HomeMy WebLinkAbout51-Planning
. CICt OF SAN BERNARDOo - REQUOT FOR COUNCIL Ac:)ON
From: R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
Dept: PLANNING
Su~~: APPEAL OF VARIANCE 87-31
~ayor and-Council Meeting of
September 21, 1987
Da~: September 21, 1987
f'P, _/ rr
.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On August 18, 1987, the Planning Commission denied Variance 87-31 to
waive Section 19.60.200F(2) and (3) to allow a single sign, 80 feet
high and 192 square feet serving three parcels.
Recommended motion:
Uphold the appeal and approve Variance 87-31.
I
\/~ (\1 '
rU)~J).~Wn~
Signature " R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person:
R Ann SirRcusR
Phone:
1R4.'iO'i7
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
_I
^___-'_ .>__ .._ A /,
'erC OF SAN BERNARDt:,"'O - REQUE'"'1' FOR COUNCIL ACMN
. '
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of september 21, 1987
Appeal of Variance No. 87-31
Backaround
On August 18, 1987, after
the Planning Commission
19/60.220F(2) and (3) to
maximum height of 40 feet
feet.
conducting a properly noticed public hearing;
denied Variance 87-31 to waive Section
allow a freestanding pole sign to exceed the
to exceed the maximum sign area of 150 square
The proposed sign would serve three parcels with a single pole sign 80
feet in height (40 feet over the permitted height). The additional
height is requested for freeway visibility coming north on Freeway 215.
The sign would consist of three 8 foot by 8 foot signs, each containing
the business symbol for each parcel. The three signs together equal
192 square feet, 42 square feet greater than the 150 square feet
allowed for a single sign.
On September 8, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted negative Findings
of Fact (See Attachment A) to support their denial of the variance.
On August 21, 1987, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision (Attachment B). The stated grounds for the
appeal are that the variance is necessary due to the topographical
constraints of the site and that the proposed sign would consolidate
the freeway identification signage for three separate parcels.
ANALYSIS
TO approve a variance, the City Council must find that there are no
exceptional conditions applicable to the property involved which do not
generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district.
Further, the Council must find that the variance is necessary for the
preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right and that it
is not detrimental to the public welfare.
In the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment C) staff's
recommendation to the Planning Commission was for approval in that the
topography of the area around the three parcels in question prevents
visibility of a sign to traffic northbound on Freeway 215. The portion
of Little Mountain which blocks these parcels from the northbound
freeway is an exceptional topographical feature which does not affect
all C-3A parcels. Also, the owners of these parcels do not enjoy the
15.0264
c
,.'-."
'-
:)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 21, 1987
Appeal of Variance-Number 87-31
Page 2
same property rights as other C-3A parcels along the freeway because of
the physical location.
In staff's opinion the sign would not be harmful to the public welfare
because each of the three parcels by right is entitled to a freeway
sign of 150 square feet in size and 40 feet tall, a total of 450 square
feet of signage for the three parcels. Combining the three signs into
one sign of 192 square feet in size (258 square feet less than
permitted) and 80 feet tall was felt to off-set the negative visual
impacts of three signs 150 square feet in size each 40 feet.
The Commission denied the variance after
concerning the relative effects of one
identification sign at 80 feet in height versus
identification signs 40 feet in height with a
square feet.
considerable discussion
freestanding freeway
three separate freeway
combined area of 450
The commissioners expressed concern regarding the safety of erecting an
80 foot sign in a high wind area and felt that the asthetics of the
area would be diminished with the implementation of the variance. The
Commission expressed further concern relative to the potential of
future similar requests for freeway sign variances for the ten or so
parcels in the immediate vicinity that are in a like situation.
The subject property is constructed in its highway exposure by the
higher topography to the south of the site. Consolidation of the
visual clutter of freestanding signage is a desirable goal.
