Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout41- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNA. -DINO - REQUEST FC- A, COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Variance No. 93-02 (Appeal ) Signage at shopping center on southwest corner of Dept: Planning & Building Services Highland and Del Rosa. Date: July 29, 1993 MCC meeting of August 2, 1993 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 07/19/93 -- The Mayor and Common Council considered the appeal of the Planning Commission 's denial and continued for two weeks for the applicant to consider a compromise. Recommended motion: That the hearing be closed and Variance No. 93-02 be approved to allow a 20 foot monument sign of 100 square feet with seven tenant panels, based on the Findings of Fact (Attachment 3) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 4) . 1/0,44 Signature Al y, irector Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Resort Ward: 7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: CITY OF SAN BERNARDIN O _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of ust ian1993 o. 93-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting o g REQUEST AND LOCATION t uiel Brothers Electric Sign Service Co., Inc., is appealing the Planning The applicant, Q fission's denial of Variance No. 93-02, a request to construct of up t center lltenants. tion pylon Comm r face and the identity sign with 120 square feet of sign area Pe is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 4 acres located at the The subjec t Property corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General, southwest land use district (see Location Map, Attachment 1). pREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION On July 19, 1993, the Council continued the public hearing to allow the appellant to consider compromise proposed by staff. The appellant has agreed to reduce the face(Attachments i comp P identification panels to 7 and to reduce the sign area to 100 square feet pe 2 and 3). OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 93-02; OR They Mayor and Common Council may uphold the appeal and approve Variance No. 93-02. RECOMIMENDATION It is the recommendation of staff that the Mayor and Common F ct ncAi tachhment 4) anappeal ject approve Variance No. 93-02 based on the attached Findings of to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment 5). Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Services D Variance No. 93-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting July 19, 1993 Page 2 Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 - Revised Plans 3 - Applicant's Letter of Agreement 4 - Findings of Fact 5 - Conditions of Approval AGENDA BERNARDINO PLANNING CITY OF SAN TMENT AND • • • : variance • LOCATION —HEARING � . 1 r• 1 1 s . • o TE 8/02/93 r , ,F-t 7' a ATTACHMENT 2 ss T I jq,� rT tA y i L- 5 .Sri ,Odj 71 Wi _ - 3 Z 3 i �x C SIGNS BY 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410 PH. 909-885-4476 FAX 909-888-2239 0 u t 7, 1993 J U L 2 81993 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF PL ANNING & A TTN: AL BOUGHEY BUILDING SERVICES 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: Variance No. 93-02 Multi-Tenant Sign at Highland & Del Rosa Dear Al, Our client is in agreement with the recommendation to reduce the square footage of sign from 120 to 100, and to reduce the number of tenant panels, from eleven to seven on each face. I have enclosed three full size and one reduced size drawings, showing the revised design. Please review and call me if you have any questions. I appreciate you working with us in suggesting this compromise. I would still like to see some revisions to the cities sign ordinance, but that's another issue. Thank you, QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN S RVICE CO NC. l Gary Qui I Vice-President C.C. Rachel Clark City Clerk GQ/er SALES • SERVICE • LEASING • MAINTENANCE • CRANE SERVICE • NEON 1­1 .. - u.. 0171da City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING MCC HEARING DATE: 8-2-93 AND BUILDING SERVICES PAGE 4 FINDINGS OF FACT Attachment 4 1. There are circumstances applicable to the property, consisting of location and surroundings, such that the strict application of the Development Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use district classification. The shopping center in question is set back a minimum of 360 feet from the Highland Avenue right-of-way and is obstructed from Highland Avenue visibility by three buildings having direct frontage onto Highland Avenue and located between the Highland Avenue right-of-way and the buildings comprising the subject shopping center. The granting of this variance, to allow a multi- tenant center sign with the identity of up to 7 tenants per face, is necessary to provide the occupying businesses the visual identity from Highland Avenue; the increase in sign area to 100 square feet per face is necessary to facilitate the legibility of the additional text panels. 