HomeMy WebLinkAbout39-Planning
0..
o
o
o
ERNARDINO
300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 112418
!
EVLYN WILCOX
Mavor
Me",,,,, of the Common Council
Elth.rEltracla.... ... ...... ".mWanI
JackR.IIIV............. . Second Ward
Ralph Hernandez . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
St.YtI.....kl.... .. ...... .I'ourthWard
QoraonQule. .......... .. ."lftbWard
Dan Frule, ............. .llxthW.,d
J.ck Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .$eventh Werca
April 10, 1987
Sanvista Development
17691 Mitchell Street North
Irvine, CA 92714
Dear Sir or Madamel
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on April 7, 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
reconsidered. The Planning Commission denied variance No.
86-32 based upon findings of fact contained in the staff
report dated February 3, 1987.
Please note that this item was referred back to the Planning
Commission by the Mayor and Council and will be considered by
the Mayor and Council at their meeting of April 20, 1987 at
2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall.
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
19.74.080., the following applies to the above variance:
-The 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
:I .
~,....,.. .J,.'"'(,IIESS
~"~1J
~
c..
o
o
o
Sanvista Development
April 10, 1987
Page 2
Council by the
such decision.
any Commission
applicant or any other person
The Council may, upon its own
decision to be appealed.-
aggrieved by
motion, cause
If no appeal is filed pursuant
provisions of the San Bernardino
of the Commission shall be final.
to the previously mentioned
Municipal Code, the action
Respectfully,
,&/J P
DAVID ANDERSON
Acting Planning Director
mkf
cc: Building and Safety Dept.
City Clerk
.~"OF SAN BBRNARDIOo - REQUaOr FOR COUNCIL AfIiVI.~'
David Anderson
F~: Acting Planning Director
Dept: Planning
Date: February 25, 19B7
Subject:
Appeal of Variance No. 86-32
Mayor and Council Meeting of
March 9, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
I
Synoplilof 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.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
L/J~
, Signature David Anderson
Contact penon:
David Anderson
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting date attached:
Staff Reoort
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notel:
.. .
'.>e. .
o
o
o
Dr, ':1'
SANVISTA development company
planning
architect~re
1 . '~-'... 1
."., ~ p..: I ,
financing construction
.
2 Corporate Parks S~ite 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;
l. 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 c;l-
00 rn@~~wrn lID
FES 20 1987
CITY PlANNii.S DEPAIlTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
- '.~~.
,~.
o
o
--..
o
fJ~W~01?~
development company
plOMlng . architecture . ftnonclng
17691 Mitchell North . IlVIne. Colltomlo 92714
. construction
. (714) 660-8770
ST.:JFr
Mr. Frank Schuaa
Director ot Plannine
Plannine Departaent
City ot San Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino. CA 92408
I.i)) r~ If' r~ n W ill til\
lid I.. l~J I., U \!J
FES 051981
February 4. 1987
t:.(). _."__
c.t;. .._.....__
IUd...._
~t ~:. ~_.._
CITY HMlW:<jti CEPJl.RTMENT
SAN BERNARDINO. CA
l~.;':. ....__
Dear Prank.
M.~!....,._._
R.t.!, _.._.._
s. ~!. ___
Vfl
Prank. I would like to have you and
denial at Variance No. 88-32 that
yesterday. I believe there are a
overlooked in your analysis that aakes
this particular piece ot property.
your statt reconsider the
I received in the aail
couple ot iteas that were
this request. unique lor
,-"-
The property lies between two aaJor thoroughtares. South "E"
Street and the treeway. Por this reason ay tenants are attracted
to this site. The contieuration 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 ot the buildings span
the coaplete depth ot the site to take advantage of the exposure
to both the treeway and "E" Street. These buildings were all
desiened with aultiple tenants in aind. Consequently. a tenant
facine "E" Street would have a sign that taced "E" Street. and
tenants in the center at the buildine would hsve their signs
facine the interior and a tenant facing the freeway would of
course want to have exposure to the freeway and the thousands of
cars that pass. the priaary drawine point of the center (An
identification lien tacine the end of the center building would
serve no purpose).
