AgdaPkt 2002-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

IO.A- When reviewing the sign program, the Architectural Review Committee felt that the amount and location of the approved signage for the service station provided more than sufficient visibility to the business due to its location on a corner parcel at the intersection of two heavily-trafficked streets (see Attachment 4-B). In addition, the size and bulk of the building is highly exposed to the passing motorist. Moreover, the service station canopy (with signage) was approved higher than the building in order to allow the tenant clear visibility from underneath the canopy. As a result, the ARC reviewed the proposed secondary signage portion in light of the cumulative visibility of all on-site business signage. The ARC felt that the applicant's proposed addition of the tenant signage (on both sides of the monument sign faces) would be excessive and thus result in a cluttered and "busy" appearance. As already stated, staff proposed an alternative sign arrangement incorporating two additional tenant signs on the side of the building facing Brewster Avenue. However, the applicant did not find this arrangement acceptable, and declined this option. This staff proposal was therefore not afforded review by the Architectural Review Committee. Alternatives ;~ Overturn the ARC's decision and allow the applicant to install the two additional secondary tenant signs on the corner monument sign. This would serve as a precedent for the review of future sign/architectural permit applications for similar sign exceptions that could prevent the elimination of such signage clutter in future situations (7% of sign violations on El Camino Real are for freestanding signs). Provide other options to the applicant (including the Brewster wall sign option for tenant signage). Fiscal Impact None. The sign program for this property is subject to review by the ARC as per the conditions of the Use Permit. Conclusion In order to achieve streetscape continuity on El Camino Real and maintain a standard for code enforcemen!.of the Sign Ordinance, Staff is recommending that the City Council uphold the recommendations and findings of the ARC and deny the appeal. ~ Bo~te/Charles Jany Michael Church Ed Everett Propject Planner/ZA Planning & Redevelopment City Managei" Manager Attachments: 1. Original monument signage submittal 2. October 23,2001 submittal 3. December 11, 2001 sbbmittal 4. January22, 2002 submittal