HomeMy WebLinkAbout30-Planning
'crft OF SAN BERNARDlfib - REQUE::st FOR COUNCI~-hbN
R. Ann Siracusa
From, Director of Planning
Amendment to Text No. 87-1 -
REC'O,-ADMIIJ.f:, S.B.M.C. Section 19.60 - Signs
Dept:
Planning
I R"l ruT. I '"" ,'U :,- "~.
~ _ - Q I,l'l";-.) ;
Mayor and Council Meeting of
October 19, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
October 7, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on September 22, 1987,
the following action was taken:
The proposed amendment to the San Bernardino Municipal Code,
Section 19.60.240, to permit an increase in the maximum allowable
area for hotel/convention center wall signs in the C-4 Central
Business District, was unanimously recommended for denial.
Recommended motion:
To approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Si nature
R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting data attachad:
Staff Report
Ward:
City-wide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (ACCT, NO.)
(ACCT, DESCRIPTION)
Finance:
Council Notes:
^___..I_ ,___ u_ 30.
. CIT'f OF SAN BERNARDI~O - REQUE~ FOR COUNCIL ACtI&N
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Amendment to Text No. 87-1 -
S.B.M.C. Section 19.60 - Signs
Mayor and Council Meeting of 10/19/87
REQUEST
This Amendment to Text request (AT 87-1) is to modify Section
19.60.240 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code to increase
the allowable size for wall signs for hotels having a height
of greater than six stories or seventy-two feet in the C-4
Central Business District.
The allowable total square footage of signage would be based
on a ratio of four square feet of sign per lineal foot of
building frontage per street frontage, up to a maximum of 650
square feet of total sign area for each structure.
Amendment of the Zoning Code requires action by the City
Council. The proposed text amendment is shown in Attachment
A and has been modified since the September 22, 1987 Planning
Commission hearing to require a Conditional Use Permit for
signage over the maximum 150 square feet per street frontage
currently permitted.
BACKGROUND
This proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was initiated
by the Redevelopment Agency in response to a request made by
the purchasers of the downtown hotel to place signage over
the maximum permitted size of 150 square feet per street
frontage.
In a meeting held on June 9, 1987, the City Attorney, the
Mayor, representatives of the Redevelopment Agency, the
Planning Department, and the representatives of Maruko
Corporation discussed the request for signage. At that time,
it was determined that the required findings for a Variance
could not be made. Further it was determined that the
appropriate approach to the problem was to amend the ordi-
nance to permit signs large enough to provide freeway visi-
bility for hotels in the C-4 Zoning District.
On August 6, 1987, the Environmental Review Committee recom-
mended a Negative Declaration for Amendment to Text No. 87-1.
On September 22, 1987, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed text change and voted unani-
mously to recommend denial of the change.
2
75-0264
c
'-,
,)
,)
Memorandum to the Mayor and Counc'il
Amendment to Text No. 87-1
October 19, 1987
CURRENT_~p~JrJPAL r9P~_BEQU1B~MENT~
Currently, Section 19.60.220 applies to the C-4 Zoning
District and restricts the area of wall signs to a ratio of
two square feet of sign area for each linear foot of building
frontage per street frontage, up to a maximum of 150 square
feet of total sign area per str~~t_fJoni9g~.
The proposed amendment would allow four square feet of sign
area for each linear foot of building frontage per street
frontage up to a maximum of 650 square feet per struci~re.
POTENTIAL MODIFIr~~lQ~p_TO TEXT LANGUAGE
There are a number of modifications to the proposed language
in Attachment A which the Council can consider.
Originally, in the September 22, 1987 Planning Commission
staff report (Attachment El, the oversized signage was
proposed by staff as being by right. After listening to the
public testimony and the Planning Commission discussion,
staff has changed its recommendation to permit signs larger
than currently permitted by a Conditional Use Permit.
Other options include smaller maximum signage or a reduction
in the square footage per linear foot or both. An alterna-
tive would be three square feet per linear foot of street
frontage up to a maximum of 450 square feet per structure.
Finally, pursuant to the City Attorney's recommendation that
this provision apply to all structures in the C-4 Zoning
District, the Council could allow oversized signage for all
structures by Conditional Use Permit or by right.
STAFF-B~rQNNE~~b~J9~
Pursuant to the analysis in
mends approval of Amendment
Attachment A because:
the
to
staff report, staff recom-
Text No. 87-1 as shown in
1. Hotels are beneficial to the City in that they enhance
revenues and encourage activity in the downtown;
2.
