The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About45-Planning and Building . 'CITY OF SAN BER"'RDINO '. REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From:AI Boughey, Director Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: August 19, 1992 Subject: Variance No. 92-10 (Appeal) Mayor and Common Council Meeting September 8, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: August 3, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to allow the applicant to prepare revised sign plans for reconsideration. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal of Variance No. 92-10 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit 5; or That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council approve Variance No. 92-10 in concept and refer the matter back to staff to develop positive Findings of Fact. Al Al Boughey Contact person: Supporting data attached: Staff Report FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) Phone: 384-5357 Ward: 5 N/A IAcct. Descriotionl Finance: Council Notes: "l'1,--n.,A" A ___.....1_ .~___ .._ ilS CfTY OF SAN BERNJOoINO - REQUEST Fa. COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of the Planninq Commission denial of Variance No. 92-10, requestinq approval of a variance from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3)(f), to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn with 346.5 square feet of siqn area per face, identifyinq seven tenants, and a center identification monument th~t identifies six tenants. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of September 8, 1992 REOUEST The applicant, Quiel Bros. Siqn Co., is appealinq the Planninq Commission's denial of Variance No. 92-10. Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requestinq a variance from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to construct: 1. A 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn with 346.5 square feet of siqn area per face, identifyinq seven tenants; and 2. a center identification monument that identifies six tenants. The subject property consists 9.94 acres located at the northeast corner of University Parkway and the Interstate 215 northbound offramp, at the westerly terminus of the Shand in Hills area. BACKGROUND At their meetinq of Auqust 3, 1992, the Mayor and Common Council continued this item to September 8, 1992 to enable the applicant to present a revised desiqn for the proposed freeway siqn. The applicant will be available to address questions at this Council meetinq. As if the date of preparation of this staff report, staff has not seen the applicant's revised plans. Please refer to the staff report prepared for the Mayor and Common Council meetinq of Auqust 3, 1992 for a complete discussion of the backqround and analysis (Exhibit A). CLARIFICATION Two flaq tests were conducted to determine the minimum height necessary to view the entire siqn text from a distance of approximately three-tenths of a mile away alonq the freeway. ... , I o o variance No. 92-10 Appeal of Planninq Commission's Denial Mayor and Common Council Meetinq of September 8, 1992 paqe 2 The first flaq test, conducted on April 28, 1992, showed a m1n1mum clearance of 67 feet above natural qrade. The siqn elevation prepared by the applicant after the first flaq test, however, shows the bottom of the lowest text panel at 75 feet above natural qrade (Exhibit B). The second flaq test conducted from the exact proposed siqn location reduced the minimum clearance to 62 feet above natural qrade. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-10. OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the appeal, approve Variance No. 92-1D in concept and direct Staff to prepare positive findinqs. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council make a determination upon viewing the applicant's revised plans. Prepared by: Greqory S. Gubman Assistant Planner for Al Bouqhey, AICP Director of Planninq and Buildinq Services Exhibits: A - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - B - Staff report to the Mayor and Common Council dated Auqust 3, 1992 Letter of Appeal Statement of Planninq Commission Action Official Notice of Public Hearinq before the Mayor and Common Council Staff Report to the Planninq Commission dated July 2, 1992 (abridqed to address variance request only) Revised Findinqs based on July 16, 1992 flaq test Freeway siqn elevation prepared after first flaq test (oriqinally submitted to the Planninq Commission as Attachment S1) , o .:) City of San Bernardino MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Common Council Al BOUqhe~irector planninq , Buildinq Services variance No. 92-10/Supplement to Staff Report FROM: SUBJECT : DATE: september 1, 1992 Project File COPIES: On Auqust 19, 1992, the Planninq Division received copies of two revised siqn desiqns, which were prepared by the applicant pursuant to the Council's request on Auqust 3, 1992 (please refer to the cover letter from the applicant, Attachment 1, and the revised elevations, Attachment 2). Upon viewinq the proposed revisions, it is the op~n~on of staff that these desiqns do not siqnificantly differ in nature from the oriqinal proposals, nor do they make substantive attempts to comply with the staff's recommended freeway desiqn specifications enumerated in the oriqinal staff report to the Planninq Commission dated July 2, 1992 (Exhibit 4). Specifically, staff does not support the applicant's revised desiqn concepts based on the followinq, previously discussed, issues: . The structural poles are not concealed within a monument structure or architecturally treated pole covers. Hence, the proposed siqn remains inconsistent with General Plan Policy 1.45.6; . The proposed revisions show a total of 311 square feet per face, which is a reduction of only 35.5 square feet from the previous proposal. The Development Code allows a maximum of 125 square feet per face; . Althouqh the applicant has reduced the number of tenants from seven to five, staff considers it reasonable only to allow the identity of three tenants qiven that there are no unique circumstances to warrant the identification of more tenants than are permitted for shoppinq centers elsewhere in the City; . The siqn panels continue to be arranqed horizontally and vertically with respect to each other, whereas staff has recommended that the tenant identification should be arranqed in rows only; c ,..