HomeMy WebLinkAbout41-Planning and Building
-
CITY OF SAN BE~RDINO - REQUESTQoR COUNCIL ACTION
From:
Al Boughey, Director
Planning & Building Services
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission
denial of Variance No. 91-20,
Kids "R" Us, 666 South "E" Street
Dept:
Date:
May 20, 1992
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
June 1, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On January 7, 1992, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 91-20.
On April 6, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council upheld
concept, and continued the hearing until May 4, 1992.
to prepare positive Findings of Fact.
the appeal, in
Staff was directed
On May 4, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item for
30 days to give staff and the owner/applicant sufficient time to address
the issues involved.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and the appeal be upheld based on the
Findings of Fact.
Contact person: Al Boughey
Staff Report
Supporting data attached:
Phone:
384-5357
3
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
Allenda Item No 'f I
CITY.OF SAN BERNOADINO - REQUEST ~R ~OUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
OWner:
Signal Kids partnership & Signal Downey Partnership
C/O Joseph Kung
3634 country Club Dr.
Lakewood, CA 90712
Applicant:
Kane, Ballmeer & Berkman
354 S. spring st., suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90013
REOUEST
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.
BACltGROURD
On January 7, 1992, the Planning commission denied Variance No. 91-
20. An appeal to the Planning commission's denial was heard by the
Mayor and Common Council on April 6, 1992. At that time the Mayor
and Common Council upheld the appeal, in concept, and directed
staff to return on May 4, 1992, with positive Findings of Fact. At
the same time the property owner concurred with the Council's wish
to upgrade the landscaping at the Kids "R" Us location. On May 4,
1992 the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to June 1,
1992 to give staff and the owner/applicant sufficient time to
address this issue.
ANALYSIS
The applicant's request for an additional, and oversized, wall sign
for the Kids "R" Us building is based on the arguments contained in
the ,original application. There is validity to the arguments in
that the Kids property is located on a uniquely shaped lot which
has visibility only from "E" Street. The appearance from Inland
Center Drive and Inland Center Mall is of a blank wall on the
distant side of the Flood Control channel. If a sign were to be
installed on the rear wall then the sign would have to be of a size
to be readily discernable from the mall area and from Inland Center
Drive. Due to the unique configuration of the site the granting of
the Variance would not constitute a special privilege as this
variance could only apply to the Kids site.
75-0264
Vaniance No. 91-20 0
Mayor and common Cou 1
June 1, 1992
Page 2
o
OJ'
Meeting
The applicant has agreed,in concept, to upgrade the landscaping to
improve the' overall aesthetics on site. However, the specifics
have not been defined at this time. We are working on adding
planter areas along the front of the building adjacent to the
walkWay to relieve the large expanse of building, walkWay and
parking lot.
t!OIICLUB:IO)t
The intent of the General Plan and the Development Code is to
prevent unnecessary proliferation of signs. The granting of the
variance will not result in a proliferation of signs in the area
due to the unique shape and location of the Kids property and the
extra sign is proposed to compensate for lack of visibility from
Inland Center Drive and the mall. This argument can only be
applied to the Kids lot and therefore is not considered a special
privilege denied to others in the vicinity. As the granting of the
variance can onlY be applied to this property, the adherence to the
Development Code standards is not compromised nor is there
inconsistency with the General Plan.
IO.YOR MID ~MMOIl ~mIC:IL OP'r:IOIlS
The Mayor and Common council may uphold the decision of the
planning commission and deny variance No. 91-20 or
The Mayor and Common council may uphold the applicant's appeal and
approve Variance No. 91-20.
REcn1olM1P.NDAT:IO)t
Based on the Findings of Fact, Attachment A, the Mayor and common
council can uphold the appeal and approve Variance No. 91-20.
, Director
of planning and Building services
prepared by,
John R. Burke
Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A - Findings of Fact
B _ conditions of Approval
C _ staff Report to the Mayor and Common council,
April 6, 1992
Attachment "A"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 91-20
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 6-1-92
PAGE 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
~
""'I
1.
2.
4.
....
The property site is unique in its shape, location and
surroundings, wherein the strict application of the
Development Code could deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
land use district classification.
3.
The granting of this variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use
district in that the site configuration precludes the use of
signs to the rear of the building due to access not being
possible.
Granting the Variance would not 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 additional
sign is not considered a proliferation of signage to cause a
degradation of the aesthetics in the area.
Granting the Variance would not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and land use district in which the property is
located, and granting the Variance would not constitute a
special privilege. This property is limited in that access is
not possible from the rear of the property.
Granting the Variance would not allow a use or activity which
is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations
governing the subject parcel. Granting the Variance would
allow a sign use which is unique to the site.
The granting of the variance would be consistent with the
City'S General Plan.
5.
6.
PlAN-I.110 PAGE' OF 1 14-101
~~
.t'1.i..\-a.......J.J.,U,lCU... J..J
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 91-20
CONDITIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 6-1-92
PAGE 4
r
~
1. Within one year of the variance approval, commencement of
construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall
become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of
construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year,
then the permit/approval shall become null and void.
Project :
Expiration Date :
variance No. 91-20
June 1, 1993
2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days
prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one
time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority
shall ensure that the project complies with all current
Development Code provisions.
3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the
City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action
and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once
notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding against the city of San
Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the
City of any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be
required by the court to pay as a result of such action, but
such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his
obligation under this condition.
4. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans approved by the Mayor and Common Council. Minor
modification to the planes) shall be subject to approval by
the Director through a minor modification permit process. Any
modification which exceeds 10 % of the following allowable
measurable design/site considerations shall require the
refiling of the original application and a subsequent hearing
by the appropriate hearing review authority, if applicable.
~~~
.I
~ PAGE1OF, 14-llO)
LL
ft
CONDITIONS
CASE VAR 91-20
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 6-1-92
PAGE 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
.....
5. A sign permit application shall be filed with the Planning and
Building Services Department subsequent to the approval of
this variance application.
6. The variance may be revoked or modified by the Commission
in accordance with Section 19.72.110 if anyone of the
following findings can be made:
a) That circumstances have changed so that 1 or more
of the findings contained in Section 19.72.050 can
no longer be made, and the grantee has not
substantially exercised the rights granted by the
variance:
b)
That the variance was
misrepresentation or fraud:
obtained
by
c) That the improvement authorized pursuant to the
variance had ceased or was suspended for 6 or more
consecutive calendar months:
d) That 1 or more of the conditions of the
variance have not been met, and the grantee
has not substantially exercised the rights
granted by the variance:
e) That the improvement authorized pursuant to
the variance is in violation of any statute,
ordinance, law, or regulation: and,
f) That the improvement permitted by the variance
is detrimental to public health, safety, or
welfare or constitutes a nuisance.
7. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall submit
a Landscape Improvement Plan to the Planning and Building
Services Department that shows the location of the planter
areas to be added to the site, adjacent to the front of the
building.
PLAN-I.aI PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
~====