Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout50-Planning . C~ OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUEQ FOR COUNCIL ~~ David Anderson From: Acting Planning Director Subject: Appeal of Variance No. 86-32 Dept: Planning Mayor and Council Meeting of March 9, 1987, 2:00 p.m. Dete: February 25, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on February 3, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 86-32 was unanimously denied. Recommemled motion: That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected. V~ ~...L Y Signature David Anderson Contact person: David Anderson Phone: 383-<;057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: Finance: Council Notes: 75-0262 Agenda Item No ~ '"'5 O. 1 . '0 o o o Dr-, ":,. SANVISTA development company planning architecture financing .,:{'< 1~ P.:I construction 2 Corporate Parks Suite 202. Irvine, California 92714 . 660-8770 San Vista development company hereby appeals the decision of the Planning Commission denying the application for variance .86-32, to allow the construction of wall signage on three sides of two buildings located at 1630 and 1680 South "E" St. The appeal is taken on the following grounds; 1. The applicant was not given prior notice of the hearing, and for that reason, applicant did not appear at the hearing. 2. The Planning Commission failed to consider the unique location of the property. 3. The Planning Commission failed to consider that granting the variance would not be contrary to the object- ives of the City's master plan. Appellant respectfully requests that the decision of the Planning Commission be overturned,that the appeal be granted, and that the Council grant the variance on the additional signing on said buildings. Dated 00 ~@~~~7rn []) FEB 20 1987 CITY Pl^Nf~li,G lJEPi\HTMENT SAN BERNARDINO. CA M , Q ';w.'\: ,.,r>: 0 o o f3 dewIopMnt COIIpM1 plaMlng . architecture . ftnancInt . construction lJ~. .wNolttr . IMM.CallIamIo 91714 . (714)66001770 2 Corporate Park, Suite 202 February 12, 1987 ., ,: City Clerk , City of SIll Bernarciino 300 1IortIl'~"'D"~ l~'"ti,.u.:.'i_ ' San "rNNtM';';CA:t!418' . ~~':.'. , . 'to:",. .:.. d';,.; " To: The Miyor and CoIIIIon Councl1 Subject: Appeal to Denial of Application for Varience No. 86-32 I hereby wish to appeal the decision of the Planning Council on agenda item No 86-32 at the February 3rd meeting for a varience to sign ord- nance No. 19.60.210. Dean D. Davison Pri net pa 1 .> m/l & /I n IIJ ~ [ff) FEe 181987 CITy PLANNlN SAN BERNgR~~~riRT4fENT , ,CA .. ".~',:'.i..:r...to::~"",,,.~..,~...- . .".,\:-~"- ~~';'b-",,,,.:.i'1"",~.,;:'.~~~l!t,~',~r~~~~~N ....l)'l..~'Y;.:';,1f!\"'~. . o o o ~, O~W~Ol?~ development company planning . architecture . nnonclng 17691 Mltch.1I North . IrvIM, CalltomlQ 9I!714 . construction . (714) 660-8770 February 4. 1987 Mr, Frank Schu.a Director of Plannine Plannine Depart.ent City of San Bernardino 300 North"D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92408 In) 1.,'\ I J[, lID Ii: fi" I~ f] t;jj ~ 1 \) \:J ~1 t \!; l!~ FEB 05 1981 CITY i'i.M.ijl~U; CEPARTMENT SAN BEIlNAIIDlND, CA Deal' Prank, Frank, I would like to have you and denial of Variance No, 86-32 that yesterday. I believe there are a overlooked in your analysis that .akes this particular piece of property. your staff reconsider the I received in the .ail couple of ite.s that were th,s request unique for The property lie8 between two .ajor thorouehfares, South "E" Street and the freeway, POI' this reason .y tenants are attracted to this site. The confieuration of the site layout for Phase II was not in a straieht line, but three bUildings arranged in a U shape facine an interior parkine area. Two of the buildings span the co.plete depth of the site to take advantage of the exposure to both the freeway and "E" Street. These buildings were all designed with .ultiple tenants in .ind, Consequently, a tenant facing "E" Street would have a si~n that faced "E" Street, and tenants in the center of the building would have their signs facing the interior and a tenant facine the freeway would of course want to have exposure to the freeway and the thousands of cars that pass. the pri.ary drawing point of the center (an identification sien facing the end of the center buildine would serve no purpose), Secondly, I think that the signage criteria that we have dictated has been done in eood taste, 'Allowing for all the accolades that