-.... v Memo to the Mayor and Common Council September 1, 1992 paqe 2 The siqn text panels continue to be represented within cabinets with internally illuminated backqrounds. Staff maintains that the siqn text should consist of either channel letters or insertable panels with non-illuminated backqrounds painted to match the siqn structure. Moreover, due to the number of te~ants and the cabinet-style identification proposed, staff finds the proposed overall heiqht of 95 feet to be excessive. Given the heiqht proposed, there has been no consideration to incorporate massinq elements into the overall desiqn to reduce the scale of the siqn. If the Council is to consider approvinq this variance, staff proposes a heiqht not to exceed 80 feet, a text area not to exceed 125 square feet and an inteqrated desiqn to reduce the overall scale. Such a desiqn can be effectively accomplished by limitinq the number of tenants to three and by allowinq the text to beqin 62 feet above natural qrade, as indicated by the most recent flaq test. It should also be noted that the developers of the new 30,000 acre Wal-Mart center have indicated to City staff that their two center identification siqns will be desiqned to utilize channel letters and that the text areas will not exceed 120 square feet per face. . A preferred alternative to qrantinq this variance may be development of a comprehensive freeway siqnaqe proqram to be adopted citywide. Such a proqram could be formulated to simultaneously address the needs of certain businesses to have freeway identification, as well as attenuate the City's well- documented siqn conqestion problem throuqh the adoption of criteria for off-site siqnaqe and other measures that may involve coordination and cooperation with Caltrans. Staff's recommendation remains that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-10 Attachments: 1 - Letter from applicant, dated Auqust 19, 1992 2 - Revised elevations proposed by applicant AGENDA ITEM 36 , , I'~ \,\ C. .' 1.1. ~ \,.j G~ SIGNS~~ ~ ~flr.f.ee 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410 PH. 714-885-4476 FAX 714-888-2239 August 19. 1992 Attn: Mr. AI Boughey City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 N. "0" Street San Bernardino. CA 92418 RE: Sign Variance Case # 92-10 Unjversity Village Dear Mr. Boughey: '1 '-<i -yR' Since the. council meeting on August 3rd, 1992. whereby our hearing was extended . to August 31,"99T;:'we have been working with our client Mr. Ari Miller to revise the -- .-- propoS'9(Jsigh: - - In an effort to help satisfy the concerns of the City and also to provide the minimum signage requjred by the developer,to help keep this project alive. we have enclosed two revised drawings, each one being somewhat different in appearance, we will leave the decjsion of which one looks best up to you. The major revisions that are included in each of the two new drawings are as follows: A.- (Deleted two tenant signs) Of the five tenant signs that remain four will be used by restaurants and one will be used by the gas station. B.- (Reduced the overall height by 16') We were able to accomplish this by excepting the fact that the two bottom tenant signs will have limited visibiljty to north bound 1-215 traffic. If we were to be allowed 100' overall height the sign would be much more effective. I stjll feel that by requiring pole covers to cover the proposed texcoated support columns would not be accomplishing anything other than adding to the expense of the sign. When viewing the sign it will be difficult for anyone to determine if the supports are round or square. If I were proposing round sheet metal pole covers, would jt then be acceptable? SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON CoIW. ConIrocIanI ..- No. 217346 , ~. . " (;-T"-~ L2.. \' ,....... ......J Please review the drawings and call me if you have any questions. If you would like to meet on thjs matter, I can make myself available on a moments notice. Thank you. Sincerely yours. QUIEL BROS. ELEC R C SIGN CO., C.C. Mayor Bob Holcomb Councilwoman Esther Estrada Councilman Jack Reilly Councilman Ralph Hernandez Councilman Mike Maudsley Councilman Tom Minor Councilwoman Valerie Pope Ludlam Councilwoman Norine Miller Council Executive Phillip A. Arvizo Jack Kelly Associated Marketing Ari Miller Camden Development Ltd. GQ/er I , " 1(/1 ; ~n'll ; 10:// 1 "i:1i ! \.t I , ' '1I1ii! ~! Il'~l' Il"'1 i 11[1 II'" '~ 'j" ~ n 1'j I'll' , ..! I \" liW , f.r1!.oi! I , !lilll '''- ~ i!I'fl -1 ilj!'! 1111 h~ ">-- :~':i ~ i~). I( ~ Ii ~ ~ t..\ ' "", '" , ~ ~ \l t I ~ , ~~ ~' r~~i!. '- I ~~ ~~ I', t ~\lI I ~. ~'" ~'" ! !~ l' ~ I 1,:,- I '!>.?i , J ~f' I ~ ~ I'fq ~ ~~ .. J --. cf ~ ~\11 ~ i ~ ~:, ~ i" _ 1!l ~ I ~ " ili ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ I;; ~~:.~, l'~ X!" '!Ii I f~ \\ : i 't... !g ~ ~ ,,~ M ~ i I~ \J .0 '~':t "f: r t ~n ~-!\\ ~H ~i i~r~tt'M ~I ~I u \ ~ ~ ~ . . .-. ',' II: .'" /I -t-;-- /7-z', -f-+- ArTJoa./J1'Nl 2./" ! ~~~--4- /f'-l' H 7'/_~f.,~u - :() : i -l . 'I TEH,AIfT tEN:~~J IITEN3ANT/1 h"fbm! I'l~cent lMernally IlluainaUd, cabinet .COlor and tllXtuni to _tell bV.i1diftlJ. UNlVERSITY-VlLl.AGE t-- ChaM.' .....r. . 'I " i I I I I ~ .oil. ,,- I, , 'r' i' , :i. f-- Support coltmn. t.o be t.exturiKI finish to aat:cb building. Ii { -r I :,' SIGN A '. 1 I IC:/I; ~n'll ; 10:11 :~:II 'nml 1,.,,1 !il:ri 11'~~1 iillij WI" dill i"';' riil!i . riv 'l'l~l ,.,." ;1.1,1 silIil ~ < ). , ~ 11 ~ Ii" Ii I ~ t ! ~ c' oN ~~ " -:- I ~ III ...1Ii: I.. I~; I" z :1Il I"' , ~i i!! ~~ sa . ~ o ~ , Nil ~i "'\, ~ i5 1:; = < ."'.'''"' -4-- , ~ -1 ~I --- I 'r-I '~t k . , ~ ~......\--- 1,. "1' ().' -7' .......,i I l4-~~1 Arr~ t..t:.\ I" I. I I TENANT i 1 j L-. . ~.ml E~"l . 2 3. - - . - . ~';'lITEHAHTf . 