Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL SIGN VARIANCE PLANNING (2)Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: Kai Luoma� DATE: April 27, 2004 SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN VARIANCE DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt a resolution denying Sign Variance 00-004 (Master Case 00-067) which upholds the Planning Commission's action. BACKGROUND An application for an administrative sign variance was filed with the Planning Division on February 15, 2000 to permit a 39Yz foot high, 473 square foot non -conforming, freeway -oriented pylon sign. The original approval at the subject site was for automotive sales and included the establishment of the subject freeway oriented pylon sign under the Los Angeles County Zoning Code. The subject site received approval in 1993 for the current health club use. At the time of Planning Commission approval for the use, the maintenance of the non -conforming freeway pylon sign was discussed by the Planning Commission. The intent of the Planning Commission was to permit the sign to remain until the end of the amortization period in 1999. The subject site is permitted to have a pylon sign, however, the sign is required to conform to the standards within the Sign Ordinance. Staff presented the application and recommended denial to the Administrative Hearing Officer on April 25, 2000. The Administrative Hearing Officer denied the request for an administrative sign variance. The staff report for this hearing can be found in the City Clerk's reading file. The applicant appealed the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer on May 16, 2000. Staff presented the appeal request and recommended denial to the Planning Commission on August 15, 2000. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer. As a result of the denial, the applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. The staff report for this hearing can be found in the City Clerk's reading file. At the City Council meeting of May 8, 2001, the appeal was heard by the Council. The City Council did not take any action at this meeting. However, they directed staff, Councilmember Weste, two community representatives, and the City's architectural consultant to work with the appellant to develop an alternative solution for improvements to the existing sign and bring the item back for their approval at a later date. The staff report for this hearing can be found in the City Clerk's reading file. Following is a brief timeline of events since the March 27, 2001 City Council meeting: July 5, 2001 - City staff met with the City's architectural consultant and developed potential sign alternatives to present to the appellant. July 12, 2001 - A meeting with the appellant was held at City Hall to discuss the future of the existing freeway oriented pylon sign. At the conclusion of the meeting the appellant indicated that he would submit a master sign program for the Santa Clarita Athletic Club that would include revised signage to address the City's concerns (reading file). June 27, 2002 - No master sign program yet submitted. A follow-up letter was sent to the appellant requesting an update on the status of the sign master plan (reading file). August 30, 2002 - A second meeting was held at City Hall regarding the same subject. At that meeting, the City was advised that a master sign plan was forthcoming. August 5, 2003 - No master sign program yet submitted. A second follow-up letter was sent regarding the status of the sign program (reading file). August 13, 2003 - No master sign program yet submitted. The appellant sent a letter indicating that the sign alternatives developed by the City and discussed at the two previous meetings were unacceptable. Instead, the appellant proposed a sign alternative of his own (reading file). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Santa Clarita Athletic Club is located on a 4.5 acre site in the community of Newhall with frontage on both Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. In addition, the athletic club backs -up to the Interstate 5 Freeway on the western property line. The non -conforming pylon sign is intended to attract potential customers from Interstate 5. The application is for a sign variance to allow for the continued operation of a non -conforming, 39V2 feet high freeway -oriented electronic message board with 473 square feet of sign area. However, at the May 8, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to develop alternatives to the sign that address the City's concerns and return to the Council with those alternatives for consideration. Both the alternatives and sign variance are discussed below. ANALYSIS Granting the freeway -oriented pylon sign would be allowing a special privilege not given to any other business within the City of Santa Clarita. The sign was legally installed as a freeway -oriented pylon sign for the previous auto related use under the County sign ordinance prior to incorporation of Santa Clarita, however, the sign has been amortized and is required to be removed. Sign Alternatives Staff had several conversations and meetings with the appellant since the Council directed staff to work with the appellant to develop sign alternatives. Staff worked with the City's architectural design consultant and developed a sign alternative that addressed the Council's concerns. The alternative decreases the overall height of the sign, removes the signage suspended between the sign posts to reduce visual clutter, incorporates architectural elements to improve the aesthetics of the sign such as curved borders on the top and bottom, and changes the colors of the sign to enhance its overall appearance. The electronic message board would remain. An exhibit of the existing sign is attached to this report. The City's alternative is also attached to this report. In his letter dated August 13, 2003, the appellant states that the alternatives presented by the City were unacceptable, as they would cost too much and would not provide the same visibility as the existing sign. Instead, the appellant provided his own sign alternative for the Council's consideration. This alternative is attached. When compared with the