Sanvista Develop.ent has had on the center. I also believe that the design of the center and its buildings is also in good taste, thus an aesthetic value to the cOBBunity, I believe you can realize that for .e to be able to lease the last re.aining space which faces the freeway I .ust be able to allow signage facing the freeway. Space leased on "E" Street and the interior has already been leased and signage used on two sides, I don't believe it is the ordnance purpose to disallow a tenant identification for his store nor do I believe that it is the city's intent to discourage the use of retail space fro. which generates inco.e for the city, o . ~ : t:(i. ""___"... C.r., ......__ 1<.:'-.1.. "t ~~. l~.,:. .,. '_"_ M. N. ~..,__... n. i~. ~_'."._ S. t!. ___,__ VB . o o Mr, Prank Scbu.a Pebruary .. 188'7 Page Two Therefore, reconsider Should you to contact I a. requesting that the variance request and have any questions retarding .e directly. ~tJ~ Dean Davison Partner o the Planning Depart.ent reco..end an approval, the site please feel free o . o o o o ERN ARDIN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNAROINO, CALIfORNIA 112418 EVLYN WILCOX Mlv.. MemlMr. of 1M Common Council EltherEltrada............. ".....W.r.. Jack A,Ub'.. ... ...... .. ....ndWllcI RalPh Hlrnand.. . . . . . . . . . . . Third Wild SleveMarhl............. P'ourthW.rlll GOrdon Qulel ....... ,.,.... ....t"W.,d OInFr...'.............ollxl"W.rd Jack ilrlckl., . . . . . . . . . . . .....nth War" February 9, 1987 Sanvista Development 17691 Mitchell Street North Irvine, CA 92714 Dear Sir or Madame: At the meeting of the Planning Commission on February 3, 1987, the following action was taken: The application for Variance No. 86-32, to allow the con- struction of wall signage on three sides of two buildings in excess of the maximum number of permitted wall signs and overall sign area on property consisting of approximately 3.30 acres located at 1630 and 1680 South -E- Street, was denied based upon findings of fact contained in the staff report dated February 3, 1987. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.74.080., the following applies to the above variance: liThe decision of the Commission shall be final unless an appeal therefrom is taken to the Common Council as provided for in this section. Such decision shall not become effec- tive for ten days from the date that the written decision has been made and notice thereof mailed to the applicant, during which time written appeal therefrom may be taken to the Council by the applicant or any other person aggrieved by such decision. The Council may, upon its own motion, cause any Commission decision to be appealed.1I ~i"". o o o o Sanvista Development Pebruary 9, 1987 Page 2 If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action of the Commission shall be final. Respectfully, ~ PRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director IlIkf CCI Building and Safety Dept. c - o o o r CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT"" SUMMARY "" 1&1 B a ::> 2 a: .... ct 1&1 a: ct AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 7 7/'\/A7 ~ APPLICANT: Sanvista Development 17691 Mitchell North Irvine, Ca. 92714 Variance No. 86-32 OWNER: Same as above The applicant seeks to exceed the maximum number of wall aigns per- mitted under Section 19.60,220 (B) of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. Subject Property is a 3.30 acre parcel located at 1630 and 1680 South "E" Street. PROPERTY EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING CM CM CM CM C-3A Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation General Industrial Commercial Recreation Subject North South East West Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Vacant, Abandoned Bldg. Vacant Freeway, Commercisl GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( liiIYES ) HAZARD ZONE iii NO ZONE [ii NO OZONE B SEWERS ONO HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I I[J YES REDEVELOPMENT lID YES HAZARD ZONE liiINO CRASH ZONE DNO PROJECT AREA DNO .J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL ~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0 WITH MITIGATING - 0 Zen MEASURES NO E,I.R. lii CONDITIONS I&IC!) .Q 2Z GI EXEMPT o E.l.R, REOUIRED BUT NO II.Z IiS\ DENIAL Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 11.1&1 OQ WITH MITIGATING ~2 0 CONTINUANCE TO o:Z MEASURES (1)2 ::;i&: 0 Z ONO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS () 1&1 SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHEO E,R C, 1&1 EFFECTS MINUTES a: NOY. 1..1 tIV'aI' ""LY ,... ... . Q o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR. 86-32 OBSERVATIONS , 7 2/3/87 ? AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 1. The request is to waive San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.220 (B), to exceed the maximum number of wall signs permitted and allow signage on three sides of two commercial buildings in the C-M, Commercial Manufacturing zone, located at 1630 and 1680 South "E" Street. 