HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-Planning
-
-
L
c~ OF SAN BBRNARDIC:>> - REQUEC) FO..GNCIL ACTg,.
From:
Brad L. Kilger
Director of Planning
. Planning
Subject. Appeal of Planning COI:Ullission 's
Denial of Variance No. 89-3
Dept:
Date:
June 2, 1989
Mayor and Common Council
June 19, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
M.~
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
No previous Council action.
On May 16, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to deny Variance
No. 89-3. (The vote was 6 for denial and one absentation.)
(':'
, ...~
":,,
,~,';J
"I
\ ,~
t7 .ci
~,:...
I
!..~
,......
t:.:1
.:::'~
-/.
;':','::
-
C.)
-'I
:''1'1
Recommended motion:
-
{.','
The the hearing be closed, and that the Mayor and Council
deny the appeal and deny Variance No.89-3.
Contact person:
Brad L. Kilger
Phone:
(714) 384-5057
3
Supporting data attached:
Staff Report
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
NIA
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item NO.Y...o -
-
~~~ OF SAN BERNARDlio - REQUiT FOR COUNCIL ACTiN
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
VARIANCE NO. 89-3
Mayor and Council Meeting - June 19, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
REOUEST
The applicant, EconoLodge, is appealing the denial of Variance
No. 89-3 by the Planning Commission. The applicant requests
that the Mayor and Council reconsider the denial and approve the
variance so that construction of a parking lot could occur
without paving on 2.15 acres.
BACKGROUND
Variance No. 89-3 is a request to not comply with Code section
19.56.380. This section reads as follows:
19.56.350 Asphaltic concrete surfacing or paving.
All areas shall be surfaced or paved with asphaltic
concrete, concrete or other bitulithic surfacing acceptable
to the Commission and shall thereafter be maintained in
good condition.
The proposal is a 2.15 acre parcel north of the EconoLodge on
the northwest corner of Fairway Drive and Camino Real.
The appeal is based on the desire for increased business from
truckers, which the unpaved parking lot is proposed to
accommodate. (See appeal letters, Attachment "A".)
The planning staff agrees that a parking lot would be
advantageous in this area, as semi-trucks are presently not
being accommodated by the motel's off-street parking area.
However, a properly designed and constructed parking lot should
be constructed.
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee
(DRC) on April 20, 1989. The DRC made a recommendation for
denial to the Planning Commission. The following were issues of
concern:
Parks and
setback to
areas with
percent is
Recreation Department: 5-foot required
be landscaped and separated from driving
a 6-inch curb. Interior landscaping of 5
required.
75-0264
- ._:.~.--'-
c.
o
o
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 89-3
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 19, 1989
Page 2
Public Services: Refuse enclosure required; flooding
and resultant mud problems.
Public Works/Engineering: Widening of Camino Real and
curb and gutter improvements required; with no drive
aisles and stripped parking stalls, traffic congestion
and circulation are safety problems; dust control
problem; noise impacts on motel.
Water Department: High groundwater and potential
for groundwater contamination.
police Department:
control problems;
emergency vehicle
opposes the project
Security lighting required; dust
traffic congestion; lack of
access. The Police Department
as proposed.
Redevelopment Agency: Dust control problems;
aesthetics and effect on adjacent redevelopment area.
California Department of Transportation: Dust control
problems and possible impacts to I-215.
Planning Department: Dust control problems, design
problems, and possible groundwater contamination.
There is nothing unique about the property or terrain which
would justify granting the variance.
Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act states
that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves. It allows for initial screening of an
application on its merits and the granting of a disapproval
prior to initiation of the CEQA process.
This section of CEQA
was not prepared and
review this project.
was used in this case. An Initial Study
the Environmental Review Committee did not
. f).
c
o
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 89-3
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING, JUNE 19, 1989
Page 3
ODtions Available To The Mavor and Council
The Mayor and council may deny the appeal and deny the variance
request.
OR
Uphold the appeal
Environmental Review
by the Council.
and defer the variance request to the
Committee for review, prior to final action
RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and deny Variance No.
89-3.
Prepared by:
John Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
for Brad L. Kilger, Director of planning
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Letters of Appeal
B - Statement of Official Planning Commission
Action
C - Public Hearing Notice
D May 16, 1989 Planning Commission Staff
Report
,0.
Econo
Lodge.
o 0
o
ATTACHMENT "A"
REC~I'/C- - ~' : -~,\
May 30, 1989
"89 MP,y 31 P17 :15
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
. 300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re:. Variance No. 89-3
Please accept this as our appeal of the City Planning
Commission's decision of May 16th, 1989 regarding Item No. 11,
Variance No. 89-3.
We are appealing this decision for the following reasons:
1. Approximately 82% of the subject property is located
within the San Jacinto Fault zone, where for health and
safety reasons, no structures can be built.
2. At the present time, property owners to the north are
allowed to park automobiles on dirt shoulders located on
the east side of Camino Real.
3. Dust presently originating from the subject property,
will be mitigated by surfacing with a non-toxic and non-
corrosive slag. All surfacing materials will be compacted
to a minimum relative compaction of 95%.
4. Long term plan is to pave and stripe this area once
business is built up.
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy.
Sincerely.
~
V.K. Shah
General Manager
I. '. '.
f
L; J
r";'~~i
. -.
. ::.:)
MA'J ~ 'con
1 I.H)~'1
C~T'f p;.:)\~~',;L<: :\ r
Econo Lodge Conference Center
668 Fairway Drive at 1-10 and 1-215
Orange Show Road. Exit on 1-215
Son Bernardino. CA 92408
714 825-7750
1-800-55-ECONO Nationwide Reservations
:~t~;"~ tJ~:~:.. ,:.t..; .,,\
,0,
Econo
Lodge.
o
o
, .
o
--
-
May 10, 1989
APPEAL TO AlL 0Mfi.1TEE MEMBERS AND OJUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE' CITY OF SAN
BERNARDOO. . 'ill APPROVE APPLlCATIOO FOR VARIANCE # 89-3.
The city of San Bernardino is loosing visitors and business clientele
who stay in hotels to Riverside, Red1ands and Fontana. We have
explored a new type of clientele and have found a vast market with
long-haul truckers delivering goods to the Inland Empire area.
lole have the potential to INCREASE TAX REVENUES FOR THE CITY by
providing truck parking facilities at our hotel by using the pro-
posed site ~ch we haVe owned since purchasing the hotel in 1984; the
property is and was a part of the hotel. \ole are appealing to all
the members of the approval camrl.ttee to consider our application
and approve it.
The hotel employs 40 people on a year around basis and produces a
payroll of substantial nunbers ~ch in turn is spent in our camuni.ty.
The hotel occupancy tax at our hotel is !lOW' approximately $80,000 per
year and will increase significantly with our ability to aCcc.m:ldate
additional truckers.
It will be mre difficult for our hotel to create new business when
Norton Air Force Base is closed. The new Visitors and Convention
Bureau is trying to increase our business, trying to give reasons
and justify why these people must stay in San Bernardino and spend
their m:mey in our local econany.
,..
There is no hotel in San Bernardino that has this size of valuable
land to acca:modate the truck parking for guests staying at the hotel.
We feel we need to be permitted to proceed with our plans to develope
the parking lot.
Econo lDdge Conference Center
668 Fairway Drive at 1-10 and 1-215
Orange Show Road. Exit on 1-215
San Bernardino. CA 92408
714 825-7750
1-800-55-ECONO Nationwide Reservations
u
'0,-
Econo
Lodge.
o
o
o
~
We feel we can increase our share of the market to attract m:>re
traffic to our hotel since we have easy-on, easy-off exit/entry
points due to our advantagious location at the intersection of
1-10 and 1-215, which are main arterials connecting east and west
on 1-10, and north and south on 1-215.
By doing so we have a potential to increase our business by 20%
and create lIDre jobs and also keep our facility open and in operation,
and not have to close down our facility due to financial probla:ns
and/or difficulties. We w:mld like to sustain our business and be
part of a gr<Ming econany and help the city collect m:>re tax: revenues.
This hotel has also been able to serve the local market by providing
an econany budget luxury property with meeting and banquet facilities,
an entertaiIment lounge, and a bane for the fBllDUS radio stations
KFXM and KDID.
We will very 1II.1ch appreciate your approval on a conditional basis
as sul:mitted currently.
I hope you will approve our application and help us survivel
May' I =t on your support?
Sincerly Yours,
vt~
V. K. Shah
General Manager
-.
Econo Lodge Conference Center
668 Fairway Drive at 1-10 and 1-215
Orange Show Road. Exit on 1-215
San Bernardino. CA 92408
714 825-7750
1-800 55-ECONO Nationwide Reservations
Ul
,0.
o
ATTACHMENT
o
liB"
o
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
VARIANCE 89-3
Applicant:
ACTION
M.P. Rama for the JHM Inland Empire Inc.