August 31, 1987, a member of the Planning Staff, the City Attorney, and
Councilman Minor met with representatives of the Jack-in-the-Box, Shell
Oil Company, and the sign company. They raised on a crane an 8 foot by
8 foot sign with the Shell symbol to the height of 80 feet. The sign
in the exact location it is proposed was photographed from the
northbound and southbound freeway. Some photos are shown in Attachment
D. Others will be provided by the applicant at the hearing. It is a
matter of judgement, as well as function of speed, whether or not the
signs will be readable from a moving northbound vehicle in time to use
the off-ramp. However, because the signs are well known corporate
symbols, rather than words, staff believes that at a reasonable speed
they will be recognizable.
Looking southbound the height of the sign does not place it above the ~
horizon, and in staff's opinion, does not create visual blight.
CONCLUSION
All the variance findings for approval can be made and in terms of
visual blight, staff feels the one 80 foot sign at 192 square feet is
. ,
c
--
~
,"",*,
\
-..J
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 21, 1987
Appeal of Variance Number 87-31
Page 3
more desirable than three signs 150 square foot each at 40 feet which
will also be visible to the southbound traffic.
COUNCIL ACTION
The Council may uphold the appeal and approve Variance 87-31, with
conditions if appropriate, or may de~y the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commissions' denial of the var~ance. If the Council chooses
to approve Variance 87-31, positive findings should be articulated to
support that decision.
RECOMMENDATIQN
Staff recommends the Council uphold the appeal and approve Variance 87
31 based on the positive findings in the August 18, 1987, Planning
Commission Staff Report (Attachment C). The Planning Commission
recommends the Council deny the appeal based on the findings in
Attachment A.
Prepared by:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Planning Department
Attachments:
Attachment A-Planning Commission Findings of Fact
Attachment B-Letter of Appeal
Attachment C-Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment D-Photographs
9/10/87
clj
DOC/MISC
APPEALVAR8731
;
c
O >"\
TTACHMENT "A" J
....
,
~J
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Numbe r :
Variance No. 87-31
Shell Oil Company
Applicant:
ACTION
Meeting Date: September 8, 1987
Approved Adoption of Negative Declaration and
Adoption of Request Subject to the Following
Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval
(Attachment "AW).
x
Denied.
Other.
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. There are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions aoplicable to the
property involved, or to the intended use of the
property. which do applY aenerallY to other
Rroperty in the same zonina district and
n~iahborhood. The general topography of the
surrounding areas to the south prevents adequate
display of motorist information allowed by code at
a lower height. However, this circumstance is
applicable to all the property in this neighbor
hood in that all businesses are equally affected
and there is no substantial right granted to one
business over the other as a result of denial of
this sign variance.
B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and
en;oyment of a substantial proDertv riaht of the
aDDlicant in that the General Plan has specifically
designated this site for highway commercial. The
viability of a commercial enterprise oriented to
highway travelers is significantly diminished
without the benefit of adequate freeway identifica-
tion.
C.
The arantina
detrimental to
of the variance could be materiallv
the Dublic welfare or in1urious to
.....
C City of San BernardirC C
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-34
page 2
~ropertv and im2Iovements in the zoninq district
and neiqhborhood in which the property is located
in that the proposed signage will be located in an
area of high wind and could be susceptible to
breakage. The area is located near the San Andreas
Fault and the pole could topple during earthquake
shaking. The sign is visible to the southbound
traffic at the required 40 feet and an 80 foot sign
will be detrimental to surrounding _ residential
property enjoyment because of negative visual
impacts. Further, the applicant has not presented
sufficient evidence that the 80 foot sign would
solve the visibility problem northbound on the
freeway, or that sufficient efforts were made to
have Cal-Trans put up a freeway informational sign.
D. The qrantin9-Qf sych_~~riJnce will not be con-
trarv to the obiec~jY~'_Qf the Master Plan in that
the state College Area General Plan and Redevelop-
ment Plan encourage development standards and
proposals that will enhance the image and overall
environment of the City and State College Area of
the City in particular. The proposal will result
in a consolidation of sign area to a lesser amount
of square footage than would be allowed by code on
an individual basis.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Cole, Corona, Lopez, Nierman, Sharp, Stone
None
Brown
Lindseth
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflec the final determination of the Planning
Commissio 0 the i'y of San Bernardino.
