HomeMy WebLinkAbout31- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BEr IARDINO - REQUEST :OR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Variance No. 29-09 (Appeal of Planning Commission' s denial)
Dept: Planning & Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting
November 2 , 1992
Date: October 22 , 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous Council action.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-09 based on the Findings
of Fact contained in Exhibit 4 ; or
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
approve Variance No. 92-09 in concept, continue to November 16 ,
1992 and refer the matter back to staff to develop itive findings.
ignature
Al ey
Contact person: Al Boughey Phone:_ 3 8 4-1i 3;7
Supporting data attached: Staff Report 3
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
CITY OF SAN BERG' 4RDINO - REOUEST -'OR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance No.
92-09, a request to install additional wall signage in
excess of the prescribed limitations contained in
Development Code Section 19.22 . 150(C) (3) (a) .
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 2 , 1992
REQUEST
The applicant, Bleier Industries, Ltd. , is appealing the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance No. 92-09. Under the authority of
Development Code Section 19.72.030 (2) , the applicant is requesting
a variance from Development Code Section 19.22 . 150 (C) (3) (a) , to
install an 87 square-foot wall sign on a "Silo" retail store's
street frontage, in addition to 150 square feet of existing signage
on the same side.
The subject property consists of approximately 2 . 3 acres located on
the west side of South "E" Street, approximately 1, 285 feet south
of Mill Street. The Silo building site is further identified as 710
South "E" Street and is located in the CG-1, Commercial General,
General Plan land use designation.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 1992, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a
properly noticed public hearing on Variance No. 92-09. At the
applicant's request, the hearing was continued to July 7, 1992 .
On July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission heard the applicant's
request. The applicant argued that the sign should be exempt from
Development Code standards because it is located within the
building's interior, despite the fact that it is visible from the
exterior through the building's clear glass windows, and that the
sign is an integral architectural element. Also, the applicant
inferred that deletion of the proposed sign would place Silo at a
competitive disadvantage with nearby Circuit City, whose signage
exceeds current City standards.
Commissioner Clemenson expressed his concern that approval of the
variance would set a precedent that would allow other businesses to
increase their signage by utilizing the same concept. It was also
disclosed that Silo already has approximately 150 square feet of
wall signage--twice the area currently allowed--which was legally
installed prior to the adoption of the Development Code.
'5.0264
0
Variance No. 92-09
Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 2, 1992
Page 2
The Planning Commission then denied Variance No. 92-09 by a 5 to 2
vote (ayes by Clemenson, Jordan, Lopez, Ortega and Stone; nays by
Romero and Traver) , concluding that the primary intent of the sign
is to provide exterior visibility, and therefore cannot be exempt
from Development Code restrictions. Findings of Fact are contained
in Attachment B of the staff report to the Planning Commission
(Exhibit 4) .
On July 16, 1992 , the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance No. 92-09 (Exhibit 3) . The
applicant requested that the appeal not be scheduled for the Mayor
and Common Council's consideration until this date because the
representatives for the application are from out of state, and they
have been unable to coordinate travel arrangements until this time.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance
No. 92-09.
OR
The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the
appeal, approve Variance No. 92-09 in concept and direct staff to
prepare positive findings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of staff that the Mayor and Common Council
deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-09 based on the Findings
of Fact contained in Exhibit 4 .
Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits: 1 - Location Map
2 - Site Plan and Sign Elevations
3 - Letter of Appeal
4 - Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
July 7, 1992
® Attachment "D"
0
CITY-OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AGENDA
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ITEM�
LOCATION CASE VAR 92-09 3
HEARING DATE 6-2 '
Ir
- M
ow.v� `/N
p SNOW Q U
•., •wOUw03
V •
SIT MA
• � s
7
O
Q V r
I 84wE 1cr ST. t
�V
_.-._= a c
/ -
V 1
immune 13 3T
J
O
i
/ ALLY
' CS I[1r
HTU AY •a• t! on,a • t • O
s
a+OV Cup _rrww / • L
74 vMT� .r• \(\/Ili`_
.. .r.uT Cw.• V 1 A • [
f O
= O
y G� '
a
•e NAT
Attachment "C"
�O_��TLI2101?,
Ir
150 Est P T
.- p5,r-M I trtUb Diu N
NEI
iN
_ ""ate:-�z.�.',�•.�.
-
C
Hb1 VI bu/k(, Lt
7Z p ��
_ OU Tl�l N e- p--D H rcol�.
-_ _ ___ ��� •tip
Oil
�i.
