HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-Planning & Building
. .
cn. OF SAN BERNARD. - REQU.T FOft COUNCIL AceON
From:
Frank A. Schuma
Planning Director
Subject:
Appeal of Condition of Approval
for Variance No. 86-4
O..pt:
Pl.,nn; n'l
Mayor and Council Meeting of
April 7, 1986, 2:00 p.m.
Date: March 26, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on March 18, 1986, the following
action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 86-4 was unanimously approved based upon
findings of fact contained in the staff report dated March 4, 1986 and
subject to the conditions and standard requirements listed therein, with
an additional condition, as noted in the letter to the applicant dated
March 25, 1986.
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
~
Signature
Frank A. Schuma
Contact person:
Frank A. Schuma
Phone:
383-5057
Supporting data attached:
Yes, Staff Report
Ward:
3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
2'
Agenda Item No. jt
r
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
ACME.WllEY CORPORATION
OF CALIFORNIA
S!(;SS ASD SYSTI.\IS
9359 II.KOS STRLET
RANCHO CLC A\IOSCA. CALlFOKS'A 91730
PHONE (714) 989-~9U"
March 21, 1986
m
C\
-:;-.
'"
.j
--J
~ ?:
:>
~
-
.' ,~
City of San Bernardino
Mayor's Office & City Council
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92418
-0
'..J
Ui
V1
~'.'
Re: Decision of Planning Commission on Variance #86-4
Dear Mayor & City Council:
Acme Wiley Corporation would like to appeal the Planning
Commission Decision of March 18, 1986 for reader board on
signage at Quality Inn, 666 Fairway Drive, San Bernardino,
Variance #86-4.
We feel that this decision is with our merrit. Your city
code does not deny this location to have a reader board.
Your Planning Department has recommended approval of
Variance #86-4 subject to four conditions, that we feel
are adequate.
Your Engineering Division has no problem with this variance
therefore, we feel that the Planning Commission should not
have any objections with the Planning Departments approval.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely ,
ACME W!LEY CORPORA~ON 1M U~UW~ [ID 1:0 ;a,
I ,//. "'" IT1
......-..'/ ~~, ," I en <'>
/. . .' .
/t<:i/ 17 . >-..-:Al-~ :a: ci
MAR 24 1986 "..
::0 ,
Rick A. Thornton N ;p.
Account Manager CITY PLANNING DEPAR~MENT ~ '='
3':
;- z
RAT/tm SAN BERNARDINO. CA = .
0
.. "rl
00 :'1
.
..
l
.
.
.
CITY OF.SAN BERNARDINO JOONORTH"O"STREET.SAN BERNAROINO.CALIFORNIA 9241B
~
.-..-...-......
EVLYN WILCOX
Mavor
Member, of the Common Council
Esther Estrada. . . . . . . . . . . . . First Ward
Jack Reilly............. . Second Ward
Ralph Hernandez. . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Steve Marks. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Ward
Gordon Qultl . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flftn Ward
Oan Frazier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixth Ward
Jack Strickler . . . . . . . . . . . .Seventh Ward
March 25, 1986
Acme-Wiley Corporation
9359 Feron Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on March 18, 1986,
the following action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 86-4, to exceed the maximum
allowable height and area for a free standing sign in the C-
3A Limited General Commercial zone on property consisting of
approximately 9.59 acres located at the northwest corner of
Fairway Drive and Camino Real, was approved based upon
findings of fact contained in the staff report dated March 4,
1986 and subject to the conditions and standard requirements
listed therein, with the following additional condition:
Conditions:
5.
Th.. int..rior
inn icat..d on
th.. s iqn_
1 iqht..d. donhl..-fac..n marqJl..... as
th.. sit.. plan. shall b.. r..mov..d from
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
19.74.080., the tollowing applies to the above variance:
"The decision ot the Commission shall be final unless an
appeal therefrom is taken to the Common Council as provided
for in this section. Such decision shall not become effec-
tive for ten days from the date that the written decision has
been made and notice thereof mailed to the applicant, during
.~ ;....
,
,. .1.\
~ .
