Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout33-Planning and Building -,~""" CITY. OF SAN BERtGRDINO - REQUEST o,R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Variance No. 91-16 Dept: Planning and Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Date: April 14, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On November 4, 1991, the Mayor and Common Council approved Development Agreement (DA 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 Councio 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. On April 6, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued the hearing to April 20, 1992 to enable staff to explore options for a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway signage. Recommended motion: Deny the appeal, denying the Variance and direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway sign standards to allow freeway signs 35 feet in height and 125 square feet in area for centers of 25 acres or more in area (supports staff's recommendation); or Deny the appeal, denying the Variance and direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway sign standards to allow freeway signs 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area for centers of 25 acres or more in area; or, Uphold the appeal and approve the Variance in concept and refer the matter back to develop positive Findings of Fact (supports appellant's request). /t~/f2'k\(2 ~Sig~ture Al Boughey Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 4 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.! (Acct. DescriDtionl Finance: Council Notes: .~~ ClTY,OF SAN BERNORDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 20, 1992 REOUEST The applicant's original request was for signage in excess of the permitted number, size, and height; and 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. All but one of the applicant's requests have been addressed by Development Code Amendment No. 90-02. The applicant's remaining request is for a freeway sign 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area (See Exhibit A, April 9, 1992 Letter from Gatlin-Doerken). 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 -'r; , o o Variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 2 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. 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 (DCA), to establish new sign development criteria for large retail centers. On February 18, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the DCA. 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 Glen Daigle, representing Gatlin-Doerken, in an effort to resolve the issues surrounding the freeway pylon sign and to attempt to develop new freeway sign criteria for shopping centers larger than 25 acres. ANALYSIS Both staff and the applicant are in agreement that the sign criteria for large semi-regional (25 acres or more in area) and regional shopping centers/ malls should be revised. Both staff and the applicant are in agreement that such signage should be restricted to back-lit or channel letters on an opaque background to ensure quality signs. Where staff and the applicant differ are in the amounts of sign height and area that the revised criteria should allow for such shopping centers. Because Gatlin-Doerken cannot come to an agreement with staff in regards to freeway sign size, the applicant prefers to pursue the Variance request (See Exhibit A, April 9, 1992 letter from Gatlin-Doerken). The applicant has conducted a flag test and believes that the flag test reveals that a freeway sign 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area is warranted. However, staff is skeptical of the flag test for two reasons. The first is that the panel was raised to the sign height desired by the applicant, and viewed from various points of the proposed freeway that is presently under construction. The flag panel was not placed at the allowable Development Code sign face height of 22 feet and viewed from various points of the proposed freeway for a baseline comparison. The second reason is that the determination of sign height for the o 0 Variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 3 flag test should have been accomplished by ra1s1ng the panel to that height at which the flag is visible leaving ample time for a vehicle to safely exit the freeway. Further analysis of the site has revealed that a freeway siqn of this heiqht may not be warranted because the future northbound lanes cross over Boulder Avenue just north of Atlantic Avenue, and the proposed chevron style