. ..-o~ 01/IOlt7
Q'ate
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Print or Type Name and Title
RAS/mkf
DOCUMENTS:PCAGENDA
PCACTION
8/05/87
q).-<) ') ATTACHMEl~T B
I~ C___- _ ~
Shell Oil Company ~!&
c
August 21, 1987
~,)
P,Q, Box 4848
511 N. Brookhurst Street
Anaheim. California 92803
(z1'-V5 20 ~ 33V-/-
City Clerk,
City of San Bernardino
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 9241B
RE: City of San Bernardino Planning Commission
Agenda Item #5, Hearing Date ^Ugust lB, 1987,
Variance #87-31
Dear City Clerk:
Our requested Vari2nce #87-31 to exceed the maximum height of a freeway
identification sign in the C-3A, Limited General Commercial Zone, was on
the Consent Agenda of the subject Planning Commission meeting. It was
removed from the consent agenda at the beginning of the hearing and
sulsequently, after discussion of the request, was denied by a 3-2 vote.
~ie hereby appeal the Planning Commission decision to deny variance No.
87-31 to the City Council as soon as you can place this appeal on the
City Council agenda.
We believe our variance request is in the best interest of the City,
ourselves ane our co-applicants. Basically, the variance requested is
for one free',~ay sign of suffici,ent height to give advance warning to
north bound travelers on 1-215." The variance combines into one sign what
could otherwise be 3 separate sig'hs, each 40 feet in height and each with
a sign surface area of 150 square fe~t. The requested sign would have a
total sign surface of only 192 square feet (each sign for the three
parcels involved would have a 64 square foot sign) as opposed to three
separate sign poles and signs of 40 feet in height and 150 square foot
sign surface as now allowed by City Ordinance. That is, sign surface now
allowed for the three properties involved amounts to a total of 450
square feet as opposed to the requested sign of only 192 square feet of
sign area.
Approval is respectfully requested.
Sf'~~ .;1
~. Smith
~is~rict Real Estate Representative
Los Angeles East District
[oj ~,@~,D\\1~ ~
lH.l .--
AUG 21.1987
.......: 'I r, 1"''''' V l:r'l'"
Cl"I"" 01'" ,"r', ",II""..
r ,>,;........d.,_
IS;\~J B[lHJ,\nD\r.~o, C/\
MA87233l2
cD :<I
m
......, <:">
m
,.. <:
e;j TI
'.J
N "
-
-'
-0 -<
w ::?
W ..,
~ ;0
"'"
;M~
CITY OF
SAN
o
o
-0--
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT C
.""'..
'...
._1
.--......,
BERNARDINO
e~ n n 1"\. f1 ~\ (11 fR, r. .'))\1"
. II 11 r \,\,,'1 ' " 'I '.' I,' '. .
1;l,;9~U\/U V..//-Q. 'Il .
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
'~~"/:Ii!.~~:.~~3I<'--x'iT;'~~~=''2:I~-':''''"'
#5
R/1~/R7
w
CI)
<t
(,)
~
Lu
:")
"
~:'J
0:
"-
<t
':1
C
.:t
.....----.~...:;:~:~;_:'~
-'-"'~~--""-;-"
-_..,---
;.' ~",,~:,..~;....--'. ,,~:.:.."..~..'.~.~~
_.~.~~.r....,.~~.ll>o_J~.;"...~...,..r.c.....-..."IllU--~ __.,,:;...,~:"~,::';.:~.~'.1.
APPLICANT: Shell Oil c{oMorris Smith
P.O. Box 4848
Anaheim. CA 92803
OWNER: CC San Bernardino Inc.
