CCMIN071696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis indicated the sign did not offend her, but she felt uncomfortable to go against the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Pico asked if there was a policy relating to signs on buildings where tenants are subletting part of the premises, such as Bank of America using part of the Lucky Store. He thought this same issue will occur at any other facility that brings in a bank or other use. He was concerned there was no policy to address this changing corporate environment. Mr. Swift indicated this is an emerging situation. Nob Hill Market was the first to have a bank within its store, Lucky's now has a bank and there is an application pending for a bank sign at that store. Staff is currently drafting the type of policy Mr. Pico referred to, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Pico felt that was the appropriate action and did not want to set a precedent with this store. He preferred to deny the appeal without prejudice and let staff work on the recommendations or standards to be used for multi-tenant buildings. If secondary signage is then allowed for subtenants, then he would reconsider this application. He felt this was putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Tarver asked if this was precedent setting or were there other precedents in the city? Mr. Swift indicated more of those particular types of uses are occurring. He referred to a sign for Blimpy's at a Shell Station. He felt more and more of these relationships would be occurring and of course the businesses want to be identified. Staff is trying to deal with this within the overall sign program for each project. Normally, when a project is approved there is an overall sign program for that Center. Because major anchors are usually the only tenants at that time, they create the key signage location on the building. In the grocery store example, it is more difficult than in this instance with the WalMart store. There is a trend that must be addressed. Ms. Michelotti indicated McDonald's had been before Council with this issue before it went before the Planning Commission and asked if Council objected to the sign. She supported the direction to staff to draft a policy for future applications. She also was uncomfortable overruling the Planning Commission for many reasons, but she supported this sign because it was one sign facing the McDonald's parking lot, is not drawing people off the freeway, and is unobtrusive. She disagreed with requiring McDonald's to wait for another ordinance to be adopted. She felt this was different than some of the signs that may come forward. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarver NOES: Councilmember Pico ABSENT: None -- ABSTAIN: None 07/16196 -14-