HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
..ll. _
C'ITV OF SAN BE~RbINO - REQUEST Q)R COUNCIL A1{.IO;'~'
From:
Brad L. Kilger RF . '
Director of Planning- C D. -I.:J r11!!, :lpSt,biect:
. Iflt)f'! Ill. ...
Plannl.ng .N.. ...;,,;... i.D ":"
Appeal of Planning Commission
Denial of Variance No. B9-4
Dept:
~~o
Mayor and Council Meeting of
August 7, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
July 18, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous Council action.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed; and that the appeal be denied; and that
Variance No. 89-4 be denied.
~
or
That ,the hearing be closed; that the appeal be upheld; and that
Variance No. 89-4 be approved subject to a height limit of 60 feet
and subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions contained in the
June 20, 19B9 Planning Commission staff report. (Staff's recommenda-
tion, however, the applicant is requesting an 84,foot height variance.)
\ / /
/
/,
, ,-
Signature
Brad L. Kilger
Contact person:
Brad L. Kilger
Phone:
3B4-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward:
FUNDING REOUIREMENTS: Amount: nla
Source: (Acct, No,)
(Accl. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No,
~o
o
CITY OF SAN BI!RNARDINO -
o
REQUI!ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of Planning commission Denial of Variance
No. 89-4
Mayor and Council Meeting of August 7, 1989
REOUEST
The applicant, General Maintenance, Inc. for Shell Oil
company, is appealing the denial of Variance No. 89-4 by the
Planning commission at its June 20, 1989 meeting. The appli-
cant requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider the deci-
sion of the Planning commission and approve the variance
request of an 84 foot height variance for a freeway sign.
BACKGROUND
Variance No. 89-4 is a request to vary Code section 19.60.220
(f) (2) to replace an existing nonconforming sign of 91 feet
in height with a sign 84 feet in height. This proposal is 44
feet higher than the maximum allowed by Code.
The site of the proposed freeway sign is
southwest corner of Mill and "I" Streets on
eel, and is within about 350 feet of 1-215.
The proposal is categorically exempt from CEQA and is con-
sistent with the General Plan in that the property is desig-
nated CG-1, General Commercial One, which does not prohibit
freeway signs at this location.
located at t;he
a .52 acre par-
The site is occupied by a Shell Service station with a m~n~-
market. There is an existing free-standing sign on the
northeast corner of the site and a freeway sign on the south-
east corner of the site. The existing freeway sign is 91
feet in height, supported by three poles and has a sign area
of 272 square feet. This existing sign is nonconforming in
that Code restricts height to 40 feet and sign area to 150
square feet.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing outdated
Shell sign and replace it with one which is supported by two
poles, instead of three, reduce the sign area to 144 square
feet and reduce the height to 84 feet. The proposed height
of 84 feet is 44 feet higher than the 40 feet allowed by
Code.
After visual inspection of the site, staff has determined
that the 40 foot height limitation would prevent the sign
from being visible from a reasonable distance, However, the
height requested by the applicant is thought to be too tall
and a compromised lowered height of 60 to 70 feet would
reduce the degree of nonconformity to a greater extent than'
the proposed 84 feet and still provide adequate visibility
from the freeway.
15..0264
o
o
The applicant does not have to replace the sign. The exist-
ing sign, under present conditions and Code requirements, may
remain indefinitely and the sign copy and face may be changed
as maintenance items. However, if there are any structural
alterations proposed, the proposed sign alterations must be
in conformance with Code.
,I Staff recommended approval of the variance, subject to a com-
! promised height limit of 60 feet to the Planning commission
i on June 20, 1989. The Commission could not reach a consensus
( after two votes and much discussion and denied the request
~Without prejudice by a 3 to 3 vote.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and
No. 89-4 or uphold the appeal and approve
request at 84 feet, or some compromised height
40 to 84 feet.
deny Variance
the variance
limit between
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends upholding the appeal and approval of Vari-
ance No. 89-4, subject to a height limit of 60 feet based on
the Findings of Fact contained in the June 20, 1989 staff
report.
