HomeMy WebLinkAbout46-Planning
.I ....
-
-
-
CiT~ 'OF SAN BERNADINO - REQUEST F&l. COUNCIL ACTION
From: Larry E. Reed, Director
Subject: Appeal of Variance No. 90-08 Denial
Dept: Plannin9 and Building Services
Mayor and Common Council meeting
Date: of November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On September 25, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny
Variance No. 90-08 application, (5-0).
, ,
,
No previous Council action.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be denied and Variance No. 90-08
be denied subject to the Findings of Fact contained in Attachment B, the September
25, 1990 Planning Commission staff report. (Supports staff's recommendation and
Planning Commissions action).
OR
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be upheld and that the matter be
refered to staff for the preparation of Findings of Fact in support of the
.pp",.,t', """t. (S'pp"t, .pp",.,t', ""~
Ik/
Signature
Contact person:
La rry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
1
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
IAcct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
7l'o.n?Fo2
Agenda Item No
<SI6
-
-
CiTy'OF SAN BERN~INO - REQUEST FcO COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject: Appeal of the Planning commission denial of Variance No.
90-08, requesting approval to place wall signs on four
sides of a restaurant at 885 East Harriman Place,
whereas the Municipal Code permits signs on a maximum of
two sides. ~
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
of November 5, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Yoshinoya West, Incorporated, through their sign
contractor, San Pedro Electric Sign Company, is appealing the
denial of variance No. 90-08 by the Planning Commission. The
applicant requests the Mayor and Common Council approve a variance
from Code Sections 19.60.220(B) and (E), which allow the placement
of signs on a maximum of two sides per building, to install wall
signs on four sides of a newly constructed restaurant in the
"Pace" shopping center located southeasterly of the intersection
of Harriman Place and Gage Canal.
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1986 the Pace shopping center was approved by the
Development Review Committee under Review of Plans No. 86-66. On
January 9, 1990, the Planning commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit (C.U.P. 89-37) to construct a 2,400 square-foot
"Yoshinoya Beef Bowl" restaurant on the site of the Pace center.
On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted the application for
Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs on all four sides of
the approved restaurant building.
On September 25, 1990, the Planning commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on variance No. 90-08. During the course of
the public hearing, Staff discussed the generally accepted view
that the excessive use of signage is visually offensive which led
to General Plan Policy No. 1.45.4 to minimize signs in private
development and to the current Code restrictions on the number and
placement of signs. Based on a site analysis, Staff stated that
there are no unique circumstances applicable to the subject
property that would warrant the approval of the variance, and that
allowing excessive signage on the restaurant would undermine the
overall character of development occuring in the Tri-City area
(see Exhibit B - Staff Report to the Planning Commission). Based
on the discussion and in. agreement with the Staff recommendation,
a motion for denial was mad~ and seconded, and then carried by a
unanimous vote of the five attending Commissioners.
75.0264
-
.' ..,
o
o
Appeal of Variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5, 1990
Page 2
When the variance application was submitted to Staff, San Pedro
Electric Sign Company submitted plans for all "Yoshinoya" signs
proposed for the site, including plans to reface a sign can below
the "Pace" sign can on the 40-foot freeway sign identifying the
center. Several weeks prior to scheduling Variance No. 90-08 for
public hearing, Staff informed George Castro, representative from
the sign company with whom staff had been in contact regarding the
variance application, that no such sign can exists for them to
reface. Mr. Castro was informed that the Code would not permit the
new installation of such a sign can because the overall sign area
would exceed the maximum allowed by Code Section 19.60.220(F.3)
and because freestanding signs in multi-tenant centers must
identify the name of the center and/or everv tenant, rather than
just selected tenants (SBMC 19.60.220E and F). Mr. Castro was
advised that his client must revise the variance application to
request the installation onto the freestanding sign structure or
delete that section from the plans. The following week, Mr. Castro
informed Staff that the request for the freestanding sign would
not be pursued at the present time.
On September 28, 1990, three days after the Planning Commission
denied Variance No. 90-08, the sign company submitted revised sign
plans for the restaurant, but still proposed a double-faced sign
on the freestanding structure. Staff deleted the freestanding sign
from the plans and approved the remainder, which consisted of a
wall sign on the north elevation and a wall sign on the east
elevation.
On October 2, 1990, Mark Frank of the sign company called the
Planning Division to ask why the freestanding sign was denied, and
was given the same answer that George Castro, his employee,
received previously. Mr. Frank said that he was never informed by
Castro that the freestanding sign would not be permitted and that
he would appeal the denial of the variance. On October 4, 1990, an
appeal was submitted based on "disagreement with staff's 'findings
of fact.'"
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and
90-08 or the Mayor and Council may uphold the
Variance No. 90-08.
deny Variance No.
appeal and approve
Jl
"
o
o
Appeal of Variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5, 1990
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and
deny Variance No. 90-08.
Prepared by:
Gregory S. Gubman,
Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
A -
B -
C -
Letter of Appeal
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Official Notice of Public Hearing before the
Mayor and Common Council
-
- -.
-
-
. ,
C
SAN PEDRO
ELECTRIC
SIGN COMPANY
EXHIBIT A
o
~1}
SPESCO
~Er~c"'-
'~J -.. ['1 CI :~ 1
October 02, 1990
TELEFAX LETTER
714-384-5461
city Of San Bernardino
City Clerks Office
c/o Shawna Edwins I MELANIE VALE
300 North "0" Street 2 ND FLOOR
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
RE: Appeal Variance No. 90-08
Yoshinoya Beef Bowl Restaurant
881 lIarrison Avenue
San Bernardino, ca
Dear Ms. Edwins:
This letter is to serve notice of our intention to appeal the
planning commission action of September 25, 1990 for variance
90-08.
