Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-Planning and Building Services CITY OF SAN BER,QRDINO - REQUEST OR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Var iance No. 91-06, Appeal of Planning Commission Denial Dept: Planning & Building Services Daw: January 7, 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On October 29, 1991, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 91-06. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal of Variance No. 91-06 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit D; or That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council approve Variance No. 91-06 in concept and refer the matter back to staff to develop positive Findings of Fact. e Conwct person: Al Bouqhey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N III Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. DescriPtion) Finance: Council Notes: ..co .......I:::? Agenda Item No. ~:L CITY OF SAN BERNODINO - REQUEST F~ COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of variance No. 91-06, requesting approval of a variance from Development Code section 19.22.150C(ld) to construct a 65-foot tall pole sign with 85 square feet of sign area per face. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 REOUEST The owner, C. James Fabian (d.b.a. Oak Creek Inns), is appealing the denial of Variance No. 91-06 by the Planning Commission. Under the authority of Development Code section 19.72.030, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the installation of a 65-foot tall pole sign with 85 square feet of sign area per face; Code section 19.22.150C(ld) permits a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum area of 32 square feet. The subject property consists of 0.78 acres located at the southeast corner of sixth and "H" streets, and is the site of the 58-room Super 8 Motel (formerly villa Viejo Motel). The land use designation of the site is CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown. BACKGROUND On April 29, 1991, the application for Variance No. 91-06 was submitted, and on September 16, 1991, the application was deemed complete and accepted for processing. On October 29, 1991, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on Variance No. 91-06. The hearing consisted of a presentation of Staff I s analysis and recommendation and a rebuttal by Mr. Fabian; no other persons were present to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal. Staff described how the necessary findings could not be made to support the proponents' request. Additionally, Staff expressed doubt that an oversized sign would increase occupancy at the motel in question, given the concentration of hotels and motels in the Hospitality District, as well as the possible oversaturation of hotels and motels in the City. Mr. Fabian refuted Staff's findings, arguing that circumstances applicable to the property and its surroundings warrant the granting of a variance. He identified the subject property as the only one at the intersection of "G" and Sixth Streets that does not have freeway visible signage. He also expressed his view that no other viable alternative to the proposed sign exists that would 7S.0264 o 0 Variance No. 91-06 Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 Page 2 effectively increase occupancy at the motel. In closing, he stated that if the city approves the variance, he would agree to remove and/or bring up to code all other on-site signage that does not conform to current Development Code standards. Based on the discussion and in agreement with the staff recommendation, a motion for denial was made and seconded by a unanimous vote of the six attending commissioners (Exhibit B). On November 8, 1991, Oak Creek Inns submitted an appeal of the Planning commission's denial of Variance No. 91-06 (Exhibit A). OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 91-06. OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the appeal, approve Variance No. 91-06 in concept and direct Staff to prepare findings. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Mayor and Common council deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 91-06 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit D. Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP Director of Planning and Building Services D - Letter of Appeal Statement of Planning commission Action Official Notice of Public Hearing before the Mayor and Common Council Staff Report to the Planning commission dated October 29, 1991 Letter of support from neighboring property owner Exhibits: A - B - C - E - -- Oak Creek Inn 2808 S. 72nd Str..1 O,.,aha. NE 68124 (4C2) 397.7137 Executive Inn 3530 Westown Parkway West Des Moines. 1.0. 50265 (515) 225.1144 Oak Creek Inn 2645 Harbor Boulevard Costa Mesa. C.o. 92626 (714) 545-9471 Oak Creek I""/Villa Viejo 777 W. Sixth Street San Bernardino. CA 92410 (7141889.3561 Oak Creek Inn/Seacht,wn 4201 E. Pacific Coast Hwy, Lon; Beach. Co 90804 (2'3) 597.7701 Executive Offices 55C S, SIal. College Blvd. Fe:'."on, CA 92631 (7'" 879.4920 o ~;,-! ~ ~ ~ ~ V} ~II n ~ I J i -''--' NO'! 0 8 1391 ~ C\T'{ .:y: S::.N a~~": :._;:;:;;~.~o :;':;::1':' ~7'...'::':~' 0:= ?!. .l.~" ~;.:G :.. ~:..;._;; 'iC: ':;::::'J.C:";; 1 ,.