4 5' . . .. . - ~. -,- , _. . -- Fluor..cent Internally IllUlllnatad Cabinet ~Color and texture to ~.tch bulldl"9. UNIVERS.lTy.,VII,.Lp,GE ~.Ch.nn" Lat"r. t-:' ~ , ~ II 1. ~ " j- i ~ , , . ',' ~ ... i i !. L-- Support coluana to be textured , finbh to utch bul1d1ng. ~ h ~ ! ;...... (~i; ~ 1 ~~... ,~t ~ q ~ih~~::::::~ ;~ ....tl...-~ :"1-1;:::;:: \\II" ~ (~ ~ ! ~ ~, ~~ ~~~! tff lJ\i ~~ ~ ~~A ~~~\ ~~ ~ll '<').. f.! '~I~~~1 i~l~ ~ ~ . I Ii' . .' . SIGN B CITY OF SAN BERlqRDINO - REQUEST OoR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Dept: Planning & Building Services D~: July 23, 1992 Subject: Variance No. 92-10 (Appeal) Mayor and Common Council Meeting August 3, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal of Variance No. 92-10 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit 5; or That the hearing be closed and that the Uayor and Common Council approve Variance No. 92-10 in concept and refer the matter back to staff to develop positive Findings of Fact. ignature Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Report Ward: 5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. DescriPtion I Finance: Council Notes: Exhibit "A" CITY'OF SAN BERN.qDINO -'REQUEST A COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of the Planninq Commission denial of Variance No.' 92-10, requestinq approval of a variance from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C)(3)(f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn with 346.5 square feet of siqn area per face, identifyinq seven tenants and a center identification monument that identifies six tenants. REOUEST The applicant, Quiel Bros. Siqn Co., is appealinq the denial of Variance No. 92-10 by the Planninq Commission. Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requestinq a variance from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C)(3)(e) and 19.22.150(C)(3)(f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn with 346.5 square feet of siqn area per face, identifyinq seven tenants and a center identification monument that identifies six tenants. The subject property is irreqular in shape and consists of 9.94 acres located at the northeast corner of University Parkway and the Interstate 215 northbound offramp, and is at the westerly terminus of the Shandin Hills area. BACKGROUND On June 2, 1992, the Planninq Commission was scheduled to hold a properly noticed public hearinq on Variance No. 92-10 toqether with Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45, which was a concurrent request to construct a 50,925 square-foot multi-tenant retail center. At the applicant's request, the hearinq was continued to June 16, 1992. On June 16, 1992, the hearinq was closed and the Planninq Commission continued the item to JUly 7, 1992 for further discussion. On July 7, 1992, the Planninq Commission denied Variance No. 92-10 by a 4 to 3 vote. Reasons for denial, as discussed by the commissioners, included statements that the excess siqn area was unwarranted and that the flaq test to determine the minimum heiqht for freeway visibility was conducted inaccurately. The Planninq Commission did, however, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45. On July 8, 1992, Quiel Bros. Siqn Co. submitted an appeal of the Planninq Commission's denial of Variance No. 92-10 (Exhibit 1). On July 16, 1992, the appellant conducted a new flag test. Planninq staff and a City buildinq inspector observed the flaq test and determined that it had been conducted properly. The objective of o 0 variance No. 92-10 Appeal of Planninq Commission's Denial Mayor and Common Council Meeting of Auqust 3, 1992 paqe 2 the flaq test was to determine the minimum heiqht necessary to determine the minimum heiqht required to allow visibility of a siqn, represented by a tarqet, from a distance of three-tenths of a mile from the entrance of the northbound offramp. This distance would allow freeway traffic approximately 20 seconds to make the necessary maneuvers to exit the freeway after first seeinq the siqn. Based on the flaq test resultsr the bottom of the tarqet was 62 feet above the ground before it became visible from the observation distance: which translates to an overall heiqht of 98 feet above natural qrade, based on the proposed overall siqn face heiqht of 36 feet (revised from the oriqinally proposed siqn face heiqht of 33 feet due to a different desiqn). It is staff's determination that the heiqht suqqested by the flaq test will create a neqative visual impact that cannot be mitiqated, and therefore cannot support the request: nor can staff support a variance for any of the other siqn standards for reasons oriqinally discussed in the Planninq Commission staff report and findinqs. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-10. OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the appeal, approve variance No. 92-10 in concept and direct Staff to prepare positive findinqs. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-10 91-39 based on the Findinqs of Fac~contained in Exhibit 5. Prepared by: Greqory S. Gubman Assistant Planner for Al Bouqhey, AICP Director of Planninq and Buildinq Services Exhibits: 1 - Letter of Appeal 2 - Statement of Planninq Commission Action 3 - Official Notice of Public Hearinq before the Mayor and Common Council 4 - Staff report to the Planninq Commission dated July 2, 1992 (abridqed to address variance request only) 5 - Revised Findinqs based on July 16, 1992 flag test , o ,-.., ......., SIGNS BY ~wr.f.ee> 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO. CALIF. 92410 PH. 714-88~76 FAX 714-888-2239 July 8, 1992 Mayor and Common Council City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" st. San Bernardino, CA 92418 Dear Mayor and Common Council: We hereby appeal to you the decision of denial made by the Planninq Commission at its meetinq on July 7, 1992 for variance case No. 92- 10. On behalf of our client, Mr. Ari Miller dba Camden Development LTD. We feel that by the narrow marqin of the three to four vote and the precedinq discussions that the Planninq Commission felt it was in their best interest to pass this alonq to you. We will be providinq additional information reqardinq this matter within the next week; however it will be qreatly appreciated if you could schedule this matter to be heard as soon as possible. THANK you. Sincerely yours, ~QUIEL ROS. ELE C SIGN t' t/iI Gary Q~ilel Vice-President INC. C.C. Mr. Ari Miller Q ~~~\~~~ , JUt. \) 9 'S~O\~o of sp.1'l "'E.