3931 MacArthur Blvd
Newp<)rt Beach. CA 92660
VARIANCE NO. 87-31
Applicant request approval to waive section 19.60.220 (F) 1 and
2 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code to exceed the maximum
height and size of a freeway identification sign in the C-3A
Limited General Commercial Zone.
Subject property is located the southwest corner of University
PQrkway and Interstate 215 on a 1.1 acre site.
PROPERTY
Subject
North
East
South
West
EXISTING
. LAND USE
Restaurant
Interstate Freeway
Interstate Freeway
Restaurant, Comm.
Vacant
ZONING
C-3A
C-3A
C-3A
C-M
C-M
GENEr1AL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Highway Commericul
Highway
High:..'~y
Light Industrial
Lt. Iridus.Highway
Commerical
DYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A . C:~~~RS ~;D
Q\l NO ZONE rn NO OZONE B oNO
HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE I DYES REDEVELOPMENT IZJ YES
HAZARD ZONE Dho CRASH ZONE IDo PROJECT AREA DNO
C'
_I
-"3:
~
Z '^
l'J VI
-:.: (!)
~Z
-.;._-
00
(~Z
:;0:
z
UJ
o NOT
APPLICABLE
DO EXEMPT
DNO
SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
....-
NOV. 1981
SKY
REViSED JULY 1>>2
o POTENTIAL SIGNI FICANT Z Di APPROVAL
EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING ti rn CONDITIONS
MEASURES NO E.I.A.
o EI.A. REQUIRED BUT NO 11.0 0 DENIAL
11.15
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS oct:=.:
WITH MITIGATING I-" ~._ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
MEASURES U) ~.r:
0
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (,)
SEE ATTACHED E.RC. UJ
MINUTES ~
-.
cOo 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. CASE VAR 87 -31
o U~S ~.: ~tQ A 1T ~(Q)6\!1 ~~
u
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 8nN87
PAGE _2._____
._.....,..___,_..~.<O....,._,,.
-..,-.--...'"
--'--'--'"
1 . REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval to waive sections
19.00.220 (F) 1 and 2 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code to exceed the maximum height allowed for a freeway
identification sign located on an irregularly shaped
parcel at the southwest corner of University Parkway and
Interstate 215. (See Exhibit E.)
2 . PROPOSAL
The applicant wishes to construct a 80 foot high free
standing pole sign at the northernmost portion of a
parcel recently. developed as a Jack-in-the-Box
restaurant at 2020 W. University parkway (Exhibit nAP).
The proposed sign would have three internally illumin
ated signs measuring 8 feet square for a total of 192
square feet of signage per face. The three signs would
indicate the three occupants of parcels located on the
northside of University Parkway between the 1215 an:
Hallmark parkway. (Exhibit nB".)
At present the known occupants are the Jack-in-the-Box
restaurant and the Shell Oil Corporate logo for it's
facility to be developed at the corner of Hallmark
Parkway and University Parkway. The middle sign will be
reserved for the occupant of the middle parcel.
3. BACKGROU~2
The Jack-in-the-Box restaurant was developed pursuant to
Conditional Use Permit No. 86-49 approved by the
Commission December 2, 1986. Similarly the Shell Oil
car wash and gasoline station will be constructe per
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-13 approved by the
Commission on May 6, 1987.
4 . ~b.ND_.!J.Q~.L_1'.Q!'II~~LblID_ GE!'IERl'>~_ PLAN
The proposed site has been recently developed as a
restaurant which is consistent with the zoning of C-3A
Limited General Commercial and to General Plan Land Use
designation of Highway Commercial.
u v
CITY OF SAN BE~INO PLA~NING Dc~I~FtT~~lENT
. CASE .
O. .... r;~...J~r:. [I~~\\!Jtf}.~n.1)'ur~\~(~~
~~), :40..14 \1 Wf)2~ U wV ~I'.l:J
-
r
AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING DATE R '] 8/8J-
PAGE . 1 '...