We wish to appear before the city council to state our case for
the additional wall signs to properly identify the Yoshinoya Beef
Bowl establishment.
we are in disagreement with the staffs "findings of fact" as per
the attachment "B" exhibit provided by Larry Reed on 90-27-90.
Please advised me of when the next available city council meeting
will be held so that I can notify my clients.
Also, please let me know if you need more sign plans or
presentation materials and I will be happy to provide you with
them.
S~ Yours,
--,'/', I~ ,4 a~ A.. ;f
/ R (t.....'r:. '.' t v.-""';";;':- ~ ~'..:.;.: ~ -... ~
Mark A. Frank
MAF / sp
CC: Katsutoshi Tsunafuji
Yoshinoya West Inc.,
ENCLOSURES: CHECK FOR $100. 00 ~.~,~';!,
..-.-.....
"-,' ....
" ,-.-"
.. ;'. ~:.
735 Lakme Avenue I Wilmington. California 90744 I 213-549-4661 I FAX 213-549-2482
. .
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
~~
w
UJ
C
(J
.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
7
9-25-90
1
.....
APPUCANT: San Pedro Electric Sign
Company
735 Lakme Avenue
OWNER: Wilmington, CA 90744
Haagen Tri-City Center
3500 Sepulveda Boulevard
66
VARIANCE NO. 90-0B
~
The applicant requests a variance from Code Section 19.60.22
~ (E) to allow wall signs on four sides of a building, whereas,
m the code allows signs on a'maximum of two sides.
::::l
o
W
a::
-
C The site encompasses approximately 12.35 acres located at the
~ southeasterly corner of the intersection of Harriman Place and
C Gage Canal.
'-.../
PROPERTY
Subject
North
South
East
\Vest
EXISTING
LAND USE
Restaurant/Pace Center
Vacant
1-10 Freeway
Gage Canal/Vacant
Residential
I
(
GEOLOGIC /SEISMIC 131: YES
HAZARD ZONE: 0 NO
HIGH FIRE 0 YES
HAZARD ZONE: all NO
r--..
..I
C
!ZUJ
We"
:2Z
Z-
OCl
a:: I
-II.
>
ffi
r
o NOT
APPUCABLE
KI EXEMPT
o NO SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
.. '--"" '\.
lloI1'nl:..:.::r==
r
I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES
'\. ZONE: 131: NO
ZONING
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
CR-3
) (r AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES "I
CRASH ZONE:
[JI:NO
"I
o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS WITH
MmGATING MEASURES
NOE.l.R.
o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
WITH MITIGATING
MEASURES
o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
MINUTES
z
o
~
II.Cl
!iffi
~~
fd
a::
-
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
Commercial Regional
o ZONE A
OZONE B
( SEWERS:
Dl: YES )
o NO .
REDEVELOPMENT Dl: YES
PROJECT AREA:
o NO
I
o APPROVAL
o CONDITIONS
Ga DENIAL
o CONTINUANCE TO
PLAN-I.02 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-10)
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 90-08
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
9-25-90
2
II""
"'I
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance from
19.60.220(B) and (E), which allow the placement
maximum of two sides per building, to locate wall
sides of an approved restaurant under construction.
Code Sections
of signs on a
signs on four
SITE LOCATION
The site of the proposed restaurant is the 12.35 acre "Pace Club"
center located at the southeasterly corner of the intersection of .
Harriman Place and the Gage Canal. The site consists of a
six-tenant, 162,525 square foot retail building and the 2,400
square foot "Beef Bowl" restaurant located in the northwestern
quadrant of the center.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Municipal Code Sections 19.60.210(B) and (E) state that wall signs
are permitted on a maximum of two sides per building in the CR-3
land use designation, provided that those sides of the building
have a frontage on a public street or parking lot. This variance
application is inconsistent with said Code sections in that the
applicant is requesting to place signs on four sides of the
building, wherein one of those sides has no street or parking lot
frontage.
The proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy
No. 1.45.4 of the land use element states that it shall be the
polley of the City to "minimize the number, size and placement of
signs in private development."
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1986, an application to construct a 162,525 square foot
shopping center on 12.35 acres was submitted to the Planning
Department under Review of Plans No. 86-66. The project was
approved on October 16, 1986.
On August 8, 1989, the application for Conditional Use Permit No.
89-37, to construct a 2,400 square foot "Yoshinoya Beef Bowl"
restaurant on the site of the shopping center was submitted to the
Planning Department. On January 9, 1990, the Planning Commission
approved the application. On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted
the application for Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs
on all four sides of the approved restaurant building. .
l
m..:'"
......... ~_, OJ , 1_
'.
CITY OF SAN BERSRDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
3
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
""II
ANALYSIS
The request for the variance is based on the applicant's claim
that, due to the location of the restaurant, the Hunici~al Code
sign regulations are too restrictive to allow the proper Identity
of the business. In the written response to the required variance
findings (Attachment Cl, the applicant stated that t~e
restaurant's proximity to the 1-10 freeway and its location withIn
a retail complex necessitates additional signage.
A field examination of the site did not support the applicant's
findings. Three sides of the restaurant front on a street or
parking lot: the north side faces Harriman Place; the east side
faces the Pace Club parking lot; and the south side faces both the
parking lot and the 1-10 freeway. Under current Code requirements,
the applicant can place a sign on any two of those sides and would
be provided ample visibility.
An obvious advantage of the location of the restaurant is that it
is located within a major shopping center with high freeway
visibility. This advantage works three ways. First, through
advertising, the restaurant can simply state that it is located
within the Pace shopping center. Secondly, customers visiting
Pace, Sportmart or any of the other stores in the complex have a
clear view of the Beef Bowl restaurant and its associated signs.