existing sign, it becomes evident that the appellant's proposed alternative is little different from the existing sign. It does little to address the concerns of the Council: the overall height would remain the same, the signage suspended between the posts would remain, the colors are essentially the same, and the rectangular shape of the sign would not change. The only modification would be the addition of curving features at the top of the posts where they meet the sign face. In his letter, the appellant claims that the alternatives developed by the City would not be visible from Calgrove and Wiley Canyon Road and portions of Interstate 5. It should be noted that the City's alternative does not substantially reduce the height of the sign. The electronic reader board would remain at its existing height. The top section of the sign would essentially be relocated below the reader board. This sign was constructed as a freeway oriented sign. Its intent was to provide freeway visibility for a freeway oriented auto sales use. It was never intended to provide signage for surface streets, such as Calgrove and Wiley Canyon. The facility currently has additional signage oriented toward these surface streets that clearly indicate the facility and its function. In regards to visibility from Interstate 5, because the reduction in height proposed by the City's alternatives is not substantial, the City's alternative would provide adequate signage along I-5 similar to the existing sign. The Council directed staff to return to the Council with an alternative to the existing sign that addresses the Council's concerns of height, architecture, appearance and aesthetics. The City and the appellant were unable to agree on an alternative suitable for both parties. As discussed previously, the most recent alternative proposed by the applicant does little to address the concerns of the Council. Because no alternatives have been agreed upon, staff is unable to recommend an action on any of the alternatives. As a result, the following discussion focuses on the request for a sign variance to maintain the existing non -conforming sign. Sign Variance Pursuant to Section 17.19 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), freeway -oriented signs are not permitted for this type of use. The sign code allows for freeway -oriented signs for businesses engaging in the provision of food, lodging or motor vehicle fuel. The health club is not permitted to have freeway -orientation per the previous or existing Sign Ordinance. Pursuant to UDC Section 17.0.050, there are six findings that must be made in order to support a Variance application. These findings include that there are special circumstances regarding the property, there is a need to preserve a property right that other similar properties enjoy, there will not be a threat to public health and safety, it will not grant a special privilege that other similar properties don't enjoy, it will not authorize a non -permitted activity, and it is consistent with the General Plan. Staff is unable to make four of the six findings. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property: it is a relatively level, typical commercial parcel. The variance is not necessary to preserve a property right that other similar properties enjoy: the athletic club is a legal use of the property whose continued use will not be impacted should the variance be denied. Approving the variance would grant a special privilege because other similar properties are not permitted such signs. The sign is not consistent with the General Plan which seeks to minimize visual distractions and make signs visually attractive. The findings are listed in detail in the attached Resolution. In addition, the City is required to address issues related to the California Business and Professions Code, specifically Section 5499 with relation to the subject sign. The analysis required under California Business & Professions Code, Section 5499 has been applied to the requested sign variance and can be found in the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Approve the request for an Administrative Sign Variance. 2. Other action as determined by the Council. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact to the City budget is anticipated as a result of the recommended action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Exhibit of existing sign Exhibit of City proposed sign alternative Exhibit of appellant's sign alternative Vicinity map Appeal letter available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff response to applicant's appeal available in the City Clerk's Reading File Minutes of the August 15, 2000 Planning Commission Hearing available in the City Clerk's Reading File Minutes of the May 8, 2001 City Council Hearing available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff report to the Sign Hearing Officer available in the City Clerk's Reading File Staff report to the Planning Commission available in the City Clerk's Reading File Agenda Report from May 8, 2001 City Council meeting available in the City Clerk's Reading File Letters of support and opposition available in the City Clerk's Reading File CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 1St Floor, Santa Clarita, California, on the 27th day of April, 2004, at or after 6:00 p.m. to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Master Case 00-067, Sign Variance 00-004, Santa Clarita Athletic Club. This Sign Variance would allow for the continued use of a 391/2 foot tall, 473 square foot, freeway -oriented pylon sign located at 24640 Wiley Canyon Road in the City of Santa Clarita. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and be heard on this matter at that time. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Department of Planning & Building Services, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; (661) 255-4330, Kai Luoma, AICP, Senior Planner. If you wish to challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: April 6, 2004 Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: April 7, 2004 \corres\phform.wpd n G 7 A tD V rt w o, tQ ro CD n O O n S ro 3 ro � - 9� ��� CD CD oo1.0130 _ gO 0 o WYE a d� e k k't i O J O O CA N pa