----....--........."-
---""'-
5; CODE RE.Q!llBf:!Il~NTS
Code section 19.60.220 provides signage restrictions for
the C-3 and C-3A General Commercial Districts Paragraph
F allows for freeway identification signs as follows:
F. Freeway identification signs:
(1) One additional free standing sign shall be
allowed for those businesses located within four
hundred feet of a freeway. Such sign must be for
the specific intent or purpose of identification
from the freeway.
(2) An overall height of forty feet shall be
allowed.
(3) Maximum of one hundred fifty square feet of
advertising area shall be permitted.
(4) A freeway identification sign may be placed
anywhere on the site provided it does not project
over the property line and is not less than one
hundred feet from any residential zone or to
furthest property line, whichever is closer.
The proposed sign
allowed by 40 feet.
exceeds that allowed
exceeds in height that
The overall area of
by 42 square feet.
which is
the sign
6. Jrr~~JrICATION
The applicant indicates the topography of the hillside
to the south of the site would prevent the visibility of
a 40 foot high freeway identification sign from
motorists traveling north. Motorists would not have
adequate advanced sight distance to negotiate existing
the Interstate at the University Parkway off ramp.
The applicant has
and found that
required to give
notice.
tested
the 80
those
the site with a balloon device
foot height is what will be
northbound motorists adequate
The 192 square foot size of the proposed sign is smaller
than the combined allowable square footage for all three
~
c
(.)
v
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR' ~7-3l
O LB' If"lo fi"-~' '~~~~ ~Of'\ '1 ~
, ';,,1 ~,'~'" 1.~c;.,3 1, " l,~ \J : 'I' '\ I; '~',:';'
" ) ~ ..~b.. ' "U ',' tJ '-J ~Y
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
......._""
:>
'6/1'6/'0/
4
...-
parcels taken individually. As such 450 square feet of
freeway signage would be allowed. A condition of
approval has been added restricting the adjacent parcels
from subsequently applying for individual freeway
identification signs.
Exhibit "C" is the applicants response to the findings
required for the approval of variance applicants.
7. QbEJ:_ !'B~~EDA~CE
On June 22, 19B7, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 87-29 establishing a freeway
identification sign on a site south of the subject
property. The sign approved under CUP No, B7-29 did not
exceed the height limit of 40 feet but involved a waiver
doubling the maximum allowable area from 150 square to
300 square feet per face. The applicants' justification
for the size variance was the consolidation of two
permitted freeway signs out to one pole. Several other
similar variance requests have been granted along the I
215 and I 10 freeway corridors. Staff had recommended
denial of this proposal.
Earlier this year the Motel 6 operation
across University Parkway from the subject
required by the City to lower the height
standing freeway identification sign to
maximum allowed (40 feet).
immediately
property was
of its free-
within the
8. COMMQNITY_~PN~~~~
Comment has been made by two property (>' ners to the
south of the subject property. Basically hey feel that
if the proposed variance is granted that they also
should be allowed similar consideration with respect to
a sign variance.
9. AGENCY COMMEp~p
The California Department of Transportation has
indicated that all outdoor advertising visible from the
interstate and primary highways within an incorporated
city must obtain a permit from the Highway Outdoor
Advertising Branch in Sacramento. (See Exhibit "D"). A
condition of approval has been added to that effect.
,
)
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE 811 R 187
___.~._,..f!\C?~=":,,,, .5~_.",_~.._
"""',.....--...,.-........."'.,..,
If '...____,~.......,"
No other comments were received.
10. ENVIRONM~BTb~_~~~~EAF~_E
Staff has determined
categorically exempt from
nia Environmental Quality
that Variance
the provisions
Act.
No. 87-31 is
of the Ca1ifor-
11. ST~fF A~b1Y~1~
The proposed variance will consolidate the number of
freestanding freeway oriented signs. The location of
the site is the northwestern gateway to the city and
major entrance leading to the California State univer-
sity Campus. The extra height of the sign proposal will
be off-set to some extent by the simple corporate logo
design of the sign elements. However, a precedence will
be established encouraging other such requests from
similar properties in the future.
