Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout58-Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BEIGARDINO - REQUES,QrOR COUNCIL ACTIO" . From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission den: on Variance No. 91-20, Kids "R" U: 666 South "E" Street. Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 6, 1992 De~: Planning and Building Services DaU: March 19, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On January 7, 1992 the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 91-20. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and the appeal be denied based on the Findings of Fact; or That the hearing be closed and the appeal be upheld and that staff be directed to prepare positive Findings. Al Bo Conuct person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 3 Supporting data atUched: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: IAcct. No.! (Acct. DescriDtionl Finance: Council Notes: Aaenda Item No 5~ CITY OF SAN BERI()RDINO - REQUEST O>>R COUNCIL ACTION . STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Variance No. 91-20, Kids "R" Us, 666 South "E" Street. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of April 6, 1992. REOUEST Under authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030 (2), the applicant requests approval of a variance from Code Section 19.22.150 to permit an additional wall sign over the number permitted and to have the sign area to be above the maximum allowable square footage. The subject property is located on approximately 3 acres on the west side of South "E" Street. BACKGROUND On January 7, 1992, Variance No. 91-22 was denied by the Planning Commission based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. On January 17, 1992, the appl icant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on the size, shape and location of the building and the lot. The applicant also based the appeal on public health, safety and welfare and on the General Plan's objective to renovate and intensify activity between the two regional malls. The applicant stated that exhibits prOVided with the application were not reviewed by the Planning Commission. CALIFORNIA ENVIRORMENTAL OUALITY ACT STATUS This project has been determined to be exempt from the prOVisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Article 19, Section 15311, Class II, Categorical Exemption. ANALYSIS The Kids "R" Us building is part of a retail center at 666 South "E" Street. This site has a land use designation of CG-I. Commercial General. The properties to the immediate north and south have the same designation. There is a flood control channel abutting the Kids "R" Us bUilding to the west and the Inland Center Mall parking lot lies beyond the. channel. The Mall property is designated CR-l, Commercial Regional. Inland Center Drive lies to the northwest with a medical clinic and parking lot between it and the Kids building. The land to the northwest of Inland Center Drive is in the Central City South district and has a designation of CCS-l. The Development Code permits a total of two wall signs that can be on the street or parking lot sides of bUildings (one per wall). The sign face area is not to exceed 75 square feet each. A third 0264 o o sign is permitted when a public entrance is provided from the rear. This sign cannot exceed 50 square feet. Development Code Section 19.22.150, Table 22.01, C.3.a applies. The layout of the Kids "R" Us building is shown on Attachment D to the Planning Commission Staff Report. There is no access to the rear of the Kids building from the center's parking lot nor is there an access door at the rear. The Kids building has a parking lot at the front (approximatelY 235 feet of building frontage) and on the north side (approximately 96 feet). The rear of the Kids building is visible from the Inland Center Mall area and from Inland Center Drive, but due to distance the size of the sign would probably have to be as the applicant requests so as to be effective. The applicant's letter of appeal to the Mayor and Common Council dated January 17, 1992, stated that the Kids building has two signs on the front of the building. Because of the size, shape and location of the building the applicant feels that signage is needed on the rear in addition to the rear. The applicant's request is not in conformance with the sign regulations as outlined in Development Code Table 22.01. The site size and layout does not deny fair sign visibility and, in addition, the Kids OR" Us business is advertised on the freestanding sign on "E" Street, which gives the business more visibility than other tenants of the center. The applicant provided colored photos as exhibits which were addressed in the text of the Staff Report. Reproduction of the exhibits was not accomplished for the Staff Report due to considerable loss in image resolution. They are included here as Attachments 3-1 through 3-13. Most of the exhibits are of signage in the CR-l or CCS-l land use districts. The signs which were established legally under previous standards are considered non- conforming signs when tney do not conform to the current Development Code. CONCLUSION Based on the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission's Staff Report the granting of the Variance would be contrary to the intent of the General Plan and Development Code as far as proliferation of unnecessary and oversized signs. It is unlikely that the granting of the Variance will be beneficial to the City and such a granting could be inferred as a special privilege for the Kids building. - o o . MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. That the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 91-20 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit S, Planninq Commission Staff Report. 