2. The submitted site plan proposes signage on three sides of each of the two buildings. A west facing sign toward the 1-215 freeway, north or south facing signs towards the interior parking lot and an east facing sign towards liE" Street. San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.220 (B) specifies, in part: IISigns may be placed on sides of buildings having frontage on a public street up to a maximum of two signs per build- ing." 3. The variance has been requested by the applicant in order to exceed the permitted number of wall signs per building. The subject buildings have enough building frontage to allow two wall signs per building. 4. A field inspection of the site found that the buildings already have signage on two walls, and the northernmost of the two buildings will have signage for several separate tenants along its south facing wall. The site also has the maximum number of freestanding signs permitted; one located towards the 1-215 freeway, and the other facing "E" Street. Additionally, the majority of businesses, including the applicant, located along South HE" Street cover their windows with signage towards the freeway and "E" Street. The applicant already enjoys good visabi1ity from both the freeway and "E" Street and with existing wall, freestanding, and window signs, a third wall sign is not necessary. Other businesses in the area do not have signage on three walls. 5. The location of this site is within the area targeted for the More Attractive Community (MAC) Project now in progress. One of the many aims of the MAC Project is the reduction of excessive signage, especially In commercial retail areas. o o o o "'-CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR. 86-32 FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE, FINDINGS of 7 2/3/87 ~ IIIi.. ,..- . ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. Herein are the applicant's and staff's responses to each of the four items. A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli- cable to the property involved, or to the intended uses of the property, which do not apply generally to other property is the same zoning district and neighborhood. Applicant's Response MUltiple tenant retail building facing to the interior parking area, which faces South "Ell Street and freeway 215. Each tenant requires signage at his space. Size and type to match phase one of freeway Home Center. Staff's Response Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance as stipulated by State law and City ordinance can only be granted due to special circumstances appli- cable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. In 1981, the current sign ordinance was adopted as an addition to the San Bernardino Municipal Code. The ordinance makes adequate provisions for the display of signs in conformance with the adopted standards. There are no special circumstances or conditions attached to this parcel that would prohibit a display of signs in accordance with these standards. Other COlll11ercial land uses along "E" Street with the same zoning have not been granted sign variances for excess signage and approval of the requested variance would act as a precedent for future sign variance requests along "E" Street. B. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Applicant's Response Retail could not survive without signage identifing their store. IIIi.. NOV. .110 . Q ~ o o o ,..- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE VAR. 86-32 FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE FINDINGS of 7 2/3/87 t. ... r Staff's Response Substantial property right refers to the right to use the property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where the strict application of the zoning law depri- ves such property owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Per the above definition of property right, staff can find no basis upon which to make a positive finding to substantiate the need for the variance. There is nothing unique to the property which precludes the applicant's ability to meet the sign standards established by Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code. The variance would allow these businesses to enjoy an advertising advantage over other businesses located in the vicinity, which are prohibited from establishing an excessive number of signs to advertise their businesses. The purpose of the sign ordinance is to set a standard by which all signs must conform thereby reducing excessive signage, which has a blighting effect upon the City's commercial districts. The granting of a variance from the city ordinance would perpetuate excessive signage, which the sign ordinance was adopted to prevent. C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in Which the property is located. Applicant's Response Will not affect neighbors in any way. Staff's Response In determining the application for a variance, the best interest of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for a particular use. The site is inculded within the MAC Project target area, where the policy is to bring business signs and uses into conformance with the Municipal Code so as to create and maintain a more attractive urban environment. The Policy does not encourage an increase in the number of non-conforming signs, thereby establishing a precedent by which others might follow. The best interest of the community would be served by a concerted and con- sistent effort to bring and maintain commercial areas in conformance with the municipal code. .. ..... fIOV. tHO . o o o o r- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'l CASE VAR. 86-32 FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING PATE PAGE. FINDINGS of 7 2/3/87 5 "'- D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objec- tives of the Master Plan. Applicant's Response Not to the developer's knowledge. Staff's Response The Comprehensive General Plan of the City of San Bernardino projects the property to be developed in accordance with the ordinances and development criteria established for the Commercial-Recreation designation, and appro- val of the requested variance would be contrary to the goals, objectives and pOlicies established within said plan. The San Bernardino City General Plan recognizes the role that escessive signage plays in creating visual conflict along highway frontage development and the Plan encourages development standards that will improve the appearance of commercial streets and thus enhance the image of the City. City policy has been to enforce the sign ordinance as a means to accomplish those ends. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the observations and lack of positive findings contained herein, Staff recommends denial of Variance No. 86-29, to waive San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.220 (B). Respectfully Submitted, FRANK A. SCHUMA Planning Director ~!'1:~g Aide 0 0 0 \ 0 ..~ n' ~ .' w' I I I ~.'.-.'.' ";, B I . .--, ; ill I i- ill . I a I ' 1 ~ il Ii I " . . ~\ . ~-;" .( s ~ \1 ) , ~ . .. i E Ji ... i ;1 rTI~r ~ Y rJ:'\ rnr-,'T'\ . '-- rl . i i ...... ..;.. . ~~ .' .... . c I II I~ I me - 0 o o I I I , - I o! I !I "n . ~ !! ~ I I - , , 'e I; ~ II r ]r~"_T', 1 .....1 ' 1_ 1_ 1_ 1_ -. -.... -.. ,...-... . . (.; Jl ~ o .- o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT o LOCATION CASE VAR. 86-32 HEARING DATE 2/3/87 '1 C-ll C'3A C-1Il C-ll C-ll M-I C-ll II-I AGENDA ITEM # 7 .~ -:&., 11-1 "0" C.ll . . 0'... '", o o o ",. January.28, 1987 San Bernardino City Council and Land Use Department. Re: Zone Change So. "E" Street For: Fence & Sign Dear Sirs: I am co-owner of property on So. "E" street, known as 1525-1723 So. "E" street in the city of San Bernardino. I am opposed to any zone change to allow a high fence and sign to be installed adjacent to our property. I feel such a fence and sign not to be appropriate for that area. The fence and sign would block the view of our pro- perty, from people driving south on "E" street, thus low- e,.ng property values. . I hereby cast my vote for "NO ZONE CHANGE." 1361 Uindsor Rd. SUBSCR:SED AND SWORN TO BEfORE ME THISjjtl.~/I!.o/il!-Y..19,1.7 /i /' ...........,.,....e~ NOTARY PUBLIC. U Cardiff, CA 92007 Fl..... '?-.).~''f. ':. ~~ .~ ~~1~t~:..~~ 6er'!4lt:,: