HomeMy WebLinkAbout47-Planning and Building
'cln OF SAN BERUDINO
- REQUEST QR COUNCIL ACTION
From:' Al Boughey, Director
Dept: Planning & Building Services
Dam: July 23, 1992
Subject: Variance No. 92-10 (Appeal)
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
August 3, 1992
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None
Recommended motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor and Common Council
deny the appeal of Variance No. 92-10 based on the Findings of
Fact contained in Exhibit 5; or
That the hearing be closed and that the Hayor and Common Council
approve Variance No. 92-10 in concept and refer the matter back
to staff to develop positive Findings of Fact.
Al Boughey
Contact person:
Staff
Phone:
384-5357
Supporting dam attached:
Report
Ward:
5
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75.0262
Aop.nrf::. ItAm Nn ~7
C,TY. OF SAN BERNICDINO - REQUEST Fa COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
Appeal of the Planninq Commission denial of Variance No.
92-10, requesting approval of a variance from Development
Code Sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and
19.22.150(C)(3)(f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway
oriented sign with 346.5 square feet of sign area per
face, identifying seven tenants and a center
identification monument that identifies six tenants.
REOUEST
The applicant, Quiel Bros. Sign Co., is appealing the denial of
Variance No. 92-10 by the Planning Commission. Under the authority
of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is
requesting a variance from Development Code Sections 19.14.030(6),
19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to construct a 95-foot
tall freeway oriented sign with 346.5 square feet of sign area per
face, identifying seven tenants and a center identification
monument that identifies six tenants.
The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of 9.94
acres located at the northeast corner of University Parkway and the
Interstate 215 northbound offramp, and is at the westerly terminus
of the Shandin Hills area.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 1992, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a
properly noticed public hearing on Variance No. 92-10 together with
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45, which was a concurrent request to
construct a 50,925 square-foot multi-tenant retail center. At the
applicant's request, the hearing was continued to June 16, 1992.
On June 16, 1992, the hearing was closed and the Planning
Commission continued the item to July 7, 1992 for further
discussion.
On July 7, 1992, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 92-10
by a 4 to 3 vote. Reasons for denial, as discussed by the
commissioners, included statements that the excess sign area was
unwarranted and that the flag test to determine the minimum height
for freeway visibility was conducted inaccurately. The Planning
Commission did, however, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45.
On July 8, 1992, Quiel Bros. Sign Co. submitted an appeal of the'
Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 92-10 (Exhibit 1).
On July 16, 1992, the appellant conducted a new flag test. Planning
staff and a City building inspector observed the flag test and
determined that it had been conducted properly. The objective of
'264
c .:)
Variance No. 92-10
Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of August 3, 1992
Page 2
the flag test was to determine the minimum height necessary to
determine the minimum height required to allow visibility of a
sign, represented by a target, from a distance of three-tenths of
a mile from the entrance of the northbound offramp. This distance
would allow freeway traffic approximately 20 seconds to make the
necessary maneuvers to exit the freeway after first seeing the
sign. Based on the flag test results, the bottom of the target was
62 feet above the ground before it became visible from the
observation distance; which translates to an overall height of 98
feet above natural grade, based on the proposed overall sign face
height of 36 feet (revised from the originally proposed sign face
height of 33 feet due to a different design). It is staff's
determination that the height suggested by the flag test will
create a negative visual impact that cannot be mitigated, and
therefore cannot support the request; nor can staff support a
variance for any of the other sign standards for reasons originally
discussed in the Planning Commission staff report and findings.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance
No. 92-10.
OR
The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the
appeal, approve Variance No. 92-10 in concept and direct Staff to
prepare positive findings.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of Staff that the Mayor and Common Council
deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 92-10 91-39 based on the
Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit 5.
Prepared by:
Gregory S. Gubman
Assistant Planner
for Al Boughey, AICP
Director of Planning and Building Services
Exhibits:
1 -
2 -
3 -
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
July 2, 1992 (abridged to address variance
request only)
Revised Findings based on July 16, 1992 flag
test
4 -
5 -
-..
u
:)
SIGNS ~
~-;.f.eq
272 SOUTH I STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CAUF. 92410
PH. 714-8854476 FAX 714-888-2239
July 8, 1992
Mayor and Common Council
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" St.
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Dear Mayor and Common Council:
We hereby appeal to you the decision of denial made by the Planning
Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1992 for variance case No. 92-
10. On behalf of our client, Mr. Ari Miller dba Camden Development
LTD.
We feel that by the narrow margin of the three to four vote and the
preceding discussions that the Planning Commission felt it was in
their best interest to pass this along to you.
We will be providing additional information regarding this matter
within the next week; however it will be greatly appreciated if you
could schedule this matter to be heard as soon as possible. THANK
you.
Sincerely yours,
~S.
ELE C SIGN
l' 0.1
Gary Q~ilel
Vice-President
INC.
C.C. Mr. Ari Miller
Q \f.~\t~~\r.~
, JUl. 0 91S~O\NO
Of S",N llE.~Ntlll\G a.
CITf ~El\i Of R'lICES
OEP~II.OIl\G sf. ,
GQ/er
SALES. SERVICE. LEASING. MAINTENANCE. CRANE SERVICE. NEON
CoIIt. Co........... ~ No. 21"/3olS
Exhibit "I"
o
..~
,-j
City of San Bernardino
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
PROJECT
Number:
Variance No. 92-10
Applicant:
Camden Development LTD
Northwest Enterprises
Owner:
ACTION
Meeting Date: July 7, 1992
X The Variance was Denied Based Upon the Findings of
Fact (Attachment B.1).
ygn
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Jordan, Lopez, Romero, Traver
Clemensen, Ortega, Stone
None
Cole, Valles
I, hereby, certify that this Statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
Commission of the City of San Bernardino.
Official Action
of the Planning
t2
Al Boughey, Dire tor of Planning and Building Services
cc: Project Applicant
Project Property Owner
Plan Check
Engineering Division
Case File
STMTOFPCACTION
Exhibit "2"
~ CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
o
:)
"
...,j
SUBJECT:
VARIAl,CE NO. 92-10 (Appeal)
CA=O. J
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq
of about 9.94 acres located at the northeast corner of the r-215
northbound offramp and University Parkway having a frontage of
about 485 feet on the north side of the I-215 northbound offramp
and a frontage of 700 feet on the east side of University Parkway.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of a
proposed Variance of Code Sections 19.22.150(C)(3)(E),
19.14.030(6), and 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) to construct a 95 foot tall
freeway oriented sign with 346.5 square feet of sign area per face
which identifies 7 tenants and an entry monument which identifies
six tenants in the CG-1, Commercial General, 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:
Monday, August 3, 1992 2:00
AOIIaIIea dftc:nDflon otme OJapogliS on hie ,n m. PIanrwtg.,., ~ s.rwc..
:illoanmenr..CtyHall. j! VOUwowcJ... Iunnet.nformDOn ICIOuI"Gn:lDDSatpncw....
;:luDlIcheanng.PlHMcanracrtne~anclBwongS4tM::es_I~ .._.n.....,
or byphonng (1'413101-5057.
The Maror..., Common Counat IS NQUeSbng your ~ "you.......
to....,. J'OUmaysutlrnla"'"*'c::arnr,....'"faworatorlft~IO...PfCIDDRl1D
the PIatnng Met ~ng s.rv.c.s DeDIlnm....l San BerrwonoCly.... 300.....1)'"
SbWt. San 8emaraIna. eaworn.. i2418.
Deos.ontaftl'le ~ Comm.u.on..,.,. c:onc:.rrq......1IICMI'lgS. ec...
dIbonal u.. ~ RevIew of Ptans. r....,. T'*=I .... _ v......... .....
......101he...yat and Common CouncI. ADPNlIIOIhe~...Commonc.a..c..
m....tIe..... in wntJng,lIatlng D'Ie orauna. Of IN -... and mull be .........ID...
City CIent *'oWlrh 1he~,"WIItWt II'fteen ae,.ofll'ledloMn lien days..
PM>>l.... Md T~ Tra:r ~I.
GenetaI Plan AINlldl..... ena Am....4........IO.. ~Codewill""",
C8lIy'tIe forontGed to the ~ ~ Common Counot far final a::DDrt.
"YOU c:MllenoIrhe rHuIIMI eclIOtI Of the Mayar ana Cornmon CcuICII in QUI. ,.,
Il\eybe""'-'lO,.....onIytnoM,....yauOl~..'--d....IIUDtIc.....
dHcnDea/fthlnonce.OtIl'lM'ltWlco.._..._~IO_CityPtMrw.g~
.. or PftDt 10. the DUbk' hunng.