2. That the Mayor and Common Council approve Variance No. 91-20 in ~oncept and refer it back to staff to develop positive Findinqs of Fact and Conditions of Approval. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council uphold the Planninq Commission's denial of Variance No. 91-20 based on the Findinqs of Fact, Attachment B, of the Planninq Commission's Staff Report. Prepared by. John ~. Burke, Assistant Planner for Al Bouqhey, Director Department of Planninq and Buildinq Services B. C. D. E. the Planninq Commission Development Code/General Conformance Findinqs of Fact Applicant's Findinqs Site Plan Location Map Plan Attachment 1. Staff Report to Attachments A. Attachment 2: Letter of Appeal Attachments 3-1 throuqh 3-13. Exhibits -A- through -AA- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 7 1-7-92 3 ~~ r rAPPLICANT: KaneS BallIJler & Berkman 354 . Sor~ng St~ Ste 420 I&J VARIANCE NO. 91-20 Los Angeles, CA 0013 rn signal Kids partnershig & C OWNER: s~6na Downey Partners ip CJ C/ Joseph Kunt "-...-/ 3634 Country C ub Dr. ; r-:. " I- A Variance to permit an additional oversized sign on ffi the rear wall of the Kids uRn Us building at 666 South :;) tiE" Street. 0 I&J a: - C I&J a: C r r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Commercial CG-l Commercial General North Commercial CG-l Commercial General South Commercial CG-l Commercial General East Commercial CG-l Commercial General \'Jest Commercial CG-l Commercial General ... r DYES ( FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( UYES ) I GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC SEWERS: HAZARD ZONE: XOlI NO ZONE: mf NO OZONE B o NO ... r DYES r DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES I HIGH FIRE AIRPORT NOISE! I HAZARD ZONE: CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: ... JO{NO }QJ NO I.. xx NO r-- ,- -' o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL :! APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 MITIGATING MEASURES - zrn NOE.l.R. ~ 0 CONDITIONS I&JO IL.Q :EZ }Oli EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO IL.Z ~ DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CI&J OQ WITH MITIGATING ~:E a:iE MEASURES :E o CONTINUANCE TO -IL. 0 > o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Z fd I&J EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. MINUTES a: "- "- to.- ClTYOI-..".1BIJtIIllIIDICl ........-- PLAN-ll.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (<4-10) Attachment "1" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING . AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 7 1-7-92 2 ,..- UOOBST Under authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030 (2), the applicant is requesting a variance from Code Section 19.22.150 to permit an additional wall sign above the number allowed and to have that sign area to be above the maximum square footage permitted. SITE LOCATION The subject property consists of approximately 3.01 acres on the west side of South "E" Street approximately 700 feet south of the centerline of Mill Street at 666 South "E" Street. The land use designation on the site is CG-1, Commercial General. See Attachment E, Location Map. DBVBLOPMJ!INT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONPORMMrCE The proposed variance request is not in conformance with Development Code Section 19.22.150, Table 22.01, class C.1.a, or General Plan Policy 1.45.4. CALII'ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT STATUS This variance has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Article 19. Section 15311, class 11, Categorical Exemption. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 87-43 to establish a retail center with two fast-food restaurants on September 22, 1987. The Development Review Committee approved Review of Plans No. 88-8 on February 4, 1988, to relocate the retail pads. Sign Program No. 90-13 for the center was approved by the Planning Department on October 18, 1990. l ..01 on OF................., ClNIMl,.,..-. PlAN.8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 14.iOJ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE I 1-7-92 3 ,... "'II ANALYSIS variance Request The applicant requests that an additional wall sign be approved for the Kids "R" Us building located at 666 South "E" Street. The proposed sign would be 128 square feet and located on the rear of the building which faces the Inland Center Mall. There is a wedge- shaped part of a parking lot belonging to a medical center (on a separate lot) that backs up to the Kids "R" Us building. The applicant feels that there are special circumstances associated with the building's size, shape, topography, location and surroundings that strict application of the Development Code is not warranted. The applicant feels that as the Kids building is located on a large lot and the building is separate from the other buildings on the multi-tenant site and that the site is irregular in shape it could be located on its own lot and would then be considered a single tenant site. It would then be subject to Development Code Section 19.22.150, Table 22.01, Class C,l,a instead of Class C,3,a. Class C,l,a, permits a maximum of 3 signs and Class