HomeMy WebLinkAbout57-Planning
CI-A- OF SAN BERNARD~O - REQU~ FOR COUNCIL ACWON
David Anderson
From: Acting Planning Director
Subject:
Appeal of Variance No. 87-6
Dept:
Planning
Mayor and Council Meeting of
May 18, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Date:
May 6, 1987
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
Previous Planning Commission action:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 1987, the
following action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 87-6 was denied based upon findings
of fact contained in the staff report dated April 21, 1987.
Vote: 8-1
Recommended motion:
That the hearing on the appeal be closed and the decision of the
Planning Commission be affirmed, modified or rejected.
C/#
Signature David Anderson
Ward:
383-5057
3
Contact person: David Anderson
Supporting data attached: Staff Report
Phone:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
.___~. .~._ .._c:!!!i" /:
.
...'.'.0"'....
:, ~-':;;' ~ - ~~
. '
18,'
," .. '. "'..'~
~""" -,..... .
1_ "',' '.-". _.'~' ..
"~.'., .,....,'.,..',.
~~..,.'fAt',$, ''''',~.-i;~,'''',~-<
. "01 ",', :_' .. -.'"J' .~", .. f',.
'~_':r:..,;>.,~-~" ' ~~IF~
.. '-\." ,',.. ~ ", c.:" ~;'.' '._,,~.t> 'l:....'.:/' ~."...
'"
~ .~.
liD. ~ r"" !i;.' ;; \".;; :''; il'
o .. ,.., 1- ,,- I. \. 'I.',
\"" ",... .
L.n.1
APR30 1987 ,~,.
~_:..'.;';':-l,"';~,~t;> .. ,:,::-'" ~~-1ti;
"."hR.
Caporatioo
Apr 11 29, 1987
.j"'. 'l~~'f
"=:"'~<>"'~"~"/".""...,".. ,
Dear SbaUl'ial
Per your request I have summarized our reasons for appea~inq the
above applications:
1.
variance t87-6
I
I have taken a bliqhted redevelopment area
and
,;.;
.t;.. ',':
~.
."..:'1....
"_- .' "~. ."
:!2.') \\'t'~{ Hmpitalil\ Lme, Suilf 100. San Bt'rnardino. Cdlitomia 92408. 1714\ R89.2~87
e.\SAHEI:\t
. SACR.U.I[~"TO
. SEA TILE
. GESEY,\
-
',~
o
.r.-it~.t~':-:'.
'~:;f'."'5"114Z;\;~i;!;;;-)<",~\:,.t~:;~~~,!,,:,",,~, ','''',','
'''~h (:'t.;','A::1:..;:.... ",.' .e;. ' ,w , ,
,t .(, \' ....,~ ':'~:'If'$~. i! ,"~;..z'" ''1':..:,. ~ ~- ":;."ij.I"~ ;fr~';:d:"
,.. ~'''',>.;.. ," ':" ',.."', ! I"'.~>t~.,...,'..,
~~~:l:~!~~~~~:t~ ~~:O~!~r~:' t~~a~ O~' ~ 9n. er:~~~~:",
~:l~O:: ~:~i::~:r~c::.:~:.f:~.t::y::i::~~~~; 8.Tt~~;"
Director I consummated a binding lease agr...ent.
,0
-,1n~'~, ,.,\.t)'. *"t.-.. ."
;'1~
'r :~;". ~;-,
/~i~~Xi~ \i~7f',~
i:
iilt'"
,', "0
. , ~. .
~_ ' ".; ~:l~,~~::..c:~~~'f~":l{if~).;;l'_~;.
Kind regarc!il'i""'''':'''' ,
',.., ',1" ~ ,.', " '. _' ,1"':. "~""" '. _'., ' ';' ", .~':,:' ,
,.,,/..",.~:,."'~' . ','\it?,~."""~~,,
"\-,I!'o(>"~...,~.,,.- . ", .~;':;f.',..'" ,,~:~.:t'fr"""'.'i:.:","-,',"';~
~-. .".
Mervyn Simchowitz
'.rBB SIIICBOIfI'f1 CORPOllA'l'IOII
iI+'
+,'.""
1
1"
f
118:8ls
\,~~.'.
