Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24-Planning - o o Planning CITY OF SAN BERNARDINQ,'I'F1VCn._::11'( ".LF.P: and Building Services ~epartment Memorandum '94 JUN -1 Al0 :19 FROM: Mayor and Common Council Al BOUghe~Director TO: SUBJECT: variance No. 93-11 - Hughes Market DATE: June 1, 1994 COPIES: Rachel Clark, Administrator City Clerk; Shauna Clark, City ------------------------------------------------------------------- At the Council meeting of May 16, 1994, Variance No. 93-11 was approved in concept, and continued until June 6, 1994 for staff to prepare findings of fact supporting approval, and applicable conditions of approval. After the meeting, staff obtained a copy of findings and conditions prepared by Carl Haws, on behalf of Hughes Market (attached). His 'proposed findings and conditions are not consistent with the, application" as' originally submitted to Planning and Building, Services and-are not included in your Council staff report. The application, as submitted, consisted of a 65 foot sign with 338 square feet of sign area per face to include four major tenants and the shopping center name. The conditions of approval in your Council packet reflect this. 1f:JJ( o rIlmJ:HOS or rACT POR 0 VARJ:ANCB NO. 93-11 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, with respect to topography, location or surroundings such that the strict application of the Development Code height and size requirements deprives the subject property ot privilege. enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use elistrict classif ication, Due to the topography of the area, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented sign. as well as the entire proposed development, would be almost completely obscured from the visibility of northbounel traffic, In addition, a substantial portion of the elevelopment is obscured by other adjacent buildings. There are special circumstances applicable to the uses comprising the proposed development to warrant the identification of up to nine tenants on the freeway oriented sign, The Development Code permits a freeway oriented sign to identify only the name of the center or the major tenant. However, as the project is proposed, there will be more than a single major anchor tenant; various restaurants and other tenants will likely comprise the major customer base for the center. r-- The granting of this variance request to allow additional height and size to the freeway oriented sign is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity and would otherwise be denied to the property tor which the variance is a' J_ ....-.. 1;1____1 M__..'- . . - .' - --- .:- i~ -A v' _ -- n - -. l' . J, -~ . 3. .. The granting 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 anel land use district in which the property is located in that the sign shall be constructed in conformance with the UnHorm Building code, Uniform ilectrical Code and/or the UnHorm Sign Code by a California state licensed sign contractor, City BUilding anel Safety Staff shall verify that the sign has been properly designed and installed to withstand the high wind conditions associated with the area of the subject property. The granting of this variance request does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use diltrictin which the ~ub e t roperty is located in that . _ I u -' ~- : - ..--- ......:....1. ". . - ~M.. . - 1e Section 19.14.030(6)to have freeway visible identification.. In . .. - . .' -,...... I " addition, __.____ _ I ", I I - 11._ ... ' '---- l]I('ll,,"-rh . ,. . - . ,--",', '~\, '7" \~Q :c.- ".,l MAY 1 7 E~4 ..- r~;-i \ P: : t; ~ .....,. . ;....'~: ....' , .:.'\.,: r., \..'-' . L. -'~: --,'.~ :;.:,.:,' 01.1,-:: 11 t'~, -:0 .'.!:IW %01-~8~-606:aI S~!:IH'WnlaO'113GNOW o P:tNDIN13. OP PACT POll. 0 VARIANCB NO. 93-11 CONTINUBD 5. The granting of this variance request would not allow a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel in that the on-site identity of commercial uses is permitted by the Development Code. Specifically, two immediately adjoining landowners are jointly applying for this sign and have entered a Tenancy in Common Agreement such that the sign is not deemed an "off-site" sign under the provisions of the Development Code. 6. The granting of this variance request will not be inconsistent with the General Plan in that conditions of approval will assure that the final design complies with General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6, which prohibits the development of pole signs in the California State University area, All supports for this sign shall be concealeel within architecturally designed pole covers and/or monUlnent structures, __ - '~:~I::!.':II'j r:,;:":TT 17i:, ; ::- (I /.,t!v~ %OT-~8~-606:aI S~~H'wnlaD"l3aNnw CoNDITIONS 01' APPROVAL 1'0Rl'"\ VARIANCB NO. 93-11 ~ 1. The maximum overall height of the freeway-oriented sign shall be 6S feet above natural grade. If the finished grade of the sign location is higher in elevation than natural grade, then the difference shall be subtractec:l from the overall height of the sign. However, the overall height of the sign shall not be increased if the finishec:l grade of the sign location is lower than natural grade. 2. The maximum sign area on the freeway oriented sign shall be 408 square feet per face. 3. The identification of no more than nine major tenants shall be permitted on the freeway oriented sign. 4. Within one (1) year after approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a perioc:l of one year, then the approval shall become null and void. Expiration Date: May 2. 