Meeting Date: May 16, 1989
Approved Adoption
Request Subject to
Fact, Conditions
Requirements.
of Negative Declaration and
the Following Findings of
of Approval and Standard
x
Denied.
Other.
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
and neighborhood in that the property is flat and of
adequate length, width and area to develop a parking lot
which meets San Bernardino Municipal Code requirements.
2. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli-
cant in that all other properties are subject to the
same restrictions and there is nothing unique to this
property which renders the restrictions unequitable. The
property can be used for a parking lot if provided with
appropriate improvements.
3. The granting of the variance will be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood
in which the property is located, in that increase dust
levels will impact air quality and traffic safety and,
the potential for groundwater contamination would
increase.
4. The granting of such variance will be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan, in that the public
health and safety and the aesthetics of a City "gateway"
and redevelopment area would be adversely impacted.
,0.
o
o
o
city of San Berna ino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
variance 89-3.
Page 2
5. The planning Department has investigated whether the
land use project identified in Variance NO. 89-3.
Application is consistent with the land use designations
and policies in the Preferred Land Use Alternative Map
and the Interim Policy Document. The proposed land use
project by the Mayor and Common Council on May 23, 1988,
amended on June 6, 1988, and approved by the State
Office of Planning Research on June 9, 1988, in that the
bocument and Map designates the proposed site for CG,
Commerical General use(s) which includes parking lots.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Brown, Corona, Lindseth, Lopez, Nierman, Stone
None
Cole
Sharp
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of Official Action
accurately reflects the final determination of the Planning
commis~n ~e c~ernardino. ~
c:r.naf"0 .v/~ ~d~
Brad L. Kilger, Director of Planning
Name and Title
cc: Project Property Owner
Project Applicant
Building and Safety Dept.
Engineering Division
/nmg
PCAGENDA:
PCACTIONB
,0.
o
o
ATTACHMENT "c"
Public Hearing Notice
A notice of the appeal hearing was sent to property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property at least ten days
prior to the hearing, as per Municipal Code Section 19.81.020.
A copy of this notice is attached.
o
-
-
.Q.
o
o
o
OFFI'CIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
APPEAL OF
Variance No. 89-3
r
THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE
MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL BY
( SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 89-3 J WARD :#
3
PROPERTY Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
LOCATION : consisting of approximately 2.15 acres located on the northwest
corner of Fairway Drive and Camino Real having a frontage of
approximately 229.5 feet on the west side of Camino Real and
being located approximately 550 feet north of the centerline
of Fairwav Drive and further descri~oA ~Q ~~R
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a variance of Code Section 19.56.380,
asphaltic concrete surfacing or paving. To establish a 2.15
acre unpaved parking area in an designated CG, Commerical
General in the Interim Policy Document with an underlying
zoning of C-3A, Limited General Commerical.
'-
PUBLI C HEARING LOCATION: SAN BERNAROINO CITY HALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
300 NORTH "0" STREET
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92418
HEARING DATE AND TIME: Monday, June 19, 1989, 2:00 p.m.
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL IS ON FII.E IN THE PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT AT CITY
HAI.I.. IF YOU WOUI.D I.IKE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSAl. PRIOR TO THE PUBI.IC
HEARING, PI.EASE CONTACT THE PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT IN PERSON OR BY PHONING
(714) 384-5057.
THANK YOU.
j"', 1984 Illy
O. OrACHMENT "0" 0 0
,. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
SUMMARY
'"
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
11
5-16-89
3
~
lIJ
:l
o
VARIANCE 89-3
APPLICANT' M. P. RAMA
880 South Plesantburgh Dr.
Greenville, So:Carolina2960
OWNER' JHM Inland Empire Inc.
880 S. Pleasantburgh Drive
Greenville, So. Carolina
t;
lIJ
::)
a
III
0::
.....
ct
lIJ
0::
ct
The applicant requrest a Variance of Code Section 19.56.380
to allow construction of a parking lot without paving on
2.15 acres.
The site is located on the northwest corner of Fairway Drive
and Camino Real.
EXISTING loP. D.
