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.
.