Hotels need
well as to
facility;
freeway visibility to attract
provide direction to people
travelers as
coming to the
3. Structures over six stories or seventy-two feet may
attain freeway visibility in the downtown with signage
over 150 square feet (currently the maximum permitted
3
c
c
....\
...)
--.;
Memorandum to the Mayor and Council
Amendment to Text No. 87-1
October 19, 1987
per building face) without creating negative visual
impacts from the street viewshed; and
4. Findings for a Variance to permit larger signs cannot be
made.
PLANNING COMMISS10N RE~9~!1~NDA1'J9ll'
The Planning Commission recommends denial of Amendment to
Text No. 87-1 because:
1. The Sign Ordinance was adopted to address unsightly
signs and to develop a more pleasing visual image for
the City by getting rid of the cluttered, unattractive
look caused by inappropriate and oversized signage;
2. This change would give additional advantage to one
particular business to the disadvantage of other busi-
nesses and that is not of particular benefit to the City
as a whole;
3. A variance application would be more appropriate than
changing the Code to accommodate a particular business,
particularly when the City had already made many conces-
sions to that business;
4. Signage of this size would detract from the appearance
of the downtown;
5.
The change sets a precedent for
nesses who also want freeway
request similar changes;
other types of busi-
visibility and might
6. Increased signage will not make the difference between
success and failure of this particular business and that
the adverse impacts of signs this large are such that a
change is inappropriate.
An excerpt from the unapproved minutes of the September 22,
1987 Planning Commission meeting are shown in Attachment C.
MAXOR AND !;:QUNCIL OPTIONS
The Mayor and Council have the option to:
1. Approve the proposed Amendment to Text No. 87-1 (with or
without modification) and direct the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance for first reading; or
2. Deny the proposed Amendment to Text No. 87-1.
4
c
r'
\...I
",
-....)
,,)
Memorandum to the Mayor and Council
Amendment to Text No. 87-1
October 19, 1987
The Municipal Code does not require that Findings of Fact be
made for adoption of a change to the Code.
Prepared by:
R. Ann Siracusa
Director of Planning
Attachments:
Attachment A - Proposed Text Amendment
Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff
Report
Attachment C - Excerpt from September 22, 1987
Planning Commission Minutes
(unapproved)
mkf
10/7/87
DOCUMENTS:M&CCAGENDA
AT871
5
...-"
'--
r-...'
V
~."",
v
,
"
ATTACHMENT "A"
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTION
19.60.240 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SUBSECTION
B THERETO TO PERMIT LARGE SIGNS IN THE C-4 ZONE.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subsection B is added to Section 19.60.240 of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
"B. Hotels in the C-4 Zone having a height greater than six
stories or seventy-two feet shall be permitted, with an approved
Conditional Use Permit, to exceed the maximum allowable area for
wall signs. The allowable total square footage to be based on a
ratio of four square feet of sign area for each linear foot of
building frontage per street frontage, to a maximum of six hundred
and fifty square feet of total sign area for each structure."
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted
by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
, i987. by the following vote, to wit:
day of
AYES:
NAYS:
City Clerk
Revised 10/6/87
RAS
C
CITY OF SAN
QATTACHMENT UB u.:J
BERNARDINO -
~
MEMORANDUM
To
Planning Commission
From Planning Department
Subject
Amendment to Section 19,60,240 of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code. AT-87-1
Date September 22, 1987
Approved Item No, 3
Date
Applicant: City of San Bernardino
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposal to amend Section 19.60,240 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code would increase the allowable size for wall signs for hotels having
a height greater than six stories or seventy-two feet in the C-4, Central
Business District zone. (Exhibit "A")
MUNICIPAL CODE
Presently Section 19,60,240 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code requires
that development within the C-4 zone conform to the standards established
for signage in the C-3 and C-3A zones (Section 19,60,220),
Section 19,60.220 (B) restricts wall signs in the C-3 and C-3A (and there-
fore the C-4) Zone Districts to a maximum of one hundred and fifty square
feet of total sign area per street frontage.
ANALYSIS
Hotel uses in general are beneficial to the City in that they enhance
revenues and encourage people to corne to San Bernardino. In the C-4 zone
district they enhance the City's objectives for the downtown by bringing
more people into the area. However, hotels need to be seen from the free-
way to attract travelers as well as to provide direction to people coming
specifically to that facility, Structures under seventy-two feet cannot
be seen that distance at freeway speeds, but over that height, larger
signage would provide for greater freeway visibility without creating
negative visual impacts from the street viewsheds.