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Vacant C-3A,Limited Gen.Comm. CG, Comm.Genera
North Vacant Comm. C-3A,Limited Gen.Comm. CG, Comm.Genera
South Commercial C-3A,Limited Gen.Comm. CG, Comm.Genera
East Freeway N/A N/A
West Vacant C-3A,Limited Gen.Comm. CG, Comm.Genera
GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC IiClYES FLOOD HAZARD DYES OZONE A ( SEWERS DYES )
HAZARD ZONE DNa ZONE GaNO OZONE B DNa
HIGH FIRE DYES AIR PORT NOISE / DYES REDEVELOPMENT DYES
HAZARD ZONE IDNO CRASH ZONE Ii9NO PROJECT AREA [ig NO
..J o NOT o POTENTI AL SIGNI FICANT Z 0 APPROVAL
~ APPLICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING ~ 0 CONDITIONS
Z(/) MEASURES NO E.I.R.
lIJe!) o EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO IL.O IU DENIAL
2Z 1L.j5
Z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ~2
00 WITH MITIGATING 0 CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES (/)2
:;ii: 0
DNa o SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0
Z lIJ
I/J SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E. R C.
EFFECTS MINUTES a:
NOV, 1981 R!:VI8ED .JULY ...2
SKY
II
O. 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE un"D ~Q_1
o
.
j
CONDITIONS,.
11
~ If>-Rq
7
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1 . . REOUEST
The applicant requests variance of San Bernardino Municipal
code (SBMC) section 19.56.380, asphaltic concrete surfacing
or paving, which provides that all parking areas shall be
surfaced or paved with asphaltic concrete, concrete or other
bitulithic surfacing acceptable to the Commission and there-
after maintained.
2. SITE LOCATION
The subject site is a 2.15 acre parcel located immediately
north of an existing motel on the northwest corner of Fairway
Drive and Camino Real. The site has a frontage of 229.5 feet
along Camino Real.
3. MUNICIPAL CODE AND INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONFORMANCE
The proposal is inconsistent with the SBMC as shown in
Attachment A. It is consistent with the Interim POlicy
Document (IPD) adopted by the Mayor and Common Council on May
23, 1987, amended on June 6, 1987 and August I, 1987 and
approved by the State Office of Planning Research on June 9,
1988, which designates the site as CG, Commercial General
which allows for parking lots.
4. CEOA STATUS
section 15270 of the California. Environmental Quality Act
states that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public
agency rejects or disapproves. It allows for initial screen-
ing of an application on its merits and the granting of a
disapproval prior to initiation of the CEQA process.
This section of CEQA was used in this case. An Initial Study
was not prepared and the Environmental Review Committee did
not review this project.
5.
BACKGROUND
I'
A Conditional Development Permit CDP616 for a motel. was
approved by Planning Commission on July 5, 1972, and by
Common Council on July 17, 1972 for the parcel just south of
the project site. The motel currently existing on the site
.Q.
o
o
o
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE
V;l\RRQ-1
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
11
5 Ib-I:l~
3
is seeking .the parking lot variance.
Conditional Use Permit No.87-28 to remodel an abandoned off-
premise sign on the project site was denied by the Planning
commission on February 2, 1988. The denial was upheld on
appeal to Mayor and Common Council on May 2, 1988.
6. ANALYSIS
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The site is relatively flat with the San Jacinto fault zone
running from the northwest to the southeast and is in an
identified area with high-susceptibility to liquefaction.
SURROUNDING CONDITIONS
The surrounding properties are also relatively level. The
property north of the project site is currently occupied by a
vacant former restaurant, however, an auto service center is
proposed for the site. This property to the'immediate north
of the project site is part of the Southeast Industrial Park
Redevelopment Area. Approximately 200 feet north of the
project site is the boundary defining the southerly limit of
the regional Auto Plaza area. To the south is the existing
motel, to the west is vacant land and to the east is the
Interstate 215 freeway.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Preliminary review of the environmental concerns of this
variance point to two (2) areas where the potential adverse
impacts would be difficult to mitigate to a level of insigni-
ficance. The first impact is the increase in levels of dust
put into the air by vehicles driving on an unpaved area. In
addition to the air quality impacts, the increase.\dust levels
could pose a safety hazard on the adjacent roads and
freeways. The second impact is the potential for contamin-
ation to the groundwater from vehicle leaks. The groundwater
level at the project site is high and is a major aquifer in
the region. The primary mitigation for both these impacts
t
'c.
o 0
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR89-3
o
OBSERVATIONS
11
5~16-89
4
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
would, be paving of the parking area.