C,3,a, allows a maximum of 2 signs. Such application of the Code allegedly deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical land use designations. Site Characteristics The project site is located between South "E" Street and a county of San Bernardino Flood Control channel which angles in to the rear of the Kids "R" Us building. Inland Center Mall is to the west of the Flood Control channel. The Kids building is on the west side of the project site and has a wedge-shaped portion of a medical center parking lot to its rear. The Flood Control channel and the parking lot are to the rear of the building. The medical center fronts on Inland Center Drive to the northwest of the site. Parking for the applicant's building is on the east and north of the building. The building is part of an approved center and the layout is shown on Attachment D. There is no access to the rear of the Kids building from the project site. ... ClT'l'OI'SiIIN~ cetrmW.Mo.ll m.A',IIICU PLAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-00) ...l.. - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 7 1-7-92 4 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE r ""'III Develop.ent Code standards Development Code section 19.22.150, Table 22.01, section C.3.a.(page 111-36), permits one wall sign per street or parking lQt frontage with a maximum of two such signs per business. An additional sign is permitted on the rear elevation if the public is provided entrance to the rear via a rear street or parking lot. This sign cannot exceed 50 square feet in area. proposed signage The applicant proposes to mount a 4 feet by 32 feet (128 sq. ft.) sign on the rear wall, 2 feet below the roof line. The proposed sign face will contain the logo "Kids 'R' Us". The sign will be visible from the Inland Center Mall and Inland Center Drive. There is no public access at the rear of the building. STAPF'S FXNDXRGS Special circumstances Staff physically inspected the subject site to determine the existence of any applicable special circumstances such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, that would put it at a disadvantage with other properties in the vicinity. It was found that the other properties in the vicinity cited by the applicant as properties in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification, are, in fact, in different land use district classifications with the exception of the Midas business. Some of the cited businesses are in the Central City South District, however, the sign standards are the same as for those in the CG-1 district. The Inland Center Mall businesses cited by the applicant are in the CR-1, Commercial Regional, land use district. The sign standards for the CR-1 district are different from the CG- 1 district and cannot be considered for this variance. The Development Code became effective on June 3, 1991, and all of the businesses in the vicinity are required to comply with the standards established in it. In accordance with Section 19.22.110 all legally established signs which fail to conform to Chapter 19.22 shall be allowed to continue use, subject to the conditions covered in Section 19.22.110. These signs are legal nonconforming signs and should not be cited as a reason to approve a variance. ~~"'= ... PlAN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING , AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE I 1-7-92 5 ~ The Kids "R" Us building already has the limit of two wall signs on ~ the wall facing "E" street. In addition there is a 25-foot freestanding sign adjacent to "E" street which has a 100 sq. ft. face. provided for the Kids "R" Us business. Although the subject site is large and is irregularly shaped, the addition of a sign on the rear of the building would not correct any physical limitation to the site. The applicant already has three signs, two on the ~ront of the building and the freestanding sign. Necessity for the preservation of a property Right The applicant argues for the right to advertise one's business which is a right possessed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same land use district but denied to the Kids building. The Kids building has the right to advertise and is presently exercising that right. All businesses are equally required to comply with the provisions of the Development Code and by applying the same standards to the Kids building, the preservation of property rights is assured to all of the businesses in the vicinity. Health, safety and General .elfare The applicant contends that the variance will enhance the public health, safety and welfare of the City by reducing confusion resulting from identification of the store from the Inland Center Mall area. Staff contends that this is not an issue, as confusion caused by the knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of the location of the Kids building from the Mall property does not constitute a health, safety or welfare concern. special Privileqe The granting of this variance could constitute a special privilege in that the Kids building choose to locate two signs on the front of the building rather than locating one of them on the side of the building adjacent to their parking lot. The applicant could relocate one of the signs to the side of the building if so inclined. There is no public access at the rear of the building and signage is therefore not permitted as per the Development Code. Other businesses are permitted the same considerations under the provisions of the Development Code. General Plan consistency II... General Plan Policy 1.45.4 requires that the number, size and placement of signs in private development be minimized. The vehicle established to accomplish this is the Development Code. The limitations of the sign standards as contained in the Code reflect the intent of the General Plan and therefore consistency cannot be maintained by approval of this variance. ~~l~= PLAN-8.D8 PAGE' OF 1 (~ .... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE I l-I-~.l b , ""l COJDO!lR'l'S BCBIVBD No comments have been received. CONCLUSION The intent of the General Plan and the Development Code is to prevent proliferation of unnecessary signs and oversized signs as they are viewed as inappropriate and are associated with the degradation of the aesthetic integrity and blight of the City's commercial areas. Considering the location of the subject property and the presence of three signs for this business it is unlikely that the granting of this variance will significantly benefit the community. The granting of the variance could be construed as a special privilege granted the Kids building. The granting of the variance is inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan. The Variance is categorically exempt from CEQA, Class 11. RBCOJDO!lHDATION Based on the Findings of Fact, Attachment B, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 91-20. Respectiv~r submitted /::i 7 t',.. J {[j K JrYt7/:o.7 ~'\ Al v/ ~ __rector Departmeit of Planning and Building Services ~;/~~-c 'JOhn R. Burke Assistant Planner Attachments: A - Development Code/General Plan Conformance B _ Findings of Fact C _ Applicants Findings D - Site Plan E - Location Map ~.=.== ~ ~ PLAN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) CITY OF SAN BER RDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE R 91-20 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 7 1-7-92 7 ,. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Cateaorv pronosal Deve Code General Plan Use Wall sign Permitted Policy 1.45.4 Number of wall signs Sign area Three Two NIA 128 sq. ft. on rear wall 75 sq. ft. NIA One per street or parking lot frontage plus one if rear entrance provided CIT'l'ClI'.........,..,., --- ... ...j PlAN.8.oa PAGE t OF 1 (4<<1) !;;l,i':."..." Attachment "t;" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 7 1-7-92 8 ,. ..... section 65906 of the California Government Code identifies specific parameters under which a variance may be qranted. Section 19.72.050 of the Development Code incorporates these provisions into the mandatory findinqs that the Commission must make prior to qrantinq a variance. Pursuant to this section the followinq !indinqs are made supportinq a denial of Variance 91-20: 1. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, includinq size, shape, topoqraphy, location and surroundinqs, wherein the strict application of the Development Code would deprive the property of privileqes enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification, in that the property size, layout or location does not preclude the applicant from beinq deprived of privileqes enjoyed by others. In fact, the Kids "R" Us business does have three siqns of which two are on the front of the buildinq and the third is freestandinq adjacent to "E" Street. The qrantinq of this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property riqht possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district. Many of the examples cited as havinq more siqns than the applicant are in a different land use desiqnation. All businesses in the same land use desiqnation must comply with the provisions of the Development Code as they are applied to the applicant. 3. Grantinq the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. The City's welfare would be adversly impacted by a proliferation of siqns causinq a deqradation of the aesthetics in the area. Grantinq the Variance would constitute a special privileqe inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the property is located, and qrantinq the Variance would constitute a special privileqe in that other property owners in the same vicinity and identical land use district are required to comply with the provisions of the Development Code. The applicant states that qrantinq the Variance would permit the Kids buildinq to have siqns on more than one side of the buildinq. The Development Code permits a siqn on the front and one on the side of the buildinq facinq the parkinq lot. The Kids buildinq operators have chosen to apply both wall siqns to the front of the buildinq and leave the side wall blank. 4. ...,j ... PLN+8.D& PAGE' OF , (4..g(J) ~~~ 1IIMDf" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-20 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 7 1-7-92 9 ..... 5. Granting the Variance would allow a sign use which would not }Je otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. Granting the Variance would allow a sign use which is not permitted in the land use district. The granting of the variance would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy 1.45.4 in that it would permit an increase in the number and size of signs. The cited policy expressly requires the City to minimize the number, size, and placement of signs in private development. 