Prepared by:
John E. Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner
for Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
Attachments:
A - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council
B - Statement of Official Planning commission
Action
C - June 20, 1989 Planning commission Staff
Report
D - Public Hearing Notice
mkf7/17/89
M&CCAGENDA:VAR894
~'"
,"T'", ..~.,,;.,
":'-4;:~t.<:'c
,\
"
":',\~",,,
;~~/:\:
."
;~'::-l
..;'
"'If'l:;"~",
o
o
ATTACHMENT A
rD1 r> @ f?, n nfl rn rn
Jull0 198~
III
\iln ; c,\;l:.iiNG DEPARTMENT
~i~ 2-f;WAROINll. CA
June 30. 1989
City of San Bernardino
300 X "D" St
San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001
. G.J@ui
GENERAL
MAINTENANCE
INCORPORATED
5111<</954
714-898.6625
213-598.4451
11372 WESTERN AVE.
STANTON, CA 90680
A manufaChltrn and
"fJ!I iftJtalJ~rs oj corporal~
... identit}' s;gnQg~
Subject:
Variance # 89-4
Shell Oil Company
Mill and "I" St
Gentlemen:
We are appealing the recent Planning Commission Action
regarding the denial of the Variance as noted above.
Shell Oil Company had voluntarily applied for a variance from
Code Section 19,60.220 IF) (21. including a reduction in
square footage of their existing LEGAL XON-COXFORMIXG freeway
sign from 180' to 144 square feet, and lowering the sign from
91' to 84' in overall height.
Due to the position of the property with respect to the
height of the freeway overpass. and numerous palm trees.
lowering the sign below 8~' would virtually allow no
Visibility and would diminish the traffic flow and
profitability of the location so "ubstantially that it would
be ill Shell's best interest to refurbish and maintain thp
eXisting sign rather than commit to any changes at this time.
We would encourage your review of this matter. and prompt
decision,
i~{~{~
Vice President
G~I I
o
ATTACHMENT B
o
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Variance No. 89-4
Applicant:
GMI for STAFAC, Incorporated
ACTION
Meeting Date:
X
June 20, 1989
Denied without Prejudice.
VOTE
The motion for approval failed on a 3 - 3 vote, as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Cole, Corona, Lopez
Lindseth, Nierman, Stone
None
Brown, Sharp
I, hereby,
accurately
Commission
certify that this Statement of
reflects the final determination
of the city of San Bernardino.
-'.. //
" - ---:..; - --::~//-
...-,---~./'" ~ --'/
- - ~ ~ ~~
Signature . .//
/ /
Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
Name and Title
Official Action
of the Planning
j/z~/k9
pate
mkf
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONA
o
o
ATTACHMENT C
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT""
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
4
6-20-89
, 3 ~
\.
o
~
lJi
i~ I
:~ I
I a: I
i:; i
I LIJ I
I a: i
I c:::s: Ii
Ul
Variance No. 89-4
APPLICANT GMI
11372 Western
Stanton, CA 90680
OWNER STAFAC, Inc
120 B::-oadway
New York, NY 10005
The applicant requests a variance from Code Section 19.60.220
(F) (2) to replace an existing 91 foot tall freeway sign with
an 84 foot tall freeway sign.
The .52 site is located at the southwest corner of Mill Street
and "III Street.
r "\
, .
PROPERTY! i
Subject' I
North
South
East
~'lest
EXISTING
LAND USE
ZONING
CG-l
CG-l
IL
IL
IL
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
CG-l
CG-l
IL
IL
IL
Commercial
Commerclal
Vacant
Commercial
Vacant
, !
,
I\.