Currently wall signs in the C-3 and C-4 zones are permitted at a ratio of
2 square feet of area for every linear foot of building frontage up to a
maximum of 150 square feet per street frontage. The subject amendment
proposed would increase the allowable ratio to 4 square feet per linear
foot of building frontage to a maximum of 650 square feet of total signage
for the structure.
The maximum area proposed will prohibit signage of excessively large
structures to completely dominate the surrounding sign environment while
still addressing the visibility problem, The City Attorney's office has
recommended that the ordinance revision permit all structures in the C-4
zone of six stories or seventy-two feet in height to have signage up to
650 square feet. Planning staff dues not support this because all types
of uses do not have the equivalent need for freeway visibility.
,d'"
,,~'#.i;.
>.',",i
",1
c
/-,
~
,J
)
~
Planning Commission
Amendment to Section 19,60,240 of S.B.M.C,
September 22, 1987
-2-
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
At their regularly scheduled meeting of August 6, 1987 the Environmental
Review Committee recommended a negative declaration,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of a negative declaration and approval of an
ordinance amendment to Section 19,60,240 of the San Bernardino Municipal
Code.
~~
\
RAS:csj
attachment
.
c
.~
r,,\
V
:)
'-'
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING SECTION 19,60,240
OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SUBSECTION B THERETO TO
PEHMIT LAllCI-: SICNS IN Till': (;-4 ZONI-;,
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subsection B is added to Section 19,60.240 of the San
Bernardino Municipal Code to read as follows:
"B, Hotels in the C-4 zone having a height greater than six stories
or seventy-two feet shall be permitted to exceed the maximum allowable
area for wall signs. Allowable total square footage to be based on a
ratio of four square feet of sign area for each linear foot of building
frontage per street frontage, to a maximum of six hundred and fifty
square feet of total sign area for each structure,"
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by
the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
, 1987,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
c
"'"'\
~ ATTACHMENT '\..1
,.
. ,
,)
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 9/22/87
Page 2
This item was
October 6, 1987.
continued
to the Planning Commission meeting of
ITEH NO. 2
Variance No. 87-2 -- Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 185 feet on the east side of South
"E" Street and being located approximately 195 feet south of the
centerline of Century Avenue with a frontage of approximately 950 feet
on the south side of Century Avenue and approximately 280 feet east of
the centerline of "E" Street. The applicant requests a variance of
Code Section 19.64.080.C.3.d to waive the minimum required side and
rear yard setbacks in Airport District II in the construction of a
commercial industrial center in the C-M Commercial-Manufacturing zone.
Gene Lentzner, owner; Sanvista Development, applicant.
Referred to the Planning Commission for Environmental Determination.
This item was approved based upon findings of fact contained in the
staff report dated September 22, 1987 and subject to the conditions and
standard requirements contained therein.
Prior to the motion on the Consent Agenda, Attorney Barlow answered
questions from Commissioner Nierman, stating that the City Attorney's
office feels that positive findings of fact for approval of the Vari-
ance can be made based upon the unusual shape of the lot.
Helen Kopeczynski, a
motion was made, if
proj ect.
resident of Cable Canyon Road, asked, after the
a liquefaction report had been prepared on the
Mrs. Siracusa stated that a liquefaction
found to be satisfactory and a condition
to address liquefaction concerns.
report was prepared and was
is included in staff's report
* * *
ITEM NO. 3~_~ity-wlQ~
~mendment to the ~an Be~~9iDo Municipal Code, Section 19.60 - Siqns -
_ Amendment to Section 19.60.240 to add Subsection B to permit an
increase in the maximum allowable area for hotel/convention center wall
signs in the C-4 Central Business District.
City of San Bernardino, applicant.
Proposed Environmental Negative Declaration.
Director of Planning, R. Ann
the proposed amendment would
signs for hotels greater than
Siracusa, presented comments, noting that
permit an increase ~n the allowable wall
six stories or 72 feet in the C-4 Central
c
1"',
V
/,,\
-.-J
.)
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 9/22/87
Page 3
)
Business District. Mrs. Siracusa stated that staff recommends that the
amendment be approved, since the City is interested in attrac~~ng
business to the downtown area and this amendment would allow increased
freeway visibility of the hotels in this area and enhancement of
existing hotels.