6. '" ..ol CITY~"'1III'IWIIlID --- PLAN-1.Oe PjOGE 1 Of' 1 14-00) ~"'f"""''''''<<''''''''~:-n:"' li!!lJ .lli. Attachment "Cn , " AlLAPPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~ FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET. A. The.. are special circumstances applicable 10 the property, including size, shape, 1opography, location or surroundings, the strict app/"'-;"'~ of this Code depriY8S such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land usa district dassnication; See Attached B. That granting the Variance is IIK8ssaty for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right pOU.Sled by other pIIlp8rty in the same vicinity lIIld land usa district and denied 10 the property for which the Variance is sought; C. That granting the Variance will not be mlllaridy dlllriment8l1o the pubic health, safety, or weIfara. or injurious 10 the prcparty or impmwrnents in such vicinity lIIld land usa distrid in which the property is Iocatad; ~ r:.::.::.:r== ...,j .......'" PAllESOFI /...., ~-_.."" "j( . ~ -. ~ o , D. That granting the Variance does not const~ute a special privilege inconsistent w~h the lim~ations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located; . E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel; F. That granting the Van- wiU not be inconsistant with the GanaqJ Plan. Gl"O___ --- I'\..OH.4.lD PMIElOF. ,M') ,~" 0< o. 1tUB, BALLMBR " BBRJtKA)l' 354 South Spring Street suite 420 ' Los Angeles, California 90504 CITY OP SUI BBRJmJU)DI'O VAllIUlCB APPLICATION Response to Questions A. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property (the "property"), including sise, shape, topoqraphy, location or surroUDdings such that the strict application of the city of San Bernardino Oevelopaent code (the "Code") deprives the property of privilege. enjoyed ~y other property in the vicinity and UDder identical land use district classification. Section C.3.a. of Table 22.01 of the Code provides that with respect to multiple tenant sites zoned CG Commercial District, the maximum number of wall siqns permitted is two (2) siqns per business. A number of special circumstances apply to the subject building (the "KIDS Building") such that the strict application of such Code provision would deprive the KIDS Building of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. The first set of special circumstances is that the KIDS Building is located on a large lot. The KIDS Building is a separate building, which occupies a large portion of the building area on the multiple tenant site on which it is located and is large enough to occupy a parcel of property of typical size. However, because of the size of the lot and the irregular shape of the lot, other buildings also are located on the lot. If it were located on a lot by itself, it would be subject to Section C.l.a., rather than Section C.3.a. Section C.1.a. provides that a business may have a maximum of three (3) siqns per business. The strict application of the Code limiting the applicant to two (2) siqns would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity in that a number of businesses in the area have more than two (2) siqns. As evidenced by Exhibits A through N, The May company store has at least five (5) signs; The Broadway store has at least four (4) siqns; the Sears store has at least three (3) siqns; the M~das store, which is next to the KIDS Building, has at least three (3) siqns; and Ross Furnitures, which is on the west side of "E" Street just north of Mill Street has at least three (3) siqns. The second set of special circumstances applicable to the KIDS Building is the size and shape of the Property. The property is located on a long lot. Because of the long shape of the lot and the parking spaces that are required, the KIDS Building has a long front, which is 236 feet long. Because of such length, two (2) signs were and continue to be needed on the 1 a 0'. . front. See Exhibit o. As required by the Sign Program which applies to the KIDS Building, the primary sign for the store is centered above" the lease space. However, because of the length or the rront of the store and because the entrance to the store is at one end of the building, an additional sign was and continues to be needed above the entrance to assist the public. Such signs are well integrated with the building. Given the need for two (2) signs on the front of the building, the strict application of the Code would restrict the KIDS Building to having signs on one side of its building. Such application will deprive the KIDS Building of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification in that a number of stores in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification have wall signs on more than one side of their buildings. As evidenced by Exhibits A through N set forth above, The Broadway, The May Company, Sears, Midas and Ross Furnitures have signs on more than one side of their buildings. In addition, stores in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification, which have signs on more than one side of their buildings, include Music P:us, which is on the west side of "E" Street between Mill Street and Inland Center Drive; Phil & Jim'S, next to Music Plus on Mill Street; Union Discount, next to Phil & Jim's; Singer Carpets, on Mill Street across the street from Phil & Jim's; and Inland Vision Center, adjacent to the KIDS Building. See Exhibits P through W. . In order for the KIDS Building to have signs on more that just one (1) side of its building, which is a privilege enjoyed by other stores in the vicinity, it would need a third sign. Therefore, granting the Variance would not constitute a special privilege, but rather would