~~I'lI'lII'lG & Clp~lli,^El'li ~~EIl~ICE.S oE. 81.111.O11'l GQfer SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON CalK. c:c._. u-.. No. 2t7345 1:'...L...:.......:.L 11111 o 10 City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: Variance No. 92-10 Applicant: Camden Development LTD Northwest Enterprises OWner: ACTION Meetinq Date: July 7, 1992 X The Variance was Denied Based Upon the Findinqs of Fact (Attachment B.l). ~ Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Jordan, Lopez, Romero, Traver Clemensen, Orteqa, Stone None Cole, Valles I, hereby, accurately Commission certify that this Statement of reflects the final determination of the city of San Bernardino. Official Action of the Planninq Al Bouqhey, of Planninq and Buildinq Services cc: Project Applicant Project Property OWner Plan Check Enqineerinq Division Case File STMTOFPCACTION Exhibit "2" o o r- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL. "I '" SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 92-10 (Appeal) C~D' J PROPERTY LOCATION: Subj ect property is an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of about 9.94 acres located at the northeast corner of the I-215 northbound offramp and University ParJa"ay havinq a frontaqe of about 485 feet on the north side of the I-215 northbound offramp and a frontaqe of 700 feet on the east side of University Parkway. PROPOSAL: The applicant is appealinq the Planninq Commission's denial of a proposed Variance of Code Sections 19.22.150(C)(3)(E), 19.14.030(6), and 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) to construct a 95 foot tall freeway oriented siqn with 346.5 square feet of siqn area per face which identifies 7 tenants and an entry monUMent which identifies six tenants in the CG-1, Commercial General, General Plan land use desiqnation. PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92418 i I i HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, August 3, 1992 2:00 A. detaltea CftCnprIOn Of the orooosallS an file ,n ~ Planrwng 8nd BUIldIng s.r.:.s :JIlDa/'fn'lent al City Hall. )1 )'OUwoY1CI1_. further rnfOrmatJOnabout_DIIlODSIllPl'lGl'IO... ;:lUDIlC neanng..... CDnracl trl. PIatnng M'CI eu.a.ng SeIvas 0 _..._1I II'I.-san Of' Dy p/'Iontrtg m4'384-5057. The Ma,oI and Common CouncIl.. reQUelIIIng yaw~. "you....... to ahl'lcl. you may SUOrmtt wnnen comments 11'I tavorafor 1ft 0DC:l0IIIl0n1O the ~ III !he P1annmg .., BUIldIng SeMc.s DerIanrnent. s.n Beman:IIno City Hall. 300 Nartl 1)" SIrMI. s.n e.m.rdInO. CaIdormI92418. Oeascns 01 me ~ CommIulOn..,.,. conc.rrwng buddIn; mcMngs. c.. dltlOftal Use Pemnts. RevIew 01 Plans. Temauve Traa MaDs Ind VanMCIS. ...... aQDNfecIlO the Mlyot and Common Counal. ~1O__ MayorIndCommonCculal must De "'- 1ft wncsng. stating me QrOundI or ..... ...... and must be IUDIIIlnId 10.. CiIY c.... alOng WIfh tne a~ tee WIItIIn fifteen aa,s of the dIoIIon lien.... tar Parcel Mcs Md TencatIYe Trc MaDsI. G.Mtal Plan ~1O.....~ ana Am.ncIo....~ 10..... Murw:lpeI Coae will....... cally be ~ 10 the ~...., Common Counot tar final ac:IICln. II YOUCflallengelhetelulQln1acDal'1af1he...yor ancrComrnonCclunolIl'l caurt.)IClU m.Y'..hmtl<<llOra'*-'9Of1lyrhoM.......youOlSOfftllON....,.........DUDltct-.g descnDea'"thl&nollCe.or'"wnn.nCOf'._~_~IOIheCity~o.-. ill. or pnot to. __ PlJDIIC 1'Iunng. IndtvH'l"..t t_I."""'V tv\ _. ot_" _I M _ IimIUlrt In live m....__ ........ ,m ;....,......u_1OOlOtO ;E~_T....Sf"WC!$ o ~ '~ PLAlOIJ:lIG COMMJ:SSJ:Oll STAFF REPORT (ABRJ:DGED) REOUEST Under the authority of Development Code Section 19. 06.020, the applicant is requestinq approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91- 45 (CUP 91-45), to construct a 50,925 square-foot multi-tenant retail development. Concurrently, under the authori ty of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requestinq a Variance (Variance No. 92-10) from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn and a center identification monument that identifies six tenants. SITE LOCATION The subject property is irreqular in shape and consists of 9.94 acres located at the northeast corner of University Parkway and the Interstate 215 northbound offramp, and is at the westerly terminus of the Shand in Hills area (please see Site Plan, Attachment A.7 and Location Map, Attachment C). DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposal is consistent with the Development Code except for the fo11owinq components: I. A 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn identifyinq seven tenants is proposed, whereas the Development Code allows a maximum heiqht of 25 feet with identification of the center name and the major tenant only: 2. A center identification monument siqn is proposed to identify six tenants, whereas the Development Code permits the identification of no more than three tenants: 3. A convenience store within 1000 feet of another convenience store, as measured from property line to property line, is proposed, whereas the Development Code requires a minimum distance of 1,000 feet between parcels containinq such uses. The applicant is requestinq a variance to permit item numbers 1 and 2 above. with respect to item number 3, the applicant has expressed an intention to parcelize the subject property in the future to -1- l<'......'h; h; of- IIA II ...... o ,~ ~ provide for the separate ownership of the independent pads. The applicant requests that a condition approval be added to this project requirinq the recordation of a parcel map prior to the establishment of such a use. The proposed uses have also been found to be in conformance with the General Plan. The Development Code, which implements the General Plan land use element, permits the proposed project subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Please refer to the General Plan and Development Code Consistency table (Attachment A.1) · CEOA STATUS An Initial Study was prepared by staff and was presented to the Development and Environmental Review Committee (DRC/ERC) on March 19, 1992 (see Attachment A.5). The DRC/ERC determined that the project could have a siqnificant effect on the environment, in that insensitive qradinq could scar the hillside area to the rear of the subject property. Specific mitiqation measures were enumerated in the Initial Study and, as a result, the DRC/ERC recommended a Mitiqated Neqative DeClaration. The proposed Mitiqated Neqative Declaration was advertised and the Initial Study was available for public review and comment from March 26, 1992 to April 15, 1992. As of the writinq of this staff report, no collllilents were received from the public. BACKGROUND On December 2, 1991, General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 (GPA 90-11) was adopted by the Mayor and Common council as Resolution No. 91- 491, chanqinq the General Plan land use desiqnation from RL, Residential Low to CG-1, commercial General. On November 12, 1991, the application for CUP 91-45 was submitted to the Planninq Division. The application was first discussed by the Development Review committee on December 5, 1991. The application was deemed incomplete on December 11, 1991 pendinq the submittal of required environmental studies. On February 19, 1992, the application was deemed complete. On April 30, 1992, the DRC/ERC cleared the application to the P1anninq Commission. On March 12, 1992, the application for Variance No. 92-10 was submitted to the Planninq Division. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a) and (b) Variance No. 92-10 was deemed complete on April 11, 1992. ANALYSIS . (CUP ANALYSIS DBLETBD) sit. and surroundinq Area Characteristics -2- -~_._- c ""'" "...1 "" J The property is bounded by the freeway offramp to the southwest, University ParkWay to the west, state street to the northwest and vacant and developed sinqle-family residential properties to the east. other surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential to the north, a fraternal orqanization and vacant commercial property to the west. Uses south of the freeway consist of a motel, a hotel, fast food restaurants, a qas stationlconvenience store and the state colleqe Business park. SIGN VARIANCE Under the authority of Development Code section 19.72.030(2), the application for variance No. 92-10 is a request to waive Development Code sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.15D(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented siqn and a center identification monument that identifies six tenants. pr..way sign As discussed, the subject property is adjacent to the Interstate 215 freeway riqht-of-way, and is thus located within the Freeway corridor overlay District, as defined in Development Code Chapter 19.14. Development Code sections 19.14.030(6) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) permit a freeway oriented siqn with a maximum overall heiqht of 25 feet and a maximum sign area of 125 square feet per face which may identify only the name of the center or the major tenant. Due to the topoqraphy of the area, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented siqn, as well as the entire center, would be completely blocked from the visibility of northbound traffic. The subject property is located north of the Shandin Hills Golf Course and is separated from the qolf course by a larqe hill that forms the western boundary of the Shandin Hills area. The freeway edqe of the hill has been cut to a 2: 1 slope to accommodate the passaqe of the freeway. To compensate for the visual barrier to the subject property, the applicant proposes to construct a 95-foot tall dual pole siqn with center identification and seven tenant siqn panels. Heiaht To verify the need for the proposed heiqht, a flaq test was conducted on TUesday April 28, 1992 by the sign contractor, Quiel Bros., and was observed by staff. The intent of the flag test was to determine the minimum heiqht required to allow visibility of a siqn, represented by a tarqet, from a distance of three-tenths of -3- . o. () a mile from the entrance of the northbound offramp. This distance would allow freeway traffic approximately 20 seconds to make the necessary maneuvers to exit the freeway after first seeinq the siqn. Based on the flaq test that was conducted, the bottom of the tarqet was 67 feet above the qround before it became visible from the observation distance: which translates to an overall heiqht of 100 feet based on the proposed overall siqn face heiqht of 33 feet. However, it was later discovered by staff that the siqn contractor had placed the tarqet approximately 90 feet north of the proposed location as indicated on the submitted site plan. This misplacement resulted in the tarqet beinq further obscured by the hill, requirinq it to be raised hiqher, than it would have been if it had been placed in its correct location on site. The siqn contractor later responded that the actual proposed location for the siqn was inaccessible due to the existinq terrain. Due to the improper placement of the tarqet, staff considers the minimum heiqht determined by the flaq test to be invalid. However, the flaq test did provide a reasonable indication that the maximum heiqht of 25 feet allowed by the Development Code would be inadequate to provide freeway visibility. As a result, staff recommends denial of the variance at this time. The applicant may reapply for a variance to increase the heiqht of the freeway siqn after qradinq is complete and the proper siqn location is accessible, at which time the applicant shall conduct a new flaq test from the actual proposed siqn location to determine the minimum heiqht needed to provide freeway visibility at a distance from the offramp to be determined at the time of submittal. This flaq test shall aqain be monitored by city staff and the results shall be presented to the Planninq Commission prior to approval. Numher of Tenants Identified on Sian As shown on the elevations (Attachment B.4), the applicant proposes to identify the name of the center, as well as seven tenants. Development Code Section 19.15.030(6) permits a freeway oriented siqn to Zdentify only the name of the center or one major