2. The granting of this variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity or denied to the property for which the variance is sought. Other centers in the vicinity are provided visibility from the public streets by signage located on the respective buildings and/or on y_ multi-tenant freestanding signs, whether conforming to current Development Code standards or not. Due to the lack of visibility of the subject buildings, visibility must be provided solely by a center identification sign with compensating additional tenant identification panels. 3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land use district in which the property is located in that the construction of the sign would be subject to all adopted, applicable uniform safety codes. 4. The granting of this variance request would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located in that the granting of this variance request is intended to provide a degree of on- site business identity that is equitable with respect to other businesses in the area that are afforded a higher degree of visibility due to their respective locations and surroundings. 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 is not inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy 1.45.4 requires the number and size of signs in private development to be minimized, and the proposed sign, in terms of size and tenant identity, has been determined to be the minimum necessary to provide adequate identity of the businesses located within the center. City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING MCC HEARING DATE: 8-2-93 AND BUILDING SERVICES PAGE 5 CONDITIONS Attachment 5 1. No more than seven (7) individual shopping center tenants shall be permitted to be identified on the sign approved under this Variance. The maximum area for tenant identification shall be one hundred (100) square feet per face. 2. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application to the Planning Division in accordance to the policies and procedures in effect at the time of submittal. 3. Construction shall be in substantial conformance with the plans approved by the Mayor and Common Council, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Staff Report to the Mayor and Common Council, dated August 2, 1993. 4. Within one year of development approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the permit/approval shall become null and void. Project : VARIANCE NO. 93-02 Expiration Date: AUGUST 2, 1994 5. The review authority may, upon application being filed 30 days prior to the expiration date and for good cause, grant one time extension not to exceed 12 months. 6. In the event that this approval is legally challenged, the City will promptly notify the applicant of any claim or action and will cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of San Bernardino. The applicant further agrees to reimburse the City of any costs and attorney's fees which the City may be required by the court to pay as a result of such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligation under this condition. 7. No additional center identification signage shall be permitted. CITY OF SAN BERNI-IDINO - REQUEST Fr I COUNCIL ACTION Al Boughey, Director Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance No. 93-02 Multi-tenant sign Dept: Planning & Building Services at Highland and Del Rosa, Southwest Date: July 8, 1993 MCC meeting of 07/19/93 Synopsis of Previous Council action: None &coMmended,motion: Th°t the hearing be closed, the appeal be denied and Variance No. 93-02 be denied based on 7indings of Fact (Attachment B of Exhibit 3) . OR That the hearing be closed, the appeal be upheld, Variance No. 93-02 be approved in concept and the item be continued to August 2, 1993 for staff to prepare posi ive findings. 1 Boughe ig re Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 5357 Supporting data attached: Yes Ward: 7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: ,cil Notes: CITY OF SAN BERNI-%. %DINO - REQUEST FOK COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Variance No. 93-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of July 19, 1993 REQUEST AND LOCATION The applicant, Quiel Brothers Electric Sign Service Co., Inc., is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 93-02, a request to construct a center identification pylon sign with 120 square feet of sign area per face and the identity of up to 11 tenants. The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 4 acres located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use district (see Location Map, Exhibit 1). BACKGROUND On May 18, 1993, the Planning Commission denied Variance No. 93-02 by a 5-1 vote of the Commissioners and alternate present (ayes by Gaffney, Lopez, Ortega, Traver and Stone; nay by Romero; absent were Clemenson, Cole and Jordan). Findings of Fact are contained in Attachment B of the staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 3). On May 25, 1993, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Variance No. 93-02 (Exhibit 2). KEY POINTS • Presently, there is no multi-tenant signage on the subject property, although the site is permitted one 20-foot tall monument sign per street frontage with 75 square feet of sign area per face and the identity of up to three major tenants. • The applicant cites the numerous nonconforming signs in the Highland/Del Rosa/Sterling area with identification of up to 18 tenants as justification for this variance request. However, staff maintains that the effectiveness