L
c u 0
_ r __,-,_-....,...
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 87-31
u
renr\,Q~nr~nG~)
r U U \J ~,P U U '\J ~~'(j ~,~,
I'?'
(dJ'U'
f.""";"'!J-:~(["~ -.""
'. ;/\: 11
" '~;\'>~3J l:'j
-_..-
AGENDA ITEM 'i
HEARING DATE R 1 1.8.1.8.]
PAGE ..6--
...- .....~._--_.~......_......,
---.--
- _......"',.-~..'.,.~..-
Section 19.74.020 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code states
that the Commission, before it may grant a variance, must
make a finding in writing that in the evidence presented all
of the following conditions exit in reference to the property
being considered:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstancep_ _ or. _ ~ondjJ;ions_JWplicable to _the
propert;.Y--.-1nv9Jy~g,L_,9J'~O the i[lj:ended use of th~
I?XQpgJ:'1.Y.L_~hich__ do_ _ n9t__~pJY. ._g~!1gf91JY to otjler
1llQP2ft.Y____l!L__.!;he__EP!!lg. _:?9ning_ __gjpirict_ ano
neigb!29J:'hood in that the general topography of the
surrounding areas to the south prevents adequate
display of motorist informa-tion allowed by code at
a lower height.
B. ~l!g!:LY?'J:i9Jlg~. lp_ [I~9gpg!y_fQ! t.p~.pg.?g.!vation3nd
g!liQy!!lgnL_Q.L~L2!J!?pt?!1ti!lLp!Qperty_rig):1t of the
?,pplicant in that the General Plan has specifically
designated this site for highway commercial. The
viability of a commercial enterprLr. oriented to
highway travelers is significantly dimini~hed
without the benefit of adequate freeWay identifica-
tion.
c. Th~!~!!Ung-.9f_thg-y?'.!iange wDL noLQ~_!1)ater iall y
ggtri!1)~[lt~LtQ-.J:h~_-1?1!QU9_~elfar~- 9L_inj.pr ious to
p.r9pgJtY.. .and_ _.i!flP!ove!ll~!1!:..s__.-l!Lth~-.Z2T';!l9 dis.t;.r; ict.
~m9, . neig)1p9JP9Qftj.n.~bj.91L th~J>r.9Pgli . is loc;:ated
in that the proposed signage will T block or
diminish the visibility of other pro~ ties in the
surrounding area.
D. Thc__ggmU!l9. 9.L.sps:h3_'yp.fj'9[19~-.1'Ii)L. m>L.be__9Qn-
tri'gY_t9. thg._QQj~9HY~p- of.. tbg. _ l'1?'.stgL.P.Jan in that
the State College Area General Plan and Redevelop-
ment Plan encourage development standards and
proposals that will enhance the image and overall
environment of the City and State College Area of
the City in particular. The proposal will result
in a consolidation of sign area to a lesser amount
of square footage than would be allowed by code on
an individual basis.
'U~ Q ,-} "
.CITY OF SAN BERN RDINO PLAI~i'l]lNG-DEP P:RTMENT
CASE VAR 87-31
RDnr\nrr'\\nr\.n~~ ~
b~ U U\J UJ) U U'\.l ~J~>> O~.
!\: f;\ l' K."ij"
~"-L/"\ol~ u
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...-.--...--,--."..--
6
8/18/87
7
--
--,,,_,,,--'~'.~ -
RECOM~IENDATIQN
Based on the obsecvations and findings of fact contained
hecein and subject to conditions attached heceto, staff
recommends appcoval of Variance No. 87-31.
Respectfully submitted,
.
()
__".... ,~_.__..,,_o_~,.
r
c
~__.O
CITY OF SAN BERNARD~NO
--......,,--......