I
1 r-;;-EOlOGIC / SEISMIC
. HAZARD ZONE
I
)~
oVES
~NO
DVES
[XJ NO
FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A
ZONE UlNO OZONE B
lli]VES
SEWERS 0 NO
AIRPORT NOISE / 0 YES
CRASH ZONE 5a NO
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
DVES
ill NO
HIGH FIRE
riAZARD ZONE
C', (eNOT o POTENTiAL SIGNI FICANT '\ ( ~I [gJ APPROVAL
;. l:ct 1 i APPi..;CABLE EFFECTS I
: J"" II WITH MITIGATING i ~I ~ CON ::)IT IONS
I I ~ (J) I ! MEASURES NO E,!'R, I
I
" (!). I Ga EXEMPT DEI R. REQUIREO i Lt..QI 0 DENIAL
I~~il BUT NO Lt..~
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~~
""ITH MITIGATING 0 CONTI NUANCE TO
I 2:~ i I MEASURES (J)~
,>Lt..' 0
~' o NO o S!GNI~ICANT EFFECTS ()
SIGNIFICANT ':lEE ATTACHED E.R.C III
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
NOli 1'l81 REVISED JULy 1~82
SKY
'1
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
.1
o
o
.cITY OF SA~ BERNARDINO PLANNlNc~P~~8~~MENT
OBSERVATIONS
A~NCA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
4
6-20.-RQ
?
1. Reauest
The applicant requests a variance from Municipal Code
section 19.60.220 (F) (2), which restricts the height of
freeway signs to 40 feet, to allow the replacement of an
existing 91 foot high freeway sign with a freeway sign
that is 84 feet in height.
2. site Location
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of
Mill Street and "I" Street on a .52 acre parcel. The
site is located within 400 feet of 1-215.
3. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
The request to vary the height requirement for a freeway
sign is inconsistent with the Municipal Code, The
proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan
adopted by the Mayor and Council On June 2, 1989, in
that the property is designated CG-1, Commercial General
which does not prohibit freeway signs at this location
(See Attachment "A").
4. CEOA Status
The proposal is categorically exempt from the provlslons
of the California Environmental Quality Action (Section
15311) .
5 . Backqround
The site is occupied by a Shell Service station with a
mini-market. There are existing signs on the walls of
the building and on existing free-standing sign on the
northeast corner of the site. The existing freeway
sign, located at the southeast corner of the site, is 91
feet in height and consists of three poles with
approximately 272 square feet of sign area. The sign
does not meet current Code requirement, in that Code
restricts height to 40 feet and sign area to 150 square
feet.
~
-
-
L
-
o
o
,CITY OF SA~ BERNARDINO PLANNlNc~EDEP~~n1ENT
OBSERVATIONS
4
6-20-89
1
,
AGC:NOA ITEM
HEARING OATE
PAGE
6. Analvsis
The applicant is proposing to
outdated Shell sign and replace
consistent with Shell's new
installation of the proposed
following:
remove the existing,
it with one which is
signage program. The
sign would result in the
1. The removal of one of the three existing sign
poles.
2. The reduction of sign area from 272 square feet
to 144 square feet, which meets Code require-
ments,.
,3. The reduction of sign height from 91 feet to 84
feet, which is still 44 feet higher than that
which is allowed by Code.
The applicant is requesting the variance because of a
perceived visibility problem for freeway traffic,
created by shrubs, trees and buildings along the
freeway, which make it virtually impossible to see a 40
feet tall sign from the freeway. Staff drove along 1-
215 in both directions and can agree that a 40 feet sign
would not be visible from a reasonable distance.
However, Staff feels the proposed 84 foot sign is too
tall. A 60 foot sign would reduce the degree of non-
conformity to a much greater extent and still provide
adequate visibility from the freeway.
It should be noted, that the applicant does not have to
replace the sign. The existing sign may, under present
conditions, remain indefinitely and the sign copy and
face may be changed. This variance is necessitated by
the fact, that the Sign Code requires any sign involving
a structural alteration to conform to current Sign Code. The
proposal involves structural alteration of the existing sign.