Third, because the restaurant is a separate building from the
remainder of the center, its visibility is much more prominent
than that of the tenants occupying the suites.
Thus far, there are
building, Pet World
tenants has a single
be suffering no ill
for over a year.
two minor tenants occupying the Pace Club
and Pita Feast restaurant. Each of these
wall sign facing Harriman Place and appear to
effects. Both businesses have been licensed
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received as of the date of preparation of
this staff report.
Ii..
....
=-=. ..
J.
I'UfOUI ~_, OF t 1_
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
CONCLUSION
It is the intent of the General Plan and Municipal Code to prevent
the domination of City streetscapes by signs whose overexposure is
associated with the degradation of the aesthetic integrity of
commercial areas. The placing of excessive signage on the
restaurant is not consistent with the quality of development
occuring in the area, and would undermine the overall character of
the Tri-City area.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that would necessitate the
granting of this variance. Adding two more wall signs would only
marginally increase the exposure of the building, while adding a
degree of garishness to the center in which it is located. By
means of this application, the applicant is requesting a special
privilege; the granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No.
90-08 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B).
Respectfully submitted,
L.lcf:..d~
Director of Planning and Building Services
~
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Municipal Code and General Plan conformance
B - Findings of Fact
C - Applicant's response to findings
D - Site plan and elevations
E - Location map
...
c:.c '"
. ,.,... _.CIl'. _
," .
o
Attachment "A"
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
5
...
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
~
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Cateaorv ProDosal .~ General Plan
Use Wall sign Permitted N/A
Number of Four Maximum of "
wall signs two
Sign area:
north 63 square feet 120 sq. ft. max. "
south " " " " " " " "
west " " " " " " " "
east 27.5 square feet " " " " "
...
IIIloC -
___,0., _
~ . ...
ATTACH~1ENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE
VAR 90-08
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
9-25-90
6
...
3.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district in that the
restaurant has similar or superior visibility to other
commercial developments in the area.
2.
The granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant in that existing land use standards
sufficiently address the business's needs for adequate on
site advertising.
The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental
to the public welfare and be injurious to property and
improvements in the land use district in which the property
is located in that excessive signage is generally accepted to
be visually assaulting and would therefore undermine the
overall character of the Hospitality Lane area.
4. The granting of the variance will be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan in that it is a policy of the
General Plan to 1 imi t the number of signs in private
development.
.
"-
PLAN-8.CII PNaE; 1 OF 1 (4-00)
c:rTTClI"'~
---
....
, "~
II"\.
ATTACHUENT "c"
t"\
..
"""II
AL.:..APPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACHOFTHE FOLLOWING
ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~ FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALl ITEMS
DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
'"",-. ~;U~J",~"",.;"..~2~ ~ ~.lncIudIIvrty"'~""'~~ IIalIon orin -r~
~-A n ___I~I_____.plllpe ......R__~,_...__plapeny l
"VIIiInlIY _unaer .....1 land 11M cIlItrIaI cI...Ifll.A,l;
1):)"I'D \~ e WU\\IOt-l 'rJ,\- n-\~ ~~~e1l T'(C.&ee~e.f\l())
h')\\\& "'\,\!>-.p../~A)U.U\ t~ l~e.() \\\ A- ~
C-~~\?_ ~() Np,..9 A- f""p...wy ,'1"t\("- rl'"l\\?_ -AUn"lQ;;-
~ ~ IU.I,\~ 'Yee..l4l)7/~~ ;{)(Jll (_I (U cJf'I\b'(Vt-,[CP .
OF "'FWy ,! n_ W,nrFtJ('7 rP..J"Tel? ?.1L$(? r{nr~)
....d<2.. l--L.-",O 6f"..4PD TIA'(J' 51&:dc ~P.AI2.... ~~~'f ~leJATI 04
TI'J (j; t.K ~ Re6T~I?ANr rf'vOf'-(/l. 7~it(Ti Fi t'~7/0N..
So ~()~ nprll,hJ(k: IJC,Af?~.tP/ :ror;rrJ.TITy. -r-o(l..J'u(;;(~lIefl.".
.AND TO A.""'f'fi' r. -pfJ~J - ~ ~ P''''-(-J ('i?1!J./,p1! I
. B. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same yicin~y and land use distrid and denied to the property for which the
Variance is sought;
\'\.\lIJ:GiZ#.\'INtf~, VAt2.(A.'I-1.c..~ IJi /\/t'C-eSSAIU,/ FML
T/l.e R€'SiL7<I/LA-M/ o'FTl-hh 'PlZorc.rz"'7'.wl1;1T~WL A.ee-
A~k.i...r4t (5(Gr../.sJ <I S/~II/.( 1/- looT-a..; tJ 1= 11..(e 6/"N~
'A/AS: D~s(&,.Jc.O I:o~ L/I5Italt.ITv ANi) PROr~.f!. XDFI--/TITy
OF n{~ l2l?sTfllJlZA-t<JT t3<!LA,if~ oi~' ,He ,....0 6.,tteeT.;;
~^m TI'ZAFF/t: ~tt7u/' dl,LIO TI-I~ ~/&.,",<; 1p>t'A:,lEn
OK B"dO\~C;j "Fee. 'Bc,LC,-Io '''''lET.t="r./~''O,,"/
. C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public heatth, safely, or weffare, or injurious
to the property or Improvements in such vicin~ and land use district in which the property is located;
"""I~e. Sit,t-Ic. "T T\-l\?. .'5~(D -piCccrer2./v 1(, .../0 PeT~(lII\Q"\T...L
I,~ 'HI.;, 'f"'f?1 I'e. i~~iA-Li~ I S~f'i:7". Of? v.,dU c;",Ye. 1l"F Tt-4....