center identification siqn proposed to be located at the termination of Boulder Avenue at Hiqhland Avenue should be clearly visible (See Exhibit B, Location Map). This portion of the freeway is elevated above Boulder and the sinqle-family homes immediately north of the freeway. If the center identification siqn at the termination of Boulder is clearly visible, qrantinq the Variance would constitute a special privileqe. Revised freeway siqn standards are warranted for semi-reqional and reqions shoppinq centers/malls. Most freeways traversinq commercial land use districts are elevated above the surroundinq properties. staff believes that siqn criteria for shoppinq centers/malls with qreater than 25 acres in area should be established to allow freeway siqns 35 feet in heiqht and 125 square feet in area, with back-lit or channel lettering and will qive such centers adequate visibility qiven the elevated freeways throuqhout the City CONCWSION Grantinq the variance to allow the proposed Shopping center at Highland Avenue at the termination of Boulder a freeway siqn 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area would constitute the qrantinq of a special privileqe not afforded others in the same land use district. The Development Code should be revised to allow semi-reqional and reqional shopping centers/malls (25 acres or more in area) freeway siqns with a 35 foot heiqht and with 125 square feet of area. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL 1. Deny the appeal, denyinq the variance and direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway siqn standards to allow freeway siqns 35 feet in height and 125 square feet in area for centers of 25 acres or more in area: or, 2. Deny the appeal, denyinq the variance and direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway sign standards to allow freeway signs 45 feet in height and 225 square feet in area for centers of 25 acres or more in area: or, , o o variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 4 3. Uphold the appeal and approve the Variance in concept and refer the matter back to staff to develop positive Findings of Fact. RECOMMENDED MOTION That the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal, denying the variance and direct staff to initiate a Development Code Amendment relative to freeway sign standards to allow freeway signs 35 feet in height and 125 square feet in area for centers of 25 acres or more in area. Prepared by: Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services Exhibit A - April 9, 1992 Letter from Gatlin-Doerken Development Exhibit B - Location Map .' . o o GATLIN/DOERXEN DEVELOPMENTS 17151 FOOTHILL BOtJ.LEVARD FONTANA, CA 92335 714 356-4691 April 9, 1992 Mr. Al Boughey Director of Planninq and Building services City of San Bernardino 300 North D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 .. RE: Variance 91-16 Development Code Amendment No. 92-02 Dear Al: As it was apparent that there was some misunderstandinq immediately prior to the April 6th Council Meeting, I thought it best to request the continuance. I hope this letter will clarify the situation. 1. Height and area of the two freestanding sic;ns on Highland Avenue - We communicated to City staff on February 26, 1992 (copy of letter attached) that we wanted to take up the issue of additional height and area for the shopping center name at the city Council meeting. That is why we were surprised to hear you say that you did not know we were going to bring it up. However, if you will eliminate the requirement that part of the allowable sic;n area be dedicated to the center name, then we will be in aqreement with this specific component of the proposed Development Code Amendment. In fact, we will be in aqreement with the entire Development Code Amendment with one exception, item 2 of this letter below. 2. Our remaining exception is the height and area of the "freeway pylon". It is our understanding from reading the staff report that staff feels that this single portion of variance 91-16 which was appealed to Council is now adequately addressed by this Development Code Amendment. Exhibit A o o April 9, 1992 ~.UB~~~ ~ paqe 2 ~O , :Y ("'" k\' -t-1" tl" We feel stronqly that the flaq test condu~d at the site demonstrates the need for a 4Vf~ot tall freeway pylon siqn with an area of )do square feet and up to 5 users names. We feel that findinqs in this reqard are subjective and that we offer the Council the opportunity to state just that and. approve our appeal. I believe further that council can approve this appeal for