Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09 - RESOLUTIONS - DENYING UHAUL SIGN VARIANCE (2)RESOLUTION NO 01-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DENYING SIGN VARIANCE 00-007 REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING PYLON SIGN TO REMAIN AT 27140 SIERRA HIGHWAY (MASTER CASE NO. 00-320) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita (hereafter "City") hereby makes the following findings of fact: A. The City Council adopted a Sign Ordinance on November 13, 1990 with an amortization period of nine years for all non -conforming signs within the City of Santa Clarita. B.' . The amortization period ended on November 13, 1999, requiring all non- conforming signs to be brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance. C. An application for Master Case 00-320 (Sign Variance 00-007) was filed by U - Haul (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on September 5, 2000 to maintain an existing 41 foot high, 282 square foot, non -conforming freeway - oriented pylon sign. The application was deemed complete on October 4, 2000. The property for which this application was filed is located at 27140 Sierra Highway. The General Plan and Zoning designation for the property is CC r.. (Community Commercial). I D. The surrounding land uses include vacant land to the north and east, residential to the east, commercial to the west (across Sierra Highway) and commercial to the south. E. A hearing was duly noticed for the Administrative Hearing Officer meeting of December 18, 2000, which was held at 1:00 p.m. in the Main Conference Room, Third Floor at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. During this meeting, the Administrative Hearing Officer received the staff report and public testimony on the project. F. The Administrative Hearing Officer denied the request on January 16, 2001. G. The applicant submitted a letter on January 29, 2001, requesting an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision. H. A hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 2001 which was held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. During this meeting, the Planning Commission received the staff report and public testimony on the project. I. The Planning Commission denied the request to maintain the non -conforming pylon sign on August 7, 2001. J. The applicant submitted a letter on August 15, 2001, requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. K. A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of October 9, _ 2001 which was held at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa.Clarita; CA.. %During this meeting, the City Council received the staff reportandpublic testimony on the project. L. The application was heard before the City Council on October 9, 2001 and was denied permission to maintain the non -conforming electronic, freeway -oriented pylon sign. WHEREAS, In making its determination regarding the sign variance application, the City Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: A. That, no special circumstances are applicable to the property (size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) or the intended use of the property, ' the strict application of the Development Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification because the site has no physical hardship that would prevent the applicant from complying with the regulations set forth in the City's Sign Ordinance. The site is relatively flat with good visibility from Sierra Highway, a major arterial. Freeway -oriented signs are permitted "to be viewed primarily from an adjacent freeway which identifies a business engaged in the provision of food, lodging or motor vehicle fuel and which is primarily dependent upon said freeway" (Section 17.19.011). The primary use of the U -Haul facility is not — food, fuel or lodging and therefore, not permitted to have freeway orientation. In addition, the sign has minimal freeway visibility. Although the site is located adjacent to the lengthy Stats Route 14 off -ramp, the site is located approximately 1,261 feet from the freeway. A monument sign and the permitted wall signs would provide high visibility of the site from Sierra Highway. The site has 3.38 acres and 200 feet of street frontage and therefore qualifies for a monument sign, however there are no special circumstances to permit the pylon sign to be maintained at 41 -feet high, 282 square feet of sign area B. That the granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property for which the variance is sought because the parcel has 200 feet of street frontage and is permitted to have a monument sign. However, because the site is not a food, lodging or motor vehicle fuel business, a freeway -oriented sign is not permitted. No other food or fuel business along the Sierra Highway, adjacent to the freeway off -ramp is permitted to have freeway -oriented signs. The pylon sign has minimal visibility from the freeway and is not necessary to preserve the right for adequate identification. This site has no constraints that create the necessity for obtaining permission to maintain a non -conforming sign. Adequate business identification could easily be achieved through a monument sign that conforms to code and wall signs on appropriate elevations; C. That granting the variance would constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated because allowing a variance for the 41 -foot high, 282 square foot pylon sign would be inconsistent with permitted signage -for other businesses similar