Mrs. Siracusa noted that the amendment would permit a maximum of 650
square feet of signs just for hotels of six stories. She stated that
the City Attorney's office had changed the wording of the amendment to
allow this increase for all structures in the C-4 zone, however, staff
does not agree that that would be appropriate and feels it should be
restricted to hotel use. It was noted that the Environmental Review
Committee, on August 6, 1987, recommended a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact for the proposed amendment.
Mrs. Siracusa answered questions from Commission members, noting that
the hotel next door to City Hall would be affected by the amendment.
She responded to Commissioner Corona regarding the number of feet pe~
story, noting that commercial developments were approximately 14 feet
per floor and residential developments were 10 to 11 feet per floor.
Commissioner Lopez commented that seven years ago the City appointed a
Sign Committee to revise the Sign Ordinance in the City, the reason was
the mass of signs that existed on Highland Avenue and other streets and
to develop ~ more pleasing visual scene and get rid of the clutte~ed,
unattractive look. He stated that the Commission previously denied a
variance for this hotel because the Commission felt the three signs on
the top of the building would be sufficient. Commissioner Lopez stated
that he would rather see something other than an amendment to the Sign
Ordinance, such as allowing the hotel to request a variance, if
justified, for a bigger sign. He felt amending the Sign Ordinance
would open a lot of doors.
In response to a question from Commissioner Lindseth, Mrs. Siracusa
stated that a request from the buyers of the hotel generated this
amendment. She stated that in a meeting with the purchasers, represen-
tatives for the Redevelopment Agency and Planning Department, the City
Attorney, and the Mayor, it was determined that the required findings
for a variance for the increased signage could not be made and a text
amendment was the only viable option. Mrs. Siracusa answered questions
from Commissioner Lopez regarding setting a precedent for larger signs.
Senior Assistant City Attorney, Dennis Barlow, responded to Commis-
sioner Corona regarding the reason the City Attorney's office changed
the proposed wording of the amendment, noting that they could not see
any significant difference between a hotel office tower or a corporate
headquarters which may also wish to have larger signs.
Mrs. Helen Kopczynski, of Cable
that she was opposed to changing
happen in the City, noting that
Canyon Road, was present and stated
the ordinance to allow these things to
there are enough signs already in the
c
"
J--....
v
'-./
, ,;
City of San Bernardino
Planning COIamission Meeting Minutes of 9/22/87
Page 4
City and the Commission will be
to amend the Open Space Zone.
think it would add anything to
iouly large.
faced with another request very shortly
Mrs. Kopczynski stated that she did not
the City to have signs which are obnox-
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed. Discussion followed amongst Commission members.
Commissioner Stone stated that he did not see where the additional
advantage given to this hotel would be of benefit to the City of San
Bernardino. He stated that the hotel is higher and more visible than
any other business in downtown San Bernardino and giving them bigger
signs will put all the other business at a disadvantage.
Commissioner Nierman stated that he had tried to imagine what the sign
would look like as he got off the freeway and it would have to go
across the entire hotel. He was concerned that the sign could be a
neon or flashing sign or any type of sign the motel wanted.
Commissioner Nierman stated that the Commission could modify the
amendment or indicate that they didn't want it at all, but should at
least make sure that the sign proposal comes back before the Planning
Commission for approval.
Commissioner Corona felt that the City had made enough concessions to
this hotel and it was unfair to the other businesses in the City. He
felt that the City already had a Sign Ordinance and the hotel could
request a Variance or limit themselves to ordinance restrictions.
Commissioner Sharp asked if there was any opposition to something
smaller and thought the amendment needed to be modified. Commissioner
Stone stated that he failed to see how a 600 foot flashing sign was
going to improve the appearance of the downtown. Commissioner Lindseth
stated that he was concerned that this right would be granted exclu-
sively and that other businesses might want this same right. He also
felt that they needed to look at beautification of the City. Commis-
sioner Corona stated that he did not feel the Commission should ini-
tiate anything on this amendment.
Attorney Barlow noted that the Sign Ordinance expressly prohibits
flashing and revolving signs in the City.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion to deny the proposed amendment to the
San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section 19.60 - Signs, to add subsection
B to permit an increase in the maximum allowable area for hotel/conven-
tion center wall signs in the C-4 Central Business District. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Stone and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lopez commented that the only thing he would
he voted in favor of this amendment would be to make this
hotel a success and if it is a success, it will be because
drawn in.
be do ing if
particular
people are