tenant. There are no unique circumstances applicable to the subject property that would warrant the identity of additional tenants, in that this standard now applies uniformly to all freeway-adjacent commercial developments, reqardless of the number of major tenants that they may have. Based on Development Code Section 19.22.150(C) (3) (e), which allows surface street center identification monuments to identify the name of the center and up to three major tenants, staff considers it to be reasonable to allow freeway siqns to identify the name of the -4- , - u """ ,) center and three major tenants as well. However a chanqe in this standard for freeway si911s should be applicable citywide, and should be addressed throuqh a Development Code Amendment. Staff does not concur with the applicant's proposal to identify seven tenants, since this is far in excess of any multi-tenant identification allowed for any new siqn in the city, and thus finds the proposal unwarranted. Additionally the amount of proposed si911aqe would create a cluttered and confused appearance to the si911 which would be a detriment to the area. sian Area The total square footaqe of the center identification channel letters and tenant siqn panels proposed is 346.5 square feet. The Development Code allows a maximum of 125 square feet of siqn area per face. There are no special circumstances that would warrant an increase in siqn area; the topoqraphic constraints on the subject property establish a need for additional heiqht only. with an increase in heiqht to compensate for the interveninq hill, the siqn will be just as visible with 125 square feet per face as a freeway oriented siqn that is not located in a topoqraphically restricted area. sian Desian If the City is to qrant a variance to allow a larqer siqn than is normally permitted by the Development Code, then the city should also require the hiqhest standards of desiqn to be applied in order to mitiqate the visual impact that a larqe siqn will have. The desiqn proposed by the applicant (Attachment B.4) is rather spartan in overall appearance and provides very little in terms of architectural compatibility with the architecture of the proposed buildinqs, except for a token parapet feature at the top of the siqn. The siqn panels are arranqed horizontally and vertically with respect to each other, creatinq a cluttered and confused appearance. The siqn supports consist of two exposed tubular steel poles, which are inconsistent with General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6, which states that pole siqns shall be prohibited in the California state University Area. For any freeway oriented siqn, not, the followinq desiqn illustrated in Attachment B.4: whether approved by a variance or specifications be employed, as 1. Specific desiqn elements used in the architecture of the center, such as raised relief, mouldinqs and tile, should be incorporated into the desiqn of the siqn. 2. All structural steel pole supports should be concealed within a monument structure or decorative pole covers. Pole covers -5- f' U. .:) 'I should be square or rectanqular in cross-section and each side should have a minimum horizontal width of four (4) feet. 3. siqn text should read horizontally: that is, the siqn text for the center identification and each tenant should be arranqed in rows only. 4. sign text for the tenants should consist of either channel letters or insertable panels with non-illuminated backqrounds painted to match the siqn structure., 5. The entire sign, except for text, text panels and design elements described in Item no. 1 above, should be finished and painted to match the main finish and color of the buildinqs. Entry Monument The Development Code allows a surface street oriented sign for a multi-tenant center to identify the name of center and up to three major tenants. The applicant is proposinq to identify the name of the center and six tenants. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to other mUlti-tenant centers which would warrant the identification of more than three major tenants. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this portion of the variance request. CONCLUSION The proposed uses are permitted in the CG-l land use desiqnation. The proposed convenience store is not permitted due to the proximity of the subject property to another property that already contains a convenience store. The project is in conformance with the Development Code development standards, as summarized in Attachment A.l, and is consistent with the Development Code Desiqn Guidelines. All known potentially neqative impacts resultinq from this project --such as traffic, security and environmental concerns--have been addressed and can be mitiqated throuqh desiqn, conditions of approval and throuqh the Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram. Topoqraphic constraints may warrant the qrantinq of a variance to allow additional heiqht to the proposed freeway oriented sign, but the applicant has been unable to establish the minimum height necessary to provide freeway visibility. There are no special circumstances uniquely applicable to the subject property to warrant the identification of the center or more than one tenant on the freeway siqn. No special circumstances exist that would -6- n ~ 8 warrant an increase in the permissible siqn area for any siqn or to allow the identification of more than three major tenants on any siqn. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planninq Commission: 1. Adopt the Mitiqated Neqative Declaration and Mitiqation Monitorinq and Reportinq Proqram; 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 for all uses proposed, except the convenience store, based upon the attached Findinqs of Fact (Attachment A.2), and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment A.3) and Standard Requirements (Attachment A.4); 3. Deny Variance No. 92-10, based upon the attached Findinqs of Fact (Attachment B.1). Attachments: B. Variance No. 92-1D B.1 - Findinqs of Fact B.2 - site Plan B.3 - Elevations Proposed by the Applicant B.4 - Elevation Concept for the Freeway Oriented Siqn Recommended by Staff C. Location Map -7- o Attachment "B.I" 0 '. / ... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT FINDINGS OF FACT CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10 AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 6-2-92 PAGE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR VARIANCE NO. 92-10 1. There may be special circumstances applicable to the property, with respect to topography, such that the strict application of the Development Code heiqht requirements deprives the subject property of privileqes enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use district classification. Due to a larqe hill located south of the subject property, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented sign may be completely obscured from the visibility of northbound traffic. However, due to the natural terrain of the subject property, the applicant and City staff are unable to determine the minimum height necessary to provide visibility of a freeway oriented sign until qradinq has been completed. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property to warrant the identification of the center and up to three tenants on the freeway oriented sign. The Development Code permits a freeway oriented siqn to identify only the name of the center or the major tenant, and this standard applies uniformly to all freeway-adjacent commercial developments, regardless of the number of tenants that they may have. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property to warrant the applicant's proposal to identify seven tenants on the freeway oriented sign, since this is far in excess of any mUlti-tenant identification allowed for any new sign in the City. There are no special circumstances that would warrant an increase in siqn area; the topoqraphic constraints on the subject property may establish a need for additional heiqht only. Assuminq that the heiqht is increased to compensate for the interveninq hill, the siqn will be just as visible with 125 square feet per face as a freeway oriented siqn that is not located in a topoqraphically restricted area. r 0- ~. ::) FINDINGS OF FACT CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10 AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 6-2-92 PAGE ""I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ... 2. The qrantinq of this variance request to allow additional heiqht to the freeway oriented'siqn may be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property riqht possessed by other properties in the vicinity and would otherwise be denied to the property for which the variance is souqht in that consideration for the topoqraphic constraints in the area has been qiven to other properties in the vicinity. Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) states that "buildinqs, such as hotels and restaurants, frontinq the freeway are entitled ~o have a freeway monument siqn and a buildinq siqn visible from the freeway." However, the applicant has not been able to clearly establish that a freeway oriented siqn on the subject property will not have freeway visibility if the heiqht is restricted to the maximum heiqht permitted by the Developm~nt Code. There is no necessity for the identity of more than three tenants on any siqn or to permit an overall siqn area that exceeds the Development Code limitations in that such limitations apply uniformly to all properties in the vicinity and these limitations do not result in restricted visibility of the siqns themselves. 3. The qrantinq of this variance request will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the property is located in that the siqn shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Buildinq Code, Uniform Electrical Code andlor the Uniform Siqn Code by a California state licensed siqn contractor. City Buildinq and Safety Staff and shall verify that the siqn is has been properly desiqned and installed to withstand the hiqh wind conditions associated with the area of the subject property. o :) ,... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE 5 6-2-92 .. ..... 4. The qrantinq of this variance request may not constitute a special privileqe inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located in that all other commercially desiqnated properties adjacent to the freeway are afforded the same considerations under Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) to have freeway visible identification. However, neither the applicant nor City staff have conclusively determined that a variance from the heiqht limitations for freeway oriented siqns is necessary for the proposed freeway siqn to have freeway visibility. Grantinq a variance to increase the area of the siqns or to increase the number of tenants identified on the siqns would constitute a special privileqe in that there is no cause to allow exceptions to these standards, as discussed in Findinqs nos. 1 and 2. 5. The qrantinq of this variance request would not allow a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations qoverninq the subject parcel in that the on-site identity of commercial uses is permitted by the Development Code. 6. The qrantinq of this variance request will be inconsistent with the General Plan in that General Plan POlicy No. 1.45.6 prohibits the development of pole siqns in the California State University area. r""'\ o . ~t!:achment "B.2 V , . , , o I . j I ~ ~ " H ,~; Iii ,/ I q t , , II or: :i 1'1 I. , I , ..- ;1', J '~I Uyl I~' .. .- -. I '"I:.' I 0 . '- . ~ U.'ll: '. . \ I:;~I: . .." .llI!, --, \ I \ I I I I III i m ~ II W 'I i ,.,.- I I I !.:, .. ..'. ,."'",,., lIi'di!( .i :!I~~~il:~ I I 'I I Ii .g;. I I 1:;1', i ..!. e" ,"': I II r I ... "'1 III hlllllllilll I'. 111;11I,'h. :, ml I,,. III !!!!!!!!!I IIlhdlllM ,,' !~i SIre ~ Fof&- "I~~ L..Ot:.Ar.NJc..l.lNbI II, " 'I!' 'It . I ~ I ... .' " ~ ,~.. - - . 'I,.:,,! In. :m. I i(l !) ] .-.......... !; ~-----._. "",.,..,--. ......1".._... " ..-..~~ "'_-,p...- - .. .~-.. .. " J. o j\, 1:'. 1:'.acnmen 1:'. .0 . ..) ,_,,"", ~ I,j ;. I ~7: f'i "d , ~ . .. '_~4::lr' .........,. .- l~ IHVERSlft VI.LAGE: n=:":'" C i CJ 8 g~:;:...- ~ ~ TEIlIl ----- l I I.TE. ~1l1l1TEI.