Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-Planning CI~ OF SAN BERNARblOo - REQUIQT FOR COUNC," ~ON Appeal of Review of p~n~o. SubjBCt: 88-6 -z; ~ Mayor and Council Meetf~ ~ . May 2, 1988, 2:00 p.m. ,--1 .... V:>'" C.n ~ R. Ann Siracusa From: Director of Planning Dept: Planning Date: April 14, 1988 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On october 6, 1986 the Mayor and Council adopted the Development Framework and Design Guidelines for the Central City South Study Area. On February 25, 1988 the Development Review Committee denied Review of Plans No. 88-6 due to noncompliance with the applicable Design Guide- lines. On March 15, 1988 the Planning Commission unanimously denied the applicant's appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-6. RBCommended motion: That the Mayor and Council may deny the appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-6 or uphold the appeal and approve Review of Plans No. 88-6 <, r i I. Siracusa R. Ann Siracusa Phone: 384-5357 Contact person: Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 1 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct, Descriotion) Finance: Council Notes: 75.0262 Agenda Item No.~7, ~I.fi OF SAN _RNARDlaO - REQUQT FOR COUNCIL AC'tlON STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-6, requesting approval of a 17,854 square foot addi- tion to a warehouse at 420 South -En Street Mayor and Council Meeting of May 2, 1988 REOUEST The applicant, Penco Builders, Inc., is appealing the denial of Review of Plans No. 88-6 by the Development Review Commit- tee and the Planning Commission on appeal. The applicant requests that the Mayor and Council reconsider the prohibition of the use of metal building materials in the Design Guidelines adopted by the Mayor and Council for the Central City South Overlay Study Area. BACKGB.QYlID Review of Plans No. 88-6, requesting approval to construct a 17,854 square foot addition to a 52,000 square foot warehouse and office complex at 420 South nE- Street was denied by the Development Review Committee on February 25, 1988. The existing structure makes extensive use of exterior metal building materials, and the applicant is proposing to use galvanized, factory-painted steel wall panels in the building addition in order to match the existing structure. The site is located within the Overlay Study Area of the Central City South Redevelopment Project Area. The design guidelines adopted by the Mayor and Council on October 6, 1986 for this study area stipulate that -aluminum or other metal panels are not permitted as elevation materials, other than as door or window frames.n The guidelines also state that: -Buildings with walls at or less than one hundred feet from a curb line should not have continuous, visually unbroken walls. The front plan of the wall shall be set back a minimum of four feet at a maximum of every sixty feet of continuous length. Each set back portion of the wall shall be a max- imum of sixty feet in length.- The Development Review Committee denied Review of Plans No. 88-6 on the grounds that it has no authority to approve a project which does not meet the applicable design guidelines adopted by the Mayor and Council. The guidelines stipulate that there are two levels of appeal: the Planning Commission and the City Council. There is no 15-0264 d o o o Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-6 Mayor and Council Meeting of May 2, 1988 prov1s10n granting authority to the Planing Commission to override the guidelines. Therefore, it was the opinion of the Senior Assistant City Attorney that the Planning Commis- sion had no alternative but to deny the appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-6. The Commission denied the appeal on March 15, 1988. OPTIONS AVAIL~J.]i: TO TlIJi!