7. Comments Received
Councilman Flores has indicated to Staff that he would
prefer the sign be raised to 60 feet.
o
o
.cITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNiNG DE? ARTMENT
CASE \1rl rR q- 4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING OATE
PAGE
4
6 20-89
4
8. Conclusion
The purpose of a freeway sign is to be visible from the
freeway. It is clear that a 40 foot sign on the subject
site would not be reasonably visible from the freeway.
Therefore, ~ variance from sign height is justified.
However, a 60 foot sign would be reasonably visible from
the freeway and would bring the sign more into
conformance with the sign code.
9. Recommendation
staff recommends that the Planning
Variance No. 89-4 and restrict
proposed sign to 60 feet, based
Findings of Fact for Approval.
Commission approve
the height of the
upon the attached
itted:
:] tr~}~
/
Jal\J€s P. Mulder
PJ.,anner I
./
BLK/JM/ke
Attachment - A
B
C
D
E
F
Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
Findings of Fact for Approval
Conditions of Approval
Applicant's Response to Findings
site Plan arid Sign Plan
Location
VAR89-4
o
o
Attachment "A"
,CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE Var89-4
OBSERVATIONS
4
e:;_~n_QQ
.
AGENDA ITnA
HEARING DATE
PAGE
Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
General
Category Proposal Municipal Code Plan
Use Freeway Sign Permitted Permitted
Distance from 350 feet 400 feet rnax. SBMC
Freeway
Height 84 feet ,10 feet max. SBMC
Variance requested
Sign Area 144 feet 150 sq. ft. SBMC
max.
- --
J. _
:iL
,
o
ATTACHMENT "B"
o
"CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
CASE VarR9:..L___
FINDINGS of FACT AGE~DA ITEM
HEARING DATE
4
b-LU-lj~
,'"
PAGE
6
~
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property, which do no apply
generally , to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood in that the property is situated in
such a way, in relationship to Interstate 215, which
makes it very difficult to see a sign for the subject
property from the freeway.
I
i
.
~
I
,
t
.
,
I
,
.,
I
.
;
~
"
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant in that without the variance, the property
will not enjoy the same advertising privilege afforded
to other surrounding businesses.
3. The granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurlous to
property and improvements in the zoning district and
neighborhood in which the property is located in that
structurally sound pole signs do not constitute a threat
to health, safety or property values.
4. The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to
the objectives of the General Plan in that the General
Plan makes provisions for approval pole signs at this
location in the CG-1 Land Use Designation.
I
.
1
i
(
~
GP:VAR89-4F
~
.
I
1
. ~
f
i
, .
~
,
~
~
."
-'
"
HOV 19'0
o
o
ATTACHMENT "C"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
, CASE Var89-4
CONDITIONS
4
6-20-89
7
--~
"
AGENDA I-:-EM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,
1. A sign permit shall be approved by the Planning
Department prior to installation of the sign.
2.
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 agress to
defend, indeminify, 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 attorneys' fees which the City may be
required by a court to pay as a result. of such action,
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of
his obligation under this condition.
3. The construction authorized by Variance 89-4 shall have
commenced within 180 days after granting the variance.
(Expiration Date: November 16, 1989). The Commission
may grant a 90 day extension at the end of the 180 days
if so requested by the applicant prior to the expiration
of the 180 days.
VAR89-4C
'"
~
-
,
o
(' ATTACHMENT "0"
o
(
'"
..
<
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VAlUANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH
OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CI.EARI.Y ESTABLISH THE JiDtl FOR THE
VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, which do not apply generally
to other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
Due to the elevated Freeway overpass and the many visibJlity
obstructions, reducing proposed lo~o desi{n tn ~ hpigh n~ un'
would cause said display to loose the m~jnr 'Qr~ n~ ;~Q
visibility.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
A hardship would be incurred if visibility to said design was
proportionately reduced.
c.