Indnll"",.lt_h"""'!v!'VI - n_.. lIIItIl r. ~ ~ 1ft fiu. ___
-.
:'.....,.......K_1tDIOoO
;1"""""_f"lOIWIIVOCIS
PlAN-9.07 PAGE 1 OF 1 '6'901
o
......"
'--.-'
pL>>DtIRG COHKISSION STAPP REPORT (JoBRrDGED)
REOUEST
Under the authority of Development Code section 19.06.020, the
applicant is requesting approval of conditional Use Permit No. 91-
45 (CUP 91-45), to construct a 50,925 square-foot multi-tenant
retail development. concurrently, under the authority of
Development Code section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requesting
a Variance (variance No. 92-10) from Development Code sections
19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to
construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented sign and a center
identification monument that identifies six tenants.
SITE LOCATION
The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of 9.94
acres located at the northeast corner of University parkway and the
Interstate 215 northbound offramp, and is at the westerly terminus
of the Shandin Hills area (please see site Plan, Attachment A.7 and
Location Map, Attachment C).
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL pLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposal is consistent with the Development Code except for the
following components:
1. A 95-foot tall freeway oriented sign identifying seven tenants
is proposed, whereas the Development Code allows a maximum
height of 25 feet with identification of the center name and
the major tenant only:
2. A center identification monument sign is proposed to identify
six tenants, whereas the Development Code permits the
identification of no more than three tenants:
3. A convenience store within 1000 feet of another convenience
store, as measured from property line to property line, is
proposed, whereas the Development Code requires a minimum
distance of 1,000 feet between parcels containing such uses.
The applicant is requesting a variance to permit item numbers 1 and
2 above.
"
with respect to item number 3, the applicant has expressed an
intention to parcelize the subject property in the future to
-1-
Exhibit "4"
o
~
,,-,'
provide for the separate ownership of the independent pads. The
applicant requests that a condition approval be added to this
project requiring the recordation of a parcel map prior to the
establishment of such a use.
The proposed uses have also been found to be in conformance with
the General Plan. The Development Code, which implements the
General Plan land use element, permits the proposed project subject
to approval of a conditional use permit. Please refer to the
General Plan and Development Code consistency table (Attachment
A.l)
CEOA STATUS
An Initial study was prepared by staff and was presented to the
Development and Environmental Review Committee (DRC/ERC) on March
19, 1992 (see Attachment A.5). The DRC/ERC determined that the
project could have a significant effect on the environment, in that
insensitive grading could scar the hillside area to the rear of the
subject property. specific mitigation measures were enumerated in
the Initial study and, as a result, the DRC/ERC recommended a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration was advertised and the Initial study was available for
public review and comment from March 26, 1992 to April 15, 1992. As
of the writing of this staff report, no comments were received from
the public.
BACKGROUND
On December 2, 1991, General Plan Amendment No. 91-11 (GPA 90-11)
was adopted by the Mayor and common council as Resolution No. 91-
491, Changing the General Plan land use designation from RL,
Residential Low to CG-1, commercial General.
On November 12, 1991, the application for CUP 91-45 was submitted
to the planning Division. The application was first discussed by
the Development Review committee on December 5, 1991. The
application was deemed incomplete on December 11, 1991 pending the
submittal of required environmental studies. On February 19, 1992,
the application was deemed complete. On April 30, 1992, the DRC/ERC
cleared the application to the planning Commission.
On March 12, 1992, the application for variance No. 92-10 was
submitted to the planning Division. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 65943(a) and (b) variance No. 92-10 was deemed complete on
April 11, 1992.
ANALYSIS
(CUP ARALYSIS DBLETED)
site and surroundiDq Area Charaoteriatioa
-2-
,.--.,
CJ
-
~ ,
,-""
The property is bounded by the freeway offramp to the southwest,
University parkway to the west, state street to the northwest and
vacant and developed single-family residential properties to the
east.
other surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential to
the north, a fraternal organization and vacant commercial property
to the west. Uses south of the freeway consist of a motel, a hotel,
fast food restaurants, a gas station/convenience store and the
state college Business park.