of a sign to communicate information diminishes as the amount of text increases; hence, the purpose of the applicant's request may be self-defeating. • The shopping center and outparcels in question were constructed in 1980, and the owners had the opportunity for several years thereafter to install a center identification sign with an unrestricted number of tenant panels based on the previous, less restrictive sign code. Since the property was subject to essentially the same physical constraints as it is now, the more likely cause of the current vacancy problems cited by the applicant is the overall economic decline that is presently affecting the commercial sector as a whole--a trend that is not likely to be reversed by an oversized sign. 0 Variance No. 93-02 Mayor and Common Council Meeting July 19, 1993 Page 2 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council May deny the appeal and deny Variance No. 93-02; OR The Mayor and Common Council may continue the item, uphold the appeal, approve Variance No. 93-02 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. 93-02 based on the Findings of Fact contained in Exhibit 3. Prepared by: Gregory S. Gubman, Associate Planner for Al Boughey, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Services Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 - Letter of Appeal 3 - Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 18, 1993 i ilk EXHIBIT 3 A CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM #7 SUMMARY HEARING DATE May 18 , 1993 WARD 7 APPLICANT: Quiel Bros . Signs 272 So . "I" Street W San Bernardino , CA 92410 N U Variance No . 93-02 OWNER: H . Frank Dominguez c/o Alan D . Smith , Trustee Perkins & Cole 1999 Avenue of the Stars 0 The applicant requests a Variance from Development Code Section W19 . 22 . 150 (c) (3) (e) , to construct a multi-tenant shopping center sign that identifies 11 tenants with 120 square feet of sign Warea per face . X QSubject property consists of approximately 4 acres , located at W the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue . Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Multi-tenant Retail CG-1 Commercial Genera North " if it " It " South Commercial Retail " it " East Multi-tenant Retail it it it West Commercial Recreation GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC ❑=NO FLOOD HAZARD ❑ YES ❑ ZONE A SEWERS: ® YES HAZARD ZONE: � ZONE. E] NO ❑ ZONE B ❑ NO HIGH FIRE ❑ YES C AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES REDEVELOPMENT El YES HAZARD ZONE: NO CRASH ZONE: PROJECT AREA: ® NO ® NO Q F-1 NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z El APPROVAL APPLICABLE EFFECTS WITH 0 F— MITIGATING MEASURES W M NO E.I.R. Q ❑ CONDITIONS M Z ® EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO U. Z [� DENIAL Z G SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Q W cc Z MIEASURESATING N 0 ❑ CONTINUANCE TO LL Z ❑ NO SIGNIFICANT ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 0 W EFFECTS SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W MINUTES 01 eu.am aer.G i nG i IAAM � ® At 0 City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 1 REQUEST Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.72.030(2), the applicant is requesting a Variance from Development Code Section 19.22.150(C)(3)(e)to construct a center identification pylon sign with 120 square feet of sign area per face and the identity of up to 11 tenants. SITE LOCATION The subject property is irregular in shape and consists of approximately 4 acres located at the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General, land use district (see Site Plan, Attachment D and Location Map, Attachment E). DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY The proposed sign is not consistent with the following Development Code standards: SPECZFICA77ON 77 PE AREA #OF TENANTS ON SIGN ALLOWED Monument 75 square feet per face 3 major tenants PROPOSED Pylon 120 square feet per face 1 11 tenants An expanded table of Development Code and General Plan consistency is presented in Attachment A. CEQA STATUS The proposal has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as stated in the CEQA Guidelines under Article 19 (Categorical Exemptions), Section 15311(a). BACKGROUND On March 6, 1979, Review of Plans No. 79-26 was approved for the construction of the shopping center. Building permits were issued on May 7, 1979. On April 21, 1980, construction of a bank building (currently Chino Valley Bank) commenced. look City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 2 On April 30, 1980, building permits were issued for the construction of a McDonald's restaurant at the southwest corner of Highland and Del Rosa.' On February 1, 1993 the application for Variance No. 93-02 was submitted to the Planning Division. The application was deemed complete on February 22, 1993. ANALYSIS Variance Request Presently, the site has no multi-tenant signage whatsoever. According to the applicant, the center is suffering from a high vacancy level due to limited street visibility and competition from other centers with greater street visibility and center identification signage. The applicant believes that the proposed sign will "provide the incentive to help fill much of the occupancies and put some life back