1995 5. The planning Commission, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, shall grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. 6. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. once notified, the applicnnt agree. to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City ot San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reiml:)urse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the City may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. .....-,...1 .~.">:i' '::~,j f:,~: -;: r ~:' . --: i~1 )" ~ ~...j 9~C:T-~;3~-~06: or S~~h'wnlaO'~-3::rJr;~~ CITY OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION From: A 1 Boughey. Oi rector Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 93-11 (Hughes Sign). Dept: Planning and Building Services Date: May 19, 1994 MCC meeting of June 6. 1994 @ 2 p.m, Synopsis of Previous Council action: v"lN. O~Y1~/94 -- The Mayor and Common Council approved Variance No. 93-11 in concept and continued the item until June 6. 1994. directing Staff to prepare Findings. of Fact. j :.~~'{ 94 10: 34 Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the proposed Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2) and approve Variance No. 93-11, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3). Signature Contact person: A 1 Bouahev Phone: 5357 Supponing data attached: Staff ReDort Ward: #5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.1 (Acct. DescriDtionl Finance: ::OUncil Notes: Agenda Item No. :;. J.j. 's..0262 o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJBCT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 93- 11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of June 6, 1994 REQUEST/LOCATIOII: Staff requests that the Mayor and Common Council review the attached proposed Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval for Variance No. 93-11. The applicant requested approval of a variance to permit a freeway sign for a proposed 11.44 acre community commercial shopping center. The sign will be located on the parcel occupied by the Scottish Rite Temple, adjacent to the Interstate 215, west of University Parkway. The 11.44 acre community commercial shopping center is located between Varsity Avenue and College Avenue on the west side of University Parkway, across Varsity Avenue from the Scottish Rite Temple. BACltGROUIID: On May 16, 1994, the Mayor and Common Council approved Variance No. 93-11 in concept, but continued the item until June 6, 1994 to allow staff time to prepare the findings for approval and conditions of approval. Variance No. 93-11, as originally submitted to Planning and Building Services, consists of a 65 foot sign with 338 square feet of sign area per side to include four major tenants and the shopping center name. See Exhibit 1. RECOKKBIIDATIOII: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the proposed Findings of Fact (Exhibit 2) and approve Variance No. 93-11 subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3) . Prepared for: Al Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services Exhibits: 1 - Proposed Sign 2 - Proposed Findings of Fact 3 - Proposed Conditions of Approval ~ -r- o ~ ~,L J " 7-" G' J 1" ~-." I f. II ~-~ -r I.~ o , 01.<' c.AnIDI j I 0, " 17-,(.' , , '!'"'" I " JP-t'J , , I "rG' tit, ~artli.~ ~i1t. ltianp& UNIVERSITY . TOWN CENTER .J '" 1- ,\') I . , ~l \ . ') 1 I I '1 I ..,," ...... t- o ~G~r- 1t~'~rr- II i'!!.l~ ,: , 'r\J~~-.. ~.-:1I~_",_ f, "", \~.."" "\.n1(:- ;...I~-.~.~ ~ -:'..::.......:.. './ .;;. VAH. <1,:)-11 ~~....;.!'.;!.. ~.::-..,...~_....4. r:.. .........~~ '."'.<f.~. ...,.....' 'At I'~ ....... :III..'.........,....... .....'. h..... ",""0.", IIL~~~.NY'~ ,.."" ...............,.. .....'......11 ......... .1.'.".....'.......,., "'''''t... ~ " ------..-..-....- -:: ~~.J~~~,1..1 ~!1 I,ll _,-!t, :=:::0: 1-"7 o o EXHIBIT 2 VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Development code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification. The topography in the area is such that, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented sign, as well as the entire proposec:l development, would be almost totally obscured from the visibility of northbound traffic. 2. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the variance is sought, in that the topographical constraint would prevent visibility of a sign constructed to Development Code Standards. 3. That granting the variance 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. The freeway sign would be constructed and installed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code and/or Uniform Sign Code by a California State licensed sign Contractor. city Building and Safety Staff shall verify that the sign has been properly installed. 4. That granting the variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located. Specifically, the two landowners, Scottish Rite Temple and Univar Incorporated have entered a tenancy in common agreement such that the sign is not deemed an "off-site" sign under the provisions of the Development Code. All other commercially designated properties within a multi-tenant shopping center are afforded the same considerations allowing them to enter into a tenancy in common agreement and to apply for a variance under Development Code Section 19.72.030, for sign related concerns. 