~ '1 , ;":"'"'" i .. , is' " A 1 1 ',' ~, ,~ ('j { \ r ' 1 ..." \ , \ \ 1 I !J , ,- . ':;ff ~J i : . ,. J If-ol Toll Free Reservations (800) 228-9669 November 5, 1991 City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 Subject: Super 8 Motel 777 W. 6th St. San Bernardino, CA 92410 Re: Appeal Denial of Variance Ii 91-06 Meeting Date 10-29-91 To whom it may concern: This letter is to formally appeal the denial of variance no. 91-06 to allow 65' sign. The reasons for the appeal are self explanatory in the attached letter. Also enclosed is a check for the $106.00 required for the appeal. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 714-879-4920. ohn Morrin Oak Creek Inns EXHIBIT "A" u- .- MaTEL ~ s o MIDWEST MOTEL SUPPLY, INC. SIGN DIVISION o A SUBSIDIARY OF SUPER 8 MOTELS. INC. March 25, 1991 City of San Bernardino planning/Building Services Dept. ATIN: Katherine Marshall 300 North 'D' Street San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 TO THE BOARD: We are requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign 85 square . feet and 65' overall height. OUr main custcmer is the traveling public. !n order to reach the custcmer, we feel that it is necessary to have this height for our internationally recognized Super 8 Motel identification sign. Not only will the custaner and our =.:el benefit fran this variance, but the surrounding businesses ':ill as well. When the traveling public stays in our motel, they generally need services such as gas, food and entertainment which would be provided by the area businesses. Thus we feel that this sign will not take anything away fran the ccmnuni ty. nor will it carpranise the codes set up in your city. There are other signs in the vicinity which are approximately at this height which do not jeopardise anything or the safety of anyone. The safety of our custcmer is very important to Super 8 Motels. This added height greatly increases the safety of our custcmer and other traveling public. It give the visibility needed to safely guide them to their destination. In calclusion, we feel that it is vital to our operation to success- fully serve our custcmers and this carmunity where the business is located. We appreciate your time and careful consideration of this request for a freestanding 1.D. sign 65 'J.A.H. and 85 sq. ft. Sincerely, /r2t /. <' / ?"tt4'l ~:Ie'~./ 'Matt Himrich Sign Coordinator/Expeditor " O. BOX 4090 . ABERDEEN. SOUTH DAKOTA 57402-4090 . 605-225.2272 . FAX 605-225-1140 -- Q fQ City of San Bernardino STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION PROJECT Number: variance No. 91-06 Owner: Midwest Motel Supply, Inc. C. James Fabian Applicant: ACTION Meeting Date: October 29, 1991 X Denied based upon Findings of Fact (Attachment B) . . YQn Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: Clemensen, Jordan, Lindseth, Lopez, Romero, Stone None None Cole, Ortega, Valles I, hereby, certify that this Statement of accurately reflects the final determination commiSS~O~.. ~f ~e/City of San Bernardino. ~ ""iJLi~ Signa ure "" Al Bouahev. Director of Plannina and Buildina Services Name and Title Official Action of the Planning I, Irh' Date' cc: Project Property Owner Project Applicant Building Oivision Engineering Division Case File WP pcaction EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF SAN BERNA INO PLANNING AND BUILDING VICES DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL ('U'JEeT )EJ VARIANCE NO. 91-06 (APPEAL) PROPERTY LOCATION: Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of about 0.78 acres located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and "H" Street having a frontage of about 300 feet on the south side of 6th Street and a frontage of 130 feet on the east aide of "H" Street and further described as being located at 777 West 6th Street. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval of a Variance of Code section 19.22.150(C)(1)(d) to construct a 65 foot tall double sided pole sign with 85 square feet of sign area per face in the CR-2, Commercial Regional/Downtown General Plan land use designation. PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNARDINO CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 NORTH "0" STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92418 HEARING DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, January 21, 1992 2:00 A delatleclllMc:nPbOn GI the propoulll on file In the PI."rllng ..a Building SeMces Depanmem MOly Hell. If~"lul'ltlet wttormahOn aIlou'l tnllprq>>ONl gnortothe public hearing. .... conI8CIIN P\Inning and BUlIdIng Setvces [)epattmem In person or by phonrng (7t4j384-5057. Tn. Mayor and Common Council it ~ng your Plrt\CIC)MIOn. II you are unaDllt to an~. you IMY 1UbmIII","*, comments 1'1 tavorot or In opJM)SlClOn to the ~ 10 the P1annng and EkllkIinO s.McH Department. Sin Bematono City Hall. 300 Not(t'I"O' StrMl, San e.mardIno. CaIifomII92418. 