Making over Sierra Center Mall … one sign at a time
Planning Commission considers “monument” sign to mark Mono County offices.
It may come as a surprise that signs, of all things, have become so controversial in Mammoth. But Wednesday’s Planning and Economic Development Commission meeting proved that Town staff has learned to tread lightly when considering exceptions to the Master Sign Program, in this case a requested amendment to erect a second “monument” sign at the Sierra Center Mall.
Proponent and co-property owner Drew Hild explained that the seven by ten foot sign would be situated on the landscaped area between the light post and transit stop along the Mall’s southern driveway, and would serve as signage for the Mono County offices.
Mono County is the largest tenant in the Mall; it occupies about 22,000 square feet, or about 28 percent of the total Mall area, Hild said.
“For years, they [the County] have been ignored,” he told the Planning Commission. “We have so many customers wayfinding, and there’s nothing on the outside of the building that says the County is there. We considered doing a re-do of the sign we have, but it didn’t seem right.”
The second monument sign, which Hild said would have a contemporary and “institutional” design, would be one part of a larger makeover for the building. “We’re redoing the lobby, elevator, and common areas,” Hild said. “We also intend to update the current monument sign and make it more retail-friendly.”
Hild added that the renovated Mall will be locals-focused, with a lobby intended to become a communal watering hole, with cafes and shops. Hild said these and more efforts are being made to both update the Sierra Center Mall aesthetically, and to bring the Mall into compliance with the Fire Marshall.
“She’s a proud old girl that needs help everywhere she can get,” he said. “A lot of Band-Aids were thrown at her, and a lot of shortcuts taken.”
Hild noted that this was just one of many buildings in Mammoth that are coming up on 30 years of use—and are in need of some tender love and care. “All these major buildings are having to bite the bullet,” he said. “We’re doing what we think is necessary in order to keep the place full.”
This approach is paying off, Hild said: new tenants will be arriving soon.
However, the Planning Commission received the proposal for a second monument sign warily. Chair Mickey Brown worried that the new sign might confuse people looking for County services in the Town offices.
“It’s out of my control, here,” Hild said of the Town offices.
Brown also wondered whether the County had offered a response to the sign proposal, and what would happen if the County were to discontinue its use of the Mall.
“The Board hasn’t formally approved or supported the project, but they definitely don’t have any opposition,” said Assistant Planner Ruth Traxler. As for the County’s various leases, Hild said “the bulk of their leases are five years out.”
Traxler added that Commission could request, as a condition of approval, that should the County leave the building, the sign, too, would go.
When it came time for deliberations, Vice Chair Dave Harvey offered caution that the sign must come with measures to ensure it doesn’t set a precedent for other properties in town.
“How do we justify putting two monument signs on one piece of property, but continue to disallow that on other pieces of property?” he asked.
“I’m not interested in recommending a denial [of the proposal],” he continued. “I am interested in covering all bases and coming up with a product that cannot be challenged.”
Harvey recommended further qualifying criteria that would bar other properties from following Sierra Center Mall’s lead.
“This isn’t the only double-monumented property in town,” Hild said, using the Village and Luxury Outlet as examples, “so I don’t think you’re setting a precedent, although I understand your concern.”
Brown agreed with Harvey’s concerns, however. “We spent three to four years working on the current signing code, and took a lot of public input during that process,” she said. “You’re now asking us to make two variances to the code, one to allow for a second sign, the other a variance for size … If we’re going to approve it, there have to be conditions added.
“But I think as far as the sign goes, the sign is very nice,” she concluded. The fact that the sign doesn’t fit in with the 1980’s architecture—instead incorporating stone, acrylic illuminated letters, and cedar planks—apparently worked to its benefit.
The Commission unanimously approved continuing the amendment proposal to January, giving staff time to consider conditions for the amendment such as size of the property, type of business, and square footage of the land.