SIGN VARIANCE
Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the
application for Variance No. 92-10 is a request to waive
Development Code sections 19.14.030(6), 19.22.150(C) (3) (e) and
19.22.150(C) (3) (f) to construct a 95-foot tall freeway oriented
sign and a center identification monument that identifies six
tenants.
Freeway sign
As discussed, the subject property is adjacent to the Interstate
215 freeway right-of-way, and is thus located within the Freeway
corridor OVerlay District, as defined in Development Code Chapter
19.14.
Development Code sections 19.14.030(6) and 19.22.150(C) (3) (f)
permit a freeway oriented sign with a maximum overall height of 25
feet and a maximum sign area of 125 square feet per face which may
identify only the name of the center or the major tenant.
Due to the topography of the area, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented
sign, as well as the entire center, would be completely blocked
from the visibility of northbound traffic. The subject property is
located north of the Shandin Hills Golf Course and is separated
from the golf course by a large hill that forms the western
boundary of the Shandin Hills area. The freeway edge of the hill
has been cut to a 2: 1 slope to accommodate the passage of the
freeway.
To compensate for the visual barrier to the subject property, the
applicant proposes to construct a 95-foot tall dual pole sign with
center identification and seven tenant sign panels.
Heiaht
To verify the need for. the proposed height, a flag test was
conducted on TUesday April 28, 1992 by the sign contractor, Quiel
Bros., and was observed by staff. The intent of the flag test was
to determine the minimum height required to allow visibility of a
sign, represented by a target, from a distance of three-tenths of
-3-
1._.._.
c;
..-.-
, \
"-
a mile from the entrance of the northbound offramp. This distance
would allow freeway traffic approximately 20 seconds to make the
necessary maneuvers to exit the freeway after first seeing the
sign.
Based on the flag test that was conducted, the bottom of the target
was 67 feet above the ground before it became visible from the
observation distance: which translates to an overall height of 100
feet based on the proposed overall sign face height of 33 feet.
However, it was later discovered by staff that the sign contractor
had placed the target approximately 90 feet north of the proposed
location as indicated on the submitted site plan. This misplacement
resulted in the target being further obscured by the hill,
requiring it to be raised higher, than it would have been if it had
been placed in its correct location on site. The sign contractor
later responded that the actual proposed location for the sign was
inaccessible due to the existing terrain.
Due to the improper placement of the target, staff considers the
minimum height determined by the flag test to be invalid. However,
the flag test did provide a reasonable indication that the maximum
height of 25 feet allowed by the Development Code would be
inadequate to provide freeway visibility.
As a result, staff recommends denial of the variance at this time.
The applicant may reapply for a variance to increase the height of
the freeway sign after grading is complete and the proper sign
location is accessible, at which time the applicant shall conduct
a new flag test from the actual proposed sign location to determine
the minimum height needed to provide freeway visibility at a
distance from the offramp to be determined at the time of
submittal. This flag test shall again be monitored by City Staff
and the results shall be presented to the Planning Commission prior
to approval.
Nnmher of Tenants Identified on Sian
As shown on the elevations (Attachment B.4), the applicant proposes
to identify the name of the center, as well as seven tenants.
Development Code Section 19.15.030(6) permits a freeway oriented
sign to identify only the name of the center or one major tenant.
There are no unique circumstances applicable to the subject
property that would warrant the identity of additional tenants, in
that this standard now applies uniformly to all freeway-adjacent
commercial developments, regardless of the number of major tenants
that they may have.
Based on Development Code Section 19.22.150(C) (3) (e), which allows
surface street center identification monuments to identify the name
of the center and up to three major tenants, staff considers it to
be reasonable to allow freeway signs to identify the name of the
-4-
,............
v
:)
center and three major tenants as well. However a change in this
standard for freeway signs should be applicable citywide, and
should be addressed through a Development Code Amendment.
Staff does not concur with the applicant's proposal to identify
seven tenants, since this is far in excess of any multi-tenant
identification allowed for any new sign in the city, and thus finds
the proposal unwarranted. Additionally the amount of proposed
signage would create a cluttered and confused appearance to the
sign which would be a detriment to the area.
Sian Area
The total square footage of the center identification channel
letters and tenant sign panels proposed is 346.5 square feet.