0ecl1lOl'lS Of the Planl'llt'lQ COl'M\ISIIOIl are final coneemmg bullOlng IT\OVlngs. Con. dltiOnal Use Permits. Rev1ew of Plans. TentMtYe TrKt MaPs anCI Vanll'lCeS. unIHs appealeCllO the Mayor and Common Counal. ~1I1O the Mayor ancI Common Council muSl De maot In Wfitlng. SWIng 1M grouncts Of me appeal. and mUIT be submmecllO the . City CIenl. alonowfth theapt)fOpflate 1M WI1ftIl'l tiftMn lII.ys Of the(leClllOn (ten days tor Parcel MapS' and Tenmttve T~K1 Maps). General P1.n Amendments MCI AmenOments 10 the MunICIpal Code will automati- cally be 1000.rded 10 the Mayor and Common CouriCll tor tlnal actIOn If youCNIll<<lgllttlltrnulUlnt ~ottheMayor and Common Counc:il In coun. you may De ~mlted 10 t....ng only thOU ISSUeS you Cll' sornctOM llse ra.sed It !he publIC hIIanng oescnDlKllntrHSnot1Ce. Ol'lnwnhtlCO~cI."YlI'eototh.Clty Plann.ngOw..lOn a.. Ot poor to. !he publIC hMmg. tnriNtduat InbmDnll on atWnda nem!!l IIIdl he !.Irlcllll hmllad 10 hilA mlnule5 Dilr - C'....~~....H~ CEllini... H1""TING 5EI'MCES PLAN-9.07 PAGE' OF , (6-901 EXHIBIT "e" o o city of San Bernardino MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planninq co_ission FROM: Planning staff SUBJECT: Variance No. 91-06 DATE: October 15, 1991 COPIES: project pile Item #1 The above referenced application was originally scheduled on the Planning Co_ission agenda for October 8, 1991. Due to illness, the property owner requested a continuance to the next scheduled Planning co_ission hearing. At the October 8, 1991 meeting, the planning Co_ission approved a continuance to October 29, 1991. Gregory S. Gubman Assistant Planner Enclosure: Staff report and attachments EXHIBIT "D" r' - - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT "" SUMMARY w (/) c o AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE WARD 5 10-8-91 1 ..<I APPLICANT: Midwest Motel Supply, Inc P.O. Box 4090 Aberdeen, SD 57402-4090 C. James Fabi' an 550 State Co lege Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92631 VARIANCE NO. 91-06 OWNER: t) W ~ a w ~ Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030, the applicant is requesting a variance from Code Section 19.22.150 lId) to allow the installation of a 65 foot tall pole sign with 85 square feet of sign area per face. - Subject property consists of 0.78 acres located at the southeast corner of 6th Street and "H" Street. c w ~ C EXISTING PRO~ERTY LAND USE ZONING SubJect Mote I CR-2 North Gas Station/Mini Mart CR-2 South Vacant CR-2 East Bus Terminal CR-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Commercial Regional Downtown Commercial Regional Downtown Commercial Regional Downtown Commercial Regional Downtown GEOLOGIC I SEISMIC 0 YES HAZARD ZONE: !O{NO HIGH FIRE 0 YES HAZARD ZONE: XX NO ..I 0 NOT C APPLICABLE t- Z(/) ~ ~ ~EMPT Z- OCl ~iE -IL. ~ 0 NO SIGNIFICANT W EFFECTS CIT'f Of WIllI.........., --- FLOOD HAZARD 0 YES 0 ZONE A ZONE: XKl NO 0 ZONE B nnwn~nt&Tn ( SEWERS: ~ES ) o NO . REDEVELOPMENT X~ YES PROJECT AREA: AIRPORT NOISE! 0 YES CRASH ZONE: KKNO o NO o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z 0 APPROVAL EFFECTS WITH 0 MITIGATING MEASURES - NO E.I,R. !;E 0 CONDITIONS IL.Cl o E.l.R. REQUIRED BUT NO IL.Z fi DENIAL SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CW WITH MITIGATING t)::& MEASURES ~ 0 CONTINUANCE TO o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES ~ PLAN.IU)2 PAGE 1 OF 1 (""'J , - ...." CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE Var 91-06 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 10-8-91 PAGE 2 II. ... ~ ..... REOUEST Under the authority of Development Code section 19.72.030, the applicant is requesting a variance from Code Section 19.22.150C(ld} to allow the installation of a 65-foot tall pole sign with 85 square feet of sign area per face. SITE LOCATION The subject property consists of 0.78 acres located at the southeast corner of sixth and "H" Streets, and is the site of the 58-room Villa Viejo Motel. The land use designation of the site is CR-2, Commercial Regional-Downtown. CEOA STATUS Variance No. 91-06 has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Article 19, Section 15311. BACKGROUND On May 20, 1963, the Mayor and Common Council approved Conditional Development Permit No. 276 to allow the construction of a motel on the subject property. On September 26, 1963, a permit was issued to allow the installation of three illuminated signs on the site. On April 29, 1991, the application for Variance No. 91-06 was submitted, and on September 16, 1991, the application was deemed complete and accepted for processing. ANALYSIS variance Request The Villa Viejo Motel is currently in the process of becoming an affiliate of the Super 8 Motels chain. The request for the variance is based on the applicant's desire to increase the occupancy rate at the motel. According to John Morrin, a representative of the property owner, the occupancy rate at the 58-unit motel is typically at 30 percent of capacity. Because the primary market of the motel is the "traveling public," the applicant feels that a sign with freeway visibility, displaying the recognized "Super 8 Motel" logo, is an effective way of reaching the target market. II.. .... ~~~ PLAN-8.oe PAGE 1 OF , (4-90) ~ - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 3 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ,... site Characteristics The 1-215 freeway has an offramp that transitions into sixth street at "H" street (see vicinity map, Attachment G). The subject property, at the southeast corner of sixth and "H" streets, is directly across the street from offramp transition. Three freestanding signs, two approximately 25 feet in height, identify the