5. That granting the variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel, in that the parcel is freeway adjacent with 300 feet of frontage and is allowed one freeway adjacent sign. 6. That the granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. o o EXHIBIT 3 COlmITIONS OP APPROVAL Variance No. 93-11 1. Within two years of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. In addition, if after commencement of construction, work is discontinued for a period of one year, then the permit/approval shall become null and void. Project: Variance No. 93-l1 Expiration Date: May 2, 1996 2. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 c:lays prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. The review authority shall ensure that the project complies with all current Development Code provisions. 3. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the city will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The appl icant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorneys' fees which the city may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his or her obligation under this condition. 4. The maximum overall height of the sign shall be 65 feet above the natural grade, with the top of the sign face no higher than 60 feet. If the finished grade of the sign location is higher in elevation than the natural grade, then the difference shall be subtracted from the overall height of the sign. However, the overall height of the sign shall not be increased if the finished grade of the sign location is lower than the natural grade. 5. The maximum sign area per face shall be 338 square feet as shown on the plans submitted with the Variance application. 6. The sign shall be limited to the identification of four major tenants and the name of the center as shown on the approved sign elevations. The Hughes market shall be allocated ll9 square feet of each sign face, the Scottish Rites Temple shall be allocated 55.25 square feet of each sign face, with the remaining area allocated between the two remaining unnamed major tenants in the amounts of 85 square feet and 55.25 square feet of each sign face. Each tenant on the sign shall Id o o variance No. 93-11 Conditions of Approval meet the definition of major tenant in Development Code Section 19.22.030. The name of the center shall be allocated 23 square feet as shown on the plans submitted for the Variance application. 7. A planter base as shown on the site plan shall be installed. 8. The developer is to submit landscape and irrigation plans for the required planter base or landscaped area (5 copies) to the Public Works Department with the required fee for review. The landscape plans will be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Planning Division for review. (Note: The issuance of a building development permit by the Department of Planning and Building Services does not waive this requirement.) The landscape and irrigation of the planter base/landscape area shall comply with the "Procedure and Policy for Landscape and Irrigation" (available from the Parks Department), and comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 19.28 (Landscaping Standards) of the Development Code effective on the date of approval of this permit. Trees are to be inspected by a representative of the Parks Department prior to planting. .. CITY OF SAN BERaRDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: APP7al of Planning Commission den~a1 of Variance No. 93-11 Dept: Planning & Building Services October 26, 1993 Mayor and Common Council Meeting November 15, 1993 @ 2:00 p.m. Date: Synopsis of Previous Council action: September 21; 1993, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 93-11. 7 C.:1 ~. ~: "Il. Recommended motion: That the hearing" be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny Variance No. 93-11 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the September 21, 1993 Planning Commission staff report. /\ / J ! , . , / Al Boughey Contact person: Staff Report Supporting data attached: 384-5357 Phone: 5 Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct, Description) Finance: Council Notes: -Ru~7 .s;/v~Y ^....""'......I... 1+........ 1\1... 2+1 ---- o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 93-11 REQUESTIWCATION: The applicant requests approval of Variance No. 93-11, a variance of Development Code Section 19.22.060(G), to permit an off-site freeway sign for a proposed 11.44 acre community commercial shopping center. The proposed freeway adjacent off-site sign would be located on the property occupied by the Scottish Rite Temple, located between Interstate 215 and Varsity Avenue, on the west side of University Parkway. The future 11,44 acre community commercial shopping center is to be located between Varsity A venue and College Avenue on the west side of University Parkway, across Varsity Avenue from the Scottish Rite Temple (See Exhibit 1), BACKGROUND: The 11.44 acre shopping center was approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 92-24 on June 22, 1993. KEY ISSUES: There are several key issues which have been identified as follows: o Development Code Section 19.72.050 state that the Planning Commission can approve a Variance application only if lIll the findings contained in that section can be made, Two of the Findings contained in that section cannot be made. o Finding No.5 of Development Code Section 19.72.050 requires that the granting of a Variance not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. The proposed off-site sign is a use expressly prohibited by Development Code Section 19.22.060(G). o Finding No.6 of Development Code Section 19.72.050 requires that the granting of a Variance not be inconsistent with the General Plan. General Plan Policy 1.45.5 requires that signage be limited to the purposes of the building, business, tenant or address identification, The proposed off-site sign would identify a business lOcated off-site in violation of the intent of this policy, o Development Code Section 19.44.020(6) requires a property to have a minimum of 300 feet of freeway frontage in order to be allowed a freeway adjacent sign. The 11.44 acre shopping center does not have am: freeway frontage. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO mE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL: The Mayor and Common Council May: 1. Deny the appeal and deny Variance No, 93-11; or, 2, Direct staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment to create provisions that would permit the type of sign that the applicant is requesting. o o Variance No. 93-11 Mayor and Common Council Meeting November 15, 1993 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny Variance No. 93-11 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in the September 21, 1993 staff report (Exhibit 2), RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No, 93-11, based upon the Findings of Fact Contained in the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit 2). Staff recommends against any consideration of revising the General Plan and Development Code to create the provisions that would allow the requested sign since doing so would allow virtually any business in the City, freeway adjacent or not, to have a freeway sign, significantly increasing the overall number of freeway signs creating a potential overabundance of such signs to the visual detriment of the City. Prepared by: Michael R. Finn, Associate Planner For: AI Boughey, Director, Planning and Building Services Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report o o ~ ~ r AGENDA """'I ITEM # 6 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR No. 93-11 LOCATION 9/21/93 HEARING DATE ... to.. .II o!t \~ l G t . ClTVOF_~ Pl.AN-8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 ~-- (4"'" o o r- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD #6 September 21. 1993 5 Ito. ~ r---.. APPLICANT: Innovative Graphics, Inc, w 833 North Elm Street en Variance No, 93-11 Orange, California 92402 < OWNER: Scottish Rite Bldg. Association CJ POBox 458 San Bernardino, CA 92402 r---.. . A variance of Development Lode Section 19.22,060(G) to allow an off-site i3 freeway sign for an 11,44 acre shopping center to be constructed at the northwest corner of Varsity Avenue and University Parkway. ::::I The sign is proposed to be located on 5.93 acres a at the northwest corner w of Interstate 215 and University Parkway, a:: - < w a:: < r EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Scottish Rite Temple CG-1 Commercial General North (Vacant) Proposed 11,44 acre shopping center CG-1 Commercial Genera 1 South Interstate 215 Freeway -- -- -- East (Vacant) Proposed 9.94 acre shopping ctr, under constrtn, CG-1 Commercial General West V4ulti-family apartments RM Residential Medium r 1( ) l GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC DYES ( FLOOP HAZARD 0 YES o ZONE A SEWERS: ~ YES HAZARP ZONE: G NO '" ZONE: IXI NO OZONE B o NO ( 0 0 r DYES HIGH FIRE YES AIRPORT NOISE! YES I REDEVELOPMENT HAZARD ZONE: CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: '" IX] NO '- [llJ NO '- Ql NO r ...I o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL < APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 I- MITIGATING MEASURES ~ 0 zen NO E.l.R. CONDITIONS we" IL.O ::!!z ~ EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO IL.Z IX] DENIAL Z- Class 15311(a) SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS <w 00 WITH MITIGATING tiil a::il: MEASURES 0 CONTINUANCE TO -IL. 0 > o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Z fd W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E,R,C. MINUTES a::) "- '" "- '- ClT"fOl'''''''~ --...... PL.M-l.02 PN3E, OF t (4-10) - o o Variance No, 93-11 Agenda Item # 6 Hearing Date: 9-21-93 Page 1 REQUEST Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant requests a Variance of Development Code Section 19.22.060(0), to permit an off-site freeway adjacent sign for a proposed 11.44 acre community commercial shopping center. LOCATION The future 11.44 acre shopping center is to be located on the west side of University Parkway, south of College Avenue, north, across Varsity Avenue from the Scottish Rite Temple. The freeway adjacent off-site sign is proposed for the property occupied by the Scottish Rite Temple and located on the west side of University Parkway, between Interstate 215 and Varsity Avenue (See Location Map, Attachment A). BACKGROUND Shopping Center The 11.44 acre 103,495 square foot community commercial shopping center was approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 92-24 on June 22, 1993. The proposed center will include a 40,600 square foot grocery market as the primary anchor tenant, a 22,500 square foot secondary anchor tenant, four fast food drive through restaurants, each an average of 3,300 square feet in area, and approximately 27,095 square feet of in-line retail space. The shopping center site is located at the northwest corner of Varsity Avenue and University Parkway, and has no direct frontage on the Interstate 215 freeway. Variance Request Development Code Section 19.72.050 states that the Planning Commission can approve a Variance application only if llll the findings contained in that section can be made. As noted in the analysis