just give the KIDS Building the same rights and privileges already enjoyed by almost all other stores in the vicinity. If Section C.3.a. were interpreted to prohibit the proposed sign rrom being placed on the rear wall of the KIDS Building, because there is no entrance in the rear of the building, a variance also should be granted from such restriction. The rear of the building abuts the property line and consequently, it is not possible to have an entrance in the rear of the building. The strict application of such Code provision under such special circumstances would deprive ~e KIDS Building of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification in that as set forth above, other stores in the vicinity and under identical land use district classifications have signs on more than one side of their buildings. Denying the Variance to permit a sign on the rear of the KIDS Building would deprive the KIDS Building of its ability to compete with The Broadway, The May Company and Sears. As set forth in Exhibit X, in which the Kids Building is the white store in the distance, a sign placed on the west wall of the KIDS 2 o cs Building would be visible from the Inland Center Mall where such other stores are located. To deny the Variance would give such other stores an unfair competitive advantage. Section C.3.a. also provides that with respect to multiple tenant sites zoned CG Commercial District, the maximum area of a sign permitted to be placed on a building is 75 square feet. The proposed sign will cover approximately 128 square feet. Such size is needed, because of the size of the wall of the KIDS Building. The wall is approximately 236 feet long. The sign thus will be only approximately .54 square feet of sign area per lineal foot of the building, which is well below the 1.5 square feet per lineal foot maximum set forth in section C.3.a. The size of this sig~ is needed in order to make it proportional to the size of the building. A number of other businesses in the vicinity have signs that appear to cover an area larger than 75 square feet. Such businesses include the following: Midas, which is located on a site adjacent to the Property, and The Broadway, Sears and May . company stores, located in the Inland Center Mall in the vicinity of the KIDS Building. To limit the size of the sign thus would deprive the KIDS Building of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity [and in the case of Midas under identical land use district classification]. Additionally, a sign of the proposed size is required, because of the location of the property. Inland Center Drive runs from northeast to southwest and -E- Street runs from north to south. The rear of the KIDS Building is visible from Inland Center Drive and to have a sign on the rear of the building would be similar to having it on the side of a building which fronts a street. However, because the building is not immediately adjacent to Inland Center Drive but rather set back from Inland Center Drive as the front of the building is set back from -E- street, the sign needs to have dimensions of 4 feet by 32 feet in order to be clearly legible to passing motorists on Inland Center Drive. B. GrantiDg the Varianc. i. D.ce.aary for the pre.ervatioD and .DjoyaeDt of a .ub.tantial property right po......d 1>>1' oth.r prop.rty iD the sam. viciDity and land u.. district and deDied to the prop.rty for which the VariaDc. i. .ought. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the right to advertise one's business, which is a right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the KIDS Building. Such right is protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. As set forth above, a number of stores in the same vicinity and land use district have signs on more than one side of their buildings and a number of stores in the vicinity have three or more signs and appear to have signs covering areas equal to or greater than the area to be covered by the proposed sign. If the variance were not granted, the KIDS Building would be denied the 3 -.~.""" 0," ,.... 0',,' enjoyment of such substantial property right which other stores in the same vicinity and land use district enjoy. In addition, if the KIDS Building were denied the right to advertise as set forth above, the KIDS Building tenant would not be able to compete with other stores in the area. c. Granting the Variance will not be materially detriaental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious t~ the property or iaprovements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located. The sign will not face "E" Street and therefore granting the Variance will not add to the number of signs facing such street. The sign will be well integrated with the building and the site. The sign will face a street which has only a few signs. It will aid in the identification of the store and thus will reduce confusion. Reducing confusion in turn will enhance the pUQlic health. safety and welfare. In addition, it is necessary that the sign have dimensions of 4 feet by 32 feet in order for it to be legible from Inland Center Drive and Inland Center Hall so as to avoid confusion. Therefore, granting the variance actually will enhance the public health, safety and welfare. D. Granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the liaitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. As set forth above, because of the size of the front of the KIDS Building, two (2) signs were and continue to be needed on the