.
.
.
.
Acme-Wiley Corporation
March 25, 1986
Page 2
which time written appeal therefrom may be
Council by the applicant or any other person
such decision. The Council may, upon its own
any Commission decision to be appealed."
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action
ot the Commission shall be final.
taken to the
agg r ieved by
motion, cause
"
~
Respectfully,
~L
FRANK A. SCHUMA
Planning Director
mkf
cc: Engineering Division
J.H.M. California, Inc.
dba Quality Inn
San Bernardino, CA 92408
~ ,
ttclTY OF SAN BEalARDINC>>- MEMORANDlA1
To Planning COllllllission
Subject Variance Ho. 86-4
From
Planning Department
March 18, 1986
Date
Approved
Item No. 12, Ward 3
Date
Applicant:
Acme-Wiley Corporation
9359 Feron Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
J.H.M. California, Inc.
dba Quality Inn
666 Fairway Drive
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Owner:
Variance clo. 86-4 was continued from the Planning COllllllission
meeting of ' March 4, 1986 due to the lack of attendance by the
applicant on the project.
The Planning Staff has notified the applicant on this item
several times to prevent this reocurrance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recollllllends approval of Variance No. 86-4 subject to
original conditions.as previdusly suated.
Respectfully Submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUMA,
Planning Director
Mr~~
Planner
elry Oil rH.:;ftII~
,
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATI;
WARD
12
3/4/86
3
r", '"
r APPLICANT.: Acme-Wiley Corporation
UJ Variance No. 86-4 9359 Feron St.
(I) Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
<E OWNER: J .H.M. California, Inc.
(,) dba Quality Inn
~ 666 Fairway Dr. San Bdno. CA
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist-
t; ing of approximately 9.59 acres located at the northwest corner
IY of Fairway Drive and Camino Real.
=>> The applicant requests a variance of Code Section 19.60.220.F.2.
0
III an!! 3. to exceed the maximum allowable height and area for a
a: free standing sign in the C-3A Limited General Commercial zone.
....
<E
UJ
a::
<E
'-"
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Motel/Commercial C-3A Commercial-Recreational
North Vacant .. .. ..
Sou th Flood Control -- Flood Control/Reservoir
East I-2l5 Freeway "0" Commercial-Recreational
West Vacant C-3A .. ..
( GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC IE YES ( FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A d SEWERS iii YES
HAZARD ZONE ONO ZONE i1NO OZONE B oNO
P
( HIGH FIRE DYES AIRPORT NOISE / is) YES C REDEVELOPMENT gJ YES 1
HAZARD ZONE [iNO CRASH ZONE ONO PROJECT AREA ONO
oJ o NOT o POTENTI AL SIGNI FICANT Z iii APPROVAL
j! APPLI CABLE EFFECTS 0
-
WITH MITIGATING t( iii CONDITIONS
Z(I) MEASURES NO E.I.R.
lYe!) iii EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO I&..Q 0 DENIAL
2Z 1&..15
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ;!2
OQ WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES (1)2
-- 0
>""
Z oNO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS (,)
IY SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED 1tR. C. IY
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
-..' " 'j
rk
NOV. 1'81 _IVI.ID oIUL.V ,...
SMY
<.
CITY OF SAN BERre-RDINO P~NING DEPARTMEN.
CASE variance 86-4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
12
3/4/86
(
.
1.
The request is to waive section 19.60.220.F.2. and 3 of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code to exceed the maximum
allowable height and area for a freeway oriented identi-
fication sign in the C-3A Limited General Commercial
zone. Said Municipal Code Section states in part:
F.
Freeway identification signs:
1. One additional free-standing sign shall
be allowed for those businesses located
within four hundred feet of a freeway.
Such sign must be for the specilic intent
or purpose of identification from the
freeway.
2. An overall height of fifty square feet of
advertising area shall be permitted.
3. Maximum of one hundred fifty square feet
of advertising acea shall be permitted.
The subject property is located north of Fa~rway Drive
and west of Camino Real on an existing motel site.
.
.'