into this shopping center.i2 Development Code Standards Based on the size of the subject property (4 acres), Development Code Section 19.22.150(C)(3)(f) allows one double-face monument sign per street frontage with a maximum height of 20 feet, a maximum area of 75 square feet and the identity of up to three major tenants. If a shopping center is 25 acres in area or more, the maximum allowable sign height and area are 25 feet and 120 square feet per face, respectively, and the sign may identify up to 4 anchor tenants. Proposed Sign The applicant proposes to install a 20-foot tall pylon sign, consisting of a 12-foot tall, double- faced sign cabinet atop an 8-foot tall support structure. The proposed sign cabinet is 10 feet wide, providing an overall signage area of 120 square feet per face. The proposed location of 1 This restaurant is located on a separate parcel,but shares reciprocal access with the subject parcel.The same is true for the World Savings building,constructed in 1962. 2 The applicant purports the vacancy rate to be at 50%for the center.However,according to City records and on-site inspections,only two of the center's eight shop spaces are currently unoccupied. i ® A ..► 0 City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 3 the sign is along the Del Rosa Avenue frontage, approximately 200 feet south of the Highland Avenue right-of-way. Each face of the proposed sign contains identification panels for 11 tenants (although the center has only eight shop spaces), consisting of one anchor tenant (Sears Outlet Center) panel at 20 square feet, and 10 secondary panels at 10 square feet each. The sign text and backgrounds are proposed to be internally illuminated. Effectiveness of Proposed Sign The applicant has identified several shopping centers in the vicinity of the subject property whose pylon signs identify up to 18 tenants. The applicant argues, in the name of fairness, that the subject property should be allowed comparable signage in order to compete equally for customers and tenants. Staff does not concur with the applicants belief that the effectiveness of a sign improves as the number of tenants identified on the sign increases. Rather, staff finds the contrary to be true. Through field observations, it was observed that a sign's ability to communicate information diminishes as the amount of text increases: the point of decreasing total effectiveness appears to occur when the number of tenants on the sign exceeds five. In the worst cases, signs with numerous rows and columns of small text (such as Del Rosa Center at the northeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa) require the observer to be stationary at close proximity in order to assimilate the information on the sign. City Sign Design Objectives Staff's observations support the intent behind the Development Code's sign standards. The Development Code Sign Design Guidelines, which are used to help communicate the City's design objectives, contain the following passages: Use a brief message - The fewer the words, the more effective the sign. A sign with a brief, succinct message is simpler and faster to read, looks cleaner and is more attractive. [§G 19.22.160(A)] Avoid hard-to-read, overly intricate typefaces - These typefaces are difficult to read and reduce the sign's ability to communicate. [§G19.22.160(B)] i ® A ► City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 4 To maximize the effectiveness of center identification signage, the Development Code allows only the identity of up to three anchor tenants. An anchor tenant is defined as follows: A shopping center key tenant, usually the largest or one of the largest tenants located within the shopping center, which serves to attract customers to the center through its size, product line, name and reputation. the term anchor tenant is interchangeable with the term major tenant. [§19.22.030] Anchor Tenants on Site The primary anchor tenant of the in-line building is the Sears Outlet Center. Two other in-line tenants that can be considered anchors, due to size, are a pizza restaurant and a tropical fish store. The Development Code would allow 25 square feet of signage for each of these tenants on a center identification sign, or a total area of 75 square feet. Chino Valley Bank, which occupies a separate lease pad with frontage on Highland Avenue, has its own monument sign. Although not technically part of the shopping center, McDonald's and World Savings occupy outparcels along Highland Avenue, and share common drives with the subject property. Because these outparcels are, to a certain extent, integrated with the subject property, they serve virtually the same function as anchor tenants. Thus, it appears that the subject property now has the benefit of highly visible major tenants. Requirements for Granting a Variance Section 65906 of the California Government Code identifies specific parameters under which a variance may be granted. Section 19.72.050 of the Development Code incorporates these provisions into the mandatory findings that the Commission must make prior to granting a variance. • To grant a variance, the decision-making body must find that there are special circumstances applicable to the property that cause the strict application of the Code to deprive