Secondly. I think thAt the sienage criteria that we have dictated
has been done in eood taste. 'Allowing for all the accolades that
Sanvista Developaent has had on the center. I also believe that
the design of the centar and its buildings is also in good taste.
thus an aesthetic value to the coaaunity. I believe you can
realize that for ae to be able to lease the last reaaining space
which taces the freeway I aust be able to allow signage facine
the freeway. Space leased on "E" Street and the interior has
already been leased and signage used ~n two sides. I don't
believe it il the ordnance purpose to disallow a tenant
identification for his etore nor do I believe that it is the
city's intent to discouraee the uee of retail space troa which
generates incoae tor the city.
'."G.
o
Mr. Prank Scbuaa
Pebruary 4. 1881
paee Two
Tberefore.
recon.ider
Should you
to contact
~tJ
Dean Davi.on
Partner
I aa reque.tine that
the variance request and
bave any questions reeardine
.e directly.
o ~
o
the Plannine Depart.ent
reco..end an approval.
the aite pleaae feel free
O'
-
--
o
o
o
CiTY. OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT-"
SUMMARY
w
3
~
::)
~
It
....
cI
1&1
~
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
7
,,~ IP,?
~
~
APPLICANT;
Sanvista Development
17691 Mitchell North
Irvine, Ca. 92714
Variance No. B6-32
OWNER:
Same as above
The applicant seeks to exceed the maximum number of wall signs 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 16BO
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, Commercial
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( iii YES )
HAZARD ZONE iii NO ZONE Iii NO OZONE B SEWERS ONO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I J[I YES REDEVELOPMENT lID YES
HAZARD ZONE iii NO CRASH ZONE DNO PROJECT AREA DNO
..J o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
Z(I) MEASURES NO E.I.R. tic CONDITIONS
l&JC!) GI EXEMPT . 0
2Z o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO II.Z iii DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 11.1&1
00 ~:I
o:Z WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
MEASURES 02
;ii: 0
Z oNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~
l&J SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C.
EFFECTS MINUTES 0:
..^'" ..... ..VI.." ....... '" I...
, 0'.
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR, 86-32
OBSERVATIONS
. 7
2/3/87
7
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 "E" Street. San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.220 (B)
specifies, in part:
"Signs 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 "E" Street cover their windows with signage towards the
freeway and liE" Street.
The applicant already enjoys good visability 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.
Ci
~
o
o
o
,..- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""'II
CASE VAR. 86-32
FACT AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
FINDINGS of
7
2/3/87
~
....
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 "E" 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 19B1, 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 conmerc1al 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.
. Q'
"'.
o
o
o
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT....
CASE VAR. B6-32
-= A leT AGENDA ITEM
r" HEAR'ING DATE
PAGE.
FINDINGS of
7
2/3/87
4
...
'"
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.
o
o
o
o
r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT""l
CASE VAR. 86-32
FACT AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE.
FINDINGS of
7
2/3/87
'i
~
"'-
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 Comnercial-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. B6-29, to waive San Bernardino
Municipal Code Section 19.60.220 (B).
Respectfully Submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
~f1:~g Aide
!
...
;;
..
i rl
;; .
III !
!
'" i ;
J;;
~ ...... '-'.
... ; ...
, i i .....
I
'0' 0
o
ij ... 0(
.' W I ~l \
I
I I
:'
I
I I
I
Ei
h
"'"<
i=
i~
I
11
\ 0
.--,
i~
f if)
1
. Jo~ .' .... .
r1I~(
~
Y r:r.\ rnr-,'T'\ .
'---'
. o.
I
. .
I
I
II
II
I
I
0(
I
o
0-
o
"
"n
~ ~
il
".
~
I
I
'I ~
I; ~
II
I
rnmr lr~L'J . ...,1
'C'
.-
o
o
.~
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'"
AGENDA .....
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE VAR. 86-32
HEARING DATE 2/3/87
7
""
..01
...
'1
C-'"
CoM
.~ -:&.,
CoM
M-I
M-t
CoM
M-I
"0"
C'1oI
--
CoM C.>>.
C.M
"0"
C-1oI C'3A
I :
C3A
1.0"
C
C3A
C'M
---
C'3A C'M
5 C-3A
c->>.
c->>.
.-
INTERSTATE ~
C'{Otl ~ C.M
,
,
..
.. C'M
..
CO\. ~ II
.. 101-1
~O~
~Ol
@
C'M C-
-
- -. :;
CoM
C'M