:.~
f. . A}<~j i'~;'l~;-'
:', 4f,J."lk '114>"'"
~ .~,'.~~'.'~~_~\;l.yf-~.-:,~'.
<,' , ,. ,,,...,,,,
~~,:~.t'
(~~t~i.~'~ .
1t~;'L ~
...., ;
,:/.~\?,.
'Mi':;:( ',_.'
,
-,'r.:.f/ r"""~:,.':
1:'41..Jii)fIIflIIlll. rq""ii'~',(" !~- .t .uOt".'jiJ .llflj.i/JIj~'iilt..A~~
~~~~:~l'i~?;".~~l~'~._~~~l"~(".,< <,'
. '".., '~.~~ '~~~.I"J:~'~~
" ,'1 ,;'" '-::;.of,,;'.",'''''' .~,:,.;'.:;r..!~,",
~'~'~" "h:\i~~,: .I'i-::~' ~j:"~:,~,~:I:"'.;*\l'l~}"", '-.. '!I;f~"'~.':t>S:. ,.~-
.,-~":"",,,,~,~....: .,.{.~4'A..,,',-'l",b,'y~, ",'" ',' . . ",,: "
.. " "",i~:...,,~;,f.~~,~
; ~ '
~'~,.,~
, ':-~ )L.'(~.:;,;lo"'~':-
... i,; ~;i"t ,_:'
'~!~'~f~t '~'~"
',.I..'","'s",'" :
~- ",!,Il::..;.~,".
~'" i ,~.-' ;:.;
'0
o
":)
:>
o.,.{~!!l!to~i~~~'~
"....".:..::;....~.I]
'. ~ :'......,) 1...)"''-.1
'_ r._ '.' ."\.~..
CITY OF,~;~,AvrERNARDINO
',' ,'.,
3QO NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418
EVLYN WILCOX
Mayor
Members 0' the Common Council
Either Elhaae. . . . . . . . . . . . . Firs, Ward
Jack R.UI)'.. . . ....... .. . Second W.rd
Relph Hernand., . . . . . . . . . . . Third Ward
Stayo Marka . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourth Ward
Gordon Qulel . ...... ... ... Fifth Ward
o.n FruJe, . . . . . " . . . . . . . Sixth Werd
Jack Strlckl., . . . . . . . . . . . .s.".nth W.,d
Apr il 24, 1987
.San Bernardino Joint Venture
225 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 100
San Bernardino, CA 92408
Dear Sir or Madame:
At the meeting of the Planning Commission on April 21, 1987,
the following action was taken:
The application for Variance No. 87-6, to permit a waiver of
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.60.220.A. and B. in
extending a proposed sign above the roof line and exceeding
the maximum area of wall signs allowed on a rectangularly-
shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.9 acres
having a frontage of approximately 540 feet on the south side
of Caroline Street and being located approximately 685 feet
east of the centerline of Hunts Lane and further described as
125 West Caroline Street, was denied based upon findings of
fact contained in the staff report dated April 21, 1987.
According to the San Bernardino Municipal Code, Section
19.74.080., the following applies to the above variance:
"The decision of the Commission shall be final unless an
appeal therefrom is taken to the Common Council as provided
for in this section. Such decision shall not become effec-
tive for ten days from the date that the written decision has
been made and notice thereof mailed to the applicant, during
~Ihich time wr itten appeal therefrom may be taken to the
Council by the applicant or any other person aggrieved by
such decision. The Council may, upon its own motion, cause
any Commission decision to be appealed."
.0. 'i 0 ."S
I;""'l. ".:,;IC:)
.,
,;-,
./J
o
o
:>
:)
San Bernardino Joint Venture
. April 24, 1987
Page 2
If no appeal is filed pursuant to the previously mentioned
provisions of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the action
.of the Commission shall be final.
Sinc;;lY' . '
AO ,/',4c.___.
DAVID ANDERSON
Acting Planning Director
mkf
cc: . Building and Safety Dept.
i
,
'0
o
o
o
, CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'\
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
WARD
8
4/21/87
3
~
, r-... ~
AP~I~NT: San Bernardino Joint Ventu
ILl 225 W. Hospitality Lane,
5 Suite 1100,
Variance No. 87-6 OWNER: San Bdno., CA 92408
OWNER- Same
~ '"
t3 The ap)licant requests a variance of Code Section 19.60.220(A)
and (B for wall signs to project above the top of the roof and
! to exceed the maximum allowable area for a wall sign in the C-M.