E"')C P r\!" ,." V" 07'T"{ .....,.c'." /".''"~ n"",,"
~'-' ~_t\~ ~~.\j,~~Jvl '''::'If'g~rl u ~\hir.:.:~ \.\1 ~
CASE VAR 87-31
fl~(f=:n ["\,q q')\ n ~IT' f\ 1')' fi\,n e~
~~j U\Jl\"u U U U~:c:::!)U\J~)
..,_..............-._~,-_.""""....-.....,..,-.,...,,,.'"" -.-,,,,,,-~--,.,,-~--,-'-"'''''''''-'' ,-".,.""",,,,--
_'''~'''_,....~'''.....__ or
AGENDA ITEM --6_
HEARING DATE J,j~8J..BL
PAGE _______
_" d."'.......wr_-'''',._'''_~_~"..'.,..''''' .'''1. ..-..."..,...
~',,'''''''''''''''''''''''; ......"
....,,_..-.0.
-,.,...,-....-.--".
1. Deed restrictions shall be placed on the subject proper-
ty APN 266-361-01 and 02 and those adjacent 266-072-32
and 266-072-33 prohibiting any future freeway
identification signage. Said restrictions shall be
executed and recorded prior to issuance of sign permits.
2. An outdoor advertising permit shall be obrtained from
the Highway Outdoor Advertising Branch, California
Department of Transporation, 1120 "N" street, Sacra-
mento, California, 95814, shall be obtained prior to
issuance of a sign permit from the City of San
Bernardino.
3. Three (3) copies of a plot plan and elevation of the
sign drawn to scale shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of
the sign permit from the Building and Safety Department.
,~
-"
. ,
\..1
~
\
.i
~
,
~
.
~
~
..
~
I:
"
I
I
\
<
,
,
!
,
"'2
~~
i~
-:9
"-
.
<(
.
+-
:c
:e
X
I1J
"
-,
- - - -- -- .. .--0-1
. t.~::;tJ [;[fC;'j {)o.1Jt
. I" I
I I
. I
;i ~~, --'-,: }liiJ! ;
. ,f; r, 'iIJ) I
. ~~ 1 ~_...__._ ....c., I i.:..
.~ 0 I ~,
0'. . '- I J.f
o . '~'"1 ~ - . I . .. . I
. ""1 I', .,
' . .'" 1 .' ~,~j '11:3>: II, "I~'~~
~. ,~ I ' J
' ! T . L ~ , -- ~ -- - ,
,'~ I, , '. 1,' ;,',
i 1 t..
;':'~~1.. '\ :',.'
, -'-~---:-~-, ~- ...~..... ---- , ---
~~M?\,:~0:~~"\~t~_ ;:. :;r
. ~
..
.'
.'
.'
'--
0 , >-
, Z
1".....1 .#.'....... h J
....., V I ! - ,
......
C") d~ .c i( a
I , o. t~
,.... ; :H
00 S9
!oJ !~
~ J: .
'"
<>: ., .,
:> H ,.
.'
~li
-I ,P-I 1
JI ~I~;\.;~".,-
1 <;:,,"G~\
<--"C-
,- ,-
}[ .
1l ( I
)\- ~'\~~ I
~l ~:;},
-1-
19<
i~~
.o.~
II ---
h
1
'j
"
tl\
"1
~
I
~ -
CO
~
.....
:.0
:.c
><
w
c
o
CExhibit .C" ;)
.--....c..__..,.J'~,........__~,a.;v~,~~__,,~.;~~
u..
......1_
.
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE HUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THL
FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH TilE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE, PLEASE
ANSWER ALL ITEHS DIRECTLY ON TIllS SHEET.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the prope)"ty,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district
and neighborhood.
The proposed 80' Freeway Sign would be used in lieu of 3 40'
freew~_ signs as allowed~ section 19,60.220 of the siqn
ordinance.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The proposed sign is necessary to. achieve sufficient
recou ~tion from 1-215.
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 dis-
trict and neighborhood in which the property is located.