The Development Code allows a maximum of 125 square feet of sign
area per face. There are no special circumstances that would
warrant an increase in sign area; the topographic constraints on
the subject property establish a need for additional height only.
With an increase in height to compensate for the intervening hill,
the sign will be just as visible with 125 square feet per face as
a freeway oriented sign that is not located in a topographically
restricted area.
sian Desian
If the city is to grant a variance to allow a larger sign than is
normally permitted by the Development Code, then the city should
also require the highest standards of design to be applied in order
to mitigate the visual impact that a large sign will have.
The design proposed by the applicant (Attachment B.4) is rather
spartan in overall appearance and provides very little in terms of
architectural compatibility with the architecture of the proposed
buildings, except for a token parapet feature at the top of the
sign. The sign panels are arranged horizontally and vertically with
respect to each other, creating a cluttered and confused
appearance. The sign supports consist of two exposed tubular steel
poles, which are inconsistent with General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6,
which states that pole signs shall be prohibited in the California
State University Area.
For any freeway oriented sign,
not, the following design
illustrated in Attachment B.4:
whether approved by a variance or
specifications be employed, as
1. Specific design elements used in the architecture of the
center, such as raised relief, mouldings and tile, should be
incorporated into the design of the sign.
2. All structural steel pole supports should be concealed within
a monument structure or decorative pole covers. Pole covers
-5-
c
..:)
should be square or rectangular in cross-section and each side
should have a minimum horizontal width of four (4) feet.
3. Sign teXt should read horizontally: that is, the sign text for
the center identification and each tenant should be arranged
in rows only.
4. Sign text for the tenants should consist of either channel
letters or insertable panels with non-illuminated backgrounds
painted to match the sign structure.
5. The entire sign, except for text, text panels and design
elements described in Item no. 1 above, should be finished and
painted to match the main finish and color of the buildings.
Entry MonUllent
The Development Code allows a surface street oriented sign for a
multi-tenant center to identify the name of center and up to three
major tenants. The applicant is proposing to identify the name of
the center and six tenants.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject
property that do not apply to other multi-tenant centers which
would warrant the identification of more than three major tenants.
Therefore, staff recommends denial of this portion of the variance
request.
CONCLUSION
The proposed uses are permitted in the CG-1 land use designation.
The proposed convenience store is not permitted due to the
proximity of the subject property to another property that already
contains a convenience store.
The project is in conformance with the Development Code development
standards, as summarized in Attachment A.1, and is consistent with
the Development Code Design Guidelines.
All known potentially negative impacts resulting from this project
--such as traffic, security and environmental concerns--have been
addressed and can be mitigated through design, conditions of
approval and through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Topographic constraints may warrant the granting of a variance to
allow additional height to the proposed freeway oriented sign, but
the applicant has been unable to establish the minimum height
necessary to provide freeway visibility. There are no special
circumstances uniquely applicable to the subject, property to
warrant the identification of the center or more than one tenant
on the freeway sign. No special circumstances exist that would
"
-6-
o
o
warrant an increase in the permissible sign area for any sign or to
allow the identification of more than three major tenants on any
sign.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning commission:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program:
2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 for all uses
proposed, except the convenience store, based upon the
attached Findings of Fact (Attachment A.2), and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment A.3) and Standard
Requirements (Attachment A.4);
3. Deny Variance No. 92-10, based upon the attached Findings of
Fact (Attachment B.1).
Attachments:
B. Variance No. 92-10
B.1 - Findings of Fact
B.2 - site Plan
B.3 - Elevations Proposed by the Applicant
B.4 - Elevation Concept for the Freeway Oriented Sign
Recommended by Staff
C. Location Map
-7-
o Attachment "B. 1 n ;:)
~
FINDINGS OF FACT
CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10
AGENDA ITEM 5
HEARING DATE 6-2-92
PAGE
~
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
..-
.,
prRDrRGS OP PACT POR
VARIANCB RO. 92-10
1. There may be special circumstances applicable to the property,
with respect to topography, such that the strict application
of the Development Code height requirements deprives. the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under the identical land use district
classification. Due to a large hill located south of the
subject property, a 25-foot tall freeway oriented sign may be
completely obscured from the visibility of northbound traffic.