'f>r..c~I2_,-1 'T{-\~ ~\"t-('" w,LI B4? J.... u,Mple\'W\el'l'T:/""
T Ue. t,oll CIIJC- A,LCI-I \IeC.TufZ.e A~C C.CMIlM(Jl-\.T~1
,
....
1iI1lnll:.,C '="'=
..4
PLAN-4.1l3 PAGE'OF' (2-10)
,..
1"'\
, '..
"""Ill
D. That granting the Variance does not constttute a spacial privilege inconsistent wtth the limttations upon other
properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located;
TN~ P,zoh/Z.T-:r 75 'l-cA./t! Poll.- tzeS7,q.///2,41<,r ks~-
Jc nf/<;, vll/t.'A..IC.~ f:)oes,..t'7 t-OA{(;JIILI;?<:: AJU'ec.JI4-L
pl!i(//(e<:~ 012. [(,.,,1 T/-I7/c...lr 1,..( -;-N~ 1/"!I<J:ry ,,,Ja... ,U ,!;
FII-ope,~r.., IS c...oC-JlfTl'P.
E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activtty which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
regulations governing the subject parcel; ...1-
~7 4~V('}' m~ r/,a./l/A-A/'CR ~.....I'\ AtI.r.,.AJ tJ.c.e..
~TUD/J7 \JJ ,Cop ~~ O'F ~De. :Due. To -r!-le tAll-IlMt'e.
r S rorz fllOferz TfY2fl17l ry e?'F ~/pv/04-/l.//.
. F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent wtth the General Plan.
.;?I1.C(J<:/l..T'f 1$
f'n,.,7<,rt'./T WiTH t.7eA/e~r~{ PL.;4<.Ji
ClT'f'm''''~
CBfIM...-. ......
...
...01
PL.AN-4.D3 PAGE SOF' (2-10)
ATTACHMENT "D"
. . ~ 0 ~;' L .' ......,.
.' ~.. .' ......,. .....,. '",y,.~.", ,""'r-~+:lFiik'''' .'....-;~.>' ."
: ='\l/' ':;i" "'~:} "~'" - - ir" " '.' "
~ . .
O ~- '" .
o q '" i .i
, .~ I . .
.. ... . .- . ... .... .-., . ': .,. :..,.. J /..' . '..:'i.'::~""'.:_":':~~>::._:,.;,:.'
I i
~lw~
E9~ -
,
UBIII!
iff I
I .
, J i I
It
1
t
f .f
I .
.
:
JII.
l-tf
IIi
111
t"',
1
-, 1
'I ..... -
n
.Ii_
@) :-
...
r( ~-1'-1'
.. III 1t 1
~ :z: ,
..... -
{I ~
,l.."'~
1
i
.... .i!...
"'Ifl' I! ...
-
. . .".
.... ".,.:,.(~",..... ..
" i I
;....:....
. . ...'. ....~....:..: .~~.: ,"
-.....;0
.' '.", ".
~
.~..'--
'",.
.I)
o
"
\1'0. ,I
. r
----.
. -
,. .
'I
,,~; ~
o
. .
;....
-":.-
. :~: ':;:::~~ ; '. :. ....:...~ . ..
",." .....
.; ..:......
':,';";' .
.." ~... .-. "'::'.~:<.:-:.< -: <:' ."
" ~:.
.:::">-<\ .:'
.......; :..
@
~
, .
. ~
'\.
.;;.:..:
. .... ',",
:.:~
.'.:.-.
. '~:'
""
" ".
:......... .
....
I
I.
..
o
S
"'"
)..
...-
. .
. ". .
. -","..
'. ;.: t
. .
..
.
J.
. -".:;0
,..
.- ;..... "'<"<;\>t<; :~. ,-'
........: ',';.,
..
.. .....~;..-...
:::;..
...... ....;.-.:
.....
":. .
:..
L
-
ATTACHMENT "E"
#lit.
"
c, '*~ ..
.1 .
~
""l ~
AGENDA ""l
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR. 90-08
LOCATION
HEARING DATE 9-25-90
7
, _..~
,.
.101.,'1',. ~A.'
I.
~.=, u 'f
PL.AN-8.11 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-80)
~
~ ,"..
c, J.
o
EXHIBIT C
o
-
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE'THE CITY QF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Variance No. 90-0B
"'"
~
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOllOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCil BY The ADD 1 ;cant
[ SUBJECT: J WARD =#
Variance No. 90-08 1
-
PROPERTY
LOCATION: 885 East Harriman Plance, next to the Pace . .
Center in the Tri-City area.
.
PROPOSAL: To vary code requirement 19.60.220(B) arid (E) to
allow the installation of wall signs on four sides
of the newly constructed "Voshinoya Beef Bowl"
restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" ST~ I
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
( HEARING DATE AND TIME: November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m. )
A DETAILED llDCItlJOTlON OF THE PItOPOSAL II ON i'lL! II THE PLAMlING DIEPIlIt11lENT ICf CITY
HALL. IF "IOU WOULD LIICIE I'UIn'IlIER 1NI'000MATION AIClUT Till PIIDl'OSAL PIIlOII TO THIE PUIUC
HlEAltING, PLEASIE CONTACT THE PLANNING D1EPMTMlENT IN PIEIIION 011 1'1 PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU. .1
I., ,- ...
ciTY 'OF SAN BERNADINO - RIQUEST Fa COUNCIL ACTION
F~
D~
Larry E. Reed, Director
Planning and Building Services,'
Su~~: Appeal of Variance No. 90-08 Denial
Date:
Mayor and Common Council meeting
of November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On September 25, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny
Variance No. 90-08 application, (5-0).