motel. Surrounding land uses consist of service stations to the north and west, another motel to the northwest, and a bus terminal to the east. The motel and service stations have large, freeway visible signs. Other properties in the vicinity consist of various commercial and residential uses, as well as vacant land. Development Code Standards Code Section 19.22.150C(ld) allows one double-face monument sign per street frontage of 150 feet or more, with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum area of 32 square feet. Pursuant to Code Section 19.22.110, these standards would render the existing signs on the property as nonconforming. The applicant has indicated willingness to abate these signs if this variance is approved. proposed Sign Design The applicant proposes to construct a 65-foot tall structural steel pole sign. The overall height is 65 feet, consisting of 53 feet of visible structural steel and a 12-foot tall sign cabinet. The proposed sign cabinet is eight feet wide with an overall area of 85 square feet. The proposed sign face will have the Super 8 Motel logo and colors, consisting of black and red letters on a yellow background. The sign is proposed to be installed adjacent to the building on the "H" Street frontage (please see sign elevations and site plan, Attachment F). Hotel/Motel occupancy Rates in the City As previously discussed, the applicant's request for a variance is based on the assumption that a freeway-visible sign is a major determinant of hotel/motel occupancy. To investigate the possible correlation, Staff has reviewed the transient occupancy tax returns for the month of June, 1991. On the returns, the licensees are requested to provide the occupancy rate for the filing period. Of the 45 returns submitted, 17 licensees provided occupancy information (please see Attachment E). .. ~.=,.r.r::: ....,j PI.AN-8.D1 PAGE' OF 1 (4-8Cl1 F' Q ""I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 4 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ,..- """" While the size of the sample and time scope is too small to allow for adequate statistical assessment, the data did provide some interesting information. The average occupancy rate for those reporting was 55 percent, with a range from eight percent to 94 percent. The highest overall occupancy was concentrated in the Hospitality district, where the average occupancy rate was 81 percent. While four of the reporting Hospitality district businesses have freeway frontages and signs, one of those four had the lowest occupancy rate for this area. Interestingly, the two with the highest occupancy rates, Super 8 Lodge and Comfort Inn, do not have freeway frontages; nor do they have signage that is prominently visible from the freeway. However, they are located near the northbound Waterman Avenue exit, which is a major entry node into the city (General Plan, p. 5-8). Of the other businesses worth noting: Maruko Hotel reported 52 percent occupancy rate; Ramada Inn reported 39 percent occupancy; Motel 6, at the 1-215 and University Parkway--with virtually no northbound freeway visibility--reported June occupancy at 90 percent. The continental 9 motel, similar in geographic setting to the applicant's location, but with a large freeway oriented sign, reported an occupancy rate of 25 percent. To summarize the above findings, location and name recognition, rather than signage alone, appear to be the major forces influencing hotel and motel occupancy rates. A characteristic of the Hospitality district worth noting is that it is perhaps the most attractive, active and safe of the City's commercial districts; and these characteristics, combined with the district's location at the major entry point to the city, are likely to draw travelers away from the city's other hotels and motels. While the subject property is well kept, its surroundings may appear unsafe to potential customers. Finally, noting the demise of Route 66 and the absence of significant regional tourism draws to the City, the area may be oversaturated with its 45 hotels and motels, and the pressures toward attrition are not likely to be reversed by the introduction of freeway oriented signage. Mandatory Variance Findinqs Section 65906 of the California Government Code identifies specific parameters under which a variance may be granted. section 19.72.050 of the Development Code incorporates these provisions into the mandatory findings that the Commission must make prior to granting a variance. These requirements are discussed in the following paragraphs. .... ~~~:::i PL,AN-8.08 PAGE' OF 1 (4<<1) r - - CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 5 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE .. I"'" Pursuant to the Development Code, there must be special circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strict application of the Code to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same land use district classification. In a written response intended to establish the need for a variance (Attachments C and OJ, the applicant holds that the nature of the motel business constitutes a special circumstance in that its clientele, the "traveling public", must be reached from the freeway--even if the motel itself does not have freeway frontage or