HomeMy WebLinkAbout55-Planning and Building
. CITY OF SAN BEQARDINO - REQUES,()OR COUNCIL ACTION
.
l
;:n- '.
"...c n . ":.
-SubjeCtk llitiance
'Q~-':: L~~f) ,...
1_- "'M'a~6r 'and .t;:i;lmmon
April 6, 1992
No. 91-16
From:
Al Boughey, Director
Dept:
Planning & Building Services
Council ~leeting
Dau: March 20, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On November 4, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved the Development
Agreement (D.A. 91-02) for the development of the Wal-Mart shopping center
by Gatlin-Doerken Development Corporation.
On December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of
the Planning Commission denial so staff could meet with the applicant.
On January 21, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of
the Variance to enable the applicant to submit an application to amend the
Development Code relative to certain changes in sign regulations.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Common Council continue the hearing to April 20,
1992, to enable Planning Staff to explore the options for a
Development Code Amendment relative to freeway signage.
~~
. ature
Al Boughey
Contact person:
Al Boughey
Staff Report
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
4
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
....<: "~,,.,
Am~nrt::l Itp.m Nn 55
CIT\" OF SAN BER~RDINO - REQUEST CPR COUNCIL ACTION
.
)'
STAFF REPORT
subject: Variance No. 91-16
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
April 6, 1991
REOUEST
The request is to allow signage in excess of the permitted number,
size, and height; and to allow a sign program with additional
colors and type styles, for a shopping center located on the north
side of Highland Avenue, at the northerly terminus of Boulder
Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Variance No. 91-16 included eight requests for variance of
Development Code sign standards applicable to the proposed shopping
center. On October 29, 1991, the Planning Commission approved two
of the requests for variance and denied the other six.
The two requests that were approved were requests to allow wall
signs for major tenants in excess of the allowable area, and to
allow more than three major tenants on the shopping center
identification monument signs. This approval was based upon the
larger size of the center (31.05 acres) in relation to other
shopping centers located in the City.
The denial of the remaining six requests was based upon the
findings that there were no special circumstances applicable to the
property, that the granting of these variances was not necessary
for the preservation of substantial property rights, and that the
granting of these variance requests could constitute a special
privilege or advantage not afforded other similar shopping centers
in the vicinity or land use district.
On November 4, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved
Development Agreement No. 91-02 to govern the development of the
310,283+ square foot shopping center on the site. The Development
Agreement included the Conditions of Approval and Standard
Requirements for Variance No. 91-16 as an attachment. However,
since action by the Mayor or Common Council to deny or uphold the
appeal of Variance No. 91-16 will not change the Conditions or
Standard Requirements of the Variance, it will not affect the
contents or validity of the approved Development Agreement.
On December 2, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council held a public
hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the
Variance. At that meeting, a discussion ensued regarding the
ability of the council to grant the variance request. Following
the discussion, the sign section of the Development Code was
referred to the Legislative Review Committee, and staff was
directed to return to council in 45 days.
,.0264
-
-
o
o
. :t
Variance No. 91-16
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
April 6, 1992
Page 2
On January 21, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council again held a
public hearing on the appeal of the Planning commission denial of
the Variance. After a brief discussion with staff, the hearing was
continued until April 6, 1992 to enable the applicant to submit an
application to amend the Development Code relative to the sign
regulation relative to large retail centers.
On January 30, 1992, the applicant submitted a Development Code
Amendment, Development Code Amendment No. 92-02 (D.C.A. 92-02), to
establish new sign development criteria for large retail centers.
On February 18, 1992, the Planning commission recommended approval
of D.C.A. 92-02.
ANALYSIS
Development Code Amendment No. 92-02 addresses all but one of the
remaining variance requests, the freeway pylon sign. Staff has met
with Earl Charles of Signtech, the sign contractor for the shopping
center and the applicant in an effort to resolve the issues
surrounding the freeway pylon sign. It is likely that the issues
can be resolved with an amendment to the Development Code relative
to freeway signs.
To enable staff time to explore a Development Code Amendment to
address the freeway sign development standards for large retail
centers, more time is needed. Staff has discussed the need for the
additional time with the applicant. The applicant is not opposed
to continuing the variance request to the Mayor and Common Council
meeting of April 20, 1992.
CONCLUSION
The variance request was continued to enable the applicant to
submit a Development Code Amendment relative to the sign
development criteria for large retail centers. All of the variance
requests with the exception of the freeway pylon sign have been
addressed by D. C.A. 92-02. In order to properly explore a
Development Code Amendment relative to the development criteria for
freeway signs, more time is needed.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
1. Deny the variance; or
2. Continue the hearing and direct staff to explore the
Development Code Amendment options pertaining to freeway
signage and report back to Council with a recommendation.
o
o
, )'
Variance No. 91-16
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
April 6, 1992
Page 3
RECOMMENDED MOTION
That the Mayor and Common Council continue the hearing to April 20,
1992, to enable Planning staff to explore the options for a
Development Code Amendment relative to freeway signage.
Prepared by:
Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner
for Al Boughey, Director
Planning and Building Services