Exhibit "2"
7-ISTSO WS-0. -4Z VAA. 4z-off 6=j IWJ62
■■ '""CT 0l1110q No Iwvwo�w i •`•.� `;
7 0 iJ 11 r 11 1 EGLE �.r.ter. ~•
�.. . ` �.. _�..�1
;np ENEET AMIIOVED W: yrww wr hbtrMbn[
U :
INDUSTRIES . �°' � . _ E
:'i h17�• �F I '� S�� �` � � ,1. •, 111. � �
GL
} � � I --
c
F
L n +t All _
, M I: O � h,•i
MQJECT
DESIGN ND IIEWSIDNS YAUA..rrNa,u
SCALE .
TITLE SUEET AMIIDVED Ell: AApNwY No Fawww"O
OR ME r,�'I�, ,W~m I DESIGNER-f SALES a.6 ,r-_
to I,011 Sq
I
D 21-711 4 -loll
4�7
_ o
li I
-pi
� -jI II
a
II
II ,
II
II
II
� I
�-KZ Z
► I�jt C
E,r> C 3➢ No
-vz NSS N
r'I�OJfR DEfIGN MQ IIEWLOMS+ �'��y�•��•�a�.w
■■ SILO O �7/�5/°!� "�'�:�.:
[mm rr- 6iNs fzr�l v G4 A--->Nor Ft�
11111 SNEEi ♦�PIIWfD/r� yr...wr rricwrw0
IES ��210IZ 51uF � ^I ��
DEfIGME■ Sera l
�j 1-4
_ � I
1
Y I2
r
i�
Ia
M Z
/RORER DESIGN NO. REVIS7�®10.510
�,►1 r�e¢I_I�I?n1111�,1-A -
�� iRlf SHIFT •PMOVED EV aln.r.+w i.rNrwO
�E �.:�_•_ �� ^/tea Iv�l ?=�- I
rr-
Es _ D�iE •.• - o�If
July 13, 1992
Mr. Paul G. Scroggs, Assistant Planner
City of San Bernadino
Department of Planning and Building Services
300 North "D" Street
San Bernadino, California 92418-0001
Re: Variance No. 92-09
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that on behalf of our client, Silo, Inc., we wish to appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission taken on July 7, 1992 in regard to the above
referenced variance request.
We believe that the Planning Commission failed to recognize the site specific
conditions relative to this application and was more concerned of setting a
precedence for future cases. As you are aware, each case should be decided on
its individual merits and the setting of a precedence is no basis for making a
decision.
Please forward this request for appeal to the City Council for hearing at their
earliest agenda opening. If there is any further information that you may require,
please feel free to call upon us.
Sincerely yours,
Blei Ltd.
ele
' ent
PB:fmb JUL 16 1992
D
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
cc: Silo, Inc./Corporate DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING&
Silo, Inc./Pacific Division BUILDING SERVICES
BLEIER INDUSTRIES, LTD. • ARCHITECTURAL SIGNAGE SYSTEMS
2030 W. DESFPT rnvF . PWncn❑v A017nAlA O=n, n �,,, ,.. _... .____ ___ Exhibit "3"
CITY OF SA► ' BERNARDINO -' MEMORANDUM
To Planning Commission From Al Boughey, Director
Planning & Bldg. Servi
.bject Variance No. 92-09 Date June 26 , 1992
Approved Item No. 2 Date July 7 , 1992
OWNER: The "E" Street Joint Venture Partnership
18980 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
Tarzana, CA 91356
APPLICANT: Bleier Industries, Ltd.
2030 W. Desert Cove Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85029
BACKGROUND
This item was originally scheduled for the June 2, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting, but due to a lack of a quorum at that meeting,
it was rescheduled for the June 16, 1992 Planning Commission
meeting. The applicant had a scheduling conflict on June 16, 1992
and requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to the
next regular Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 1992. The
Planning Commission accepted the applicant's request and continued
the item on the consent calendar to the July 7, 1992 meeting.
Additionally, the applicant's findings of fact in support of the
requested variance were inadvertently not distributed with the
staff report for the June 2, 1992 meeting. Attached to this
memorandum is a copy of the applicant's findings and the original
staff report as distributed for the June 2, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting (see Attachments "A" and "B") .
Exhibit "4 "
Variance No. 92-09
Agenda Item: 2
Hearing Date: 7-7-92
Page: 2
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis and conclusions contained within the Staff
Report dated June 2, 1992, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. Deny Variance No. 92-09, subject to attached Findings of Fact
contained within the staff report dated June 2, 1992
(Attachment "B") .