PERMITTED USES
The site plan submitted with this variance 89-3 Applications
shows a 10 x 10' foot dog kennel along the south property
line. Under San Bernardino Municipal Code section 19.78.020,
dog kennels.require a Conditional Use Permit.
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED
The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee
(DRC) on April 20 1989. The DRC made a recommendation for
denial to the Planning commission. The following were issues
of concern:
Parks and Recreation Department: 5-foot required
setback to be landscaped and separated from driving
areas with a 6-inch curb. Interior landscaping of
5% is required.
Public Services: Refuse enclosure required;
flooding and resultant mud problems.
Public Works/Engineering: Widening of Camino Real
and curb and gutter ~provements required; with no
drive aisles and stripped parking stalls, traffic
congestion and circulation are safety problems;
dust control problem; noise impacts on motel.
Water Department: High groundwater and potential
for groundwater contamination.
Police Department: Security lighting required;
dust control problems; traffic congestion; lack of
emergency vehicle access. The Police Department
opposes the project as proposed.
Redevelopment Agency:
aesthetics and effect
area.
Dust control problems;
on adjacent redevelopment
'"
L
l
L
-c.
000
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VARB9-3
OBSERVATIONS
11
5-16-B9
..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
In addition, comments were received form the California
Department of Transportation, expressing concern regarding
the dust control problems and possible impacts to the Inter-
state 215.
8. CONCLUSIONS
The Municipal Code requires that all parking lots be paved
with asphaltic concrete, concrete or other bitulithic sur-
facing. There is nothing unique about the property or
terrain which would justify granting the variance and
significance safety and environmental problems would result
from its approval.
9. RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends
89-3 subject to
B) .
that the Planning Commission deny Variance
the following Findings of Fact (Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
\
/.~
. ,
ger
of Planning
-rv~ V 7Fw~~
(
'-.
Tricia D. Thrasher
Planner II
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Municipal Code and IPD Conformance
Findings of Fact
Applicant's Responses to Required
site Plan
Location Map
L
,0,
o ATTACHMENT ,,~
o
.CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR89 3
OBSERVATIONS
AGENDA ITEM "
HEARING DATE S-16-89
PAGE "
MUNICIPAL CODE AND INTERIM POLICY DOCUMENT CONFORMANCE
CATEGORY
PROPOSAL
MUNICIPAL CODE
permittted Uses
Dog Kennel
Requires Conditional
Use Permit
Development
Standards -
Parking Lot
C-3
Setbacks
None
5 feet
Landscaping
None
Setbacks along right-
of way; 5% of total
parking area;
6-inch curb surrounding
landscaping
Wheel stops
None
6-inch high;
3 ft. from fences
or property line
Striping
None
All stalls required
Paving
None
Asphaltic concrete,
concrete, or other
bitulithic surfacing
'\.
loP.D.
N/A
;j
CG
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
,0.
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT "B"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VarR'l-1
FINDINGS of FACT
AGENDA ITEM ~
HEARING DATE - -
PAGE 7
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
and neighborhood in that the property is flat and of
adequate length, width and area to develop a parking lot
which meets San Bernardino Municipal Code requirements.
2. The variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli-
cant in that all other properties are subject to the
same restrictions and there is nothing unique to this
property which renders the restrictions unequitable. The
property can be used for a parking lot if provided with
appropriate improvements.
3. The granting of the variance will be materially detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood
in which the property is located, in that increase dust
levels will impact air quality and traffic safety and
the potential for groundwater contamination would
increase.
4. The granting of such variance will be contrary to the
objectives of the General Plan, in that the public
health and safety and the aesthetics of a City "gateway"
and Redevelopment area would be adversely impacted.
5. The Planning Department has investigated whether the
land use project identified in variance NO. 89-3.
Application is consistent with the land use designations
and policies in the Preferred Land Use Alternative Map
and the Interim policy Document. The proposed land use
project by the Mayor and Common Council on May 23, 1988,
amended on June 6, 1988, and approved by the State
Office of Planning Research on June 9, 1988, in that the
Document and Map designates the proposed site tor CG,
Commerical General use(s) which includes parking lots.
PCAGENDA:VAR89-3F
-0.
OACHMENT "c"
APPLICANT'S RESPONSES
<:) VAR89-3
TO REQUIRED FINDINGS OF
.h'..a.~
FACTS
/ { "'\
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH
OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE ~ FOR THE
VARIANCE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, which do not apply generally
to other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
The subiect site is the only property in the
area that allows overnight lodging.