Th~_L2.~E;ed sign ..J:l.Q1l..ld....have a.....l!@l(imum ot_3Jl~_$_O_,.. it. The
total ,a.llowable sq. footage for 3 separate freeway signs would
be 450 sq. ft. thereby substant~ally decreasing sign sq. footage.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives
of the Master Plan.
The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the
_obie~tives of_L~Master Plarr.
r
:w:._
_'1
...1~t./
UA.. 'ft.
@ Exhibit"O" U
. ...... -
STATE ~lIFORNIA' BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOlQ AGENCY 0
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Go:';'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT B. P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402
July 24, 1987
Development Review
08-SBd-215-11.65
~'
~r:-'
".<.r- i
j..- '1
"
Your Reference:
Variance 87-31
Shell Oil Co.
City of San Bernardino
Attention Mrs. Vivian J. Leach
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mrs. Leach:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed variance on
sign height located on University Parkway, adjacent to the
southbound 1-215 off-ramp in San Bernardino.
Please refer to the attached Additional Comments.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Will Brisley
at (714) 383-4671.
Very truly yours,
R. G. POTE
District Permits Engineer
Att.
~3
Ui' ('I fP.. r -\ n p \",1'
:J ';. 1:: i j'l'
~..: \.J !~. : \.'J ~~.' l~
I iJ
...
JUt 29 1987
CITY PL' " ..,.... ,."....""1
l~l~,'.....J \;':..,-.1.1,1,:(1.,
SAN BERtW10!NO, CA
"'.
~
.....""
c
/""'''-. .
''''
~
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
"
'....I
.-
\
State law requires an outdoor advertising permit for signs adjacent
to interstate and primary highways within an incorporated city,
and for signs adjacent to any state and county road in unincorporated
areas. Clearance must be obtained from:
Highvlay outdoor Advert is ing Branch
California Department of Transportation
1120 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-3337
&6' 5i3d-215-11.('5
(Co-Rte-P~1)
(/rlll,'" ",,: P7....'Ji
D/tiy( 0;/ Co .
--nour Reference)
.....-,...,.....,...... - ,~.,' ~,~...~ ~,
.", I
Q[:.^' 111.1".'-
o
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'\
-
AGENDA
ITEM #
c
""'CITY bF
n ft,~ A ".r;mn^~ ~
l~.,A,:;)~ti...~ U U~U''\),
G'.'
.""'.
."
SAN BERNARDINQ
Sign Variance
No.
HEARING DATE --9.-!s./fJj
CASE
87-31
112
\0..
'PRO --\~ ~S J
14u/c>' H
,
..
.
'"'
~ ~~. ~~
L\~t.~<:"
UUj;~Si
lj,]
,1I.~'"~OOI
.
c-Z ~
,
'"
.. ,
to a:
..
".
.;
!.
c-"
"0. ..
t:
..
'"'
~
i
:>
M-Z
......
'"
~.~-~-~-_.
..
"
~ R-.
ft-I
R.I
.........
R-,
PRO
7U/D'
PRO
b/I>C
R
...
..
liD"
o
o
~
()
~
~
o
-l
;:.
'. '
.' ~.,
,',
"'"
,- .:
'1 ,.
;;'.- '
.~:;'"~~. l. .-:.
,~
.t".\.
',"
"
,
€i)
-
~
(
~ .~
.f ~
,(
~
- ~
~
{
f.~
. /.\
+.
I
<
,
:~.
..
...
"
I
~
r
\
..
,
,
.~
.
\
I
~
,>
,
~
"
'f
.,
1
>
,
\
'."
,
~.;;'
<;I
"
~f:
p
oil" '"
.~:'~~:
...'
:JI :... r
~/1"'/~'("
",' -?"i......'
1I1J'...,-
, ~ Q
"'~
c<
;:1. ~{;
-~~~; ~
." '"
q }r
i!
~
'.
~
"
f~.
~ .f"
~~ .;
.
~.i>
"'-.
-
,~