Respectively submitted,
Al Boughey,,," Director
Planni4!kg-"arid-Building Services Department
Prepared for:
Paul Scroggs
Assistant Planner
Attachment :
A - Applicant's Findings of Fact
B - Original Staff Report dated June 2, 1992
Attachment "A"
ALLAPPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OFTHE FOLLOWING
ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE UUJ2 FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS
DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings,the strict application of this Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical land use district classification;
The subject sign was installed within the building structure and
is visible to the exterior. Display was
assumed to be exempt
• from ordinance regulation. Display is an integral aesthetic
and design feature of the building and is therefore unique
to this specific site.
B. 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;
• Competitive business in the immediate Vicinity (Circuit City)
has much greater si na a exposure. mhe disrnlay reauiring the
- in an intacT n of Silo 's marketing effort.
Denying the variance would diminish Silo's property rights
and make this site less successful.
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;
This variance if qrranted. does not impose any negative impact
on the surrounding properties, public welfare, or cotirtu - -t
Its granting, permits the building design to be complete and
fulfill its architectural and functional design
g RNI
D. 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 such property is located;
This variance, if granted, does not constitute a special
privilege. It rectifies a "grey" area of the ordinance
relative to this specific site and does not constitute a
citywide interpretation.
E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
regulations governing the subject parcel;
• The use of this property is not the subject of this variance
uest.
F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan.
• The cTrantinq of the variance will not be detrimental to the
community and is consistent with commercial properties in the
immediate vicinity.
OfT 6=44=CE M1Ml
Attachment "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 3
SUMMARY HEARING DATE 6-2-9�
WARD
EAPPLI leier Industr ies , LTD
W 030 W. Desert Cove Ave .
y hoenix, AZ 85029
V VARIANCE N0. 92-09 ndy Sinanian/The "E" St .
oint Venture Partnership
8930 Ventura Blvd. , Ste 2
arzana CA 91356
The applicant requests approval of a variance of Code Section
~
UJ 19 .22 . 150 to allow an additional, approximately 87 square foot
illuminated store entrance sign that exceeds maximum permitted
exterior wall signage Development Code standards within CG-1 ,
W Commercial General land use districts .
QThe 2 .3 acre subject property is located on the west side of
W south "E" Street, approximately 1 ,285 feet south of Mill Street
Q and further identified as 710 South "E" Street.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
ISubject Commercial Retail CG-1 Commercial General
North Commercial Retail CG-1 Commercial General
South Commercial CG-1 Commercial General
East Orange Show Grounds PCR Public Commercial
West Public Flood Control Recreation
PFC Public Flood Control
and Inland Center riall CR-1 Commercial Regional
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑ YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: ;YES
C: C C
HAZARD ZONE: � NO ZONE: �NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO
HIGH FIRE ❑ YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT ❑ YES
HAZARD ZONE:� NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
J ❑ NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ❑ APPROVAL
APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH O
F' MITIGATING MEASURES
W 0 NO E.I.R. C ❑ CONDITIONS
Z $X EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO LL Z
Z Q SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q LLi DENIAL
OZ TH MITIGATING !— M
_ Na: MEASURES 0 .2 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO
Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. V
MINUTES LU
Cm or ,.,, ecwwo.o
�4=1W
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM I
OBSERVATIONS HEARING PAGE 5 2-92
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of a Variance of Code Section
19.22 . 150, to allow an additional, approximately 87 square-foot
illuminated store's entrance sign which exceeds, with the
commercial retail building's other existing signage, the maximum
number permitted and allowable square footage for wall signs in the
CG-1, Commercial General land use designation.
SITE LOCATION
The subject property is located on an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 2. 3 acres and having a frontage of
568 feet on the west side of South "E" Street and located about
1, 285 feet south of Mill Street. The Silo building site is further
identified as 710 South "E" Street and is located in the CG-1,
Commercial General, General Plan land use designation (see,
Attachment "D") .
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed, approximately 87 square foot (6 X 14 .5) retail
entrance sign is not consistent with the General Plan nor in
conformance with the CG-1, Commmercial General Plan land use
designation, since it exceeds, in conjunction with other previously
approved site signage, the maximum permitted number per same
elevation and allowable square footage for wall signs as permitted
under current Development Code Standards, as shown in Attachment
"A".
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUS
The proposed entrance wall sign variance is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section
15303, Class 3 (e) . This exemption allows for construction of minor
accessory structures such as the requested retail entrance sign.
BACKGROUND
The applicant's retail entrance sign variance request follows the
project's original review and approval under Review of Plans No.
90-42, by the Development Review Committee on March 11, 1991.
The owner's project proposal comprised the construction of two
commercial buildings, a single retail outlet of 25, 000 square feet
and a second, detached multiple tenant retail structure of 10, 017
square feet along with adjoining paved parking, landscaping and
other yard site improvements.