Commercial-Manufacturing District.
a:
.... Subject properties consist of approximately 10.9 acres, having
c:z a frontage of approximatIely 580 feet on the south side of .
ILl Caroline Street, approximately 450 feet east of the centerline
I~ of Hunts Lane. In addition, subject properties also have
frontage of 360 feet and 250 feet respectively on Concourse Way
and another portion of Caroline Street.
'---"
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION
Subject Commercial C-M General Industrial
North Commercial C-M General Industrial
South Vacant 11-1 Light Industrial
East Vacant 11-1 General Industrial
West Commercial C-M General Industrial
( GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC DYES )( FLOOD HAZARD l3hES OZONE A ( SEWERS IXI YES
HAZARD ZONE K)NO ZONE DNO IlDZONE B DNO
( HIGH FIRE DYES J ( AIRPORT NOISE / DYES J( REDEVELOPMENT ~YES )
HAZARD ZONE [I NO CRASH ZONE IXI NO PROJECT AREA NO
~ o NOT o POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z D APPROVAL
AP~ICABLE EFFECTS 0
WITH MITIGATING - 0
ZU) MEASURES NO E.I.R. ij CONDITIONS
ILl" K.J EXEMPT o E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO ...0 IX)
2Z ...15 DENIAL
z- SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
00 WITH MITIGATING t!:E D CONTINUANCE TO
a:Z MEASURES tn:E
--
>... 0
z DNO D SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS U
ILl SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R. C. ILl
EFFE CTS MINUTES a:
'"
\. ~
NOV. 1..1 RlVlnO ~ULY III.
IKY
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR NO. 87-6
OBSERVATIONS
R
["/?1/R7
.,
\..
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
1. The request is to waive Sections 19.60.220(A) and (B) of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code for wall signs to project above
the top of the roof and to exceed the maximum allowable area for
a wall sign in the C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing District. Said
Municipal Code Section states in part:
A. Wall signs: Wall signs may be placed anywhere on the
building but may not project above top of roof or beyond
end of roof line or building.
B. Area of wall signs: Signs may be placed on sides of
buildings having frontage on a public street up to a
maximum of two sides per building. Allowable total square
footage to be based on a ratio of two square feet of sign
area for each linear foot of building frontage per" street
frontage up to a maximum of one hundred fifty square feet
of total sign area per street frontage.
The subject properties are located on the southerly side of the
Caroline Street and Concourse Way intersection.
2. The area of the proposed signage is approximately 245 square
feet per sign; the variance request is for two such slgns
mounted on the DBuyer's ClubD building with the top of said
signs positioned above the roof line. (Said building is
currently under construction.) The proposal is for the 7'lD by
35'3D signs to be attached to the parapet for maximum exposure.
3. The Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled
meeting held on March 19, 1987, determined the project to be
categorically exempt from environmental review.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR NO. 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT
R
t..1?1/R7
., .
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
r
ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A VARIANCE MUST INCLUDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO
EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE NEED
FOR THE VARIANCE.
The applicant has responded to the four necessary findings needed to
approve a variance. The following are those four findings followed
by the staff's response.
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the
intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to
other property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
Applicant's Response
In order to create a regional center in a blighted area, signage
is the most important ingredient. To establish a consumer
awareness of this center, it is necessary to over emphasize
signage, especially if it is to be viewed from Interstate 10 &
215 (Measuring channel letter only and not spaces - sign would
fall within the 150 square foot maximum.)
Staff's Response
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance, as stipulated
by State law and City Ordinance, can only be granted due to
special circumstances applicable to the property including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings.
There are no unusual, exceptional
that are physical in nature that
the requested variance.
or extraordinary circumstances
would warrant the approval of
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
~Rlicant's Response
This variance is mandatory to insure the success of our tenant's
retail business.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR NO. 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT
R
4/71/R7
fi
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
staff's Response
Substantial property right refers to the right to use the
property in a manner which is on a par with uses allowed to
other property owners which are in the vicinity and have a like
zoning. The purpose of the variance is to restore parity where
the strict application of the zoning law deprives such property
owners of Privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification.