_lfhYOR-bBD COUB~lj. The Mayor Plans No. Plans No. and Council may deny the appeal and deny Review of 88-6 or uphold the appeal and approve Review of 88-6. ~pNU:BJ)aTION Staff is not opposed to a warehouse expansion at the property in question. However, it is recommended that the Mayor and Council deny the appeal and deny Review of Plans No. 88-6 on the grounds that the proposal does not conform to the design guidelines adopted for the Central City South Overlay Study Area. Prepared by: Scott Wright, Planner r for R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Attachments: A - Letter of Appeal to the Planning Commis- sion B - Letter of Denial C - Letter of Protest D - Letter of Appeal to the Mayor and Council E - Location Maps mkf/4/14/88 M&CC:RP886 . d r' ENCO t=UILDERS INC. o ^,J"l'^Clil~EN'J' 0 o RECE":C- '''8 t",,,, -1 n 9 "'7 u 1'1:\ ,.I.j General Contractors Design . Build Lie. No. 210343 COMMERCIAL . INDUSTRIAL . METAL BUILDINGS . CONCRETE TILT-UP February 29, 1988 City of San Bernardino CITY CLERK'S OPPICE 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 Attention: San Bernardino Pla~ning Commission Reference: Appeal for Stockwell Binney Plans 88-6 Commissioners : Please accept this letter in ac~ordance with the rules and regulations for an appeal as setforth by the Design Review Committee. Stockwell Binney requests the consideration of the Planning Commission to accept this appeal for a metal building addition to their existing metal warehouse located at 420 South "E" Street. This addition is necessary so as to expand operations and growth for Stockwell Binnev, which will also add the need for additional employees. Please achedule this request for the earliest available time. Time is of an Essence: : Thank you. Respectfully, PENCO BUILDERS, INC. <:c.-. JP:kp '1 cc; Hr. Walters President/Stockwell Binney " <II <';'" , 680 South Watermsn Avenue. San Bernardino, California 92408 . (714) 888-4134/825-7664 "'~ d o J\TTACIIMENO o ," ;- (.r - CI 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B March 7, 1988 Penco Builders, Inc. 680 South Waterman Avenue San Bernardino, CA Re: Review of Plans No. 88-6 Dear Sir: On February 25, 1988, the above Review of Plans application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee. The following action was taken: X Denied based on the following: The Development Review Committee has no authority to approve a project which does not meet the design guidelines adopted by the Mayor and Council for the Central City South Overlay Study Area. Metal building materials are prohibited by the guidelines. If you have any questions, contact this office at (714) 384-5057. Sincerely. ..- ' S' -rr--" l -r .;' .....~-\, \ ~ \~. I" tA....J '..' Scott Wright Planner I /kdm "'~~~C'I-= ""c. ~' t" ,__ . . 1 ~ J -" \~.. .," ': I ' ...........~: .> #. ~...#....., . Ci ~TACHMENT C c:> p ~ ~ StodiweII & Binney o ..~,.c...:I."""I_. po _,'ft. s........... CA"'I.~I". '...-"........' "T~~OCA~ C\,o\lIIIIfIIOM ,., " ....... ~C~..... ESCQN)ClO2O&W -..-..... . Nl!""-""I!' "'.... .1CIlO.......... I" . ONTIlAIO II." ......... .-... ~., H _..... . ~_!.-........... _...w:ASlOl_""'" 51. . SNf.AJMADlHO _ft. v 51 . \lICTO'Wll.l.E ,.,......... . w.1lAl...,.".OU1UT SfOlIIE ..O......E ~. s..-..-... Feb1'Ua17 26, 19BB '7 ;' 1..1 1,-,", Uti -. ".:'\ ::11 ,;) - i7FB 21198S The Honorable Evelyn Wilcox Mayor of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 924lB '.~:::;.~r :>,:"$ ~~:'~'~...L. :J. CA Dear Mayor Wilcox: I am writing in reference to my letter of November 9, 1987, regarding the Central City South Improvement District. We have ,been planning for some time to expand our warehouse and distribution center to accomodate the growth that we are experiencing. We have submitted to the city a plan by which we would add over 17,000 square feet to the north end of our current warehouse structure. The information waS provided to the Design Review Committee by Penco Builders, but waS rejected as being unacceptable due to the submission of plans for a metal building which would match our present facility. The rejection was due to the fact that we are in the Central City South Improvement Dis- trict, which does not permit the construction of metal structures. I can not help but wonder if the guidelines approved, for the project, have been fully read by the members of the City Council. they are so restrictive that they rule out the use of previously accepted building materials, with- out concern as to matching existing structures, possibly discouraging further development of businesses in the affected zones. These guidelines have been adopted prior to final approval of which proper- ties will be included in the Cental City South projec~. Th1S would make one feel