No previous Council action.
"-,
,
....1
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be denied and Variance No. 90-08
be denied subject to the Findings of Fact contained in Attachment B, the September
O 25, 1990 Planning Commission staff report. (Supports staff's recommendation and
Planning Commissions action).
OR
That the hearing be closed, and that the appeal be upheld and that the matter be
refered to staff for the preparation of Findings of Fact in support of the
.pp.""'" "',.". <,"pp,," .pp.ll.,,', ,.q"~
Ik/
Signature
Contact person:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
384-5357
1
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No,)
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
COI Notas:
A___-'_ ,.__ .,_ ~~
-
CITY OF SAN BERNAODINO - REQUEST FcO COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
c
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance No.
90-08, requesting approval to place wall signs on four
sides of a restaurant at 885 East Harriman Place,
whereas the Municipal Code permits signs on a maximum of
two sides.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
of November 5, 1990
REOUEST
The applicant, Yoshinoya West, Incorporated, through their sign
contractor, San Pedro Electric Sign Company, is appealing the
denial of Variance No. 90-08 by the Planning Commission. The
applicant requests the Mayor and Common Council approve a variance
from Code Sections 19.60.220(B) and (E), which allow the placement
of signs on a maximum of two sides per building, to install wall
signs on four sides of a newly constructed restaurant in the
"Pace" shopping center located southeasterly of the intersection
of Harriman Place and Gage Canal.
o BACKGROUND
On October 16, 1986 the Pace shopping center was approved by the
Development Review Committee under Review of Plans No. 86-66. On
January 9, 1990, the Planning commission approved a Conditional
Use Permit (C.U.P. 89-37) to construct a 2,400 square-foot
"Yoshinoya Beef Bowl" restaurant on the site of the Pace center.
On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted the application for
Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs on all four sides of
the approved restaurant building.
On September 25, 1990, the Planning Commission held a properly
noticed public hearing on Variance No. 90-08. During the course of
the public hearing, Staff discussed the generally accepted view
that the excessive use of signage is visually offensive which led
to General Plan Policy No. 1.45.4 to minimize signs in private
development and to the current Code restrictions on the number and
placement of signs. Based on a site analysis, Staff stated that
there are no unique circumstances applicable to the subject
property that would warrant the approval of the variance, and that
allowing excessive signage on the restaurant would undermine the
overall character of development occuring in the Tri-City area
(see Exhibit B - Staff Report to the Planning commission). Based
on the discussion and in agreement with the Staff recommendation,
a motion for denial was made and seconded, and then carried by a
unanimous vote of the five attending Commissioners.
o
75.0264
o
o
o
o
o
Appeal of Variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5, 1990
Page 2
When the variance application was submitted to Staff, San Pedro
Electric Sign Company submitted plans for all "Yoshinoya" signs
proposed for the site, including plans to reface a sign can below
the "Pace" sign can on the 40-foot freeway sign identifying the
center. Several weeks prior to scheduling Variance No. 90-08 for
public hearing, Staff informed George Castro, representative from
the sign company with whom staff had been in contact regarding the
variance application, that no such sign can exists for them to
reface. Mr. Castro was informed that the Code would not permit the
new installation of such a sign can because the overall sign area
would exceed the maximum allowed by Code section 19.60.220(F.3)
and because freestanding signs in multi-tenant centers must
identify the name of the center and/or everv tenant, rather than
just selected tenants (SBMC 19.60.220E and F). Mr. Castro was
advised that his client must revise the variance application to
request the installation onto the freestanding sign structure or
delete that section from the plans. The following week, Mr. Castro
informed Staff that the request for the freestanding sign would
not be pursued at the present time.
On September 28, 1990, three days after the Planning Commission
denied Variance No. 90-08, the sign company submitted revised sign
plans for the restaurant, but still proposed a double-faced sign
on the freestanding structure. Staff deleted the freestanding sign
from the plans and approved the remainder, which consisted of a
wall sign on the north elevation and a wall sign on the east
elevation.
On October 2, 1990, Mark Frank of the sign company called the
Planning Division to ask why the freestanding sign was denied, and
was given the same answer that George Castro, his employee,
received previously. Mr. Frank said that he was never informed by
Castro that the freestanding sign would not be permitted and that
he would appeal the denial of the variance. On October 4, 1990, an
appeal was submitted based on "disagreement with staff's 'findings
of fact.'"
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
The Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny Variance No.
90-08 or the Mayor and Council may uphold the appeal and approve
Variance No. 90-08.
o
o
o
o
o
Appeal of Variance No. 90-08
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 5, 1990
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal .and
deny Variance No. 90-08.
Prepared by:
Gregory S. Gubman,
Assistant Planner
for Larry E. Reed,
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
A -
B -
C -
Letter of Appeal
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Official Notice of Public Hearing before the
Mayor and Common Council
.
-
o
SAN PEDRO
ELECTRIC
SIGN COMPANY
EXHIBIT A
o
?E(~C"
'~J -.. ['10 :~1
October 02, 1990
TELEFAX LETTER
714-384-5461
city Of San Bernardino
City Clerks Office
C/O Shawna Edwins / ME!,ANIE VALE
300 North "D" Street 2 ND FLOOR
San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001
RE: Appeal Variance No. 90-08
Yoshinoya Beef Bowl Restaurant
881 lIarrison Avenue
San Bernardino, ca
o
Dear Ms. Edwins:
This letter is to serve notice of our intention to appeal the
planning commission action of September 25, 1990 for variance
90-08.