That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or 1nJurious to
improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood
property is located.
By maintainine: ap:9roximate height of said display - as it stands
materially
property and
in which the
now - it ha,s r;ot been and will not be detrimental to public welfare
or injurious to property in zonin? District or nei?htborhood.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
We feel tha,t this will not be contrary to the lIIaster plan.
.
'-
)
o
o
....:
.'
1_. .
.'
<'.
.~
. .. - .....~-:-...f, "-..~~,~I ....-.-;.~~
.-..". r:, .>.' '''!u(..':-; ..~~~~.t-_. :';( 7..~._;.:::"~~:.:_~-:~:"'. ........,. :1"
, ,:l=:::. ." -, ..;. -; J". '.. '1_ J. ,- 'j.. ", ....,....~I .
.. . '.,-:./ - "..F ")' '. " ..": I ",' ,~. . . .'. .
( . ! - i . . '. '.' ,- ,'J
\ .J j,F' - ,i . r , .
". :l ~... :\..../ .~ ^.~ ~~ 1., ::.-
="'~; .,-00' ... ~:.......:. _._-_-~-.
<'.\' ; 'i, /" \ ,l
\ 1 ' ,,:' ~':; '" r-~
<..... '.: ..... '~.> \..~-,~ ~'~....
~ " ;:,.. ';11 ..'
, , i : 1
. \ I,,'
':...\.
.~.........~"~:~~~....~ I;
'I" I') . . :. ~'r.l ~
__' -'-,~- L.c:... 0 "i<~ .
~., " , 'I" 7~,
. . i :~:, . E .1' .
'I: , . ! "
~ .J /~.
/ V
I",::-'~~=~:- :,,-~,~..:. 1 ~2.
:::": ': ~';~J" ""~' : ", , Hi '~I~
,. "'I;~ ~yti
I. , !]l~ ili~~ .:..:
;~ r..L-~ ~--
.~-~-'- '7f.="'---
~.t I \t~' III!
, ~" - f. I'
/'. ~\I'I'I,J'i,
->', I ~'\=1
'1-......;...;..J.. P'
i' '\Ir
. I!: :;.IP'
" ': '1'1'
.' . Ii:: :.::
_.....D'-+--;;;; , : _' , ,b (,
:: ; I ~1$1'11 'I' 1: - ~ ~..::..-
...--.....j.-..:lr ' ~
.'" 'I :1, .
, ~ 'I "
I, I';'
.::~~:
r.:~.!,
,"'t:: .
r .,).. ,.
~l; i j.
~iP'
I [II~' . g
:r,
"-' ~-~
. .
~-
.^-
"\..
'.
'-
;,
f'-.--t
. . i .
'.:.
f-o,--
I"
.
"
~ "
~~-
I", .
........~
! ".;'! ~
.,'
~ ,;.. r- .-
.;: ."401-
:;;f i:~
!'~il
'-:-:-r---'---'-- -J-~
.. .~-_. -. 1
k -Lr-'---=-'-'
r'"" <
-,,1 ~'
;i:~-I~Tn :'i::.
. 1:,; ~~flhlg i ill ~.
..~Lf._i~~ :11'1' i.. ~ J,-,.
.J~l~!. ., . -t--:~.!.'
:'If.!,ii~i~. :,;.., .,i-
..,'( -". (to( 1ft. " ..' L
"f,l <r.../ ..' '.. .~,......, ,
~:g. ';~.:!,l6~""I~~.t:::::r~ !i......:J. 'L.:.J' 'I
.' ~..,. -...." l~_ ....,. ....c;;~~._..::..1
. . ~I t
I';" .
I;
I
I
,
,
. .
'. I.' ..
:';':'
. .
',:Of ".,
~- .
'--
,,~.
; \<:\.,'
"';>
I
..
'",
~
~
',''1,
';"
,
.; /
,,-
I
/"
A I
.,.... ,
"l<-". .
