Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-27 - RESOLUTIONS - DENYING SIGN VARIANCE 00-0004 (2)RESOLUTION NO. 04-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING SIGN VARIANCE 00-004 TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING FREEWAY -ORIENTED PYLON SIGN TO REMAIN AT 24640 WILEY CANYON ROAD (MASTER CASE NO. 00-067) 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 00-067 (Sign Variance 00-004) was filed by the Santa Clarita Athletic Club (the "applicant") with the City of Santa Clarita on February 15, 2000 to maintain an existing 39 1/z foot high, 473 square foot, non- conforming freeway -oriented pylon sign. The property for which this application was filed is located at 24640 Wiley Canyon Road. The General Plan and Zoning designation for the property is CC -PD (Community Commercial Planned Development). D. The surrounding land uses include a horse boarding facility to the north, single-family residences to the east and south, a restaurant to the southeast and Interstate 5 to the west, E. A hearing was duly noticed for the Administrative Hearing Officer meeting of April 25, 2000, which was held at 9:00 a.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 application was heard before the Administrative Hearing Officer on April 25, 2000 and was denied permission to maintain the non -conforming electronic, freeway -oriented pylon sign. G. The applicant submitted a letter on May 16, 2000, requesting an appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision. H. A hearing was duly noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2000 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 application was heard before the Planning Commission on August 15, 2000 and was Resolution No. 04-50 Page 2 denied permission to maintain the non -conforming electronic, freeway -oriented pylon sign. J. The applicant submitted a letter on August 25, 2000, requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. K. A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of March 27, 2001 which was held at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920,Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. This item was continued to the May 8, 2001 meeting due to time constraints. L. A continued public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of May 8, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. During this meeting, the City Council received the staff report and public testimony on the project. M. The application was heard before the City Council on May 8, 2001. At this meeting, Council 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. N. Staff met with the appellant on July 12, 2001 and again on August 30, 2002 to discuss sign alternatives. O. On August 12, 2003, the appellant indicated by letter that the City's alternatives were unacceptable and proposed an alternative of his own which failed to address the Council's concerns. P. A public hearing was duly noticed for the City Council meeting of April 27, 2004 which was held at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA. This appellant 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 Wiley Canyon and Calgrove Blvd. Although the site is situated approximately 36 feet below Interstate 5, freeway traffic also has a prominent view of the site. The wall sign on this elevation is highly visible to freeway traffic traveling north on Interstate 5. The site Resolution No. 04-50 Page 3 has 4.5 acres and 935 feet of street frontage and therefore qualifies for a pylon sign, however there are no special circumstances to permit the pylon sign to be maintained at 391/2 feet high, 473 square feet of sign area with freeway orientation; and 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 site is large for a single tenant and is permitted to have a pylon sign. However, because the site is not a food, lodging or motor vehicle fuel business, a freeway -oriented sign is not permitted. No other business along the freeway that does not engage in the provision of food, lodging and fuel is allowed to have a freeway -oriented sign. The freeway -oriented pylon sign 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 pylon sign that conforms to code and wall signs on appropriate elevations. These signs, depending on the location could potentially capture the attention of traffic of Interstate 5; and 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 granting a variance for the 391/2 foot high, 473 square foot, freeway - oriented pylon sign would be inconsistent with permitted signage for other businesses similar in size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Approval of this request would constitute granting a special privilege by allowing a pylon sign at the existing height, having freeway orientation for a business that is not permitted to have a freeway - oriented sign that exceeds the maximum permitted height and sign area described in the code. The site is permitted to have a 15 foot pylon sign with a maximum sign area of 40 square feet. Allowing a 391/: foot high pylon sign on a lot that is only permitted to have a 15 foot high pylon sign with 40 square feet of sign area would be inconsistent with the code and will hinder the sign compliance efforts of the City supported by Policy 8.1 of the General Plan; and D. That granting the variance would be inconsistent with the City of Santa Clarita General Plan because allowing the non -conforming, freeway -oriented 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 freeway -oriented pylon sign and the applicant is proposing to maintain a 391/2 foot high, 473 square foot pylon sign. This sign is a potential traffic hazard to vehicles traveling along the freeway, as well as the local streets around the subject site. The site does qualify to maintain a pylon, however, it is required to be a maximum of 15 feet in height and 40 square feet in sign area. Furthermore, the sign is not kept in good repair and the removal of this non -conforming freeway -oriented pylon sign and construction of a 15 foot high, 40 square foot pylon sign would improve appearance of the site while maintaining adequate signage for the business. In addition, Policy 8.1 calls for the enforcement of the Sign Regulations specifically the elimination of non -conforming signs; and Resolution No. 04-50 Page 4 E. Other signing alternative or design would be feasible and would provide reasonable signing in accordance with this title. A pylon sign may be constructed at this location in conformance with the standards set forth in the sign ordinance. Increased identification for this business can be accomplished through the installation of a wall sign the south elevation facing Calgrove Blvd. and the relocation of the wall sign on the west elevation, adjacent to a parking lot along the freeway. The athletic club meets code requirements to maintain wall signs on all elevations that provides adequate exposure to Wiley Canyon, Calgrove and the parking lot to the west. Furthermore, the applicant could apply for a sign review to permit wall signs exceeding the maximum height of two feet; and 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. That the analysis required under California Business & Professions Code, Section 5499 has been applied to the requested sign variance. The hearing officer is required to apply the test for Section 5499, with the applicant bearing the burden of proof, to wit: 1) 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 freeway oriented 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 meets the minimum requirement, however, the subject sign exceeds the required height and size. In addition, the subject business can't have a freeway -oriented sign because it does not engage in the provision of food, fuel and lodging. Therefore, the existing freeway oriented pylon sign does not conform to the sign ordinance based on the height, size, and existing business type. 2) If the answer to question 1 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? There is no topographical change on Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road that would cause a conforming sign to be materially less visible or less effective at communicating the owner's message to the public. There is a change in elevation from Interstate 5 to the subject site, however, the subject site meets the criteria to construct a Resolution No. 04-50 Page 5 -- 15 foot high, 40 square foot pylon sign on-site, and wall signs are allowed on all elevations which will provide adequate exposure to Wiley Canyon Road, Calgrove Boulevard and the west parking lot (adjacent to freeway). Conforming signs at this location will not be materially less visible or less effective at communicating the owner's message to the public. With the installation of conforming pylon and wall signs, the owner will be able to effectively communicate the subject business to the public. In addition, A message reader board is permitted for this property, however, it is required to meet the standards set forth within the Sign Ordinance. Two viable options for a message reader board are a 15 -foot high, 40 square foot pylon sign or a wall sign placed on one of the elevations that have street or parking lot frontage. Based on the above, it is determined that a conforming sign is not materially less visible or less effective at communicating the owner's message at this location. In fact, with the installation of a pylon sign and additional wall signs on the west -facing parking lot (adjacent to freeway) and the south -facing elevation toward Calgrove Boulevard, the business signs will be extremely effective at communicating the owner's message to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of Sign Variance 00-004 (Master Case 00-067) upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the appeal which upheld the Administrative Hearing Officer's denial of the Sign Variance to permit the continued operation of a 39'/2 foot high, 473 square foot non -conforming, freeway -oriented pylon sign. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27`s day of April, 2004. ATTEST: CITY CLERK Resolution No. 04-50 Page 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY 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 ad?Xted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita aha regular meeting thereof, held on the 27 day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Smyth, Weste, Ferry, McLean, Kellar NOES: COUNCII.MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) CERTIFICATION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 04-50, adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California on April 27, 2004, which is now on file in my office. Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this _ day of ,20—. Sharon L. Dawson, CMC City Clerk By Susan Coffman Deputy City Clerk