2. The height of the existing sign is 40 feet, (ten feet
over current Code requirement). The area of the signage
is approximately 356 square feet overall, again, this
exceeds Code. The sign recently has been down-sized and
represents an overall improvement. (The original sign
was approximately 900 feet .~n area and approximately 45
feet in height.)
3. Other Code requirements for freeway oriented signs such
as setbacks and locations have been met on the site
plan.
4. The following waivers of maximum sign area and height
have been approved by the Mayor and Common Council along
the I-IO and I-215 Freeway corridors:
Vari,anr!f!! No..
L04.':!at. inn
~
82-1
(212/82)
Southwest corner
Second and WB"
Streets
Waive maximum
height and
area
82-18
(12/7/82)
South side of
Hospitality
Ln. approx.
1,160 ft. west
~" LT., ...
Waive maximum
area and
height
I
,
. .
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DE? ARTMENT
CASE Variance 86-4
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA I Te:M
HEARING DATe:
PAGE
12
3/4/86
84-13
(8/7/84)
Northeast corner
of Highland Ave.
and State High-
way 30
To permit free-
way sign less
than 100 ft.
from residen-
tially zoned
property
85-7
(6/24/85)
South side of
Second St. and
north of Rialto
Ave. between
"G" St. and
1-215 Freeway
Waive maximum
height and
area
5.
~
A larger sign has been i~'place for approximately 20
years at this particular location. Due to the freeway
interchange grade difference, the additional 10 feet
above the Code maximum of 40 feet is necessary for
southbound freeway travelers to view the sign at a
sufficient distance to merge into the right two lanes
which connect to the 1-10 Freeway and the Mount Vernon
Avenue off-ramp which provides freeway access to the
site. Accordingly, northbo~nd travelers on 1-215 must
proceed approximately three quarters of a mile to exit
on the Orange Show Road off-ramp in order to proceed to
the site under consideration. Freeway visibility for
travelers on the 1-10 Freeway is also restricted due to
the grade difference, requiring additional sign height
and area.
Northwest corner
of 1-215 Free-
way ~.
Wave maximum
sign height
6.
At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Environmental
Review Committee held on February 13, 1986, it was
determined that the project was categorically exempt
from environmental review.
...
..
.
CITY OF SAN SER
RDINO PL
NING DEPARTMEN
CASE ""ri "n".. Rfi-4
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
12
3/4/86
4
~
A. There are 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 properties in the same zoning dis-
trict and neighborhood.
Appli~an~'s R@apnnse:
.Seventy percent of our business comes from impulse
buyers, so in order to get our fair share of business,
we feel it is necessary to have the size and height sign
in order to be seen from the Freeway.. --.
Staff's Response:
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be
granted only because of special circumstances applicable
to, the property including size, shape, topography,
loCation or surroundings. Interstate 215 is so designed
to have few on-off ramps in the subject area, the
closest being Orange Show Road northbound and Mount
Vernon Avenue (off-ramp is located westbound on Inter-
state 10, southwest of the property under consider-
ation). Since the site is relatively isolated from
other commercial uses and has limited vehicular access
from the freeway, a sign height and area is necessary to
provide sign visibility for the existing motel complex.
The motel site is located below the Interstate 1-10 and
1-215 interchange by 25 feet. In order for the motel to
obtain visibility, additional sign height and area is
necessary.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli-
cant.
~pplicant's Response:
.Without the height and size of signage, applicant feels
that there is very little chance for proper visibility
and right to fair trade..
Staff's R@spnnse:
Substantial property right refers to the right
the property in a manner which is on a par
allowed to other property owners which are
vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose
to
with
in
of
use
uses
the
the
,
'c
CITY OF SAN BER
DINO PL
ING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 86-4
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM 12
HEARING DATE 1/4 /R6
PAGE <;
variance is to restore parity where the strict applica
tion of the zoning law deprives such property owners of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification.
The City has given approval to other variances concern-
ing freeway oriented signs along the I-2l5 and I-10
corridors, as indicated in Table A. This variance,
along with the other, traditionally concern signage area
and height.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property and improvements in-the zoning district and
neighborhood in which the property is located.
