sigrs t~at are ~laced at the upper levels are go1ng to provjde a d'fflculty for you as far a~ sign~ge is concerned. On the ot;,er hand, fowr signs .... ere something tr.at the beard reluct~nt'y agreed to. This was not sQ~ething ~e were enthusiastically in support of. 1 feel 'w'ery urlcomfartable with being able to consider another sign at this prese~t location. I feel that four signs are plenty for a sing~~ tenant cf a bUilding. r was goIng to ask the same question that Shirley did. Which o~e of yo~r sig~s. if at all possible, co~ld be i tradeoff? I also remember ~ery di~tinctly five jea~s ago when I ca~2 before the board wit~ the Chase Manhattan buildlng at 200 Page Mlll Ro~d. They h~d the same problems you had, and we had to come back three times for two signs. Til/o signs were th€ absolute maxi7:WTI that this board ·".ouid allow fOl" !"e City of Palo .o,lto. 1hat '",as a'iso a b'I~::'5ing. They told us, "This is it.h $0 ~ith t~at pre~edent 1" mind, I feel that you had twice as much as Chase Manhattan. Therefore,! could not support another slgn at this 'ocat~on unless it is in co~~ideration of taking one of the existj~g si9~~ and tr~dj~g it off for possibly that location. I do feel uncomfortabl! ~ith placing a sign above same other tenant that is not directTy the bank's. I do renember ~€ry c1early our master plan presentation, ar,d again, r felt that the board agreed to four stgns as the absolute maximum allowed in this locatIon. Ms. ~nSO:"1: agree with Mlc;'e;el. Ms. DaRosa: ! was in the minority the last ti~c. 1 voted against tha sign. Ms. ~asel"; WOuld you clarify thdt? You vuted against the sign? Ms. DaRosa: Allowing the exception for the sig~ o~er Rogers. think that may be part of your problem. If you are dri~ing along Ramona and you are looking for CiUbal"lk, you :;ee the sign for Citi.bank, but it is not related to Citibank because it is so far from your bank. As you drive by? you are looking to see which one of tho~e slots ;s Cit,bank. So I would support the s1gn that is proposed, with the deletion of the sign over Rogers. But I think that the sign that is being proposed is one that is m~ch closer to the bank. When you see the sign there, whic~ you can see from the street, and you look around, C1tibank is right '/0]/93 ~:: . 1 " "~ i t 4 I there. I am ~~t thrilled to ha~~ a ~isn that 5 nat related to t~e project, but tl1is is pretty dose to the ;H'oje L ~t l~ast, it is rot going to be as misleading at the o~her sfgn. he other sign makes it lOOk llk~ that wtlole Nlilding 13 Citibank, a:id t~er1 you wonder.,. ".,here is the bank? From these ,~~tog~aphs, yau can see that you would even have better ~isibjl fty of the ba~k from University Avenue with the (itibank slgn there. There is too m~ch arch~tectural detail imm~diately o~er the ban~ to put it right on the bank's fa~dde. So 1 think that is a good comp~omj5e, a~d I wculd support t~at si9n, with t~e d~letion of the one over Rogers. ~1-. ,",,,ser: I have came to e)(actly the :.a~'2 c:o:lcluslon, I tiave a couple of photographs hera. ~s I revisited th~ build'ng this last time, I walked west down University Avenue and then turn~d to go down Ramona. That ;s this vie ... , Oind you see n~thing. You do not see the sign over Rogers; you don't see the sign where you want to put it. You have ~iO idea where Citibank is when you are coming from that direction. As you are driving in the ot~er direction, ~hat you 5~e is the sign o~er Rogers. But if you tock the sign over Rogers a~d put it in the location you are suggesting, you would see that sign in both of these views. So, really you would be killing two birds with one stone. You wouldn't have the conclusion, as we have all painted out, of having t~is sign over a space that is not occupied ty the concern. So I f~lly agree with ,,'ou. I think that if you decide to do that, I would further suggest that you take a look at the placement of that sign. l~ the drawings, it s~ems to me that you are slightly off center with the ca5S of the sign. You are off canter from the windows above and the awning bel 01-.'. :)0 I would suggest that if fOU decide to dD that. that you move the sign so that it is centered over the awning and under the w1rldows. It ~auld loo~ a lot fYrore cOrilfortable, arc.nitecturally, 1n that location. Ms. Wilson: 1 think that you can te11 from both ~Iidldel's and my coments that I would support that also. That is more c·r less what was getting at. r do thj~k the sign aVRr Raney's would serve you better than tne one over Rogers. if it h'ere my cusiness and I was givil1g up, I would gi ve up the Or1e over Rogers right a ... ·a.y. MOTIGN: ~s. DaRasa: I move ap~ro\,'al of th~ proposed with the conditions that the sign be centered on the awning below and windows above, and that t~e sig~ over Rogers be deleted; also that the wall be repaired. g(QtlQ: By Ms. Maser. Ani discuss;,,"? ~:Z:_\.