PC 021104 - Laserfiche WebLink

- approved those signs, and the conceptual plans had placeholder text for a quick service restaurant. He noted that Jack in the Box was the only tenant who would comply with the City's signage requirements and was given possibly ill-advised discretion by staff because of the positive efforts to secure a desirable tenant and efforts made by the developer in constructing a high quality project. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the signage was not required to be brought to the Planning Commission. He noted that staff had a difficult job in negotiating the fine points of the development and added that there was considerable pressure on staff not to take actions that would cause businesses to leave town. He inquired whether every sign program should be brought before the Commission given the current workload. Commissioner Kameny strongly supported staff s efforts in supporting the Commission and appreciated their accomplishments given the heavy workload. He noted that at times, the Commission approved projects conceptually and believed that the projects should be more concrete before approval. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Iserson noted that he asked the developer whether the signage could be changed. The developer stated that they could not do it at this point but will attempt to change it after six months after the income stream is underway. He noted that the Planning Commission could not require that it be changed at this point. Commissioner Arkin would like to agendize an item that would require the signage to return to the Commission when there is a new tenant on the site. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson noted that the design review had been approved and that the landscaping had not been installed yet. He noted that it would be best to work cooperatively with the owner and the developer to unofficially address that issue. He would try to do that. Commissioner Sullivan believed that if there was a major design change, the Commission should participate in that discussion. He did not believe the possibilities of businesses walking from a location because of a signage issue was a valid argument on their part. He did not believe it was the Commission's job to facilitate economic activity; the Commission addresses planning and land use issues. Commissioner Fox inquired whether there was any recourse to go back to some of the commercial developers after the design competition and request that they be consistent with the other designs on the Bernal Property. Chairperson Roberts did not believe that would occur. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the - height of the canopy was close to that approved by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 2004 Page 17 of 19