Applicant's Response:
"The signage for the location will not cause any prob-
lems or changes in the general procedure and matter of
operation to local businesses, nor will it affect any
unconcerned parties in a detrimental manner."
Staff Response:
In determining the application for a variance, the best
interest of the entire community is the controlling
factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of
the property in question for a particular use.
This variance is for an existing sign to identify a
major motel complex at the southern entrance to the
City. The variance will not be detrimental to the
public we;fare or injurious to surrounding properties.
The prevlous sign did not create concerns or problems
from an environmental or safety standpoint. Surrounding
properties are primarily vacant and said sign would
produce less impact than the original sign at the same
location.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be con-
trary to the objectives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's ReSpong~:
N/A
St.aff ResponRP-:
\
CITY OF SAN SER
DINO PLA NING DEPARTMENT
CASE Variance 86-4
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM 12
HEARING DATE 3/4/86
PAGE 6
The Comprehensive General Plan of the City of San
Bernardino projects the property to be developed in
Commercial-Recreational uses and the approval of said
application is in conformance with the goals and objec-
tives and policies established within said Plan.
the motel complex is within the intent of the City's
General Plan designation of Commercial-Recreational.
RF.COMMENnATTON
Staff reco~ends approval of Variance No. 86-4 based on the
observations and findings of fact contained in the staff
report and subject to the conditions attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK A. SCHUKA
Planning Director
Associate Planner
.
CITY
. .
OF SAN BERNARDINO
.
CASE Variance 86-4
ST ANDARD REQUIREMENTS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
12
3/4/86
R
"
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Project Description: Variancf! No. R6-4
Overheiaht free_~tandinQ sian for Qualitv
~nn
(;.QI6.bt.f.eAS Da te :
Prepared By: rrG
Page 1 0
2-~8-86
Rev ewed By:
1 pages
GRK
Q,wae~/Appl i cant:
Dualitv Inn
NOTE TO APPLICANT: Where separate
Eng1neerlng plans are required, the
applicant is responsible for
sUbmitting the Engineering plans
directly to the Engineering Division.
They may be submitted prior to
submittal of Building Plans.
t.
1. 5i gn shall not encroach into, or overhang, the public right-of-
way.
2. Planter area at base of sign shall not be higher than 36" if it
is to be within the triangle of visibility for the
intersection, which is defined as a 30' x 3D' triangle as
measured along the curb lines from their point of intersection,
if prolonged.
~ ~
lias sky
.
.
.
2.4:1'- 0 II
_p_ ___u____{_
- -t---- d
---,--~.~-_...~_.__.-.._,.--
\\I
~
,0
I
\D
'"
"
'"
':""'~ """"~""""''''''''---'''
.~r,"""''::lll___~_'''---
.... )'''~'. 1.'...__......~,'t1'Vl'---- '
.',<,:, .~....."",_..-.....' """"'~~--.
R , . / ~/- 2h " (6'';'') lot. \
~ la-2~ o.c. lpoLa.c:l l .r-
,.8lS...0PGII.,..,CS,At.r.uPMS!;
,,"fOIlO'!IINO "'IW!'
\2." PIPe..
,
o
"
!?
l,,-,srAt.l- c..19 T WAl.,K.
&lfCIf ..S/O~ - -SE&
EU4-0JC~1CIAJ~.
-,
.
,
o
, .
~
..
.
.
.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE Var. 1/86-4
HEARING DATE 03/ 18/86
12
CoM w)
BtOOO "ANK RO.
> '''=800'
.0.
~ C-Iol
.0.
CoM 101-1
'b. CoM .
C-Io\
1
C-M C'3A N
.0. :l:
.. ...
SITE "
0 u .
.. c
~ CoM
~
x C'M
--- !a
8. CITY LIMITS X ....
...
I l-
. <t
I l- I-
lI)
a:
C3A ... C-M
I-
~
"0.1
CoM
~O~ "0-" C-3A.
~O( C-3A
~LN
C-3A f. J[
@ C-3A
--
RE
~ - (( . .
C