that the dec1s10ns have already been made 1rrespective of the wishes or concerns of the business firms in the proposed district. According to the design guidelines, metal is not an acceptable exterior building material and that the only exposed metal permitted would be window and door frames. Our entire warehouse and distribution of 52,000 square feet is of metal construction, the Wixen Pipe and Supply building to our north is of three quarters metal construction and the Modern Furniture building which joins our building on the south is partially of metal con- struction. Across the street from the Wixen building is a new building constructed for La-Z-Boy, this building has a large metal mansard and the rear offset, facing "E" Street is also metal. '"We $eMCe WIlat w. Setl- SIIfYIftI Sou'~ C....Of".. Slf'Ce 192." o o o o Page 2 Mayor lIilcox Februay 26, 1988 I feel that the construction materials which we have requested would actually be a major improvement and would tend to beautify the area which is unfortunately a hodge podge of nondescript structures from Rialto Avenue to Mill Street. In my previous letter I objected to "E" Street being included in this improvement district. Apparently since the last meeting I attended, the east side of "E" Street has been excluded form the plan. I feel very strongly that the entire "E" Street plan, both east and west side, should be reviewed for exclusion. Nothing can be accomplished by developing one side of a street and not programming for the improvement of the other. As I related to you earlier I have strong objections to the entire "E" Street program, as it would place a serious hardship on our firm. lie lease the property and are responsible for all taxes and assessments Our potential liability in assessments could be as high as $209,835. Tbe possible improvement in property valuations would only benefit the leasor, not Stockwell & Binney. I would appreciate your response to these concernB. Sincerely, ((,;J.~ L.A. Walters President cc: Redevelopment Office City Council Members Ester Estrada Jack Reilly Jess Flores Michael Maudsley Tom Minor Valerie Pope-Ludlam Norine Miller Planning Commission " ~ 000 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CliP 87-28 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 02/02/88 PAGE -1- ATTACHMENT A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Category ~posal Municioal Code Sign Off-Premise Sign Permitted Height 42 feet 32 feet Area 300 square feet 300 square feet Distance to Public 7 feet 10 feet Right-of-Way Distance to Freeway 71 feet 600 feet Right-of-Way General Plan - The purposes of the updated general plan include such factors as urban design and quality of life with the intent of raising standards. Those standards may preclude this sign. SP:1Foc J.'(,1, C: ITI\1< (1 !;;'1"'-~:ll OJ :~,I::lE: ~ . o o o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CUP 87-28 FINDINGS of FACT , AGENDA ITEM 5 HEARING DATE 02/02/88 PAGE 8 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The proposed sign is not consistent with the Office of Planning and Research letters dated June 11, 1987, July 3, 1987 and August 18, 1987, which requires projects to be in conformance with the purposes of the updated general plan. Those purposes include such factors as urban design and quality of life which are intended to raise standards. Those standards may preclude this sign. 2. Tbil propo1!jl~LlJ~ri.l~gYjlI1!~Jff~gj;_j;be adioirti..!19. land uses ~DQ the gIQ~~b and deY~lQ~ment of the area in wllih i t i1!_._NQRQ1!~~Lj;Q__p~ located in that add i tional signage of excessive height in this location will set a precedent that could lead to a cluttered urban environ- ment. 3. Ibil_~jZ~_2n!L1!b~t>jl__QL.tb~-Rill..NQ~.Q1!~~L.fQr the_.lUi.iL..iR. ~Q~g]J~~9_~11~~__f~11_gjlyel09meDj;_Qf the orooosed ~~jl_iDJ_ID~DDjlr not_Q~riment~l_j;Q_j;b~_P~Ij;1gular area DQI__j;Q_j;bjl_~e~~~hjl~~~~~ljlj;~Q_genjlI~~ welfare in that the site can accommodate the proposed sign. The parcel is vacant and the sign takes a very small per- centage of the 2-acre site. 4. The trAtfjg_sen~rated P~b~-PIQP9~jl9_PI9jjl~j;_~jll_D9j; imoos,jlJn undue burdeD__lIP9D_ _ j;h.e_ ~j;Ii!!"j;!l_ _llDJLbigb1!l1lY~ desianed and__jmPIQYjlg_~~IIy_j;b!,,_j;Illffig in the area and adequate parking is provided in that the project is located adjacent to the Quality Inn and traffic and circulation will not increase due to this sign. 5. Tb~_gIllntln9-Qf-tbj~__~QnQitiQD~l_Y~~_F~IIDjj;_~J~J~_Y~ j;bjl_gQD9.HiQD~_jIDP9~~~'t _ ~.HL_D.Qj;_P~_.QllI.illlental j;9~ ~g~.. _ _ b~~llb....