~ ~-=-"!<:I ~. -----= I ~-~_.,.. ..---.-.......--. 1: IIP"'I n."; --- .. ~ TEI.IT f~~ ~. I ~~....c":',t.:r ~..--_. t!''lIo' ~~/"" ~.", . : . ." ...\11_ .....~ I =-~~.~~. CrI.IiI.~~_..__ .,.-.-",-. .,-~,..- : I : j I' I 'aMP"".,,,,,, @ i:":;;I'.t.....~,..,. ~(-J"r ~.T-~. , , ! ,;~ t ..;':\trl r- ,Q, f. ..'_.~.. f ~J f ,'. t . ! IB I !It.... t ~= f I ~ t .m:o !' .~r :,~ . II F. " t ! ! tl;;;;, m~iifi~~!I~ ~ { I I '1'1.111,1' , ! I ;~ Iliil' Irl " ... II II' , " I l ~ O. At;tacl1ment "B. 4" C) I F' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~ VARIANCE NO. 92-10 ... ATTACHMENT 8.5 RECOMMENDED ELEVATION CONCEPT FOR FREEWAY $IGN ~~~~ TENANT 1 TENANT 2 TENANT 3 - ~1'" """" , i I ~>-PIi' cf1:6r. ~~ ~~OJ'O 0- A1;tachment "C" .-"" -.-J ... ""'II AGENDA ITEM # 5 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92- LOCATION HEARING D;~E 6-2 -92 o. ~ J ". F:IW:IIIGS 01' FACT FOR VAR:IAlICB 110. 92-2:0 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the propertYr with respect to topoqraphYr such that the strict application of the Development Code heiqht requirements deprives the subject property of privileqes enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use district classification. Due to the topoqraphy of the area, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented siqn, as well as the entire proposed development, would be completely obscured from the visibility of northbound traffic. The subject property is located north of the Shandin Hills Golf Course and is separated from the qolf course by a large hill that forms the western boundary of the Shandin Hills area. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property to warrant the identification of the center and up to three tenants on the freeway oriented siqn. The Development Code permits a freeway oriented siqn to identify only the name of the center or the major tenant, and this standard applies uniformly to all freeway-adjacent commercial developments, reqardless of the number of tenants that they may have. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property to warrant the applicant's proposal to identify seven tenants on the freeway oriented sign, since this is far in excess of any multi-tenant identification allowed for any new siqn in the city. There are no special circumstances that would warrant an increase in siqn area; the topoqraphic constraints on the subject property establish a need for additional heiqht only. with an increase in heiqht to compensate for the intervening hill, the siqn will be just as visible with 125 square feet per face as a freeway oriented sign that is not located in a topographically restricted area. 2. The qrantinq of this variance request to allow additional heiqht to the freeway oriented siqn is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property riqht possessed by other properties in the vicinity and would otherwise be denied to the property for which the variance is souqht in that consideration for the topographic constraints in the area has been qiven to other properties in the Fyhibit "5" o ~ -.1 vicinity. Development Code section 19.14.030(6) states that "buildinqs, such as hotels and restaurants, frontinq the freeway are entitled to have a freeway monument siqn and a buildinq siqn visible from the freeway." However, these uses will not have freeway visibility if their associated siqnaqe is required to comply with the Development Code standards. There is no necessity for the identity of more than three tenants on any siqn or to permit an overall siqn area that exceeds the Development Code limitations in that such limitations apply uniformly to all properties in the vicinity and these limitations do not result in restricted visibility of the siqns themselves. 3. The qrantinq of this variance request will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the properties and improvements in the .vicinity and land use district in which the property is located in that the visual impact of a freeway identification siqn constructed to the heiqht proposed is intrinsically neqative, and therefore cannot be mitiqated. 4. The qrantinq of this variance request does not constitute a special privileqe inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located in that all other commercially desiqnated properties adjacent to the freeway are afforded the same considerations under Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) to have freeway visible identification. Grantinq a variance to increase the area of the siqns or to increase the number of tenants identified on the siqns would constitute a special privileqe in that there is no cause to allow exceptions to these standards, as discussed in Findinqs nos. 1 and 2. 5. The qrantinq of this variance request would not allow a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the requlations qoverninq the subject parcel in that the on-site identity of commercial uses is permitted by the Development Code. 6. The qrantinq of this variance request will be inconsistent with the General Plan in that General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6 prohibits the development of pole siqns in the California State University area. i 1>.0 , ~ll j" 'I' l~ :~ ~~ ~ ~l i '/41 ~~ f"<~ '~~ \l~ !!i . ttl' ~~ ~!l I ~ I ~ '" N"l I ~l ~ ~ ~ t\ ~ I {(II rr11 a/I )~II 'Hliil ll':fl Ill'll l.,l..! I" :'IJ;j l!"II~ ._11 lill! {,ph !lilt! ;1j!~1 ,1.lli lillil f l I I P' , , L ~J to i~ ! ::l ~ ~ ' '" I II ~~-(\~ (t ~ '(.... I J~ i ,- di ,-; , z I i= iil ~~ ~ . ~j ~I Ui ~ !::! , -t ~ If I~ I ~ Q ~ .1 . ~ ~ , i! . , . ~ ~i "- {II .' ", .;' 0'1 ~ , It ~ V , ~. '. .:''':". -"'.~,' ..:.~-~ . Channel Letters UNIVERSITY VILLA " v::-~ TENANT TENANT Color and texture to _.tch building. -I 1'1' .,' I TENANT] El TENANT fEN~N;1 TENANT ~.;. ~~: .t. . ~ {n ~ .. 1- Fluor..cent Illualnated Internally Cabinet , Notes aevised 5/20/92 To contora to revised building 4..ign. A .ore detailed drawing will be fabricated. upon approval to include any other condition. required during the review proc.... Support co~umn~ to be textured finish to _.tch building. Exhibit "B" , ; . ~ n j ~ . f ~ 2 1. I ~ ! n j ~ . . ~ 8 ^