such property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same land use district classification. • The granting of the variance must be found to not create a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUELDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 5 • The City may not grant a variance if it constitutes a special privilege that is not consistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which the subject property is located. • The granting of a variance may only apply to uses that are specifically permitted on the subject property. Finally, the granting of a variance cannot be in conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Applicant's Findings As part of the application process, persons requesting a variance are required to submit their own written findings to justify the need for a variance. The applicant's findings are presented in full in Attachment C. Staff's Findings 1. Special Circumstances The applicant argues that the obstructed visibility of the shopping center from Highland Avenue, caused by the outparcels in front of the center (McDonald's, World Savings and Chino Valley Bank), justifies the need to have every tenant identified on the sign. Staff conducted a comparative investigation of the subject property to determine if there exist any special circumstances applicable to the property--including size, shape, topography, location and surroundings--that would place the subject property at a direct disadvantage with other properties in the vicinity and identical land use classification if the Development Code sign standards were strictly applied. It was found that the limited visibility of the tenants on the subject property was not particularly unique or unusual. While some centers--such as Elmwood Center at 1689 E. Highland, Stephenson's Flowers center at the northwest corner of Del Rosa and Pumalo, and Del Rosa Center (south building) at the northeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa--had unobstructed street visibility for each tenant, many others did not. Notable examples include the Miller's Outpost/Krikorian center at the southeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa (across the street from the subject property), the Vons/Big 5 center at the northeast corner of Highland and 0 City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 6 Sterling, and the Grocery Warehouse/Payless Drug center at the southeast corner of Highland and Sterling--which provide neither unobstructed visibility to all shops, nor signage that identifies every tenant. 2. Necessity for the Preservation of a Property Right The applicant feels that, by denying this variance, the subject property will be denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity that are supposedly benefitting from signs similar to the one proposed. Staff disagrees. There is nothing to prevent the applicant from installing a sign that conforms to the standards of the Development Code; thus, the current sign standards do nothing to endanger the preservation of the property owners' right to have a center identification sign. The fact that other shopping centers have nonconforming signs identifying numerous tenants does not create a situation of inequity or place the subject property in a position of competitive disadvantage. The current sign standards were written with a clear understanding that the configuration of buildings in a shopping center will often result in many tenants not being visible from the adjacent streets. It is also understood that major tenants serve to attract customers to a shopping center (eg. Best/Marshall's Plaza, Sears Outlet Center, Inland Center Mall), which is why the Development Code allows multi-tenant signs to identify up to three major tenants. The other existing signs that the applicant is referring to are classified by the City as nonconforming signs. These signs were once permitted by the Municipal Code, but are now deemed inappropriate uses within the City of San Bernardino, primarily due to the visual pollution created by numerous and oversized signs, and shall be removed pursuant to an amortization schedule. It should also be noted that the shopping center and outparcels in question were constructed in 1980 (as stated, the World Savings building was constructed in 1962), and the owners had the opportunity for several years thereafter to install a center identification sign with an unrestricted number of tenant panels. Since the property was subject to essentially the same physical constraints as it is now, the more likely cause of the current vacancy problems cited by the applicant is the overall economic decline that is presently affecting the commercial sector as a whole--a trend that is not likely to be reversed by an oversized sign. 1 4 0 City Of Sall Bemardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 7 3. Health, Safety and General Welfare The applicant states that, rather than creating a detriment to public health and safety, the granting of the variance may enhance safety and reduce crime because the illuminated sign will increase lighting levels along Del Rosa Avenue. Also, the applicant believes the increased "consumer activity" that will supposedly result from the variance "will thereby aid in reducing crime in the area." Staff does not argue that the proposed sign would not be detrimental to the public health and safety. Staff does not agree that the proposed sign will help improve business in the center because the amount of information proposed on the sign will decrease its effectiveness. 