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the applicant.
r-1any of the lodgers are drivers of semi-trucks and trailers and
large motor-homes. The large vehicles park across several
parkinq spaces that are striped for reqular or compact autos.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or 1nJurious to property and
improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
110ving the truck parking to the rear of the property will improve
the traffic pattern throughout the entire site.
D. That the granting of s~ch a variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
Tlrn.n ov;yo:::a.r;n1"'l of the reauested variance the area shown on the
plot plan will be improved to citv Standards for a parkina lot.
'\.. ~
I,
.
I ·
JI
~'!I' .
" . " . " r TACHMENT "D"
_I ~ i I ~ SITE PLAN
- f - !
~ ! ; I
~. :. ,~
i!i ~.~
i '
.
"
-
i
--... .
~
~
;:;
t
~
\
i
. / ,/
f //"
:'~ ~'" /
/ 1\ ~~ -'-
- '.
~ ~ i' \ / '~
f") t. 1-,.' " I:.i
t I " ':-i
~ ~ \ ~
, ~ '" CO)
"t"
....,
\
:t
~
\
\ .
~
r;;
~
~
~
~ '
~ ~
l '1 ~
j i//'
\. ,
_ t....~
__ or ..L 0
:....~ . /'-'"
. n' /''---.:,,'
t . '---
/
/
/
/
/ .
'j'-
,/
/
/
-
1
-___-!!:..~~.::L_ D
------
~
_0#:.1. ..-...-
.5TATL' /,1AFAlAVAY ,I-?/.5 ,
.<
1- _
-<:>
-- '
.z:
E=i '
-<
31:'
~
\
"
'i~
1,~~
\ I~. ~~
I~'i "l
l~ ~
,~~~ ~
~~'"
r~
~
---,.,'
'.........
;;;--..
'\
'. l.
.~...
~-
C>..: '
'':::-'
Xl
~
\
,,"-I
-0,
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT "E"
AGENDA
ITEM #
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CoM C-3A
M-I
~ CoM
II CoM
%
!!! "0"
CoM C.3A %
... CoM
I l~re: ~ "0"
I Ii>
0:
C3A C3A ...
I-
!!!
CoM CoM CoM
..
~O~ C'M
C.M
5 C-3A
CO( ..
C-3A
C-3A
C.3A
@ o-3A
\"==800' --.-- .-
INTERSTATE @ .
" I "'... ROOL.NOS ~
,,-.... ,
LOCATION
.
VAR89-3 .
11
CASE
I
'"
HEARIN~ DATE
5-16-89
CoM
CoM
R " RD.
CoM -e-M "0" M-I ~
Cl
c:;U~-19-1989 14:16 FROM
JHM ENTERPR I SES 1 ~c
o
lJ/1JIJ
JHM Enterprises, Inc.
Riverside Office Park. 880 South PIN.en/burg Dri...
Gfferwille, South Cerollne 2ge0T, USA
(803) 232.9944, Telex 216930 CJHM
IU
o
.L. (.i4dl:lb'::'.:.+ 1.:J.:J.:J
t""'.~io;:.
o
FAX # 714-888-9413
June 19, 1989
Mr. John Montgomery
Planning Dept.
City of San Bernadino, Ca.
Re: Appeal #89~3
Dear Mr. Montgomery,
This is to inform you that on Friday June 16, 1989 I received a call
from Lucie (384-5002) informing us that there is a hearing on our
appeal for the variance H89-3 on Monday June 19. 1989 at 2 PM. At'
that time I did mention to Lucie that our representative is on his way
to San Bernadino from South Carolina traveling by car with his family
and it is most unlikely that he will reach San Bernadino by Sunday.
She suggested I call on Monday to postpone the date of the hearing for
the following meeting.
Our representative is still traveling on the road and will be unable to
attend the scheduled meeting today at 2 PM. This is to formally request
that our appeal be postponed until the next scheduled meeting. I expect
our representative to be in San Bernadino by June 21, 1989.
This is to further inform you that as you indicated the written notice
sent out on the 9th has not been received here or at our property in
San Bernadino. Further, it was found out that our property received
a phone call on Friday June 16. 1989 notifying them of the hearing like
I received on' the same day. '
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely.
~,/(Jt--
M. P. Rallla
Vice President
JHM Inland Empire, Inc.
"The Hoepita/i/y Group"