visibility. The applicant also pointed out that there are several properties in the vicinity of the subject property that currently have oversized signs. The granting of a variance must be found to not create a detriment to the public health safety or welfare. The applicant responded that the granting of this variance will not be a detriment to the community. Rather, the applicant feels that the community will benefit from their large sign: as customers are drawn to the motel, they will also be drawn to the services provided by the surrounding area businesses, such as gas, food and entertainment. The City may not grant a variance if it constitutes a special privilege that is not consistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located. The applicant does not feel that the granting of this variance constitutes a special privilege in that other properties in the vicinity of the subject property have signs similar in size as the one proposed under this variance application. staff's Pindings 1. Special Circumstances Staff physically inspected the subject property and vicinity to determine if there exist any special circumstances applicable to the property--including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings--that would place it at a direct disadvantage with other properties in the vicinity and identical land use classification if the Development Code sign standards were strictly applied. In terms of physical characteristics and freeway visibility, the property is essentially identical to all others in the vicinity. The freeway corridor adjacent to the vicinity of the subject property is densely landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, and as a result, virtually all commercial properties are screened from freeway view. While the subject property is not ....j ClT'tCll''''''''''''''' --- PL,AN.a.o& PAGE 1 OF 1 (A-IO) r' () CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 6 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ""III afforded freeway visibility, neither the surrounding area. Therefore, circumstances cannot be made. are the other businesses in the finding for special 2. Necessity For the Preservation of a Property Right The applicant argues that, by denying this variance, the subject property will be denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity that are "benefiting by the use of their highrise signage." The signs that the applicant is referring to--Arco, Best Western/Sands Motel, Chevron--are classified by City codes as nonconforming signs. These signs were once permitted by the Municipal Code, but are now deemed inappropriate uses within City of San Bernardino, and shall be removed pursuant to an amortization schedule. While these few businesses are possibly enjoying certain benefits, they are the exception, not the rule, and every other property owner in the vicinity is subject to the same standards as the applicant. It should also be noted that the motel in question has been in business since the early 1960s, and its operators had the opportunity for several years thereafter to install a sign of the same scale that it is currently proposing. The property was subject to essentially the same physical constraints as it is now, but circumstances apparently didn't necessitate a 65-foot tall sign: this raises the question that there are possibly other forces that have led to a decline in the motel's occupancy rates today. It was the original developer's business decision to construct a motel in this location, and the long term implications of that decision may have been unforseen. 3. Health, Safety and General Welfare As discussed previously, the applicant feels that, instead of posing a detriment, the granting of this variance will benefit the the surrounding businesses that provide incidental services. Staff disagrees. Visual pollution is not a new concern, and it has been an effort of communities nationwide to minimize its impacts through comprehensive urban design policies. The regulation of the sizes of signs has always been a major component of these policies, and the City of San Bernardino has placed similar emphasis in recent years through the implementation of policies to minimize the number, size and placement of signs in private development. .. ...,j CITY 01 ... ......., --- PLAN-8.OB PAGE t OF 1 (4.QO) ('i CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 7 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ~ Staff also disagrees with the applicant's assertion that the granting of this variance will significantly benefit the community. If the business in question was similar in size to the Maruko Hotel, the argument may hold some validity. But this motel has only 58 rooms. An optimistic result of allowing this sign is that the motel's occupancy will increase by fifteen rooms per night. While this may benefit the motel, it probably would not significantly improve the downtown economy. Taking the negative visual impact of the sign into consideration, the net benefit of allowing the proposed sign, in a social context, may be negligible. 