this specific project and also approve the Development Code Amendment, thereby handlinq freeway pylons in qeneral and this proj ect specifically. If Council were to deny our appeal, then my understandinq is that we would then be bound by the approved Development Code Amendment reqardinq freeway pylons. I hope this clarifies our position and please contact me to discuss tnese two items. Sincerely, GATLl:NjDOERXEN DEVELOPMENTS . ~~f:;y1 PROJECT MANAGER GD:sh . o o . ~ FebnJ"ry 26. I Q92 r1il'.e Fi nn Department of Pl"nning and Building Services City of San Bernardino 300 North 0 Street S"n Bern"rdino. Ca. 9241 a RE: Highland Avenue Plaza Dear Mike This letter is to confirm the G"tlin-Doerken position regarding the proposed Development:Code Amendment. In reference to the name of the center. It is our p.)sition that the name of the center is a vital p"rt of the overall sign"ge program and an allowance for the name ( both in square footllge lInd height) should be addressed in the Development Code Amendment. 'We beleive thatlhe height and square footage lI110wance should be in addition to that allowec;:l in the current Proposed DevelopmentCodo;- Amendment. Please clIll me to discuss. :,' . ""'~":(lrt....,;~'Oo:.':)O~~' .:. .':~~ v.':'.lrt-~" ~: ::rtf.~~i :.. .!~J.+.ft~it.?~.. 'f':..I!>~1:i\~ ... .~~..,~...,..' ". '..;:::.~~" t. .'~ -1!'''. ,... . ~'I~ .. I; ':~i'''l;~.~'''" ':'~St'. ':..' I I ... ,~. .lIl ,'f'. '1I~ . ~-ff~ - ":;'1.I.~...i\~. '~ ....~.I..r.; .....,. "c:' '. .-.t::' 'I"'" ,'~'~,:"n' m ' ... ...... it w . ..~ ~ !1.'".W ..':_'_ .... . . \" to: .....,A~ . :r~' ~.. ;':;~."~"i'L~;'~ .. ..... '~"I .. ./Ji....'"t....... t....,.~...::~~'t '. -~ :'I,'':A;o.;'i:'';' 'f:/' :- ."t'i" . .~':;"_ .".'; ~,.. "1;iL: :'" .1'!fl~; .;,,;t')i':..~.. ~:. i~";,':. ~~..:~). ~ i,,1.(~"'1');'!' . 'l"I.. ',k!1:,,,' J. . " ~JI.;;u.:.;'1' ",:,.. '~p....I!: "'~'_' .\'{.r~!.l'.t'O.!.l .,~:;,'f~"","'A"';I"'~ " ~1\l:!l;!\;l: '~~I.~.~{';:i'''f~'I,:.i,;.i;;'~''~:t4~~ ~..\.t .~ '~"'r"'~' ~..7.~'" "'''l.~ . . , .....' 'Oi....~~. '..~ "., ~ . 1 ;-:'~'!t .....~ ': .i"".'1 ;. :;:./.. :'.~ ~:'~'~.'1f.i/'~'t-Y ..r.f!I-;~l:;. .n;;_.'.'.-:':.~I,f ';', ~~ ,,:"', ~;~\f~:1ii.~:~ . .""... - .... ~.. - . . '. ,..f'..~~.....,.~,.:...w...1!I.-._~....~\:...;-) ,.~~/.:... ~.:.I:-(:.h. f.~;J":f:.~...1:i;~:.?Q-. ~:'" . v' . .~... ......... ,'... .. 'I' ~-: ....~-. ...-.;. :' ...l. ~:,[,.. l_ ...'i...... ~.~ ..:......~..~.., ""i.t ,,'Ii'; ::';"':5j:.~:!,,~,;;~~':i. :..Jft:;. ~t.,'.f.' ~:tt '~~"'~;"jlfi...,'!,., .t.!..:'!I::.t.>;,")'lIo; ~ .,' '1"'1:" ~. ~ .'1'ii""..... - ... ."0." 0, . . ..l..,~...~.;,;~ .,.:... .' ..." "t:,~,,'..r.. ,i;ft.., i~.I~".4.1, ..:..~.:;~.- ....;.:....:r;.!-.....".,,:.... . .'1. r. ... lif."'':', ..~.. ."4:;......-..r. "~,........~~. :~A~' )'::~.' . ~~.."t:..~;.~:;.....:..~ _::f. ''!'',.".' ..~. w.".....,.. ..~..'. .~ ~ ~.r'a.'.,"....:1..:'.:!,o;:,. ; .' ...1..:.\\ ..i.;.~.:~;..~..::...~ ?f..'r..r."S e.~'... . ..."o:~~~...~.:.~f ;:\.: ',;./.t: . ':';1 ~,.~~,,~. :~.l.:.~ ..~...~~~~~1;a... .....~:;....' .....:'! t... .....Ilu. -.,,'" ...(....;'. .;1:::' .. . '. ~ .. ~'" ..... . .- ~...... .~}J .~~._...."'...!"...:':N~. ,,-::....;.;;..i~., .~.:..:'. .- ~. ...r.~' .....,. ..... . .,.. ........ ........ "L'''~ ",,",~~~' ;;.....17.l::.~':.." ..J.;...:.:;., .,~i:t.... . ~-.;... :"lil: ~,,:. \..ii~'';.r~ .. ;"I'F.::~;":'::! i''-. "". :'<\....~..,:jt....: ....i. - .&I--:.~.:i'~.;.C:;;::;.::.'4'.!.7.~t;:. .. .. '-';:"':: ..~~. .....;.~~ ,.......1 ~ r~.. .....'li;.~*.."::i~ ',," 'fi'''' .-' 'i"" ._\~ . -:;;..::..~' .....,...;;~.-:~:';f.:I .\.;.;.......::r.':~l.~~:~~: ~I:f"~l .l:&~~tltt\~:;,... !;\{i~j.'./:.~f#t.. .. '",'.. '.'!"._T'!.l-~~"..:-. .' ,)"'.. 'I' ~ !:~, . ....,,-.. ..!l';;>;,;..!.;..'I>-.li"~.~'t.."",....,; ~,'" .'f~~ :.". ..;r.f'....'~ .~.;~~'~I',l.;:.".::.:; '.j, ..~.' ,'.....:r.IL-::.I'!.~..., -I-.;t.. ......~...a:~f':.:.I. .:.{I;" ~.":'-:r.~i""J',~~""",,"."'..1~~.{:."':'.::"::_.. ~.o;.... :.'40 '0.."'-.' -,.......~.......-l'".~_....,..... ..~.; . ','~t~'.;" .I.,\..~~.' 'it. :o..,lo.~......!o"';jo:.J.:. .~, Ilrilll~~ .~~.fp. .:.:.~..~.., :--:;""'... \i" ..,~. .:../JJ;.-:;:;'...... /:r: :v;) 'j'Y".' r:~.\ .<..~.!it,.,;.. ~~~ .".:. ~ t"l ...~.i i:' ~~,' .... ,....:;;:;;. .iif~~:J1fr;:Y;{~;~;~':~~l~:k . ..f:i,i . ....~,':'. .--to....;'. .. '}~~1':I;.:'i~..:<_ ~.. ~~";':J~'."~. . ..:.~:..':...:..::,....:_..::..:::..,..........:........~..:.:........;.::....::....~..::';~:.;:,'...:.:~.:..::~,"': ~..~.. , "., . '.' ',' t ,. , ,.._ . .. ::~?~~;;y.~t~~J,;';:.:9?k~\i~t~,;.i. ,......~ ..t..,..... ;..;,,~....,i:.. ....I''t':"1'.r.