front. Thus, the KIDS Building only has signs on one side of its building. A number of other stores in the same vicinity and land use district, as set forth above, have signs on two or more sides of their buildings. Thus, granting the Variance will not constitute a special privilege, but instead just will permit the KIDS Building to have signs on more than one (1) side of such building. Such limitation will be consistent with the limitation on other stores in the same vicinity and land use district. Additionally, a number of other stores in the same vicinity apparently have signs that cover as much or a greater area than the KIDS Building sign will cover. Therefore, granting the Variance will not constitute a special privilege, but rather just would give the KIDS Building the same rights and privileges already enjoyed by other stores in the vicinity. 4 o o . B. Granting the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is Dot otherwise -.pressly authori.ed ~y the regulations governing the s~ject parcel. Granting the Variance will help ensure that the parcel will continue to be used as a retail store, which is a use expressly authorized by the land use district regulations applicable to the subje~t property. F. Granting the Variance will not ~e inconsistent with the General Plan. Section E of page 1-23 of the General Plan provides that one of the specific opportunities to continue and strengthen San Bernardino's region-serving role provided by land use policy include the establishment of a "corridor" flanking "E" Street and linking downtown San Bernardino with the Tri-CitY/Commercenter area in which new major regional-serving uses may be located. Granting the Variance will help link these two areas. The KIDS Building is between theses two areas and having the proposed sign will increase the contribution of the KIDS Building to t.~e establishment of such a corridor. Section 1.15 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the objective of the City to maintain and enhance the Inland Center Mall and adjacent properties as the principal region- serving retail center of the city. The KIDS store is located on property adjacent to the Inland Center Mall and the proposed sign will help enhance the Inland Center Mall and properties adjacent to it as the principal region-serving retail center of the City. Section 1.19 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the ob~9ctive of the city to provide for the continued use, enhancement, and new development of retail and related commercial uses along major transportation corridors and intersections to serve the needs of the residents. The proposed sign will enhance the ability of the KIDS Building to serve the needs of the residents in that it will make the store identifiable from Inland Center Drive and the Inland Center Mall. See Exhibits Y and Z. Section 1.45 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the objective of the City to ensure that private signage is well integrated into architectural and site design and minimized with land use districts to reduce visual clutter and blight. The proposed sign will be well integrated with the architecture and site design and will D2t contribute to visual clutter in that very few signs presently face the same direction, which the proposed sign will face, and the sign will face a parking lot. The white wall i:1 Exhi~it AA is the wall on which the proposed sign will be placed. Section 1.45.9 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the policy of the city to allow for consideration of signs of visually distinctive design and merit which may differ from prescribed limits of size, materials, and other characteristics, 5 o o provided that they are well integrated with the buildinq and site, do not adversely impact adjacent uses, and are not intended solely to increase siqn size. The proposed siqn will be well integrated with the buildinq and site, will not adversely impact adjacent uses, and will not be intended solely to increase siqn size. section 4.13 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the objective of the City to maintain the exis~inq reqional retail base and stabilize the future reqional retail base. The proposed siqn will help the KIDS Buildinq maintain the existinq reqional retail base and stabilize the future reqional retail base. Section 4.13.2 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the policy of the City to renovate and intensify activity at, and in between, the two reqional malls to create a sinqle reqional cluster. The KIDS Buildinq is located between the two reqional malls. The proposed siqn will help draw business to ~~e area and thus intensify activity in between the two malls. Section 4.17.2 of the General Plan provides that it shall be the policy of the City to develop proqrams to establish an awareness of each commercial corridor in need of economic enhancement. The proposed siqn will help establish an awareness of the commercial corridor alonq "E" Street without addinq any siqn on "E" Street. The siqn will be visually-appealinq and well-integrated with the desiqn of the buildinq and site. ki\CI\prI..t.\toys\~r.4 6 ',"" -'[ '." 'U t.< :~ ~~~ i 'I 12i1, tlllm:11 ' ,II, lilH' '; , , "I', 1.li!"l , '.' '. III,.!I .j : : I ' , ~Jiil.1 ' . ' I . ,I, !:. I I ql f ,.j '! . : o + , , I ~ 'I) ~ % ..: ~ :ll .. I r ! ,. i I 1......ftII.6._~_.I. . t~ Attachment "D" o SITE PLAN FOR VARI.\NCE NO. 91-20 . , ......-.- -.;-"- ~~ .. - ,PC- ... ._~.r " ! -i-I.....