-.nljlu......._AIlg__9~D~u.L- ~dhr e of the 9j.ti~jlDiL_9,L_SllD__~enl~I,slin2 in that the urban design standards and quality of life factors which will be a part of the purpose of the updated general plan may not be met. SP:lmc PCAGENDA ~~:~~~~~F . ~ EN CO S UILDERS INc. OTTACHI1ENT D o o E'''''''Ir-'' R C-:q, General Contractors Design. Build Uc. No,_ ,,(""("\ GO 'l"" ,,-;!. 3J rH("\' _..~ i' -' ,- .) COMMERCIAL . INDUSTRIAL . METAL BUILDINGS . CONCRETE, TILT-UP March 24, 1988 City of San Bernardino City Clerks Office 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino. California 92418 Attention: ~myor Wilcox and City Council Reference: PLANNING COMMISION APPEAL PLAN NO. 88-06 REVIEW DENIAL Dear Mayor and City Council: We are requesting approval to construct a seventeen thousand eight hundred fifty four (17,854) square foot addition to Stockwell and Binney's existing fifty-two thousand (52,000) square foot warehouse and offices located at 420 South "E" Street. The existing structure is of metal construction, and we have been denied approval because we seek to match their existing facility. Should we expand their facilities with tilt-up, stucco. wood frame. or concrete block construction, the result would be a mixture of structures and in no way, would we achieve a complimentary blend of building without the use of metal. Buildings to the immediate North and South of the site are mostly of metal construction. A new building for "La-Z-Boy", across the street, has a large mansard, as does the rear off-set facing "E" street. We have a rendering of what this completed project will look like. Ina move to break-up the all metal look. we have proposed stucco panels along the East and North wall. with landscape to enhance t~e overall appearance of the property. ...j' . ..", . ~:jA:.; ;:~;';";" ;~:h<';t..il :.1" 680 South Waterman Avenue. San Bernardino. California 92406 . (714) 888-4134/825-7664 . c' o o o City 0 f San Bernardino Attention: Mayor and City Council March 24, 1988 Page Two We have recently been through two levels of review; One, The Design Review Commitee, and Two, The Planning Commision, both of which re- jectedthe project due to The Central City Redevelopment Plan contain- ing the Guidelines. Neither the Design Guidelines, nor the Ordinances adapting them, contain any provisions permitting the Redevelopment Agency to vary the standard. The Guidelines stipulate only that there are two levels of appeal; The Planning Commision. and The City Council. There is no provision granting authority to The Planning Commision to override the Guidelines, so in taking our appeal to The Planning Commision, we were not even given the opportunity for discussion, as their hands were tied. Respectfully, we ask you to reconsider your hard, fast stand against all metal buildings, and approach this project with an open mind. If no metal is allowed. then you rule out attractive mansards, canopies, and architectual panels. Due to the already long delay on this project for Stockwell and Binney, we request an appeal at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Respectfully, PENCO BUILDERS, INC. A,CcI C?'J'--'/;JtJJ t- DeWayne Bridges Sales Representative DB:vp , c o ATTACHMEt7 o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PlANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # LOCATION CASE RP - 88-6 11 HEARING DATE 1/1 c)/88 ~.._....._.. C'3A @:EJ8B[] 1& T . . ~ M.I , M-2 II" i % .. :;: M-2 .. M-I M-2 M-2 .. CoM ,.,.,,, ".... $ ... .. .. ti '" ... .. ! C." C'M C'M .. . M-I , M-2 ffiB " COM M-I .. . C.M C.M o M.I CoM M02 CoM 101-1 Mo ... M-I CoM C M 101-1 ~~ 101-1 CoM C'M 101-1 M.I . n C-3 RIll. te C-' C., CoM !A CoM M-2 M02 .0. C." CoM Mol M-2 10102 .0. "0" "0" C'M C.., ') ~4" ",+ .. , '.0" ~ ... I .0. M-I CoM .' e o o CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATION CASE RP 88-6 HEARING DATE 1/1S/RR ~ RIALTO ST. . ~ .. . ~ . a:: ~.. ~ ~ IIILL o ~ . ~ . a:: .. SlUDY AREA BOUNDARIES o AGENDA, ITEM # 11 ...