section that follow below, granting Variance No, 93-11 would permit a use (an off- site sign) that is expressly prohibited by the Development Code regulations governing the parcel. Thus, Finding No. 5 cannot be made and the Planning Commission cannot approve the Variance, The question then arises, of how the applicant was allowed to make application for the Variance if the City is precluded by the Findings from ever approving the Variance. The answer is that the authority under which the applicant's Variance request was filed is established by Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), Pursuant to that section, a Variance request may be filed requesting the modification of sign regulations, On several occasions prior to the Variance o o Variance No, 93-11 Agenda Item # 6 Hearing Date: 9-21-93 Page 2 filing, staff met with the applicant and informed him that the City would not be able to approve the Variance request because of the Development Code and General Plan inconsistency of the request, and that staff would not support any efforts to amend the Development Code or General Plan to create provisions allowing such a request to be approved, DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed off-site freeway sign is neither consistent with the Development Code or the General Plan as noted below, DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY The proposal is inconsistent with the Development Code for the following reasons: o The off-site sign is a use expressly prohibited by the Development Code. Section 19.22.060(G) prohibits off-site signs, with the exception of replacement billboard signs, residential kiosk signs, and bus shelter signs as outlined in Development Code Section 19.22.080, o The 11.44 acre shopping center does not have any freeway frontage. Development Code Section 19.14,020(6) requires a property to have a minimum of 300 feet of freeway frontage in order to be allowed a freeway adjacent sign. CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The proposal is not consistent with General Plan Policy 1.45.5 which requires that signage be limited to the purposes of the building, business, tenant or address identification. The proposed freeway sign would identify a business located off-site in violation of the intent of this policy. ANALYSIS DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS Development Code Section 19,22,030 defines an off-site sign as follows: Any sign which advertises or informs in any manner businesses, services, goods, persons, or events at some location other than that upon which the sign is located. It is clear from this definition, that the proposed freeway sign is an off-site sign. As noted elsewhere in this staff report, the Development Code expressly prohibits off-site signs, o o Variance No, 93-11 Agenda Item # 6 Hearing Date: 9-21-93 Page 3 - Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) requires that a property have a minimum of 300 feet of freeway frontage in order for a freeway adjacent sign to be permitted. The site of the proposed sign does in fact have in excess of 900 feet of freeway frontage, and the Scottish Rite Temple is warranted a freeway adjacent sign. However, the proposed 11.44 acre shopping center is not freeway adjacent, is not part of the Scottish Rite site, and does not have any freeway frontage. The shopping center, therefore, is not warranted a freeway adjacent sign, Since the Development Code expressly prohibits off-site signs, the Scottish Rite Temple cannot inciude any businesses, services, goods, etc. from the proposed 11,44 acre shopping center on any freeway adjacent sign they may wish to establish. REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANI1NG A VARIANCE Section 65906 of the California Government Code identifies specific parameters under which a variance can be granted. Development Code Section 19.72,050 incorporates these provisions into the mandatory findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a variance, In particular, the Planning Commission must find: o That granting the Variance does not allow a use which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel [~19,72.050(5)]. APPLICANT'S FINDINGS Pursuant to Development Code Section 19.72.070, the burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the mandatory findings rests with the applicant. To establish such evidence, applications for variance must be accompanied by the applicant's own written findings to justify the need for a variance. The applicant's findings are presented in full in Attachment G. STAFF'S FINDINGS Permissiveness of Use The finding of permissiveness of use requires that the granting of the Variance not allow a use which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. As noted previously, Development Code Section 19.22.06O(G) clearly and explicitly prohibits off- site signs. Granting of the Variance would allow a use that is expressly prohibited by the Development Code. Hence, the Planning Commission must deny the Variance based on this finding alone. 1. o o Variance No, 93-11 Agenda Item # 6 Hearing Date: 9-21-93 Page 4 CONCLUSION The Planning Commission cannot grant the request for Variance No. 93-11. Granting the Variance would allow a use expressly prohibited by the Development Code in violation of Development Code 19.72.050. A General Plan and Development Code Amendment would be necessary modifying those sections specifically precluding the use of an off-site sign before the Planning Commission could consider approving the Variance based on the other findings. Whether or not the City should allow off-site signs is a policy issue. Staff would not support any request to modify the Development Code or General Plan to allow off-site signs because of the potential problems it would create. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 93-11 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment C). Res~tfully Subm' ted) , OJ (2, f1 I.).;;,': f' '- AL B GHE Direct R~ '1M MICHAEL R. FINN Associate Planner Attachments: A - Location Map B - Site Plan C - Findings of Fact D - Applicant's Findings of Fact o ATTACHMENT "A" o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT VAR No. 93-11 CASE LOCATION 9/21/93 HEARING DATE ..... ,.. ,.. AGENDA ITEM # 6 ... .... o!t \t-..- l G t .. CITY Of _ .-...0 PL..N+8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 --- (4-llO) I I - I - , '" r I ct I ~ I '> I I I r I I ptr-. ,a, ... I 1"-. , -~..- . -"'; =; .i r_ ..-~ ~ -, ~"': !:- , o ATTACHMENT 1 ,I ..~ LI.I 't-~ ".LU 'LI.I UO 'z~ . :>0 ;.> ~. 0< I-Z ~~ _ LI.I tn CQ ffiz >< - en Z => ... . . I, .. . , .' I. )' . L__. '- ," '1 . . . ;0 , .; .. ., I ..- ."r 1";: ~ , I 1 ft f Is h I t~ 'HI dJl III . <l<I<J, I~ 'i J ~ IIU -l=,) ~ .l!-~el; ,-,. -!! C!r - .. ' ~ il. . ., J ,I .. ., .H~I! : t~,' O!1:I. . = ...f .5 5 Sit /, , I o o A TIACHMENT C VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT Development Code Section 19.72.050 states that the commission may approve and/or modify an application in whole or in part, with or without conditions, l2Ilb:: if all of the findings of this section are made, This means that one negative finding is sufficient to deny the Variance. Thus the following two findings are provided to document the basis for the Planning Commissions Denial of Variance No. 93-11: 5, That granting the Variance would allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel in that the Development Code expressly prohibits off-site signs. 6, That granting the Variance will be inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy 1.45,5 requires that signage be limited to the purposes of a building, business, tenant or address identification. JL' o ATTACHMENT "0" o WRITTEN RESPONSE A There are special circumstances applicable to the property. including siZe. shape. topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Code deprives such properly to privileges enjoyed by other properly in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification; The above property is located between the freeway and the property upon which the bulk of the shopping center development will be built. This property contains an exlsting concem called the Scottish Rite Temple. which will share the sign with Hughes Market. Hughes Markets. Inc.. has made arrangements to lease the property and make It a part of the shopping center development. However. since the property Is separately owned and divided by public right-of-way, Planning Is designating the sign as an Off-5lte Sign. even though It does advertise the Scotttsh Rite Temple which is on the properly. Properties directly across the freeway though. have almost identical circumstances In which freeway pole signs have been placed upon properties adjacent to the freeway. but which advertise businesses within a center that are located on properties with separate ownershlp's and divided by rights-of-way. Additionally. those signs are placed upon properties where there are no present business uses. unlike the proposed sign which wlA be placed upon a property which contains a going concem. B. That granting the Variance Is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right possssssd by other property In the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the Variance Is sought; In addition to those Instances already mentioned. a freeway identification sign was recently approved for the properly across University Parkway. which Is a new commercial shopping center. If this Variance Is denied. then our shopping center will be the onlY one deprived of a veN substantial property right that all the other centers in the immediate vicinity have been granted, That is; the rlaht to have eaual access to the buvlna Dubllc as It travels bv on those main thorouahfares. In order to attract Its fair share of the available business. C, That granting the Variance 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; The granting of this Variance has no negative effect upon public health. safety or welfare; or is Injurious In any way to any properties or Improvements. o o - On the contrary. It rrKJY be said that it would have a beneficial effect upon the public and other properties, in that as a matter of convenience it will more easily help to make the public aware of services that are necessary and add significantly to the quality of life enjoyed by persons residing or traveling nearby. It Is also likely that It would add significantly to properties' values in the vicinity and el'lcouraae Improvements upon them. f ! 0, That granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties In the vicinity and land use district In which the property Is loCated: There are no other properties In the vicinity with similar circumstances that have been limited In this use. ~ i ~ E. That granting the Variance does not alloW a use or activity which Is not otherwise expressly authortzed by the regulations govemlng the subject parcel; There are no other regulations authortzing this use. F. That granting the Variance will not be Inconsistent with the General Plan; The General Plan does not address this Issue.