We wish to appear before the city council to state our case for
the additional wall signs to properly identify the Yoshinoya Beef
Bowl establishment.
we are in disagreement with the staffs "findings of fact" as per
the attachment "B" exhibit provided by Larry Reed on 90-27-90.
Please advised me of when the next available city council meeting
will be held so that I can notify my clients.
Also, please let me know if you need. more sign plans or
presentation materials and I will be happy to provide you with
them.
S~ Yours,
/,,/,./~.4c.,.. ,/.
/ p i{" ,'_ '/ ...,,' . " :" <~. ~
...,:, '-""'"'...........~
Mark A. Frank
MAF/sp
CC: Katsutoshi Tsunafuji
Yoshinoya West Inc.,
ENCLOSURES: CHECK FOR $100. 00 ~~,~~
...-....
, ...t
..... .... '" '.
o
735 Lakme Avenue I Wilmington. California 90744 I 213-549-4661 I FAX 213-549-2482
'"
EXHIBIT B
a
....
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
o
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
7
9-25-90
1
....
o
....r-, ....
APPLICANT: San Pedro Electric Sign
III Company
en VARIANCE NO. 90-08 735 Lakme Avenue
C OWNER: Wilmington, CA 90744
(.) Haagen Tri-City Center
3500 sepul~a Boulevard
r-, 66
The applicant requests a variance from Code Section 19.60.22
.... (E) to allow wall signs on four sides of a building, whereas,
fa the code allows signs on a maximum of two sides.
::l
0
III
II:
-
C The site encompasses approximately 12.35 acres located at the
III southeasterly corner of the intersection of Harriman Place and
II:
C Gage Canal.
I,
\..J ~
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Restaurant/Pace Center CR-3 Commercial Regional
North Vacant CR-3 Commercial Regional
South 1-10 Freeway CR-3 Commercial Regional
East Gage Canal/Vacant CR-3 Commercial Regional
West Residential CR-3 Commercial Regional
GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC ex YES I FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ( SEWERS: [)t YES )
HAZARD ZONE: o NO ZONE: ex NO OZONE B o NO
( HIGH FIRE 0 YES )( AIRPORT NOISEI o YES J( REDEVELOPMENT (Z YES )
HAZARD ZONE: ~ CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA:
NO I)l: NO o NO
'"
... o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ~ 0 APPROVAL
~en APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0
MmGAnNG MEASURES -
NOE.l.R. =c 0 CONDITIONS
IIlCJ II.Cl
:2Z KI EXEMPT o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO !:eli 50 DENIAL
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
OCl WITH MmGATING l;;:2
11:;; MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO
-II.
> o NO SIGNIFICANT o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Z fd
III EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C.
--.-J MINUTES II:
) '--
...4
o
~~.~=
PLAN-I.02 PAGE 1 OF , (4-10)
-
.... - 90-08 "l
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 7
0 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 9-25-90
PAGE 2
.....
r .,
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance from Code Sections
19.60.220(B) and (El, which allow the placement of signs on a
maximum of two sides per building, to locate wall signs on four
sides of an approved restaurant under construction.
SITE LOCATION
The site of the proposed restaurant is the 12.35 acre "Pace Club"
center located at the southeasterly corner of the intersection of
Harriman Place and the Gage Canal. The site consists of a
six-tenant, 162,525 square foot retail building and the 2,400
square foot "Beef Bowl" restaurant located in the northwestern
quadrant of the center.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
o
Municipal Code Sections 19.60.210(B) and (E) state that wall signs
are permitted on a maximum of two sides per building in the CR-3
land use designation, provided that those sides of the building
have a frontage on a public street or parking lot. This variance
application is inconsistent with said Code sections in that the
applicant is requesting to place signs on four sides of the
building, wherein one of those sides has no street or parking lot
frontage.
The proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy
No. 1.45.4 of the land use element states that it shall be the
policy of the City to "minimize the number, size and placement of
signs in private development."
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1986, an application to construct a 162,525 square foot
shopping center on 12.35 acres was submitted to the Planning
Department under Review of Plans No. 86-66. The project was
approved on October 16, 1986.
c
On August 8, 1989, the application for Conditional Use Permit No.
89-37, to construct a 2,400 square foot "Yoshinoya Beef Bowl"
restaurant on the site of the shopping center was submitted to the
Planning Department. On January 9, 1990, the Planning Commission
approved the application. On May 21, 1990, the applicant submitted
the application for Variance No. 90-08, requesting to place signs
on all four sides of the approved restaurant building.
l
m.:. ..
~ ~... 10F 1 .....
o
CITY OF SAN BER9RDINO PLANNING
~D BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
3
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
ANALYSIS
The request for the variance is based on the applicant's claim
that due to the location of the restaurant, the Munici~al Code
sign' regulations are too restrictive to allow the proper Identity
of the business. In the written response to the required variance
findings (Attachment Cl, the applicant stated ~hat t~e
restaurant's proximity to the 1-10 freeway and its locatIon withIn
a retail complex necessitates additional signage.
A field examination of the site did not support the applicant's
findings. Three sides of the restaurant front on a street or
parking lot: the north side faces Harriman Place; the east side
faces the Pace Club parking lot; and the south side faces both the
parking lot and the 1-10 freeway. Under current Code requirements,
the applicant can place a sign on any two of those sides and would
be provided ample visibility.
o
An obvious advantage of the location of the restaurant is that it
is located within a major shopping center with high freeway
visibility. This advantage works three ways. First, through
advertising, the restaurant can simply state that it is located
within the Pace shopping center. Secondly, customers visiting
Pace, Sportmart or any of the other stores in the complex have a
clear view of the Beef Bowl restaurant and its associated signs.
