Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0339.095City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report • TO: HONOR.U1LE CITY COUNcn. 12 FROM: CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE, July 11,1995 DEPARTMENT: Plaaaing."d CommaBity Environment CMRo339:95 SUBJECT: An:hl_ral Review Board Reqo ... to EstabHsh • Subcommittee T. Upda'e the Sip Ordin.au REOJrEST The Architectural R.view Boa.rd (ARB) requests that tt.e City Council .... blish a Sign Ordinance Subcommittee 10 develop a handbook, with illustrations, th.! would embody the thinking and design pbilosophy o(the ARB regarding signs. The handbook would in<:~.>de business community coocems and community input which could bc incorporaIed into a new (""substantially revised) sign ordinance (Chaptcr 16.20 o(the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The Subcommittee would consist 0( two members of the ARB and three members 0( the <:ommunity. The ARB recommends !hat a Planning staff member attend the first sulxxJmmitlee meeting 10 answer qucstioos abou! the existing sign or4~. They would also desire ongoing staff S'JpporI, but UDderstand !hat staff time is committed through 1995- 96 (see Attacbment I -Memorandum from the Arthl1ectural Review Boord). RECOMMENDATIONS The ARB recollllnends !hat the City CoonciI establish the Sign Ordinance subcommittee as soon as possible . . Staff recommends !hat updating the Sign OnfIlWlCe bc considered as part cf the Planning Division Work Program scheduled fOr review by the City Council in September 1995. [f the City Council assigns the Sign Ordinance update 10 the Planning Divisioo as a project fOr 1996, the Sign Ordinance Subcommittee would be .... blished as part O(the update project. Staff does 00( recommend establishing suclIl subcommittee withou! adequate levels 0( staff resources from boIhthe Planning Division and the City Attorney', Office. This project will r " . . -> ... o CQt;jjJ • major tirru: and/or ~ commitment lOr boIh ~ Planning Division and the City Att.omey's Offiee. POYCY IMPLICATIONS Progiam 4, nnder Policy J in ~ Design EIemenI o{tI1c existing Coo!prehensive PIa.'l, states: "Discourage garish signs through sign regulations and design standards and encourage signs that blend w;m !be site and the area.· The Archit..,ture Guidelines included in !be Downtown Urban Design Guide further e>p=s !be City', desire lOr attractive signs by staOng1hat signs sI>ou!d be ~ which are distinctive, finely crafted, and oriented to pedestrians, and that standard cabinet signs sllooId he avoided. The Public Improvement Guidelines included in !be Design Guide encourage !be use 0{ • consistent public sign progrun lOr oon-regulatory signs and prO<J>O!<s the reduction 0{ sign clutter by consolidating signs into fewer, =tralized, highly visible Iocatiocs. The City's E1 Comino Real Design Guidelines encourage further limiting the area of sign size,the height 0{ freestm<fwg signs, and provide oilier design panuneIerS lOr sign.ge along E1 Cantioo Real. Updating l1Je Sign Oromance would contribute to caeh o{these existing goal and program statements, by bringing sign regulations into compliance with curren! expectations regarding the re1atiooship bc!wceo signage and bwld'mg design. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Aho Mun1<:ipal Code (PAMC) authorizes design review lOr signage. The review may he conducted by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), according to Section 16.48.050(1)' or by Planning Divisioc stafI; if all requiretnents of the sign ordinance and other applicable design guidelines approved by the Beard are met (Section 16.43.05O(hXI). Any sign that does no( meet the specifications in the Sign Ordinance requires exception finalOgs that must he approved by the Board in accordance with Section 16.20.040(&) of the pA.