The applicant's response suggests that the purpose of this sign
variance is that there is a financial hardship being placed on
the applicant due to sign code requirements. State planning law
disallows the granting of a variance due to financial hardships.
There is no evidence presented which would indicate that the
preexisting sign ordinance deprives the property owner of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under
identical zoning classification.
C. That the granting of the variance will not 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.
AEBlicant's Response
Yes.
Staff's Response
In determining the application for a variance, the best interest
of the entire community is the controlling factor rather than
the suitability or adaptability of the property in question for
a particular use.
The granting of the variance request would set a precedent for
future requests. The best interest of the community would be
served by continued efforts to bring signage into conformance
with current codes.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the
objectives of the Master Plan.
Applicant's R@sponse
Yes.
o
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CASE VAR NO 87-6
FINDINGS of FACT
R
1./?1.'87
.
AGENDA ITEM
HEARING DATE
PAGE
staff's Response
The City of San Bernardino General Plan designation for the
specific site under review is -General Industrial.- The
General Plan encourages development standards that will enhance
the City. Allowing such a large increase in signage and signage
that is above the roof would not be in keeping with the goals
and objectives of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the observations and the negative findings of fact
contained herein, Staff recommends denial of Variance No. 87-6.
Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID ANDERSON,
Acting Planning Director
MI~~' Associate Planner
,
,
I J "1
n 1\ i9
:.\ ,lq l
1).1, J .s '111111I
, 41 ~ 'III, "I
I @ I .,
; i J !d ,- 'II
!l . I. Jl I 4 .
; I,: '~i---" f t~L. t'i J.4J f ,
.
)
o
.
I
I
~'
I
I
,
\' U
\ .
, I
, ,
\
,
i 111
: !!
, I'
I'
,
\
,
,
,
\
,
i
-'1
, !m
I"
I
1
,
,
!IS ,
,
"1 ,
"
\
~ I ,
1
!
"
I
,
,
"
I
--=-.:._.:.,~
I
f
I
.
I
'll
, .
i' I I,
J1
II
, ,
~
"
,..
...
~
"
~fO
~
I
[;:
[I,
'-i
, \
, ,
I
..
~
r',
..
m: f
>C
-l
m
a
o
:II
,
c
~
i
I
o
.
-@
-@
, I
'j@
1\'
I : I
"
,
I
~
,,J
I"
I'
I
.
-1
,II
.
"I I'
~1
, II
:, b,1
I :Iii
'"L.
"
ili ~J
I 15
J,
r.
f
-\
II:\I!
! hl.~
, 111,11
, I q..
l~ ... ~
iq I
I, '--'1
l. I '!S
: ~iI
! Ir
o@ 1 \';
I : I i .U
~ . I: !I
Je L ~ \ (4l
Q Ii 1\
t I I I
, I i f.
e 11 i I!
, _It
I
.1
j
.1:
,~ \11"
--Ii
_@ I :
o
\.
I!
.
f
,I
n
t:: r
....
I
I .
I
&1
~
lit
...
..
:II
lit ~)
-
...
..
..
~
~
.
111JlllI I ill
ITllTTTl 1m
l+ ,,-.--
L111JlllI I ill
r ITIlTTT I I m
tI'!!!!.lff!lf\~.__ _
L11 IJlll I I ill
r ITIlTTT I I m
u.,i._'~.""~
_._... I
-..... .... -'I I
. .. -- \
I i
/ I in
'I I"
I ~ ,.
I !O
Ii !~
In I-
II '.
Iii!
" I-
ii i:
II I-
I !~
'I !
., I
I
'.' .:
: ~ i -. ~
': . !l;'
;i' .
.
..
..
.
.
1"" :
.
.
1.111\i I! 1 !JI !!! It '
I.: ' I ',"'1 I' , ..
."'1 I 1 ..
I,,. I llil .' .
\," Ii
,,'!.. ., "T 1"... C
I,ll I" I..
lo. - .:r.l.