However, due to the natural terrain of the subject property,
the applicant and City staff are unable to determine the
minimum height necessary to provide visibility of a freeway
oriented sign until grading has been completed.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the property
to warrant the identification of the center and up to three
tenants on the freeway oriented sign. The Development Code
permits a freeway oriented sign to identify only the name of
the center or the major tenant, and this standard applies
uniformly to all freeway-adjacent commercial developments,
regardless of the number of tenants that they may have.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the property
to warrant the applicant's proposal to identify seven tenants
on the freeway oriented sign, since this is far in excess of
any mUlti-tenant identification allowed for any new sign in
the City.
There are no special circumstances that would warrant an
increase in sign area: the topographic constraints on ~e
subject property may establish a need for additional height
only. Assuming that the height is increased to compensate for
the intervening hill, the sign will be just as visible with
125 square feet per face as a freeway oriented sign that is
not located in a topographically restricted area.
...
.... " 1M --...0
....-...--.
()
o
r-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
5
6-2-92
,.
...
2. The granting of this variance request to allow additional
height to the freeway oriented sign may be necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties in the vicinity and would
otherwise be denied to the property for which the variance is
sought in that consideration for the topographic constraints
in the area has been given to other properties in the
vicinity. Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) states that
"buildings, such as hotels and restaurants, fronting the
freeway are entitled ;to have a freeway monument sign and a
building sign visible from the freeway." However, the
applicant has not been able to clearly establish that., a
freeway oriented sign on the subject property will not have
freeway visibility if the height is restricted to the maximum
height permitted by the Development Code.
There is no necessity for the identity of more than three
tenants on any sign or to permit an overall sign area that
exceeds the Development Code limitations in that such
limitations apply uniformly to all properties in the vicinity
and these limitations do not result in restricted visibility
of the signs themselves;
3. The granting of'this variance request will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and
land use district in which the property is located in that the
sign shall be constructed in conformance with the Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Electrical Code and/or the Uniform Sign
Code by a California state licensed sign contractor. City
Building and Safety Staff and shall verify that the sign is
has been properly designed and installed to withstand the high
wind conditions associated with the area of the subject
property.
...
=-=,~~~TI
D
,.
CASE CUP 91-45/VAR 92-10
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING
AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~
6-2-92
FINDINGS OF FACT
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
...oil
~
.,
4.
The granting of this variance request may not constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the
subject property is located in that all other commercially
designated properties adjacent to the freeway are afforded the
same considerations under Development Code Section
19.14.030(6) to have freeway visible identification. However,
neither the applicant nor City staff have conclusively
determined that a variance from the height limitations for
freeway oriented signs is necessary for the proposed freeway
sign to have freeway visibility.
Granting a variance to increase the area of the signs or. to
increase the number of tenants identified on the signs would
constitute a special priVilege in that there 'is no cause to
allow exceptions to these standards, as discussed in Findings
nos. 1 and 2.
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.
6. The granting of this variance request will be inconsistent
with the General Plan in that General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6
prohibits the development of pOle signs in the California
State University area.
'"
:::;':,0:..:" :00
.'
...,j
DI &A.t..__ D.,,"~,""""
.
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
~
I
J
I
"B 2"
At~achment .
.,
.
,-
n
,
, i~ ..
Ii " d/l:
"
I
:;
" .
II
,
I
,
;,.,1
"- 1" u~
" "- -. II:
'. ~~:
\ I
,
I
jis m III i
~ ',,' i ,','.!"
I I I ,f . ! i ~ . . "...!,. I
........... i'dllh.:!I "'.~
I Ilf ,.,.... ,
i 'I';. I "'Ie '(j
111'11 111I~11U "dl,;" s. . mi
1.1s III !!!!!l!!!1 If If lill .i ' . 'oj
S,tE ~ rofl- ~'''~ L.cu.r.oJS~ I!
. ----....
"
t' II
....
I_..~
'" 'I
,.:."
in I
:m.
lID
!)
1
._...,........ 1,
r_--.._.
-,,.,.,-..
."...""""_... .
...-.,~.,.
,-......- -
....... .... ;.,
..
t
,
17'
H ;. j.; ";,{
I I
I .-- .__~~
~ .........,..-
I~' UNYEMl.T YI.LAGE, ~~
t CJ r:::J g~~--
~ L:JL:J ----
t
~ nUl' ~I~~
r
! ni.I' If ~~~.c"
........-..-.