Third, because the restaurant is a separate building from the
remainder of the center, its visibility is much more prominent
than that of the tenants occupying the suites.
Thus far, there are
building, Pet World
tenants has a single
be suffering no ill
for over a year.
two minor
and Pita
wall sign
effects.
tenants occupying the Pace Club
Feast restaurant. Each of these
facing Harriman Place and appear to
Both businesses have been licensed
COMMENTS RECEIVED
No comments have been received as of the date of preparation of
this staff report.
o
~
c:.::. -
...
l'l.MoUI ~_, 01' 1 1_
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OBSERVATIONS
CASE VAR 90-08
7
9-25-90
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
,..
"'I
CONCLUSION
It is the intent of the General Plan and Municipal Code to prevent
the domination of City streetscapes by signs whose overexposure is
associated with the degradation of the aesthetic integrity of
commercial areas. The placing of excessive signage on the
restaurant is not consistent with the quality of development
occuring in the area, and would undermine the overall character of
the Tri-City area.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that would necessitate the
granting of this variance. Adding two more wall signs would only
marginally increase the exposure of the building, while adding a
degree of garishness to the center in which it is located. By
means of this application, the applicant is requesting a special
privilege; the granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.
c:J RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No.
90-08 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B).
Respectfully submitted,
L.~C.,,~
Director of Planning and Building Services
~
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Municipal Code and General Plan conformance
B - Findings of Fact
C - Applicant's response to findings
D - Site plan and elevations
E - Location map
c
....
m&-
J
--_'01' 1_
, . 0 Attachment "A" 0
~ 90-08
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR
0 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 7
OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 9-25-90
PAGE 5
P'"
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
Cateaorv ProDosal .~ General Plan
Use Wall sign Permitted N/A
Number of Four Maximum of "
wall signs two
Sign area:
north 63 square feet 120 sq. ft. max. "
south " " " " " " " "
west " " " " " " " "
east 27.5 square feet " " " " "
0
o
IIlo& -
j
__ _.!W. _
ATTACHHENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR 90-08
o
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
7
9-25-90
6
,.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district in that the
restaurant has similar or superior visibility to other
commercial developments in the area.
2. The granting of this variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the applicant in that existing land use standards
sufficiently address the business's needs for adequate on
site advertising.
3.
The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental
to the public welfare and be injurious to property and
improvements in the land use district in which the property
is located in that excessive signage is generally accepted to
be visually assaulting and would therefore undermine the
overall character of the Hospitality Lane area.
o
4.
The granting
objectives of
General Plan
development.
of the variance will
the General Plan in that
to limit the number
be contrary to the
it is a policy of the
of signs in private
c
~'=l~'::~
~
....
Pl.AN-IJlll P_,OF, (4-llll)
".
ATTACHHENT "C"
ALL APPLICATIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OFTHE FOllOWING
ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~ FOR THE VARIANCE. PlEASE ANSWER All ITEMS
DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
~, ~.~ .J,_.~~-" ," tit" prl~tlt). including ... 1hIpe. -'1jI/Iy. IDcIIlon or ..~ ~
... .~~ . oftllf"CocIe~Ii._euchplallertyof~~_alherplllpeltylnl
.....,Wiiiiiiae,ldenIlcalland...cIIIlrilI ~ 1ficIIIIoI,;
u::n'0 \~e. U,c.K\.IOt-lrll- nJ.~ ~1Z.o~e.JlTVc..&e~eI'lLOJ
\ -:l\\ \~ "\\~.e.. ~A)eAW\ \ S, I ~ eo 0 \\\ A- ~ nJ.(;b
c..'e~(?~ ~f) NI''''9 A- f"'rz...wy ,"\.\~ r.t"\~_ -ALln"IQ;;-
~ lSWL 1Ul"\,t-l 'Ye.~14I17/t"'-. .'f)nn LI rU' rJmb (64-'/{'P ,
OF -nuy A: n_ ~"'f'FN('7 rptoJTel? ?LL$C r(nrJ.)
.J:j/2.. l-t..-"'D ~..4ee. -rIA,(,.S/~dC.~P-AQ... ~1tJ~'f ~leJATlolo/
TI'J (j; ~ JPe ReST/W#ANr Pl'.-{)t'('.e 7~4Tr 1=1 t'~T/tJN~
I II
~ ,(()~ \)pr/LhJOC: Ilc.Arfflrl(d- ':1Or.r~TlTy. t::=ofl,{" ot;/rtJllef(.;,
.6NO 11A.1flc ~~J' ~~PI~(J reuJ./-pIl_ I
. B. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other property in the same vicin~y and land use district and denied to the property for which the
Variance is sought;
-i \-\ ~G iZN--\\ IN If n+t'. VA\2. l A. 'I-l.~~ /.Ii r-J '" ceSSnAAl FML
7J.1.e Rt>SFL7dI2.4J,;}, o"FTHlb prz.c;fc:,rz.,y.w4I1T~WL AilE
A~kl...r4 (5f€oI.f.s) <I 5/r..A/( , LooT-a,", (J F Tile bliJl'iS'
t...'AS: D<'!:Sf&c.JCD A:JJe.. L/f51F,31/"i r." ANi) PRQr~.e.. J-DF"~/T'Ty
Of- n-f~ l2{?sT,aIJ/2.A.~T 8eLAG'f~ oF" Ir-I.? "--<-0 ~ltte.eT~
;JAil? r"zAFF/t:: ~Lt!I...... df:'-.r:AJ TH~ ~Ie,,",c; lJ'>rA,rEn
c:>t-\ B,c; Ii O\~(~ 1"c.2. "Bc,l.C,,,,C1 lie> I2OT\ "F"Cf"t-',O"'(
. C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public heatth, safety, or wenare, or injurious
to the property or improvements in such vicin~y and land use district in which the property is located;
"'I~ e. .s i to...! c. '"'1"'" T\-\ "- .:5.:\ { 0 p;CC'\(ef'- / v l'i; "" 0 "PeT~I""Q"'\T'"
T.~ ',W., "F',,~II'''- i\......\.j~ l'SdlriLTv, on lv~\ C",Ye. o"F Tt-l...