~~. ....~ .'. .. ',. i.:;~~t:f~{~::.::;;~4j~\~l~2f:i~~~#~~ji;~ .... :. "'. ~. . o o """"'I AGENDA ITEM # CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE LOCATION variance No. 91-16 HEARING DATE 4-20-92 (u....t , .lVI. "- Q PI!-~~ PlJlN.I.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4010) .......,...,::.;:.:.....c...- CITY OF SAN BIERNq.bINO - REQUEST tOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Dept: Planning & Building Services Da~: January 9, 1992 Subject: variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 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 of Variance No. 91-16 so staff could meet with the applicant. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Common Council continue the hearing to April 6, 1992, to enable Planning staff to explore options for a Development Code Amendment relative to signage for large centers, including regional malls. a ~/ rt~ , 1'"tI,1, I Signature Al Boug e Contact penon: Al Bouqhey Supponing dm ~ched: Staff Report Phone: 384-5357 Ward: 4 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N I A Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. Descriotion) Finence: Council Notes: J_~~_~ M...~~ U- J. 04:1., Allenda Item NO~ CITy...oF SAN BERNABINO - REQUEST FO):! COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 REOUEST The request is to allow signage in excess of permitted numl:ler, 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 within 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 possessed by other properties in the same vicinity, and that the granting of these variance requests could constitute a special privilege or advantage not afforded other similar shopping centers in the land use district and vicinity. 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 and Common Council to deny or uphold the appeal on Variance No. 91-16 will not change the Conditions or Standard Requir_ents of the variance, it will not affect the contents or validity of the approved Development Agreement. 0264 -..-~. . o o '" Variance No. 91-16 Mayor and council Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Page 2 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, discussion ensued regarding the ability of 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 Co~cil in 45 days. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the Development Code sign prov1s1ons. It is felt there are 2 areas of deficiency, both related. There are no standards' set forth for regional malls, nor for large shopping centers of 30 or more acres. There are several ways to approach the deficiency. OPTIONS 1. We could establish maximum standards relative to height and area for signage at these retail centers; 2. We could establish no standards, and evaluate signage requests at the time of submittal, to be reviewed and approved by Planning Commission;.or 3. We could make no changes. Before the Christmas holidays, staff held a conversation with Mr. Earl Charles of Signtech, the sign contractor for Wal-Mart. He recommended staff explore Option 2, and establish provision whereby commercial centers, including regional malls of 30 acres or more, be subject to a comprehensive sign program, approved by the Planning Commission. The program would not be subject to Development Code Standards. Due to the holidays and conflicting schedules, no further conversations or meetings were held. To enable staff time to explore all options and formulate a recommendation, more time is needed. Staff has contacted Signtech Signs, the applicant for the variance request. They are not opposed to the continuance request. o o ... variance No. 91-16 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Page 3 CONCLUSION The variance request was continued to enable staff to evaluate the need for a Development Code Amendment to the sign section relative to large retail centers, including regional malls. Staff has identified 3 options on how to approach the issue. In order to properly explore the options to enable an appropriate recommendation, more time is needed. The applicant has agreed to a continuance~ OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL 1. Deny the variance: or 2. continue the hearing and direct staff to explore the Development Code Amendment options and report back to Council with a recommendation. RECOMMENDED MOTION That the Mayor and Common Council continue the hearing to April 6, 1992, to enable planning staff to explore options for a Development Code Amendment relative to signage for large commercial centers, including regional malls. .