4. Special Privilege While many other shopping centers in the general area have signs that do not conform to Development Code standards, and while the applicant requests on-site identity commensurate with the neighborhood, staff's interpretation of a special privilege precludes the making of a favorable finding. Those properties with nonconforming signs are enjoying a special privilege under the City's provisions for allowing nonconforming uses to remain for a specified period of time. Hence, the applicant is requesting the same special privilege. All new signs are subject to the same standards found in the Development Code. Since no unique or extraordinary physical constraints encumber the subject property, the granting of this variance will constitute a special privilege S. Permissiveness of Use As previously discussed, a freestanding shopping center identification sign is a use expressly authorized by the City. The specifications to which the application proposes to construct the sign are not expressly authorized, unless special circumstances warrant deviations from the regulations of Development Code. Since no such circumstances exist on the subject property, it follows that the granting of this variance would constitute approval of a use without valid legal authority. CW 0 City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 8 6. General Plan Consistency The applicant finds that the granting of the variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. But rather than presenting facts to support this finding, the applicant recommends several policy measures that "should" be incorporated into the General Plan. While the General Plan does not specifically prohibit the type of sign proposed, it does require signage to be minimized in private development (Policy 1.45.4). The premise of the applicant's argument for General Plan consistency is that businesses should be allowed to compete equally. Section 4.0 (Economic Development) of the General Plan certainly does contain policies to help maintain and upgrade the economic viability of the City's community-serving commercial corridors (see Objectives 4.16 and 4.17). However, staff does not concur with the opinion that a sign having numerous text panels is more effective than one whose information is easily assimilated. CONCLUSION There are no special circumstances uniquely applicable to the subject property to warrant the increase in the permissible sign area or to allow the identification of more than three major tenants on the proposed sign. Staff finds that the proposal to identify 11 tenants would result in a sign that is less effective than one that displays a clear, legible message to passing motorists. Compliance with the current Development Code standards will not place the subject property at a competitive disadvantage with other shopping centers in the City. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 93-02, based upon the attached Findings of Fact (Attachment B. Respectfully Eanning AL B Director of d Building Services i City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 9 Prepared by: A040-K GREGORY S. GUBMAN Associate Planner Attachments: A - Development Code and General Plan Conformance Table B - Findings of Fact C - Applicant's Findings D - Site Plan and Proposed Sign Elevations E - Location Map err City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5-18-93 OBSERVATIONS PAGE 10 DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CATEGORY PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL CODE PLAN Use Center identification sign permitted N/A for 4-acre multi-tenant shopping center Type Double-face pylon Double-face monument with N/A planter base or landscape area equal to 4 times the area of one sign face. Number of One One per street frontage N/A ' - Signs Height 20 feet 20 feet (max.) N/A Area 120 square feet per face 75 square feet per face N/A (max.) # of Tenants 11 Up to 3 major tenants N/A on Sign Attachment A City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5/18/9 3 FINDINGS OF FACT PAGE 11 1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the Development Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical land use district classification. Based on field observations, it was found that the limited visibility of the tenants on the subject property was not particularly unique or unusual. While some centers--such as Elmwood Center at 1689 E. Highland, Stephenson's Flowers center at the northwest corner of Del Rosa and Pumalo, and Del Rosa Center (south building) at the northeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa--had unobstructed street visibility for each tenant, many others did not. Notable examples include the Miller's Outpost/Krikorian center at the southeast corner of Highland and Del Rosa (across the street from the subject property), the Vons/Big 5 center at the northeast corner of Highland and Sterling, and the Grocery Warehouse/Payless Drug center at the southeast corner of Highland and Sterling--which provide neither unobstructed visibility to all shops, nor signage that identifies every tenant. 