\4e (Signs). The Board has 1008 considered signage to be a critical elemenl in the successful design of • building. The Board often provides a significant amowlI 0( design advice 10 applicants durin& the review 0( a sign. !t has come 10 the Boards attention, over the years, 1hat signage which meets the requirements 0( the Sign Ordinance will no( necessarily be compalible with the archi!ccture 0( • building and can actually detract from an otherwise well-designed building. Planning staff has under. .. tood the Board's coocera and the need 10 updale the existing regulations and guidelines. The item has been 00 the Division Work Program often in the 1980. and 199Os, but was no( initiated due 10 competing projects. Pac-2 at5 '. r · .;: . > • \ ~, . The Board has developed preferences and informal guidelines loWards .ipge, many of whkh are e.xplained 00 the attached P"ses 18 and 19 of the ARB handboot. These expectations are no! aIw1rys discernible when reading the sign oofmance and adopted guidelines. Examples oftbese prefercoces are individual \ellen rather than can signs; using uplights or downlights 10 illuminate signs at nigh! rather than internal illumination; reducing the heigh! 0( flee-standing gas station sign> in sped&: """'" of \he CiI)~ and reducing the overall size of signage 10 complement. building design rather than using the maximum square lOoIage allowed by the Sign Ordinance:. The Board believes that idc:ntifyIDg, illustrating and explaining the rBtion.aJe behind these preferences and genenI"ruIes of thumb" will assist appliamts, designers, staff and the Board itsel~ when desigui~g and reviewing sign applications. 11M: Board also believes that !he input received 6-om members 0( the community could be used in updating the Sign Ordinance whenever that effort is undertaken by staf[ Staffbelieves that identifYing and explaining the ARB's preferences and design philosophy regarding signs would be very useful and that b.ving community input is essential 10 updating the sign oofmance. Staff does not believe, however, that tho effort sbould be conducted prior 10 staft including tho City Artomey's Office. being able 10 funy commillo review and update 0( tho sign ordinance. A comprehensive effort to update the sigu ordinance should include staff from tho City Attorney's Office, the Planning Divisjoo, and perhaps the Ecooomic Resources PlannL'lg Program. A community input process needs to be identified, including use 0(. subcommittee. Allowing one part of the process 10 prnceed prior Ie> the rest 0( tho process coold lead 10 duplkation 0( eflOrt or an oVerly extended volunteer effon, such as the Urban Design Committee process, which was proIra<;1ed into an eighl year effort due in part 10 ina<lequak budget and staff support. Staff believes the most efficient way 10 conduct the update would be 10 define the entire process as part oCthe Planning Divisioo Work Program. II is stair, intention 10 brong the work program 10 Council in September 1995. The potential assignment could then be eonsidered against the IDlI1lY other proposed assignments for 1996. If the item is given high enough priority, it would then be included in the PlanninS Divisioo Wori: Program for 1996. Altcra'tjyes In addition to delaying consideration of the ARB', recommendation unt" review 0( the Planning Division 's Work Program in September 1995, there are two alternatives available 10 the Council. ). Grant authority 10 the ARB 10 establish • Sign Ordinance Subcommittee with, minimal 10 DO staff supporf, to begin conecting data and developing recommendatioos ..... ]015 -. ---------~.----:----- .-. o o k1r updating !he existing Sign OnflllllllCe. This a1tanativc includes !he City Council estabIisbing the process by which committcc membecs sh.aJI be sel«1ed. 2. Do oct grant !he ARB ihe autbotily Ie establish a Sign orom.ance subcommittee and do oot coosider Ille Sign Ordinance update when reviewing the Planning Divisioc Work Program. If the City Cooncil ,,~ alternative one. the next stqJ would be 10 decide upoo the membership pool k1r the subcoounittee and establish a process k1r advertising the formation . -of !he subcommitIee and selectlng !he members. A process similar 10 tbat used in !he c:rcation of c:Mher wk fucces (c.g~ Downtown Study) woold be k1r the City 10 solicit app!ic:atioos "'ith the appoinlments 10 be made by the Mayor. If the City C<luncil c~ alternative twe>. there ore no next steps. The issue will oot be coosidered further. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact fOe undertaking an update of the sign ordinan<;e will n:suIt from staff time &.-.R>ted to Ihe update process. Planning staff estimates that it will !ake 400 hours of Senior Planner lime to complete a comprehensive update of the sign or<fmance. This eflbrt woold include developing a wode program; managing I subcommittee of ARB members, business inb:rests. sign manulil<:lurers. and commuriity members to wode Ioward re<:ommeoded code amendments; and developing a guidebook. In addItion, alJellS! 200 10 300 bours of City Attorney's Offia staff time would he required 10 be devoted 10 partkipaling in the: sub<:ommittee process, advising regarding the inevitable legal issues smrounding sign regulations, and preparing Ihe oromance amClldmenls. This lime commitment will necessitate substantial outside COODsel expen<llrure., ei1her 00 sign matten directly or 10 bacldiJI existing S'.aff resources. These QOSts woold be delayed if Ahernative I is coo.ee and the ARB begins work. without staff support. The QOSts will he iool!rred wben staff lime is devOled to the update process. EN\]BQNMUoUI. !t.SSf!!SMENI Collecting infonnation and conducting research for a study leading 10 an action which a public apy bas 00( yet approved, adopted or funded is • Class 6 categorical exemption under the CaJifomia EovirOlllD<:ntal Quality Act (CEQA). AUACHMENTS I. W.emorandum from the Architectural Review Board 10 the City Council 2. Pages 18 and 19 of ARB Handboa\. DEPARThlENTHEADREVlEW: ~./ak:4/ . l<.ENNE1'H It. sctruISER CC: ArcbI\edllral Review 8<'ard Planning C«nmission BOard of Realro:rs DirocIot ~ rlannlng And Coom!urot)' &vil<>ru:n<mt Cbambet oCCmnmerte SUmfurd University (Andy CQe) SlAnf'otd Managemelll COltIplUly (Curtis f"""y) I • .;. -, -__ .r-_ ~. ~_ . c ; ." -.-- To: CITY OF PAW ALTO MEMORA.!lffiUM De<-.ember IS, 1994 . From: Palo Alto City Cooncil Architectural Review Board Subject: Sign Ordinance Subcommittee The Architeclllral Review Board (ARB) has found through experience that the sign ordln3nce is difficult to use and does lIOt provide clear WecDon 10 applkants when designing signage. The Board requeS1.5 City Council aulOOrizafion to form • subcommittee to ioclude two ARB members and three persoos from the public. TIle ultimate goal of this process is to develop an understandable handbook, iocluding grapJric illuStratioos, whlch embodies the thinldng of the ARB over the past rew years, its sign design pbilsophies, business communlty concerns, and community input which may be iocorporated into a new sign ordinance. The handbook would be .sefulla plarming staff, the ARB, and applicants. The ARB would appreciate. member of Planning Staff atten<fmg !be subcommittee's initial meeting 10 brief !be committe" on the history of the curren! sign ordinance and answ ... any questioos concerning signs in Palo Alto. On-goin.g staff support would also be desirable, but the Board understands that <taff done is funy ~mmined through 1995. The Board also understands that citizen members of the sign ",bcommittee must be .elected by the City Cruncil. ARB members lIIe prepared 10 assist the Council in ..,1ecIing CIDzen representatives in any ",ay po<sible. The ARB would gladly respond t.J any coocems or questioos that the City CoonciI may bave regllIdin.g this request. ce: Ken Scbreiber Nancy Lytle Ariel Caloone Debbie Cauble Sne Case '--'''::--. ~~--~-----.• --...... _ .. • • • ,/ -: " . be desfgne1 t. accommodat. at l.,.t four r.c.