'i.!! ~ i' ! I': ,j:I'''!'I' :~Ii :
\',. .,' I I.', I " -
; i I !'! ~ I'll .:,~ 0
'. \' I ·
I t' I ,.
I . ..;
" ;!!
!. i i ~ . ~ i r
i i H ~ l .
.."t.
~
-
o
,
o
o
o
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
ITEM #
LOCATION
CASE
VAR NO. ~7-6
lo..
HEARING DATE ~/21/87
8
C>M CoM CoM
SA CoM CoM
CoM
C-3A C-3A, Co3A
,
C-3A C-3A
l~:. ~ V L..:E:
'~=800'
CoM
CoM
COM
INTERSTATE @
-3A
COM C-3A
'SA
".
::
Ii
,
..
C'M
c-..
CoM
CoM
.
.. M-I
..
"-I
M-I
M-I
101-1
t CoM
II
M-I
M-I
M-I
"-I
,
,
M'I
M-IA
M-I
M-IA
)
I
. M-I
a
"-I
~[ '1iRiiiT "-I
M-I taL -rrJ
M-IA
IoI-IA
R-3-1200
"-I
c~
tA~ .
,,0
_~~TY OF SAN r~B:NARD!NO 0-
To Mayor Evlyn Wilcox
rilEMORANDU~
'.-
Vincent Bautista,
From Acting Planning Direct
Subject
.
Findings of Fact for Variance No. 87-6
Date May 18,1987
.
Approved ~ " Date
As per your request, these are the findings of fact for
Variance No. 87-6 which should be used to establish the need
or basis for said variance~
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved, or to
the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district.
Applicant's Response
In order to create a regional center in a blighted area,
signage is the most important ingredient. To establish
a consumer awareness of this center, it is necessary to
overemphasize signage, especially if it is to be viewed
from Interstate 10 and 215 (Measuring channel letter
only and not spaces - sign would fall within the 150
square foot minimum.>
Staff's Response
Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance, as
stipulated by State law and City Ordinance, can only be
granted due to special circumstances applicable to the
property including size, shape, topography and location
or surroundings.
The building in question is positioned
other buildings in relation to the
thereby, reducing the visibility and
building to the motoring public.
behind several
1-10 Freeway,
exposure of said
B.
That such variance is necessary for the
enjoyment of a substantial property
applicant.
bpplicant's Response
This variance is mandatory to insure the success of our
tenant's retail business,
preservation and
right of the
,-:.: .r
:'.>y :'!_;(.;~? .~~,
Staff's Response:
Substantial property right refers
the property in a manner which is
allowed to other property owners
to the right to use
on a par with uses
which are in the
.i;
'/
t
s-1
o.
o
Memorandum to Ma(or Wilcox
Findings of Fact for Variance
May 18, 1987
page 2
o
(
o
No. 87-6
.
.
vicinity and have a like zoning. The purpose of the
variance is to restore parity where the strict
application of the zoning law deprives such property
owners of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Other businesses within the area are sizable in nature
and to limit the signage of the BBuyer's ClubB -- a
relatively large structure -- would unduly penalize the
building in question. In addition, the maximum area for
the size is 150 square feet of total signage area, per
Code, a small amount for a building of such size.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property and improvements in the zoning district and
neighborhood in which the property is located.
Applicant's Response
Yes.
Staff~s Response:
In determining the application for a variance, the best
interest of the entire community is the controlling
factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of
the property in question for a particular use.
The granting of this variance request will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or 1nJur-
ious to property and improvements in the zoning district
in which the project is located. The sign would be
located-in an area out of visual impact of the general
public entering and leaving the store in question.
D. That the granting of such a variance will not be
contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan.
bPPlicant's Response
Yes.
~~ff~s Response
In determining the application for a variance, the best
interest of the entire community is the controlling
factor rather than the suitability or adaptability of
the property in question for a particular use.
t
o
Memorandum to Mg:-~r ~cox ~
Findings of Fact for~riance No. 87~
May 18, 1987
Page 3
r-
'\
.
.
The City of San Berna~din~ General Plan designation for
the site under reVlew lS General Industrial. The
General Industrial label includes, by its very nature, a
number of heavy uses. The City has determined that this
variance will not be contrary to the objectives and
intent of the General Plan or any of its elements.
.
o