~..J,... ~ I ~ . t"', ~___.I " __oJ 1_, ' =>\ i . I :! I _~Ii~~ I; \@ I '" c ., · I :. I I :~'.. p'>>" .... . I. . t I .;&1= "'"\i' :-;; I I,: ~.r---l;". .~ , I,.' ..- -- . t ... . ..-. ;". ;~..~ 'r~: 'J~ 'I'tl!..' '".t..:'.',' ':.' . - ,. I .~." . Attachment "En ~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT . CASE VAR 91-20 AGENDA ITEM # 7 LOCATION HEARING DATE 1-7-92 ,,;t- It- caNTU'" Ar ~./\ ~ u ::.=.~.~ G -- \ .: rJ . . .. .. .. c ;:l I z .. c Z .. . 0' T r z II .. ! 11l--! , l!: z o u ... · · f'f ..- - ~ t\.- ... t:::J .. I~ ~ Pl.AN-I.l1 PAGE 1 OF 1 .... ~ ... - - , o 6~ City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Variance No. 91-20 Applicant: Mr. Alexis S. M. Chiu OWner: Signal Kids Partnership & Downey Partnership Meeting Date: January 7, 1992 X Denied Based Upon Findings of Fact (Attachment B). VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Clemensen, Cole, Jordan, Lopez, Romero, Stone None None Lindseth, Ortega, Valles I, hereby, accurately Commission certify that this Statement of Official Action reflects the final determination of the Planning of the City of San Bernardino. Sign ~ Name and Title cc: Project Property OWner Project Applicant Building Division Engineering Division Case File PCAGENDA: PCACTION - ~ cS 6 KA...~E. BALLMER & BERKMAN ... LAW CO."OJltATION 354 SOUTH SPRING STREET. SUITE 420 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90013 MUR~AY 0.. KANE eAu(:E C. BALLMER GLENN ~ WASSERMAN MAR.,QAIE lit. ,.JllttEOLANOEA R. eRUCE TE~"ER. ,JR. RENlb~ L. CAMPBELL "ATIolRYN REIMANN PAINCIPALS TELEPHONE CZI3) 4517-0"'.0 TELECOPIER 12131 C5Z5-0tt31 ROBERT P. BERKMAN iIIETUtCD EUGENE e. .JACOBS A ~.o,.It..'O""''' cO..O....TION 0" COUNSEL January 17, 1992 ALEXIS S. !:J. CHIU "j~ --.. -:-:. ;........ .., Mayor and Common council City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, california 92418-0001 Re: Variance Number 91-20 Kids "R" Us, 666 South "E" Street, San Bernardino. California <- --, ~~ -, -- " N , .- -- -< :::> -.."'} '" ':--n ~ .~ =- ..,'. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council: We hereby appeal the decision of the Planning commission of January 7, 1992, to deny Variance Number 91-20, which was a variance to per:nit sign on the rear wall of the Kids "R" Us building located at the above-referenced address. Such sign would face Inland Center Drive. The Kids building presently has two (2) wall signs only on the front side of the building. Because of the size, shape and location of the ouilding and the lot on which it is located, this building needs s_gnage on both the front and rear sides. Reversal of the Planning =ommission's denial of the Variance is needed in order for the Kids building to have adequate signage. As the Planning Depa==ent Staff admitted on page 4 of its report, buildings located on property with the same sign standards, as those which apply to the Kids building, have signs on more than one side. Therefore, no special right would be granted to the Kids building. Having signs on two sides of the building will be of public benefit and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The sign on the rear of the building will ensure safer motorist travel by providing proper visibility for destination shoppers along two major travel ways. Granting the Variance will further the objective of the city, as set forth in its General Plan, to renovate and intensify activity in between the two regional malls, the Central City Mall and Inland Center Mall, to create a single regional cluster. Attachment "2" Jj de c:f Mayor and Common Council January 17, 1992 Page 2 The variance Application contained a number of exhibits that were attached to the Application. It is our belief that copies of such exhibits were not made available to the Commissioners for their review prior to the hearing. During our presentation at the hearing, we made references to the exhibits and the Commissioners indicated that they did not have copies of exhibits. Based upon the foregoing and all previous documents and oral testimony presented, you are respectfully requested to overturn the Planning commission's decision and approve the request for the Inland Center Drive facing sign. During the meeting at which you will consider .this matter a representative from Kids "R" Us will address you. We look forward to the opportunity to fully discuss this item with you. Very truly yours, KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN A&.~iU ASC/mn K:\CI\prIY8t.\toyl~.ltr o 0 BDIBIT "An ." BDIBIT "B" Attachment "3-1" o o BDJ:Bl:T "C" BDJ:BIT "D" At~achment "3-2" o o l BXJUBI'1' "B" BDIBI'1' "F" .1lttachment "3-3" o o ~-~ ~>: [~,' ~ - ~ ! - ~ .~ a:"~ -. , EX1IJ:BIT "Gw EXJIIBIT "B" ~'~~r'. .;~ ~~ Attachment "3- 4" ~ o o . ,~ '.. ;~r~.-~ :!r i.f;~_:'~- . ht~~~.-.:. t~t.< ; '';.~~-': !'.~". tlF- ~'~,,:'~':. ..,.-.--- .; ~., .- ~i ~}(:..:.' .,- ED:IB:IT ''It" . "". ED:IBIT "1." Attachment "3-5" o o . . _.C,,,,.," EXJl:IB:IT "XU EXJl:IB:IT ..... c ....."'..... - '..l"+-."'. Attachment "3-6" ~,;; " o o . ,~ BXJlI:BI:'1' "0. .... ~.~ BXJlI:BI:'1' "P" Attachment "3-7" . o o - -------- ~--_. -----..- .:.....- , EDJ:BJ:T "g" ;,.. 1'".'. -. "-..- rr.. ';." .#.. :..: ~ i'";'- ,.' :," "..: ".-'- ...~ ,- EDJ:BIT "an Attachment "3 - 8" o o EXHIBIT "S. EXHIBIT "T- Attachment "3-9" ~" o o ~::':.~:~1~~~~~~~_ BDI:BI:T "un EDIBIT "V" Attachment "3 -10 " o o ,...---. . I I I - .... ----- EXJIrBIT "W" EDIBIT "X" Attachment "3-11" o o EXK:IB:IT "Y" ". EXK:IBIT "Z" Attachment "3-12" o o , EXHIBIT "JUl" Attachment "3-13"