\I_,;: Perhaps we could ask the appl io::ant how they feel ab'Jut that. Ms. Becnte-l: I think what I would 1ike to GJ is COilSUlt witr~ my 5uperiors. I think it would be ac~e~~able for j2U to ~ake such 2 motion. It would be up to us to accept it or not. Ms. Maser: You have the right to appeal. Mr. Gilliland: Wh~~ I would suggest is that you go ahead and move approval. If they need to come back with an alternate proposal, we would let tnem do that without a fee. 4/0 1./93 ·4- ·;r"l~:L ;'i~" 'I~ - '1 I Ms. !'ta_~_~J:: [hat is \'E'ry generous of )'I).J. Is that an April Fco1's thing? !1r. GUlili.EQ: No, it is root. In th"iS ca.:.€' , she cbvio l.Jsly has some corporate people to ChECk with, so we CQuld do that and ~ove the process a 1 ong, 4/01/93 -5- , i eln OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE OECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNtNG~F?-, 2 AND COMMUNITY ENVlRDi>lMENT (AACH~TECTURAl REVIEW APPUCATlONS) To be filed in dupncale Receipt No :'1 ," "'? f ~ Phol1eL ') 1 ~C(...! qL{?£I i ZlP The d2!cision of the Diractor of Planning ar.d crmmunity Enviror:me!ft dated ~:_-.::&~. _____ _ 13 q?:;J whereby the app;lcation of ___ lrci"';; G .. t ~ClN ~ Lt i7.fQ Il.L'c.=b~'7'c-",~ ___ _ .. (origi~1 apprrcam) i-tl -' fr -~( for archltech.Jro.i review was ~,;'1...1 ~l/'\UI !.. is "hereby appealed}or Ifle reasons stated ~Jdeniedi 1;(/ '!//" in the anached tetter (in dlJprlCate). t (1/ :Il~ k:-? -! /j --~ Date _~ ___ ,__ SigMture of AppeITaflt .;..-........ , , CITY COUNCIL DECI 51 ON.: Date AemarX£ and/or Conditions' SUB~~j:rAL REQUIREMENTS SATJSFIED: 1. ~. 3. 4. 5. Plans labels Appeal Appiication Farms Letler Fee Approve-d _ __ Denied ___ _ By: ________ _ v 12 -'89 [):a,'le! Vc'~ !(d,crn D~:-: Krt:-rn: r!e~ City of Pi:llo Alto City COll11Cil 250 H..lm~lto!l lv,·;:>. Palo Altu, CA 94303 Re: Citibank -Palo Alto Brar:c-h Dear Council !-. .. ~embers, R:::CEIVED t.Pi'i 1 2 1333 Arril 12.1993 I am vI.'riting on b02hali of r:ly client, CitibJnk, to app.eal the Apr:l 1,1993 Architectural Review Board action on th':'ir request for aD additional s[grL at 250 Universi.ty A\'enue Allr.ough th-e Ar('h~t;;ctura:l Rt.'\'ie,·.,· Board lbj approv2 the application (93-ARB-46 dated ,~/6/93) fo!" this rmpose-J sign, thi.'} did so '\dln tr:e condition that Citlbank remo'>t' one of :.heir €'xis~ing !>lg:1s. As you kno\-,; Citibank is l<Jeated tn an a:ea of P;aza R,lmona that ;s set back from both University Ave!ll.!€ and Ramona Street and as such affords them no street frontage. AlthGugh Citibank ''\'.305 ah\"ays aware that their stgnage was minimal, due in part to the understated and elegant nature of the design h'hich was r~qulred by L'1e City to be compatible \',;ith the bUilding architecture, they have come to discover that it is inadequate, They recel'.e sE'veral cusiome-r c-ompl.1:nts a w€E:>k that they ar(;' difficd. to ft(Ld. The ARB v.-as not 50 much concern-ed ",,:ith the plact'!!lent of the signage as h'j',r, the number of signs, currently Iour -t' .... o small entrance slgns and two buildir.g signs. In con~r.ast we would i!ke to poLnl et.t th~t Fid-eiity In''.·estmf:'nt~, lr.xa\{'j prominently on the corner cf L~n;versiry A'.'enu(' and RaLlona SLn:et ha5 r;) It;'ss than fou.rteE'n signs -~,;';:Je major -, .. ·.:d Signs: t',·,,'o brOl.ss e:-.:ran;::e pb:iues, c·7'.e .:''::''.:'' sign .::nd €light ,""indo-,-; slg!"Ls. Having now studied ti'tis situa.~ion carefully, we are certain that the sign ',·,'e }-,a,'e proposet"t in <::onjunction ".-ith L~e existing signage, will reme.dy our pf'.)bh~:T1. Futhermcre, we feel confident t..~at this additional sign "''''ill not in any \\"ay bt" detrimental to property or tenants in the vicinity. David von KDhorn 811 Swn-n~A.~n~ Rt-dw.:::.oJ City Cali(OlTli .. 9 ... "'63 Td: n; lb8--J 6SS fu:,..l; )tS·6)~ ------------- - Lorrd i ne Weiss Planning Department \'brch 17, 1993 ~!ernbers of the Archi!ectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 258 Hamllton Avenue, 5~h Fk"-or Palo Alto., CA 9430 I R-'-""VEI:; :l:::< .. -, - A!'~':: cc.". .'