2. The granting of this variance r eq uest is not necessary for the preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity or denied to the property for which the variance is sought. There is nothing to prevent the installation of a sign that conforms to the standards of the Development Code; thus, the current sign standards do not endanger the preservation of the property owners' right to have a center identification sign. The fact that other shopping centers have nonconforming signs identifying numerous tenants does not create a situation of inequity or place the subject property in a position of competitive disadvantage. The current sign standards were written with a clear understanding that the configuration of buildings in a shopping center will often result in many tenants not being visible from the adjacent streets. It is also understood that major tenants serve to attract customers to a shopping center (eg. Best/Marshall's Plaza, Sears Outlet Center, Inland Center Mall), which is why the Development Code allows multi-tenant signs to identify up to three major tenants. Properties in the vicinity that are utilizing signs similar in scale to that which the applicant requests are granted unique exceptions pursuant to the Development Code's provisions for nonconforming signs. All other properties not in possession of this nonconforming status are, and shall be, subject to the same Development Code sign standards as the subject property. Attachment B City of San Bernardino CASE: VARIANCE NO. 93-02 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AGENDA ITEM: #7 AND BUILDING SERVICES HEARING DATE: 5 / 18/93 FINDINGS OF FACT (continued) PAGE 12 3. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and land use district in which the property is located in that the construction of the sign would be subject to all adopted, applicable uniform safety codes. 4. The granting of this variance request constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the subject property is located in that all other such properties, except those afforded the special privilege of legal nonconforming status, are subject to limitations that are no less stringent than those placed upon the subject property. 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 is inconsistent with the General Plan, in that Policy 1.45.4 requires the number and size of signs in private development to be minimized. Attachment B ATTACHMENT "C" A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical land use district classification; YES - When the complex was developed it was the intention that by having all store fronts facing north to Highland Ave. , the tenants would have the best exposure to the public for the purpose of identifying their business. Even though this complex did not have direct frontage on Highland Ave. and there were other businesses that partially block the exposure of this complex, it was assumed that the brief line of sight between the buildings along Highland Ave. would be sufficient to attract and draw business from Highland Ave. . However, . the complex is now only 50% occupied and having a difficult time keeping the existing tenants. It is difficult to attract new tenants when competing with other complexes that offer a clear unobstructed line of site from a major street and a multi tenant identification sign. The sign we are requesting has been designed with regards to size so that the tenant freestanding identification panels may be readable from Highland Ave. . We feel if you allow us this sign it will provide the incentive to help fill much of the occupancies and put some life back into this shopping center. B. That granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and land use district and denied to the property for which the Variance is sought; YES - Many existing commercial retail centers located in the same general area have either adequate visability from a major street whereby the individual tenant wall signage is large enough to be seen and a multi-tenant identification sign. Please note Flowerland Plaza, Elmwood Center, Target Center, Del Rosa Center, Plaza Del Rosa, Stephenson's Flowers, Potomic Plaza, etc. C. That granting the Variance 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; YES - We feel that the proposed sign will not only promote and identify the businesses displayed on it. It will also provide additional lighting on Del Rosa Ave. whereby it is now quite dark along Del Rosa south of Highland Ave. . There has been a large increase of crime in this area within the last year. It is our belief that the additional lighting and the vacancies we hope to fill with your approval of the proposed sign will increase consumer activity and will thereby aid in reducing crime in the area. L1 . D. That granting the Variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district in which such property is located; NO - We would strongly urge anyone involved with the review of this variance to take a minute and go to the proposed sign location. Look at the size, height, and design of existing freestanding I.D. signs within a three block area that identify a shopping center and provide each tenant the ability to be displayed on the highly visible freestanding sign in addition to the individual wall signs. Here are some existing signs to reference and there are many more in the same area. 1. DEL ROSA CENTER Located at the north east corner of Highland & Del Rosa. One 150 square foot freestanding double face center I.D. sign, 20 foot overall height with 18 individual tenant panels. 