Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/06/12 (3) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2 Meeting Date 6/12/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: ZA V -96-12; Request for a variance to increase the height of a rooftop sign from 35 ft. to 42 ft. for the commercial building located at 396 E Street in the C-T Thoroughfare Commercial zone - Valley Neon Sign Company The request is to install a rooftop sign to 42' above grade (17 ft. above the building roofline) for the freestanding commercial building located at 396 E Street. The C-T zone normally allows roof-mounted signs to a maximum height of 35 ft. above grade. BACKGROUND: This commercial building previously had a roof-mounted sign which was originally constructed to 45 ft above grade (20 ft. above the building roofline); although this sign met the sign criteria at the time it was constructed, the Zoning Code now limits rooftop signs to a maximum of 35 ft. above grade. The building has been vacant with no rooftop sign for a number of years, and a retail jeweler now occupies the building. The applicant is requesting a rooftop sign to 42 ft. above grade, which exceeds the maximum height allowed for such signage. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project IS exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 11 exemption. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution ZA V-96- 12 denying the variance to allow construction of a rooftop sign to 42 ft. in height for the commercial building located at 396 E Street, in accordance with the findings contained therein. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of a commercial building located on a site just over 25,000 sq.ft. in area at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and E Street. A commercial building (formerly a bank) approximately 6,800 sq.ft. in size is located on the northwest corner of the property. A drive area designed for former teller windows is adjacent to the building on the easterly side, and a small kiosk building and site parking are located east of the drive area. Pa2e 2. Item 2 Meetin2 Date 6/12/96 Zoning and Land Use North - South - East - West - C-T C-O-P - C-T C-T Vacant (future fast food) Residential & Offices Commercial Commercial The site is located on the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and E Street. A vacant parcel upon which a fast food facility is proposed is located to the north across E Street; a retail flower shop is located to the west across Fourth Avenue. To the south, across an alley, are residential and office uses, and commercial service uses are sited on the east side of the property. E Street at this location is designated on the General Plan as a four lane major street and serves as a main entry to the City from both 1-5 and I-80S. Fourth Avenue is also a main entry from SR-54. Proposal The proposal is for the construction of a roof-mounted sign up to 42 ft. above grade (17 ft. above the building roofline) to accommodate business identification for the new occupant of the commercial building on this site. The height of the proposed sign would be three feet lower than that of the original roof-mounted sign. While that sign met zoning regulations at the time of its construction, under current sign ordinance regulations (adopted some 25 years ago) it would be considered nonconforming. Variances are normally considered at staff level via the City Zoning Administrator. In this case, however, staff has been unable to make the hardship finding required for approval. As a result, this variance request has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. ANALYSIS: Current Sign Regulations As stated previously, the C-T zone restricts the height of roof-mounted signs to a maximum of 35 ft. above grade. At the time that this regulation was adopted, it was reasoned that roof- mounted signs should be accorded no greater height than was permitted for ground-mounted freestanding signs, which are limited to 35 ft. high throughout the City. Current sign ordinance regulations permit the applicant to construct a roof-mounted sign up to 35 ft. above grade. The height of the rooftop sign above the building on which it is located may not exceed the height of the building, and the maximum area of any roof-mounted sign is 150 sq.ft. The height of the proposed sign above the building is not an issue (except with respect to overall height); however, the proposed sign area depicted on the plans (153 sq.ft.) exceeds the maximum area allowance and will have to be reduced slightly. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 6/12/96 Si~nage Proposed The commercial building located on the subject property is sited directly on the northwest corner of the parcel, overlooking the intersection of Fourth Avenue and E Street; the rooftop sign is proposed to be located on the northwest corner of the roof. Further, there are no obstructions of views to the building from the other corners of Fourth A venue and E Street or the vicinity of the intersection. As a result, a conforming sign's visibility does not appear to be at issue, nor has the applicant argued such. Alternative Offered It should be noted that staff did offer an alternative in the form of an administrative variance. Based upon the property owner's statement that his sign company had indicated that a sign with its bottom edge 6 ft. above the roofline would be clearly visible, staff offered to process an administrative variance for a roof sign with an overall height of 38 ft. (13 ft. above the roof line at its highest point and 6 ft. at its lowest point). The sign dimensions under such a proposal would have been limited to 7' x 15', or a total of 105 sq.ft. The reasoning for this was that a sign of this size would provide visibility, would not extend substantially above the 35 ft. height limit, and would trade 45 sq.ft. of total sign area for 45 sq.ft. of sign above the height limit (3' x 15' above the 35 ft. height limit). However, the owner chose to pursue the original request and was therefore directed to the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION: The majority of other buildings located in the vicinity of the project site are of a relatively small scale compared to the building on this site. Further, both the florist on the southwest corner of the intersection and the gas station/mini-mart on the northwest corner have monument signs in keeping with the lower profiles of the buildings they identify. Staff believes that the height of the proposed roof-mounted sign is not required for visibility and is not in keeping with other buildings and signage in the immediate vicinity. One of the requisite findings for approval of a variance is the existence of a hardship. No hardship has been presented by the applicant, and as indicated in the previous discussion staff has been unable to find a hardship justifying approval for the proposed height increase. Therefore, staff's recommendation is for denial of the proposal as presented. If the application is denied, the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. Attachments 1. Resolution ZAV-96-12 2. Locator, Site Plan, Elevations 3. Disclosure Statement (m:\home\plamung\patty\zav9612. rep) RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-l2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF-MOUNTED SIGN TO 42 FT. ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 E STREET WITHIN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on April 12, 1996 by Valley Neon Sign Company, and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to construct a roof-mounted sign to 42 ft. above grade for the commercial building at 396 E Street within the C-T Thoroughfare Commercial zone, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposal is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 11 exemption, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely June 12, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: The above-described application for a variance is hereby denied based upon the following findings and determinations: I. Findings. I. No hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits. Rooftop signage within the height permitted by the code would be visible to traffic in the area, although proportional requirements could limit sign area. Additionally, the code would allow alternatives to this sign proposal; these include the possibility of a freestanding sign elsewhere on the property, and wall-mounted signage on the building parapet. Therefore, a hardship does not exist relative to this property and the proposed signage. 2. No variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the sarne vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitnte a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The approval of this variance would not serve to preserve property rights for this owner enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity; as other properties in the immediate vicinity currently utilize freestanding signage which complies with code requirements or is actually less than that allowed. If granted, the proposed variance would therefore constitute a special privilege of the recipient. 3. The authorizing of this variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and would materially impair the public interest. The approval of this variance would be detrimental to adjacent property in that it would provide this property with a sign of excessive height and visibility and an advantage with respect to business identification in comparison to other surrounding properties. 4. That the granting ofthis variance would adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of this variance would not be consistent with City policies and the General Plan for the reasons outlined above. II. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William C. Tuchscher II, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary LOCATOR. SITE PLAN. ELEVATIONS ----\'/ \ / \ --\ --- \----- -------- ---- ---- \ -- \ _/ ---- --/\ \ ---\ \ \ ..---/ \ --------- -_/ ---------\ \ ~?\ \ ~ \ \ ------\. \. \ \ \ --------/' /------ \ \ \ 1._ r _ y/ #' \~ r=- , , \ ---- iI\ ) \ \ \ ...----- "::\ ;3/ -/ ~ \------------- /------/, ~ \ -------\ ~ \ ~ \ --- \ --..- ~,........ c::.. ~\ ~ c c----- ~ \Y. .~/--'. ~ -------\ ~ \ ~\ --~~~~- ....../. \ ~ \~::::~-j -'/"~\ ~ / \ ~ ~\ /...---.\ \ \..-. \~ -' \ /. ..~ 1--------- \. \-.-/------ - .------/.... \ ~/-.--.-.....~.