~tac1es for t~e purpose of sepiritfng. reusing cr recycling all sol~d wastt r.at!rials. Street trees .'y b. removed on11 with the c •• currentt of the Cit, Arborist. All e.lstlcg treos over ." I. ~i ... ter s~.ll be indicated on ,Ions. ReteDtlon of ,11 trees is encouraged and lnl tree larger than 121 fa diim@ter should not be removed. Remc~al Df an, oaks or redwoods is strong1, discouraged . • ~: Cotalls of any and III f01l< •• shill be pr~.ll1ed liood fenco. ,~o.ld be constructed .nt~ 1 • 6 hor'lont.1 roll' and 6 x 6 posts. Barb wire Is not .11 ... d (PAM( 50clloo lE.124.07Cta)}. Chai. link fenclog witk redwood Dr metal slats Is goneroll, not .pproved. o Jllaterjols: TIPe of wood siding Must be Indicated. Maturalll w .. tnorlng materials are preferred~ Materials should be ·genuine,· s~oui~ be appropriate t. t~e de.lgn and sho.ld age well. ~ason,t. lap ,id,ng, composite board ".iog or T·III ,lywood i, geo.ral1, not .pprove4. Stucco texture ,~o"ld be ind'c,ted. for roofs. naturally weathering materills are enco~raged~ If clay tile 1S proposed, a true Cli1 tile sho~ld be ~5ed. Asphalt t1Te and concrete tile are discQUriged. Vindo~s shoal a b. of good qu"it, .ppr,~ri.t. to t~. building type and cDnsist~nt ~th eXlsling ~u;ldi"gs or Delg~borboods. ~ood .indows are generilly p~f2rred i~ resident,)l projects. ~Drizontil ar vertical division cf wlndows sbould be i~tegral to the .nndow structure. Backlighted or polyv"11 awnings are g.ner,11, not acc.ptabl •. Black" opilqtJe and reflective gTiiss are discouraged. I64l ARE TIfE WlOCLII&S F(JI SlIiN lTSIGN? o The £1 Call'no R •• l O.slgn ',idelln.s limit the ar .. of s'gn "ong £1 Canino Real to IJl to Z/3 the maximum ,I,. permitted by the Sign Ord'if1ance . • Tbe [I Canfno Real Design Guidel'n.s limit the belght of fre.standiog signs along the [I tamlno R.al t. 10 feet If ,l.ced at the propert] lin. and sl1gbt11 .igher If setback from the propert, lIne. o Vall signs are gen ... lll oct allowed above the fir.t floor l.v.l. o Strict limits ore ~1aced on the amount ~f signs ,11 •• ed on Anls and ATM surrounds. o Reader board ind changeable signs are generJll,. not appr(l\led~ Churches and ccmmunitJ organizations should limit sign cop, tG the name. address c:\pbhndaut\arbgu'de.hnd . ':::.' Revised 8/9< Page IB " ,'.-,' o and pastorjdfrector an',. Menu box signs for restaurants and fnformltfon signs for communit1 strvice organizations a~ churc~es are acceptable if located oear I bui1diog entrance ond designed to provide f~formit1on tD 5DmeOne Ilread, on·site. . • Werna' i11 ... lootlon of signs is preferred Ind I1luminotlon is gener.'l~ limited ta the hours of operatlo. of 0 business . .• A·fr .... signs are genera11, not acceptable ond shoald be IppHed for .nl~ when a group of buslnesse, does not ha,e • street frontoge .r acceptable wall or •• for. directory sign. a k nlShlng, oo.log, or changeable signs are .11 .... d IPAMC Sed 1o. 16.2G.09O(IJJ . o AdYertlsing copy on ,igns is li.ited (PAMC Settion 16.20.090(b)}. Signs should contli. onlJ enQU9~ ilfD~ation to identify the business. fqr ex.mple~ the words -A Oi~;sion of IVl Company· or ·Cocktails. Dillng and DincfD~· Dr any like ~e~~ of services ire considered generall, r.ct .11_. IrWT NI£ TIE GUIDfWES F(l( DfS/GNl/(j IN TIE OS DTITRlCT? D The develDpment sbould not be Yis~al1J lltrusj.e from public roadwaJs and public park lands. It should be sited so that ;t js l;dden fro. vi~ as muc' IS possibl!. o Development shou14 be corr<:entrited, or -close1, grouped. h relation to t~e Irei s~rrounding it. Ibis is ~o~sistent with t~e ·,lister princiFle-~fck ~ates development less conspicuous . • BuIlt fonos and landscape forms should mimic the nat'ral topograpby. Building lines sbocld fDllow t~e line Qf the ttrrii~. and trees and bushes should apPfir ftitur.l from a distance~ o Where ~rading is needed to enablt the dewtlopme~t to blend lDto the lIatural topograpfly. it should. [ievertheless. be .iaimized to ,:revent erosfon. II large .. flat expanses "r impervious surhce s.hould be a';loided to redyte the Deed for cut and ftll and to reduce potentlal runoff. o Buildings shou1d use natural r.aterials and eart~tone ar subdued ~Dlors. o landscaping s~~cld be nati~t species wtich require little Dr no frrSgatfoD (exc~pt immediat!t, adjacent to structures is a firE preventicD tec~nlQue). D Lighting s~ould be Jaw inte~sit1 and s~telded from view from surrounding c:\pbIlndout\arbguide.hnd Revised 8/94 Page 19 .. -. :; ... : --~.