The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About28-Planning CITY OF SAN BERt ,RDINo1.!fEQUEST : )R COUNCIL ACTION Planning and Building SedEtces j : ;';cCT.--$ubject: ::::-:-.Appeal of Sign Permit No. 89-119 Denial -- Quiel Bros. From: Larry E. Reed, Director ~ept: '"'). .J" ':-.. Date: January 10, 1990 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 22, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: No previous Council action. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed; and that the appeal be denied and that Sign Permit No. 89-119 be denied. ~ ~,(S1::t Director Contact person: Larry E. Reed Phone: (714) 384-5357 6 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct, No,) (Acct, DescriPtion) Finance: ')uncil Notes: "7 t:.._n?l=.? Agenda Item No, /jt<g' CITY OF SAN BERNA.RDINO - REQUEST Ft)R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 DENIAL MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING - JANUARY 22, 1990 REOUEST The applicant, Quiel Brothers, is appealing the denial of sign Permit No. 89-119 by staff of the Planning and Building Services Department. The applicant requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider General Plan Policy 1.45.6 which prohibits pole signs at certain locations within the city adopted by the Council on June 2, 1989. BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF APPEAL Sign Permit No. 89-119 is a proposal to construct a 40 foot pole sign, with a 10' x 15' double-sided face, located in the northern corner of a 3.8 acre parcel situated in the State College Industrial Park at the easterly side of the intersection of Hallmark Parkway and Lexington Way. (See the sign plan and location map- Attachments "C" and "D".) This sign permit was denied on October 26, 1989, by staff of the Planning and Building Services Department. One of the reasons the pole sign permit was denied is because of Policy 1.45.6 of the General Plan, adopted on June 2, 1989. This policy reads as follows: Policy 1.45.6 Prohibits the development of pole signs at the following freeway entries to the city: a. Waterman at Hospitality Lanei b. State Route 18 at National Forest boundaryi c. State Route 330 (city Creek Road) at Highland Avenuei d. I-215 Freeway at Shandin Hills e. I-215 Freeway at Cable Wash f. I-215 Freeway at Inland Center Drive off-rampsi and, in key activity districts, including the downtown, Tri-City/commercenter, Mount Vernon Theme Center, Highland Avenue "core", Santa Fe Railroad Depot Specialty Center, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial Park, California State University area, Verdemont Commercial "village", and other pertinent areas. 7!1-0264 city of San Bern~Ldino Request for Council Action - Appeal of Sign Permit No. 89-119 Denial - Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 2 The sign was proposed to be constructed next to I-215 near the Cable Creek Wash and was one of the reasons the sign permit was denied. The appellant feels that the policy is too vague in that the boundaries of the "key entry points II to the City are not identified, and without the exact boundaries the policy is not clear as to where the restriction on pole signs is meant to apply. ANALYSIS The General Plan policy is meant to be "general" to allow for future details to be formulated in the Sign Code portion of the Development Code. The idea of promoting high quality visual environments at the City's entry points is the point of the policy. The sign is pr~immediately adjacent to I-215 next to a flood contro1-!~veejfeeding into Cable Creek Wash. This area is clearly within the "I-215 Freeway and Cable Wash" key entry point of the City and would be highly visible from I-215. There are two other major problems with the proposed sign permit. The first problem is that the sign identifies a U-Haul business at a site that was permitted for a mini- storage facility by Conditional Use Permit No. 88-35. The U- Haul business was not permitted under that Conditional Use Permit. If the business was allowed in the IL, Light Industrial, land use designation, there would need to be a Conditional Use Permit amendment approval by the Planning commission for that business before the sign permit could be approved. The second problem is that a car or truck rental business such as a U-Haul Rental, is presently not permitted in the IL, Light Industrial, land use designation under the Interim Urgency Ordinance. The sign permit would have to be denied for this reason as well. CONCLUSION General Plan Policy 1.45.6 prevents sign poles at the proposed location. The U-Haul business 1S presently not permitted in the IL, Light Industrial, land use designation. A Conditional Use Permit for a U-Haul business has not been approved. The proposed sign permit is not in compliance with the General Plan or zoning ordinance of the City and must be denied unless they are changed. city of San Bernc...dino Request for Council Action - Appeal of Sign Permit No. 89-119 Denial - Mayor and Council Meeting January 22, 1990 Page 3 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS The Mayor and Council may uphold the appeal in concept only and direct staff or the applicant to amend the applicable portions of the City's General Plan and Urgency Ordinance to allow the proposed pole sign ~ deny the appeal and deny Sign Permit No. 89-119. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the Sign Permit No. 89-119 be denied. The sign code is one of many portions of the Developme~t Code that will be considered by the Mayor and Council ln the spring of 1990. Ample opportunity for debate of those provisions will be available. Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director Planning and Building Services ATTACHMENTS: A- Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council B- Public Hearing Notice C- Sign Permit Plan D- Location Map MCC: SIGNPERMIT89119 /nmg COMMENT: The applicant is appealing an administrative condition of the General Plan to the Mayor and Common Council, as allowed in Section 2.64 of the Municipal Code. ~ ~ES C. RICHARDSON eputy City Administrator - Development RP 8 9 - 11 9 ATTACHMENT "A" \-;au~nc NOV 2 0 1989 - ': '1 \ : I ......... SIGNS BY ~- at- Q.~f.e~ 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNAROINo,rtAllf:l,\~~~?AR~_. .T RECE"/~~ - ~'r ,. pHtm.885-4476 FAX 714.88~~ERN~ROlrm. ~:. '89 iiOV 29 ~~ber 28, 1989 Dear Planning Commission: I wish to appeal the planning staffs denial of a proposed 10' x 15' double face freeway sign 40' O.A.H. The staff based their decision on the General Plan Policy 1.45.6 which reads as follows: 1. 45.6 *Prohibit the development of pole signs at the following key entries to the City: a. Waterman at Hospitality Lane; b. State Route 18 at National Forest boundary; c. State Route 330 (City Creek Road) at Highland Avenue; d. 1-215 Freeway at Shandin Hills; e. 1-215 Freeway at Cable Wash; f. 1-215 Freeway at Inland Center Drive off-ramps; and, in key activity districts, including the downtown, Tri- City/Commercenter, Mount Vernon Theme Center, Highland Avenue "Core", Santa Fe Railroad Depot Specialty Center, Waterman Avenue Office Industrial Park, California State University area, Verdemont Commercial "Village", and other pertinent areas. It was determined from staff that the sign size was not in conflict with current sign standards set forth for the I-L zone we are in. However, it had been decided that we are located at 1-215 Freeway at Cable Wash. Upon receiving this information, I had requested to see a map illustrating the areas and boundaries icentified in this policy. I found that there has not been any ~oundaries established as of yet. The boundaries will be available in the Cities Development Code which will be available in Spring of 1990. I feel until the time this policy can be fully identified and a location given to the other pertinent areas as quoted from the policy, that a business should not be excluded from the rights that exist with others in the same zone. I do feel that a policy should be established to incorporate various design standards for signage throughout the City but to prohibit signs will not cure the present problem of all the non conforming and abandoned signs that are referred to as Blight. SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE, NEON Calif, Contractors Licen.. No, 217345 RP39-119 " Page 2 Please consider this also in regards to modifying the sign plans submitted to possibly set a precedence for the future signs located in these areas. Sincerely, QUIEL BROS. ELUIC ,SIGN /WUf Gary Quiel GQ:gz ATTACHMENT "B" PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing, as per Municipal Code Section 19.81.020. A copy of this notice is attached. " ( OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 j ... , THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY QUIEL BROTHERS SIGN COMPANY '- / "' r SUBJECT: SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-119 APPEAL WARD =# 6 \.. r "" PROPERTY, Located in the northern corner of a 3.8 acre parcel LOCATION. si tuated in the State College Industrial Park at the easterly side of the intersection of Hallmark Parkway and Lexington Way. \.. r PROPOSAL: To allow the construction of a 40 foot pole sign, with a 10' xIS' double-sided face, for aU-Haul rental business. \.. PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCI L CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO I CA, 92418 \.. .) HEARING DATE AND TIME: January 22, 1990 2:00 p.m. \.. r A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY HALL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING (714) 384-5057. THANK YOU, \.. .. lul, 1914 ..y I ~ ~ ~ ,; '; ;~ ~ J ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ t1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ i 2 l~ I. r- I~ 1I.1!L~ I .1 iil ~ . . L!BIII ATTACHMENT RP89-119 lie II :ffi ':E I- '~ Q, ~ iW ,..., :0 : u J" l1. .... I (i B ! ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I -=: ~ 0 u l: <: :Pi ,< ~ j~ U ,1-0 U -I ;).: :;.'~ ~ ~ :::::!: ~;j ~ ':-I,:~:-~. I \\ ~~~~~.p. ~ jH~n; r1 ___ .r 1::::~I"illllll.1lIIIIIIJll 01 : :: :- 'i II' l11IIIIII ~! I I I~ ,i, II II ;j J " ~ A , ~; ~l 1 :i :-~ i ~ ~1 ;1 " \1 !~ l ,. I .'j .~ ;; ,.3 ~ua\U1.p1l'~:nf ,.~~... _0__ -,-.-,. .....-.:...a.' ~- i '1 t, I ~~j[.;V i1 ! ~/ i~ .-i ./ ,'1 ~l .... ':; ~ lil. 1.1 I !z~f,~ I , I' \ ..-" .1 ~ ,". ;~ '~~~~:',--i ~ ,-_~"".-:J " ~---,,",,,,,__,,_1 ~ J ~ ~ r :,tJ.t 'vt7 ,c:>J>- .Kl'b~-ll~ APPENDIX II n'l ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~G DEPARTMENT ""\ ~ AGENDA ITEM # LOCATION CASE CUP 88-35 HEARING DATE 9/6/88 \... 10.. '0' C, ~.. (,0 G - '- .0' ~ 1=800' R-'-5ACRES "0" R-I R -I "0" (.~" ,"'1'1 tO~,,'1I -~ " M.2 -- 6-11