'f'r-c <:?eel.:, -I T r-l.. ~llo...( '" WIL i B.z J>.. CcM f le"\,,^el'iT .,-"
T tJe. ~o'l ~I~'- .A"lC.~ (7~(TtJl2-e AlI.\iO C.CM\fV\ui-\'T~J
,
~~~..I
PL.AN-4.03 PAGE. OF. (2-10)
-
-
-
. .
o
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;
I"H~ PIZoha7"y /$ ~()A./~ Poll...- lZeS'7,4///2.4;<17 (4~.
.).:> 711/<; v!ltt.,,,,^(C-e f)O~SH'7 e-()M{;TI/"Il'~ A.!;'/>ec..(I4-L
p(t.iV/(-ec;.e ,,12. [(wll T47,'"..lr I"I.,-Nc I/"!I-.J:ry ~/.JO.... il.l,~
1"/1.0 pe,LT-; 1St... 0 c.1'f7l'P.
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; / ..1-
~7~V(', me [,LJ4IUA-tr/CR ~I'-IT\ Atlfll.AJ u!::.e.,
"TUOd) \JJ ,Cp ~~ o~ ~JJe. :Doe To itle lA/lIA-1ft'e.
r S (FDa fltlOfee <J. mN71 IY e?F .Re:;-/Pd/M-/I.I/.
. F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent w.h the General Plan.
f"/lC(J.(Ii...T'f IS
I' <'),,7< I r~~'l l.AJ t 7 H t.7 eO<l~" r~ ( f L.,. <.Ji
ClTYOI"~
---
PLAN-4.D3 PAGE 50F. 12-10)
ATTACHMENT "D"
" 0 0
. ~. ..
5: . .. ".!;:,e=:J1 . ......... ....,...,...,.:
... h. """.m... .
. .... '.' .....,.,..... :": .;. ..:.:.... ...'. "~if . -.--.:.[.<<' .,....
':::'. '.::" '<:::.. . . ";. . ,...~< ..... '. ".1..(" - (. . ,.
J
-0
O.
,
...0.......
00..:.........
a
EBi -
~ .
'I. cr i . ~ .
i; '" I
. .... . .'r'D."=' ,I:".r,.,::..,,:.::>..':.;"
e
~...,
lIi J8
~
.
,'..,.,....,....
r
. '. ~
. .
.'," '.
'";.' .~.:~:...
... "''''''''
-
:-.,:.;.:
. ~-:. .
;:'."
I
.
4
I i
.. l...L~
n
I i
@t_. t
..
f 3"1'
..M i
't :z t
'.. -
~- 1 ::I
, .,' . .
. .'. ....j;,.... . .,.., .'
. . ",.
. . .. .
. , .. . . . .
. . ~":. < '.i?~';=':'"' '.
. . ,".
.s;)
o
\
-O...J,,',
0\ _!,
~
!
DUll,. ;'
I 1'1
.
t
o
.". .......
";'.-
.....,..
'. ..:.....;. ".
.:'.
@
. ~
,- ,
." -
.... "
.;.....
I
~
;
....
~'." .
...'......:........:. ',;'.
.~. .;
L
-
.... .
.....
:....... ..
:";.::<. ;. ....:.:;~.:.
....,-..;..:.
....... .-~;e-::.:. "..
..;.
....-.
"...: "..
': .
',",' ".
",,'".. ;.:~ ::
.;...... ....;.. .;;.:.... ,".-
.~. .'. ;';?:?.'
. . :.:... ":~::.:' .:. .'; .' "'"'.' ;~.:'.,
. -;:.;::.:::.~:.;:.; ~~>;:.:. '.~:' .:..:':". '.
I"
).-
....-
.. :
. . :.: ~
. 'if\'. .
."
.. .
'.'
'"::'.: .
.;.... ..
.....~;...
-
ATTACHMENT "E"
-
-
1 .
AGENDA """l
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR. 90-08
o
LOCATION
7
HEARING DATE 9-25-90
o
., --~
.
''''1'''' LA.'
~,
i I
o
~~.~
P~'l PAGE10Fl IUD)
J .
o
EXHIBIT C
o
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE'THE CITY QF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF Variance No. 90-08
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY The Aool;cant
[ SUBJECT: J WARD -#
Variance No. 90-08 1
-
PROPERTY
LOCATION: 885 East Harriman Plance. next to the Pace . .
Center in the Tri-City area.
.
"-
PROPOSAL: To vary code requirement 19.60.220{B) arid (E) to
allow the installation of wall signs on four sides
of the newly constructed "Yoshinoya 8eef Bowl"
restaurant.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" S 1 ~ I
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: November 5, 1990, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED IlESCItIPTlClN OF THE PItOI'OSAL IS ON FILE IN THE PUMING Dl!PAtnIIl!NT 113 CITY
HALL. II' YOU WOULD LIlCI! I'UIITHI!It 1Nl'000000ION ABOUT TIU PIlOPOSAL PIlIOIl TO THE PUeUC
HI!AIlING. PLI!ASI! CONTACT THE PLANNING DI!PAIlTMI!NT IN PI!IlSON 011 I\' PHONING
(7l4 ) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
\. ~
,., ,- '"'