/" V:
/
"-
V,
_.. .-'
1":1]
.: I.t
. .'1
'1\, -~..
., ,.1
li'l
" \:,i
, .
L'.::.
..;
,
>
I .
..-..a.....-
r
,
J
~"'('-~
~
\';:'\ ,. v
\,\ , ~
5.._:..-.\ ";.~'."
v ~.'
.., \ \..:." ,;.,
\ ,~
\
':".
.
r-
\
~,. ,
~)\.
:\ \
, \
\'\
/
'v
:;":0'-,-,,,,,_
/
"
) ---
_"-II." _
/
\.:."
"
,
,
,
~,
':.0
\.~
',,"
I:;
\ .
r;;-~j;~'J-::'
Ij. -; :f'\
\. , ,,' ,f.,
I '-1. i'y
...1.-.- t:-~' 1, "
Iu....-~i..;
" , .
'I ~.' '. i
! -.. ~ I -..2. 'I:
....,.c:-:- --',
<
"
'\,
/
v
~ I
17 ,....___,
I
I
i
, .
u:au
;LNm<H::J'Il;L;L 'Il
ATTACHMENT "F"
+
j
-""
~I
~"--+
.
.~
;,
--:z
oS
~ (\ -!
\ I
- oL
~ .. I.
t}O "" "'"
~ -Z
1 <$'< J
?
.s ~ :f;
~
J
1
1:
r-
a
IS"
;a-i
~i
I
l
',:;...
I!
I
I
--.-+- .
,
",,,,,.-t
r i
-'-~jj i
~~~. 0
:r .
i.~~=~ f;.- t;- o .
:J "
~
.'
. " ...,..
Q ~ \U-
~ -~"~ ~
L III
,.-~ -<
Ir:-:l :r
~~-:: '-.) ::J
- G
[~I _.~ \~
1 :;.
c" r.!
, I-
t -:;--t o....i'
III .
,\ \
1- J "'
. <:l. -
Q "'I
0:: ~~
- -
0 ATTACHMENT "G" 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION CASE VAR 89-4 4
HEARING DATE 6-20-89
\.
I II AIAlT AVE
o .J 0-'
[!!] 0" II R.' C-M C-M
I II ItLUVlfW ~
R-' 0-' J:
I II :J:
R-2 0-' 0-' g CoM C-M
. :J:
R- 2 1
'" ~
R-I ~ .
CoM
a: C-M
CoM '" ~ CoM
..
!: " N
'0' 1.1-1 . .
B888 C'M
"0" '0' w
.
"0" "0" .
18 888 R-I >- ..
. .
C-M
"0" . .
-
. .
8..11 U' R-I
0.,
JR HIGH C M
SCHOOL
.. M.I
R'3
BB ~fil
. ~~m
R-I R-I
I
I .
.
I ( .~
I ...~ ""'N T C.M
,
I R -I 0'" R'I
<-
~, ) T C'"
VV
j ,II' 0-'
j
I
b:' R-I R-I
S B CITY LIMITS ),~~ {
- -
0 ~...
<-
...O..V-
~ JR" R.I .. R'I R.I R'I ""'+l
.. ,'I'
I
1. = "
C-M
-
tJ
-
-
o
o
OFFIC IAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN
MAYOR AND COMMON
APPEAL OF
BERNARDINO
COUNCIL
Planning Commission Denial
of Variance No. 89-4
.
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY General Maintenance, Inc. for Shell
Oil Company
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of [.':0# J
Variance No. 89-4
PROPERTY Located at the southwest corner of Mill and urn Streets
LOCATION: on a .52 acre site.
. .
PROPOSAL: To alter an existing f~eeway service station sign by
replacing it with a sign supported by two poles, 144
sq. ft. in area and 84 ft: in height, which is 44 feet
higher than City Code allows.
\..
PUBliC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA,92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: August 7, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HALL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING, PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU,
\..
Jill, 191. .1,.