. B0507-900400 Re: April 1: Architectural Review Board ApprQ'l."al Of Requested Addiuonal Signage for OtiBank at 250 University Avenue Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board and Planning Staff: The purpose of this le!!er is to CAyreSs. my support for the additional sign requested by CitiBank for its location at 250 University A\!erme . .,&..t the time that signage for CitiBank was apprmed in late 1990 and early 1991, CitiBank was provide,d fewer and less prominent signs than it had H~que.sted. The current signs provided CitiB~L"'lk are tasteful and enhance the character of the bllilding as a vibn:mt and s-wcces$ful commercial center. The deficiency with the current signoge is that CitiBank, by virtue of having no street frontage on either University Avenue or Ramona Street (reces!.cd about 20 feet from the Ra."l1ona S+.reet face of the building) is th~t m~ny pedestrians are not able to identify CitiBank frnm University Avenue. The prvp::-sed s:,;:n .. !.si~ts CiriBal1k and its cU5tomers in a w..:.y which W~ think [5 t.astefut and appropriate for the building. I have met with Betsy Bechtel of CiliBank and Gwen Raney, owner of the beautiful siure, G. Raney, above which will he located tr.e propmed sign. It is my UndeTS!anding that :r..·f::;. Raney approves of the proposed sign and its location. It is my hope that the proposed .sign wiH be approved for the benefit of CitiBank and OUT bUllding. Successful commerdal E1cti\'ilies with tasteful signs should be supported. "To C01'J!.K1 Jim B.1~ clo WITC &: Fr~"knn~h, 400 H.'Im;~lon A"I.':nu\!, 1',110 N~", uilf"rn .... '14.1.,.11·l.!::3 . Td~I'!'on~: (..ji~) J::F·II$iil, Fax: (415) J.n-JG99 n ,..-. March 19, 1993 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue P,O, Box 10250 Palo l\lto, CA 94303 Clhbar,k sign request Dear Members of ARB: I support Cihbank's request for an additional sign at Plaza Ramona. I have reviewed the plans and believe that this request is reasonable, I know Betsy Bechtel and understand the need for this sign especially since Citibank is located back from the street Sincerely, 6)j~~ GwenRaney ~ ... ~~;..;i-:· ~:)':f~:-~'; . '~'-~~-,,;~ .~~:;,-,:~t.~:: : / ;~l;.:~.~.P '" "--" . - r\ Ma rch23, 1993 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue P.o. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 943<13 RE: Citibank sign request Dear Members of ARB: Betsy Bechtel has shown me Cltibank's plans for an additional sign. 1 believe this is a necessary and reasonable request. It is important for Palo Alto businesses to succeed and to do that our customers must find us. Sincerely, '. - ~I.I:,FSB , ;...' ----~------, . --\.. -,-- 2'50 Ur;(I'crJi'I), An''''':, P"io,,1ilrl, C,.., 94.lD! REC::::I'lED ~!arch 23, 1993 City of Palo Alto Architec~ural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Eox 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 r.:. .,' Re: 250 University Avenue, Citibank Sign request Dear Members of the Palo Atto Architectural Revie~' Board: CITIBAN(O' [ am writing in regard to C~tibank 's application for an additional sign at 250 University Avenue. 111 our 18 months at this location, we have found that many of our customers have trouble finding us. We hear over and over again that Citibank can be seen by pedestrians only when they are in front of the entrance. Although we were always aware that our signage was minimal, due in part to the understated and elegant nature of the des[gn, 'i),le have come to discov'2r that it is inadequate. I know you care about our downtown COlD munity as n:.uch as I dC'l, and I know you are aware of the importance of maintaining the viability of the bUsinesses in Palo Alto. It is [or thIS reason that I ask you to look favorably on our request to add this additional sign. It would, of course, be fabricated in the same quality manner (halo-lit with coral neon) and with the same materials (bronze) as the existing signage. Sincerely, 3.'5~~;zzj Betsy Bechtel Branch Manager o March 23. 1993 Dty of Palo Allo Architectural Review Board 250 Hamiiton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Members of ARB: .--.. We at Carlyle Jewelers have reviewed Citibank's plans for an additional sign over Gwen Raneys. We know Betsy Bechtel and we understand this need • I I March 24, 1993 Clly of Palo ~/to Rrchlte~1 "rol Reuiew Board 250 Hamillo" A~enue P.O. BOK 10250 Palo AlIa, CR 94J03 He: Sign 01 250 Uni~ersity Denr Members of AR8: CIUbanle needs enother sign. Rs owners of Rodger's we know how onen people ask where [Wb.nk is loc.ted. [ilibank simply can not be seen eosil!! betause they ere Ilid!!en back in the P/8Z8. We hltue seen the plans and appro!!e of Ihe oddllionar sign Duer Gwen Raney'" Sincerely, ~ f'kiJ J;?u~~l ROd,,' and Klllhy Mastako Rodger's ~ .. -" ,