CEMW
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
OBSERVATIONS HEARING PAGE 6-2-92
Following the original project approval of Review of Plans No.
90-42 in March of 1991, the owner/applicants applied for wall and
monument signage for their larger, single owner/tenant commercial
Silo retail building under Sign Permit No. 91-59 on May 14, 1991.
A Sign Program was required for the other multiple tenant retail
building as a condition of approval of the original project that
would conform in letter type, style, and colors as the main Silo
anchor store, but as of the May 14, 1991 date, no other tenants had
yet occupied this detached, second commercial structure.
Under Sign Permit No. 91-59, 149. 67 square feet of wall signs were
reviewed and approved on May 30, 1991 along with a 75 square-foot,
21 foot high monument sign. These signs square footages were just
under the then allowed Code maximums for signage located within the
CG-1 (C-2) land use districts, which at that time permitted 150
square feet maximum for wall signs and a 75 square-foot, 25 foot
high maximum monument sign, respectively.
The owner/applicants applied on March 12, 1992 for their present
requested Variance to allow an additional, illuminated entrance
sign of approximately 87 square feet. This sign variance request
is subject to current Development Code standards adopted in June of
1991, which modified several signage requirements, including
revisions of those referenced above for properties located within
the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation.
A staff request for any City agency Standard Requirements and/or
Conditions of Approval was sent to the Development Review Committee
(DRC) members along with a description of the proposed sign
Variance but none were received at the DRC meeting of April 16,
1992. At this meeting, however, the DRC members did give clearance
of the Variance request onto the Planning Commission for their
final determination on the applicant's proposal.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes the installation of an approximately 87
square foot, neon-illuminated, Silo store sign to be located just
within the structure's main retail entrance area. The individual
neon-illuminated, channel letters are to be hung from the steel
entrance way structure, which though inside the building itself,
are also visible to the store's exterior and frontage along South
"E" Street, particularly at night when the illuminated red neon can
be seen for some distance (see, Attachment "C") .
0T OF UWPAI MW::: Eg1Ai�q
TWGgNMtES
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
OBSERVATIONS HEARINGD GE 4
-- - D_
Consequently, though technically an inside store-mounted wall sign,
where the use of neon and other newer types of signage are
encouraged by the City for upgrading and making store interiors
more attractive, since the sign is also clearly visible through the
building's clear glass entrance area, it must be considered
exterior signage as well and reviewed as an additional exterior
wall sign requiring the Variance request.
The June 1991 adopted Development Code sign standards permit a
maximum of 75 square feet of exterior wall signage per street
frontage or main parking lot area for multiple tenant shopping
centers as well as one center identification monument of 75 square
feet and 20 foot high maximums for properties located in the CG-1,
Commercial General land use district.
As referenced above, the Silo retail building presently has nearly
150 square feet of wall signage along the store's South "E" Street
frontage along with the previously approved 75 square-foot, 21 foot
high existing center identification monument sign. Therefore both
existing wall and monument signs presently exceed current
Development Code sign standards for maximum allowed square footage
and height size within CG-1, Commercial General land use
designations.
It is Staff's determination that positive Findings of Fact cannot
be made for the Variance request as no special circumstances exist
or are applicable to the subject property other than the sign's
somewhat unique location that results in it serving as both an
interior as well as an exterior sign, due to the entry's clear
glass structure and visibility to the outside street frontage area.
The applicant indicates that the requested Variance is necessary
because the sign is an integral aesthetic and design feature of the
building, yet during the original project review and subsequent
Sign Permit No. 91-59 submittal for the other requested exterior
wall and mounment signage no mention was made of additional signs
to be placed within this store entrance area. In fact, this raised
glass entry area was originally planned to be of an opaque nature
to match the second, detached multi-tenant retail building, as was
constructed on this latter structure. If this had been done on the
Silo commercial building the neon-illuminated signage would have
been considered and approved as an interior sign since there then
would have been no visibility out to the exterior street frontage.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
OBSERVATIONS HEARING PAGE 6-2
As a result of the clear glass materials used on the Silo retail
building entry area, this subsequent request for a Variance for
an additional, approximately 87 square feet of exterior wall
signage is not in conformance with Development Code sign standards
nor the goals and intent of the General Plan for minimizing sign
areas that cover excessive percentages of building elevations.
Additionally, the requested additional 6 foot high by approximately
total letter width of 14 .5 feet would result in the owner/
applicants commanding an unfair sign exposure advantage over other
commerical businesses located along South "E" Street and in other
designated commercial districts within the City. Consequently, a
denial of the Variance request would not deprive the applicant of
a substantial property right or privelege nor loss of store
identification or visibility in lieu of already existing and
approved exterior signage at the subject site.