2 . ELMWOOD CENTER Located at 1689 East Highland Ave. One 75 square foot freestanding double face center I.D. sign, 15 foot overall height with 12 individual tenant panels. 3 . PLAZA DEL ROSA Located two blocks north of Highland Ave. On Del Rosa. One 150 square foot freestanding double face center I.D. sign, 25 foot overall height with 17 individual tenant panels. E. That granting the Variance does not allow a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject parcel. NO - From the information provided by our client we have not seen or heard of any restrictions other than the City of San Bernardino sign ordinance that would prohibit the installation of the sign we are requesting. F. That granting the Variance will not be inconsistent with the General Plan. NO - It should be the intent of the General Plan not to restrict new businesses from competing equally with existing businesses. When the new more restrictive General Plan was adopted it reclassified many conforming uses to now legal non conforming uses. Although the legal non-conforming uses are allowed to continue, all new uses applied for must comply to the new more ► AC ... restrictive General Plan. One of the most noticeable changes when this occurs is with the on site signage. Most people are not aware that many franchise type businesses will not open stores where certain situations will restrict them from what they feel are their minimum signage requirements. Through their experience a store that is allowed to properly identify themselves with bold bright well designed signs has a much greater change in succeeding when compared to the same business that is restricted from proper identification. It is no secret that the bigger and brighter the sign is the more attention it will attract. When attention is drawn to an object such as a sign, the name or services displayed on that sign will be more easily recognized at a later date when the need for that product or service is needed. For this reason when new guidelines are created the intent of the city should be to allow all businesses to compete equally. The Development Code states that all legal non conforming signs must be made to comply to the new ordinance within 15 years after its adoption. It should also allow a business applying for a sign permit to work within the perimeters of the former General Plan or sign ordinance with a condition that the signage will be brought into compliance on or before the same date that all other signs must comply. I believe you would see most businesses wishing to comply to the new ordinance as opposed to spending the money for new signage at a later date. However, by allowing the option, I feel the city would see a large decrease in variance requests and an increase in new business growth. Also, the city would be providing a way that businesses may compete equally and allow them to make a decision that will play a big part in the success of their own business. E ATTACHMENT "D" i r , g d � N _ - --- . I . .r, lZ ` a troll Alp - ------ra Z- 1 i i i - 1 f � { 1.11 . Ii ' a i V - } - s s� >i � CITY OF • 'D • PLANNING ITEM # AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE Variance • 93-n? LOCATION HEARINGDATE . av `v n� •r - _��► . VIA i .`40 EXHIBIT 2 SIGNS BY 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410 PH. 909-885-4476 FAX 909-888?2�239r, May 25, 1993 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 N. "D" St. San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 RE: Appeal of Variance # 93-02 Multi- Tenant Shopping Center Signage. Dear Honorable Mayor and Common Council: On behalf of our client, we hereby appeal the denial to construct a multi-tenant shopping center freestanding identification sign. On May 18th 1993,we presented our case to the Planning Commission, our variance included a request to identify 11 tenants with an additional 45 sq. ft. of sign area (total sign area 120 sq. ft.) for the proposed freestanding sign. The Planning Commission denied our request due to the fact that they felt that the findings were not strong enough. Current economics play a large roll of this request. The property management had made a large investment to apply for this variance, because they know there is a visibility problem for the tenants. If the variance is not approved the vacancy rate will rise from 50% to 75% due to the other centers in the area, being able to provide what this center cannot, such as exposure to the public. We believe that our reasons are strong enough to support the proposed signage and would feel more comfortable if the council were to hear the arguments and make the final decision. Please schedule this as soon as possible. Sincerely, QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC VS4 RV ICE CO C. Gary iel Vice-President NK/er SALES • SERVICE • LEASING • MAINTENANCE • CRANE SERVICE • NEON Calif.Contractors License No.217345