----- ..~-/--;, /-------1\ .------------. \ ..../--\ j!\ \. -------------- \ ---------------~\ -- ..-. --------.- \ ..--- /:\// _\\ '\- ---_.._'~-- _/ /_. ).------ ~ --- '---- ,----- ...- \ ......- , ,...........--- \ ...-- \ ,'/- /...- \ ......-...- \ ~ ............... --/y\ -/--\ \___ _______/ --- /--, \--- ----\ .-j~ S"l"~~--// _____..------ _\ \' ..___-- --/ __/\ \--.--.-..- .:>----~~~?-~9-------/ ~\ 0\ ~r FRI~~HIP --~ /------' ------- \ \ _/ , ...-...... \ ---s"" /\ ------- -' .-"'\ PROJECT \ LOCATION \/---- \. --' , \..---~~--------/------ \ \ \ \-...---- \ j '-. \.----, - \\ \- \---------------- , -- '-----"'-"'--- .-j i CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT CDln Mart PROJECT DESCRlI'I10N, C) APl'UCANT, VARIANCE PROJECT 396 'E' Street Request: To allow a roof top sign to 42 ft. from ADDRESS, grade (17' obove roof line). Code restricts height SCALE, FILE NUMBEIb to max. 35 ft. above grade. l NORTH No SCole ZAV-96-12 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TIlE c..., Y OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ST"fEMENT You arc required to file a Statement of Disclosure or certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contrihutions. on all matters which will rcquire discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must he disclosed, I. List Ihe names of all persons having a financial inlerest in the property which is the suhjeet of Ihe applicalion or the (ontract, e.g., owner, applicant, COnlral:1Or. suhcontractor, material supplier. IY) MTI J" J A- L Tt3 A- U IY1 , J3.it1<.f3 A-f A- A- L T18 Av 111 4t-c-Xr G: ~t.t/? 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership, J. If any person' identificd pursuant 10 (I) ahove is non-profit organiwtion or a trust, list the names of any person serving as dircl:tor of the non-profit organil..alion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more Ihan S250 worth of business transacted with any memherjJf the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Council within the past twelve months'! Yes_ No~f yc.s, please indicate person(s): _ 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you bcfore the City in Ihis matter. /)/J IJ7C-Tl ,J I/- L- -n81+V ~ 6. Have you and/of your orficcrs or agents, in the aggrcgalC<1X>nlributcd more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yc.s_ No~ If yes, stale which Councilmembcr(s); . , , (NOTE: Date; //( /McII '2-/, I f/ C:. . Pus(m is defined QJ: "AllY iJldi~ldual. Jinn.. co-parrlll:r,lIip. joil" ~'OllLtrc, a.uocialhm. social club. fralmlDI nrgollUotiml, corporatioll, cstale. D1UI,. receiver, I)ndicare, tJUs and allY othu county, city Qnd cQumr)'. city municipality, district, or mher polilical subdi\'isiml, or allY otiler group Of COtnbUIQ1;otl DCIUIS as Q WUL" PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item 3 Meeting Date 06/12//96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing, Special Use Permit SUPS-96-04; request to construct and operate a wireless communications facility at 865 Stella Street; composed of a 37 foot 9 inch tall monopole supporting six (6) directional (panel) antennas and two radio equipment cabinets - Pacific Bell Mobile Services Public Hearing: Variance ZA V-96-16; request to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet and to increase the height from 35 feet to 37 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the above facility. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (Applicant) is requesting permission to construct and operate a wireless communications facility. The technology involved is the newer generation of personal communications system (PCS) , which operates similar to conventional cellular in that the system operates based on cells, but the technology is digirnlly based rather than based on analog signals. The applicant is also applying for permission to reduce the rear yard setback from 15' to 6', and increase the height allowance for the monopole from 35' to 37' 9" in order to accommodate a wireless communications facility at the southwest corner of 863 Stella Avenue. The facility will consist of two equipment cabinets which will take up about 200 square feet, and a monopole supporting up to six panel antennas. The monopole is proposed to stand 37'9" tall, 2'9" above the allowed height. The project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class 5(a) exemptions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of Special Use Permit SUPS-96-04 and Variance ZAV-96-16 to the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the attached draft Redevelopment Agency Resolutions. DISCUSSION: 1. Site Characteristics: The property is currently occupied by an industrial building in which leisure boats are constructed. The parcel is at the junction of Stella Street and Frontage Road south of Palomar Street. The two story building is approximately 4,400 square feet in size and is 21 feet tall at the highest point. This is the only structure on-site. 2. Zoning. Land Use and Setback/Height Reauirements Site; North, South, East: West: Zoning M-52 (County) M-52 M-52 Interstate 1-5 M-52 Land Use Industrial/Manufacturing Industrial/Manufacturing Residential (Non-conforming) Freeway Industrial/Manufacturing (Open storage)