in size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. No other businesses adjacent to the exit ramp is treated as freeway adjacent and therefore, not permitted freeway orientation. Approval of this request would constitute granting a special privilege by allowing the pylon sign that exceeds the maximum permitted height and sign area described in the code. The site is permitted to have a six-foot high monument sign with a maximum sign area of 54 square feet. Allowing a 41 -foot .high pylon sign on a lot that is only permitted to have a six-foot high monument sign would be inconsistent with the signage approved for other businesses. In addition, permitting the sign would be inconsistent with the sign regulations and will hinder the sign compliance efforts of the City supported by Policy 8.1 of the General Plan; D. That granting the variance would be inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan because allowing the non -conforming pylon sign at this site would be inconsistent with General Plan Goal 8 of the Community Design Element requiring signs to be visually attractive and minimize distraction. The project site does not meet the criteria to maintain a pylon sign and the applicant is proposing to maintain a 41 -foot high, 282 square foot pylon sign. The site does not qualify to maintain a pylon, however, the site does qualify for a six foot monument sign. Removal of this non -conforming pylon sign and construction of a six-foot high, 54 square foot monument sign would improve appearance of the site while maintaining adequate signage for the business. In addition, Policy 8.1 requires the enforcement of the Sign Regulations specifically the r-+ elimination of non -conforming signs; - E. Other signing alternative or design would be feasible and would provide reasonable signing in accordance with this title. A monument sign may be constructed on this site in conformance with the standards set forth in the sign ordinance. In addition to the monument sign, increased identification for this business can be accomplished through the installation of a wall signs on the south and west elevations. Furthermore, the applicant could apply for a sign review to permit wall signs exceeding the maximum height of two feet; F. That the sign does not contain at least one of the following: • Creative image reflecting current or historical character of Santa Clarita, Newhall, Saugus, Canyon Country or Valencia; • Symbols representing the use, name or logo of the building or business; • Unusual lighting techniques; • Handsculptured elements of wood, metal or other materials: • Classic historic design style; • Handpainted lettering or graphics; G. a) Does the ordinance being relied upon in requiring the removal of the sign at issue require removal on the basis of the height or size of the sign? The answer to this question is yes. The existing pylon sign does not conform with the Santa Clarita Sign Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance allows pylon signs for properties with 500 feet of street frontage and three (3) acres of land. The subject property does not meet the minimum requirement. Therefore, the existing pylon :sign does not conform to the sign ordinance based on both the height and size of the existing pylon sign. _ tb), If the answertoquestion Ga is yes, do special topographic circumstances cause a conforming sign to be materially less visible or less effective at communicating the owner's message to the public? No topographical circumstances cause a conforming sign to be materially less effective in communicating the business to the general public. The site is relatively flat with prominent visibility from Sierra Highway. The replacement of the existing pylon sign with a monument sign will not make the sign less commercially effective. Although the raw visibility of the existing pylon sign is greater from a long distance on Sierra Highway, the sign at the existing height does not have commercial effectiveness from a close distance to the site from a vehicle. A monument sign, although not seen from the same distance on Sierra Highway, will provide greater commercial effectiveness for potential customers travelling along Sierra Highway. The increased commercial effectiveness of a monument sign is equivalent to the raw visibility of the existing height. This business is the only one in the area that has a pylon sign at this height. All other businesses in the vicinity have monument signs at a lower height, closer to the eye level of a motorist traveling along Sierra Highway. Therefore, a motorist can easily identify other freestanding signs along Sierra Highway while losing visibility of the existing pylon sign as they approach the site. Even if the freeway -oriented signs were permissible on this non -freeway adjacent property, the existing pylon is only minimally visible from the southbound State Route 14 and not visible from State Route 14 northbound. Therefore, the change is visibility or commercial effectiveness with regard to the freeway traffic is not material. NOW, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby denies Master Case 00-320. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 91 day of October 2001. ATTEST. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Cr1Y OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 9th day of October 2001, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ferry, Darcy, Kellar, Weste NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth a CrTY CLERK a:\pbs\current\12001\00.320\CCreso