4. Special Privilege While a small number of other businesses have signs that do not conform to Development Code standards, and while the applicant requests on-site identity commensurate with the neighborhood, .Staff's interpretation of a special privilege precludes the making of a favorable finding. Those properties with nonconforming signs are enjoying a special privilege under the City'S "grandfather" provisions. Hence, the applicant is essentially requesting the same special privilege. 5. General Plan Consistency Perhaps the most important finding that the Commission must make is that the granting of this variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan contains several policies to minimize the size, number and placement of signs and to prohibit the use of signs which dominate buildings, architecture or the districts in which they are located. But the most critical policy with respect to this application is Policy 1.45.6, which states that the City of San Bernardino shall prohibit the development of pole signs in key activity districts, including the downtown. The district in which the subject property is located is designated by the General Plan as CR-2, Commercial Regional/Downtown. Therefore, it is the finding of Staff that this variance request is inconsistent with the General Plan. Alternative. to a Variance There are several advertising options available to the applicant that can be viewed as alternatives to a variance for an oversized sign. One alternative is to lease billboard space: while new billboards, are prohibited in the city, there is an abundance of existing freeway visible billboard space in the vicinity of the subject property (Staff has observed 672 square-foot billboards ... PlAN-e.oe PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-90) ClTYClF...""""-O --...... r-. r - .... CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING CASE VAR 91-06 AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 5 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 10 8-91 PAGE 8 .... along the 1-215 and 1-10 freeways which identify the locations and directions to upcoming national chain motels). Another option is to participate in Caltrans' Adopt-a-Highway program. By providing manpower or financial assistance for highway litter removal, wildflower planting or tree planting, Caltrans will place a recognition panel along the state highway with the text, logos and colors of the participant's choice. The Adopt-a-Highway alternative may not be necessary, however, because Caltrans has already provided a sign immediately south of the Sixth Street offramp (which is used to reach the subject property) alerting northbound 1-215 travelers that lodging is available at the next exit. Another advertising alternative, which the motel is currently enjoying, is a three-diamond rating in the 1991 American Automobile Association (AAA) California/Nevada Tour Book. Of the 45 licensed hotels and motels in the City, the Villa Viejo Motel is one of only nine listed in the tour book. Of those nine; the Villa Viejo Motel is one of only two with a feature ad. CONCLUSION It is the intent of the General Plan and Development Code to prevent the further proliferation of oversized signs, as they are viewed as inappropriate and are associated with the degradation of the aesthetic integrity and blight of the City's commercial areas. Given the location of the subject property and the number of motels and hotels in more marketable locations, it is unlikely that the granting of this variance will significantly benefit the community. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that would merit the granting of this variance. Alternatives exist that would serve essentially the same purpose as a variance. The granting of this variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan. l C1fYC7"'~ --- P!.AN-8.D8 PAGE 1 OF 1 (...eD) t""\ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CASE VAR 91-06 r' 5 10-8-91 9 ..... OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 91-06 based on the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B). Respectfully submitted, 6:c~ Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services ATTACHMENTS: A - Development Code Conformance Table B - Findings of Fact C - Letter from the Applicant D - Applicant's Response to Findings E - Reported June Motel Occupancy Rates F - Site Plan and Elevations G - Location Map ~'=I~ PL.AN-8.08 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4.QO) Attachment "A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VAR 91-06 5 10-8-91 10 AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE OBSERVATIONS r ""I DEVELOPMENT CODB CONFORMANCB Cateaorv DeveloDment Code Standard Permitted in CR-2 ProDosal Use Freestanding 1.0. Sign Type Pole Monument only with planter base or landscape area equal to 4 times the area of one face of the sign Maximum number One (deleting existing fls signs) One per street frontage of at least ISO' Maximum area 85 square feet per faee 32 square feet per face Maximum height 65' 8' above grade or 4' above top of planter or berm l. PLAN4.oB PAGE' OF 1 (4-QO) ~.=r~ r' Attacnment "J:j" (j t"'\ - CASE VIIR Cl1-06 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT .. FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE ...,j 5 10-8-91 11 r' ...... 1. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the Development Code deprives the subject property of priveleges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use district classification; in terms of physical characteristics and freeway visibility, the property is on essentially equal terms with other properties in the vicinity. The freeway corridor adjacent to the vicinity of the subject property is densely landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, and as a result, virtually all commercial properties are screened from public view. 3. The granting of this variance request is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property possessed by other properties in the vicinity and denied to the property for which the variance is sought, in that the properties that are utilizing signs that are similar in scale to that which the applicant requests are granted unique exceptions pursuant to the Development Code's provisions for nonconforming signs; all other properties not in possession of this nonconforming status are, and shall be, subject. to the same Development Code sign standards as the subject property. The granting of this variance request will be detrimental to the public health and welfare in that the City of San Bernardino recognizes that signs of excessive scale in general are associated with visual clutter and blight, and this request does not foster significant mitigating benefits. The granting of this variance request constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located in that all other such properties, except those afforded the special privilege of legal nonconforming status, are subject to limitations that are no less stringent than those placed upon the subject property. 4. 5. The granting of this variance request would not allow a use that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel in that the on-site identity of commercial uses is permitted by the Development Code. ...,j ... PLAN-8.06 PAGE 1 OF 1 (4-QO) ClT'ftll.........-.:l --- rl CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT - CASE VAR 91-06 r- 5 10-8-91 12 FINDINGS OF FACT AGENDA ITEM HEARING DATE PAGE . ,.. 6. The granting of this variance request will be inconsistent with the General Plan, in that General Plan Policy 1.45.6 states that the city of San Bernardino shall prohibit the pole signs in key activity districts, including the downtown. Also, General Plan Objective 1.45 and General Plan policies 1.45.4 and 1.45.8 are intended to minimize the size, number and placement of signs, and to prohibit the use of signs which dominate buildings, architecture or the districts in which they are located. ~=T.:zw...D PLAN-8.D6 PAGE t OF 1 (4.QO) ~ !lU"~ A ~. Attacnment I'C I, MIDWEST ~EL SUPPLY, INC. SIGN DIVISION o A SUBSIDIARY OF SUPER 8 MOTELS, INC. March 25, 1991 City of san Bernardino planning/Building Services Dept. A'I'IN: Katherine Marshall 300 North I D I Street San Bernardino. CA 92418-0001 TO THE IlOI\RD: We are requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign 85 square feet and 65 I overall height. Our main customer is the traveling public. In order to reach the customer, we feel that it is necessary to have this height for our internationally recognized Super 8 Motel identification sign. Not only will the customer and our motel benefit fran this variance, but the surrounding businesses will, as well. When the traveling public stays in our motel. they generally need services such as gas. food and entertainment which would be provided by the area businesses. Thus we feel that this sign will not take anything away fran the cannuni ty. nor will it coopranise the codes set up in your city. There are other signs in the vicinity which are approximately at this height which do not jeopardise anything or the safety of anyone. The safety of our customer is very important to Super 8 Motels. This added height greatly increases the safety of our customer and other traveling public. It give the visibility needed to safely guide than to their destination. In CCJ1clusion. we feel that it is vital to our operation to success- fully serve our customers and this cannunity where the business is located. We appreciate your time and careful consideration of this request for a freestanding 1.D. sign 65' a.A.H. and 85 sq.ft. Sincerely. /(2 y:t; <' / , ;;:7t,-.;I{. 7t:tt"A,I Matt HiInrich Sign COOrdinator/Expeditor P. O. BOX 4090 . ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA 57402-4090 . 805-225-2272 . FAX 805-225-11~ ,... G ALL APPLlCA TIONS FORA VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OFTHE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE I:ifEQ FOR THE VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS DIRECTlY ON THIS SHEET. . A. There are special circumstances applicable to the propeny. including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Code deprives such propeny of privileges enjoyed by other propeny in the vicinity and under identical land use district ctassnication; We feel that 6ur property. although it freeway. needs a sign of this height. is located away fran the Our main customer is the traveling public. and to adequately serve our primary customer we must be able to reach than. (Please see attached letter for more detail. ) B. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial propeny right possessed by other propeny in the same vicin~y and land use district and denied to the propeny for which the Variance is sought; The~ are properties in the vicinity that are use of their highrise signage. In order to be benefiting by canpetitive in the the hospitality market. it is a must that we reach the traveling public on the freeway. (Please see attached letter). C. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or well ere. or injurious to the propeny or improvements in such vicinity and land use district in which the propeny is located; Granting this variance will in no way be detrimental to the community. It is possible that it will draw the traveling public to the services that we provide. and also that the surrounding business provide. (Please see attched letter.) .. j 0" Of ... .......-0 --- PLAN4.Q3 PAGE.OfI (2-90) r , \. , .--) \....,,J "'l . O. That granting the Variance does not constttu1e a special privilege inconsistent wtth the limttations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located; We do not feel that this variance will constitute a special orivileqe for our_ property, as there are other businesses in the vicinity with signs such as our proposed sign. .. 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; We are authorized to have an 1.0. sign as a hospitality business. . F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent wtth the General Plan. This variance will not be inconsistent as there are other highrise signs in the vicinity. (Please see attached letter.) ~ CIT\' 0# .... ....-...0 --- PLAN-4,03 PAGE 5 OF' 12-llO) Attachment I'E" ,- 0 '-" REPORTED MOTEL/HOTEL OCCUPANCY - RATES FOR JUNE. 1991 ADDlIlI!SA RMS II OCC 11<\ Motel 6 #246 111 W. Redlands Blvd 120 24 86 La Quinta Mtr Inn 205 E. Hospitality 153 54 42 Travelodge 225 E. Hospitality 88 40 88 Hil ton 285 E. Hospitality 247 85 81 Super 8 Lodge 294 E. Hospitality 81 42 94 Comfort Inn 1909 S. Bus. Ctr. 50 46 93 E-Z 8 Motel 1750 S. Waterman 119 27 78 Continental 9 1150 S. II Ell 18 25 25 Maruko Hotel 295 N. liE" 236 75 51.9 Wigwam Motel 2728 W. Foothill 19 30 25 Villa Viejo Motel 777 W. 6th 58 35 40 Holiday Inn Motel 1564 N. Mt. Vernon 11 22 44 Sharene Motel 2036 N. Mt. Vernon 10 24 23 Highland Inn Motel 1386 E. Highland 49 34 33 Early Calif. Motel 1790 E. Highland 31 30 8 Motel 6 #488 1960 Ostrems Way 104 24 90 Ramada Inn 2000 Ostrems Way 116 59 39 LEGEND: RM8 $ OCC (%) - number of rooms - lowest one person room rate - occupancy rate for June, 1991 v s I I ~ I ~ ~I > I j 'G<&l !'J . 'if"\, 1____ " ~1 1- ~ . .s_ ;.~ Ii uI .. , 0 " .01. 111111 ~: T ~ J 2 J ~ VI ~ I J O.J '? I ' ul 0 II:' 1:0 ~ I - 1 id 5: ~ crOP' T I? '1 auJ4 "-Ill ell> . I,. d ~ IF.J ~ ~,... ;; '-l >" I ~! ~ fJ ~ f 2 I r (l) . a I r J "i III'; i r I'" , 8 r'l ell 3 "2 rif2 >- '- ~ ( If) :\ o'l ~ ..!J il: ~8 - ~ :10 ~ >- - .. It , -(t- III w- tii ~c, j " 0 iP ( d u/2 11 ~ 1 ~ - i~ -3 g I- ~ III ~ 0 .. 'J ~, ~~ ul -" +- ~ ~ ~- l ;; v III 4 ~ .~ fJl ~2 . - . ~ ~f' I I I "b'"',S." V I s i . 'IUS \-I.. _. --- I ..1:5' :' _ __ ___ .- ! " .---. I i ~ -9 1,/\ ra- ~ \ ~ ~ ~ .J '" s i~ I ~ I " I j J I J lil!l! ili!/: 1,1111 , i.J Iii!'! l:il~li ill. jI',' Ihlh! I\~l Iln! : IIJJ! lll:J! I -~-rt-L , ': I ':1) , " :: ~ ... -, ~~ -:::....- ~ I I. I 'O_~ I - , I : ~-r ~ '" $; ~ '" ~ ,; - , i ~ . ~ I > , 1 , > ~ . t " i t i ~ ! ~ iI i '. . . - ~~>~8 ~ .J~ . ~ ~~I~~~iiii~~ I~ ~ iiES(~S~!:!~~r~ ~ I 33ii:~~i~~!~~~i ~ ~~S3~~~;~~~IS~! ~ 3~~j~~~~~:~~!:= ~~3h~;~r i ~~. 'l::~~~...:~i! ~ ~Ia ~ M W . : ids W " fi; w $(. h ~ ld!~Q ;~ir~ ~~'!!;::: ~aROO ~~.:u~ -....,.."'~.....g= ~~s ...",a... " ;.,~-'.. . . .. '- ;., , , - €I ~ r . '! i < , I ->- '----""l ",J 'il ~ ~ t-.--3' ...."'l 1';: .J ~ ..:. .~ .a. :.~~ '!.~.;"; :..5 0.. 'w_ :ze~ ~ lit 'i! ~ra &: ~~ - z '~i.:-;::~c US 8 ~i~ ~ ...5ii ~i,!:C~ o .<., _.w. z Q.5?~a :!~(~ iili:~ ~<icJ g3~tf:=~'j; i~i:~~g~~ ~~ !! .-- ::::, ...~ ~ii 0... :)... ~ " . ! .=! Z', 0' ~. -=---.'1 u- - ... tU-f w- __ --' JI en; 'J~:-'- ~: '," I" ~ g. -' ,_~ u' I' , - ';ILt :- i~ ! f::~ ;, , - , ! - ~ ~ , . , . ~ i < . . ~ i - t. F-- I ~ ..! ~ L~ :&; :f~ CII- ~~ IE : "-1 . " I ;( -' i! ~~ u, ~' Cl.~ <C Q:' " ~ --~- .! '" . 7 . . . . SCALE 118. - 1'0. -. u S' ,UPEII T 8 lZ ~~~ 1 o 65' " VA'! tfl"'06 . ,- - ~\..-l I , -'r. 'UIL... &1lIO .'.T" C~ -= l ; ~.4- .J!. 'lfL: ".l.............................'-'........ U T I uooy , lIIII. \\\ awl. .. 'T~\ \~ " ~ ."1. TO I -r r-- r--: I -11 :j.l?~~~ ~[ '-'II I I CllHllIlUI ::: . '-, II jI _ .. \. ~=n:-.;:'i . . . - :.,; .u : .. AGENDA ITEM # 5 I o 8R.n 'B~ar"'no SaMS 606 Norlh "H" Slnlel San IlenlIIdlno. Callfomia 92410 (714) 889-8391 FAX (714) 889-8394 -. \J ~ 11/18/91 City of San Bernardino 300 N. D Street San Bernardino, GA 92410 To whom it may Concern: As manager of the Best Nestern Sands Motel located diagonally across the street from the Super 8 Motel, I give total support to install a 65' sign. It is our true belief that this is a positive step towards promoting local business and attracting new business to San Bernardino. we sincerely hope that the City of San Bernardino will support the Super 8 Motel by allowing them to erect the 65' sign. Sincerely, ,~~8:~ Best western Sands Management 'C'I/ ., 'J 'i~ '11 ,.; \~ t..- 1'->"... EXHIBIT "E" "s.t western /$ 1M world'$latpesI clNJin of In.", IdIIJIIy __1ftId lIP' aIM holM, motor inns 1ftId_"