CONCLUSION
The applicant's sign variance request for the proposed additional,
approximately 87 square feet of exterior wall sign is not in
conformance with Development Code sign standards for properties
located within the CG-1, Commercial General land use designation
nor the goals and intent of the City General Plan of minimizing
excessive building elevation signage.
There are no extraordinary or special circumstances applicable to
the subject property. A denial of the sign variance request will
not limit nor deny the owner/applicant's adequate retail building's
identification or otherwise store visibility.
CIEWMAL �
A ,IWML
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
OBSERVATIONS HEARING AGE 6-2-92
RECOMMENDATION
The options available to the Planning Commission are to:
1. Deny Variance No. 92-09, subject to the attached Findings
of Fact (Attachment "B") ; or
2. Approve Variance No. 92-09, with a continuance for Staff to
make Findings to support that determination.
Staffs recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Deny Variance No. 92-09, subject to the attached Findings
of Fact (Attachment
Resp�e,ectfully mitted,
Al Bo ector
Plann' g a uilding Services
s
Paul G. Scrogg
Assistant Planner
Attachments A - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
B - Findings of Fact
C - Proposed Sign Variance Elevations and Location
D - Location Map
Cm OF aiw RA,.W.,,=
cl� �
Attachment "A"
tow 0
1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
OBSERVATIONS HEARING PAGE 5 7-92
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL CODE GENERAL PLAN
Permitted Use Ext. Wall Sign Permitted, with Permitted, with
Variance PC Approval PC Approval
Sign Height 6 Feet O/A No Set Maximum N/A
Height
Sign Area *87 Sq. Ft. 75 Sq. Ft. N/A
(6 X 14) Max./Street
Elevation
Existing 150 Sq. Ft. Prev. Approved N/A
Signa.ge Ext. Wall SP 91-59
Street Frntg. 5/30/91
75 Sq. Ft.
21 Ft. Hght.
Cntr. Idnt. Monument
*Variance approval by Planning Commission required for this
over-sized sign area request.
UR 6 MM gWpq
K-Z 4=-MERNGEi
�.. Attachment "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
FINDINGS OF FACT HEARING AGE
FINDINGS OF FACT - 19 72 050 - VARIANCE 92-09
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location or sur-
roundings, 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 classif-
cation in that the subject site's 568 feet of street frontage
along South "E" Street on it's 2. 3 acre site has presently
approved, existing exterior wall and monument signage that
exceed current Development Code sign maximums and are adequate
for the property identification and visibility of the retail
site without the granting of the requested sign Variance for an
additional 87 square feet of exterior wall sign area;
2 . The granting of the Variance is not necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of a substantial right possessed by the
other properties in the vicinity and CG-1, Commercial General
land use district and denied to the subject property for which
this Variance is sought in that the subject property has been
previously approved for exterior and monument signage that
exceed current sign Development Code maximums as permitted in
CG-1, Commercial General land use districts;
3 . The granting of the Variance may be materially determintal
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 by granting the
requested sign Variance it would set a precedent for other
surrounding commercial properties in the CG-1, Commercial
General land use designation to request additional exterior
signage that could, over time erode the intent and purpose
for establishing and enforcing sign Development Code standards
and requirements;
4 . The granting of this Variance does constitute a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the
subject property is located in that most surrounding area
businesses have existing signage that is in or near conformance
With CG-1, Commercial General sign Development Code standards
and all new sign permit requests must adhere to the current
sign requirements;
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 92-09
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
FINDINGS OF FACT HEARING PAGE 6-2-92
�EE
FINDINGS OF FACT - 19.72. 050 - VARIANCE NO. 92-09 CONTINUED
5. The granting of this Variance would allow a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations
governing the subject parcel in that CG-1, Commercial General
Development Code sign standards for multiple tenant shopping
centers allow a maximum of 75 square feet of exterior wall
signs for street front elevations and a maximum 20 foot high,
75 square foot center identification monument sign, both of
which have been exceeded under previously approved sign permits
that, in the case of the subject site's existing wall sign is
almost double the maximum allowed square footage, even before
the requested sign variance for an additional 87 square feet
of exterior wall sign;
6. The granting of this Variance is not consistent with the
intent or goals of the General Plan, which looks to minimize
excessive exterior wall signage on building elevations not
granting variance's for additional large area signage.
O,.CW &� EFMMM
c*mfn P%mn IOEA%c" of•u e k o.r_c.n[ i.ens