!!~'~""~~....
:-.
.
~;
I'-
-
.
.
.v _111\11_
..~
. =-"=!~.-:.e"
~~~-......
".._,-~~
.....~
...~,-
: I
: ~
I'
I '.........,.,..
:@
~,.t_._.~,,_
r--!,_~,
i/.. ;~~1:r-:1 ~
rQ, f' ........ f
~J ~ ,'" .
!
!
i
r.
..
It
!
. I I
FI~~i li~~im ~ {
, ! t ~ ~it' I~ r
- -- fIll JI'l
,
t
.
r
~
l.
~ ~
I
L
I!
~
.
,
Attachment "B.4"
- ()
,.- CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT -.,
l.
VARIANCE NO. 92-10
ATTACHMENT 8.5
RECOMMENDED ELEVATION CONCEPT
FOR FREEWAY SIGN
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE
.-
~~It~ TENANT 1
L-i<<f'e?
TENANT 2
TENANT 3
~-r"'G.(:".:::r
,
i
,
~ ),A; eftS'.
~-.l
~~~O
=-=t - Jl{ II
1M a..._...~ ....._... _....
'-'--'.
Attachment "C"
~
'"""I ..-
.
AGENDA
ITEM .
5 .
,
LOCATION
..
.....
lloIln::.:'Il
PLMoI.11 PIGE 1 OF 1 (4aJ
'----
,
o
rJ
'-
I':rW:rRGS 01' PACT I'OR
VARrARCB RO. 92-10
1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property,
with respect to topography, such that the strict application
of the Development Code height requirements deprives the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under the identical land use district
classification. Due to the topography of the area, a 25-foot
tall freeway oriented sign, as well as the entire proposed
development, would be completely obscured from the visibility
of northbound traffic. The subject property is located north
of the Shandin Hills Golf Course and is separated from the
golf course by a large hill that forms the western boundary of
the Shandin Hills area.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the property
to warrant the identification of the center and up to three
tenants on the freeway oriented sign. The Development Code
permits a freeway oriented sign to identify only the name of
the center or the major tenant, and this standard applies
uniformly to all freeway-adjacent commercial developments,
regardless of the number of tenants that they may have.
There are no special circumstances applicable to the property
to warrant the applicant's proposal to identify seven tenants
on the freeway oriented sign, since this is far in excess of
any multi-tenant identification allowed for any new sign in
the City.
There are no special circumstances that would warrant an
increase in sign area: the topographic constraints on the
subject property establish a need for additional height only.
With an increase in height to compensate for the intervening
hill, the sign will be just as visible with 125 square feet
per face as a freeway oriented sign that is not located in a
topographically restricted area.
2. The granting of this variance request to allow additional
height to the freeway oriented sign is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties in the vicinity and would
otherwise be denied to the property for which the variance is
sought in that consideration for the topographic constraints
in the area has been given to other properties in the
-1-
Exhibit "5"
o
-,
, )
"...
vicinity. Development Code Section 19.14.030(6) states that
"buildings, such as hotels and restaurants, fronting the
freeway are entitled to have a freeway monument sign and a
building sign visible from the freeway." However, these uses
will not have freeway visibility if their associated signage
is required to comply with the Development Code standards.
There is no necessity for the identity of more than three
tenants on any sign or to permit an overall sign area that
exceeds the Development Code limitations in that such
limitations apply uniformly to all properties in the vicinity
and these limitations do not result in restricted visibility
of the signs themselves.
3. The granting of this variance request will be materially
detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the
properties and improvements in the vicinity and land use
district in which the property is located in that the visual
impact of a freeway identification sign constructed to the
height proposed is intrinsically negative, and therefore
cannot be mitigated.
4. The granting of this variance request does not constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the
subject property is located in that all other commercially
designated properties adjacent to the freeway are afforded the
same considerations under Development Code Section
19.14.030(6) to have freeway visible identification.
Granting a variance to increase the area of the signs or to
increase the number of tenants identified on the signs would
constitute a special privilege in that there is no cause to
allow exceptions to these standards, as discussed in Findings
nos. 1 and 2.
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.
6. The granting of this variance request will be. inconsistent
with the General Plan in that General Plan Policy No. 1.45.6
prohibits the development of pole signs in the California
state university area. '.
5.
."
-2-