5-01-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved was a request not a requirement and they should still be able to convince potential tenants that they will be visible without it. CPH. Motion by O’Brian, second by Mann to LOSE THE UBLIC EARING Motion Approved. 5 Ayes, 0 nays. Baker stated that the larger sign for LA Fitness is fine, but the Commission should eliminate the multi-tenant sign on the building. If they need additional signage on the fitness center for future tenants they will have to come back before the Commission. Gundlach replied that with the Special Use Permit they can specifically add the larger LA Fitness sign and then if there is a change of tenant they would have to come back before the Commission with a new sign plan. Howard stated the difficulty with the strip mall signage is that the Commission does not know if a smaller sign will be a deal breaker with a national tenant or not. Mann inquired if the logo would be considered part of the sign. Anderson replied that a logo is considered part of the sign and their sign guidelines are very defined with limitations on height, placement, and width. Baker asked if a national tenant would be expecting to have signs on the east and west side of the building. Anderson replied that they would prefer it. Mann stated that the main issue is on the size of the signs. Anderson replied that is correct, the limitations placed by the City would for the most part eliminate most national tenants. While designing for unknown tenants they would like to have as much flexibility as possible. Howard asked if the St. Anthony Village development used similar guidelines for signs as they are currently proposing. Anderson replied that is her understanding. Baker stated that he understands the need for national tenants to want larger signs, but it not clear on how to regulate them. Gundlach replied that the applicants sign guidelines are very clear on the regulations, however she has two concerns. The first concern is how these signs will compare to signs in other retail projects throughout the City. Second, if a tenant occupies more than one location they could potential have more signage than a tenant that takes up just one space. Zisla asked for a clarification on what the Commission will be approving for signage. Gundlach replied that the applicant has proposed a comprehensive sign plan which allows them to establish whatever sign standards they want with your review. Otherwise, they would be under the requirements of the code, which would cap the allowable signage at two hundred square feet, while their scenario would max out at 546 square feet. Zisla asked if she is suggesting that the Commission adopt the applicants sign plan. Gundlach replied that she is suggesting that they adopt the plan with some modifications. One of which is the amount of signage on the 11, 000 square foot building. Zisla asked the developers if the objection is the total amount of signs is not enough or that they will be too small. Anderson replied that they are objecting to the limitation of forty square feet. She added that even if a tenant had several spaces, they would be limited in signage, unless there company name was incredibly long. O’Brien stated that when a developer does a PUD there is a lot of flexibility in it and signage should be as equally as flexible. Baker stated that he would not have an objection with the signs as proposed by the developer as long as it’s limited to the logo and name only. Baker stated that at Silver Lake Landing he understands why there are multi-tenant signs since the development is so layered, but he does not understand the need for it as this development is very open. Anderson replied that I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2007\5-01-2007.docPage 6 of 8