The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Resolution _6182- Case 8.253 SI VARRESOLUTION NO.6182 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION, CASE 8.253 Sl VAR, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECOND MAIN SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION AT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 611 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE. WHEREAS, Fury Investments, Inc. ("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Sections 94.06.00 (variance) and 93.20.10(A)(4) (sign variances) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) for a variance to install a second main sign on the east elevation of the building for the Zelda's Nightclub located at 611 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-77A, Section 22; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Sign Variance Case 8.253 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2011, and March 9, 2011, a public hearing on Sign Variance Case 8.523 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed variance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311(a) (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission finds that this Variance request is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15311(a) (Accessory Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 94.06.00 (Variance) and Section 93.20.10(A)(4) (Sign Variance) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission may grant sign variances only upon making affirmative findings for all seven (7) sign variance findings outlined in the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive subject property of 2. r l Planning Commission Resolution No. 6182 Case 8.523 SI VAR March 9, 2011 Page 2 of 4 N I - privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. The subject property is a 4.4-acre site developed as a large commercial complex fronting a major thoroughfare. Each tenant on the first floor is allowed one main sign above their elevation facing the parking lot, and other multi -tenanted properties in the area allow only one main sign that meets all requirements of the Zoning Code, including area. The Planning Commission cannot identify any special circumstances applicable to the subject property relating to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would deprive the subject property of sign or other land use privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively recommend this finding. 3. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The proposed variance request includes three deviations. Main signs have been granted on multi -tenanted buildings in the area that do not have sign programs; however, main signs that exceed the sign area permitted have not received approval in the past. Therefore, grants of special privilege would occur that are inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively recommend this finding. 4. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health, safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. The proposed signs will be required to meet all necessary building and safety codes. The applicant revised the design of the sign based on concerns of the Architectural Advisory Committee. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not affect the public health, safety, convenience or welfare and will not be injurious to property improvements in the same vicinity and zone. 5. The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city. The proposed variance would not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. 6. Due to the physical characteristics of the property and the orientation and design of the structures on the property, strict application of the regulations of the sign ordinance will not give adequate visibility to the signage. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6182 March 9, 2011 Case 8.523 SI VAR Page 3 of 4 The subject property is a 4.4-acre site developed as a large commercial complex fronting a major thoroughfare. The tenant's building is located within an L-shaped building with visibility from the large parking area and South Palm Canyon Drive. Therefore, strict application of the sign ordinance regulations will give adequate visibility to the signage. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively recommend this finding. 7. The approved signage will be compatible with the design of the property and will represent the least departure from the standards of the sign ordinance necessary for the effectiveness of the signage. The proposal includes three deviations from the sign ordinance for one tenant's sign and may set a precedent for future requests made by other tenants on the property. Without a sign program that sets specific regulations for this property, future signage in this location may add visual blight on this elevation of the building. Therefore, the signage will not be compatible with the design of the property and will represent a significant departure from the sign ordinance for the effectiveness of the signage. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively recommend this finding. 8. That the approved signage is compatible with the surrounding property and not contrary to the purpose of the sign ordinance. The Zoning Code states that the intent of the sign ordinance includes the following: "Recognizing that Palm Springs is one of the country's foremost desert resorts, the city council rinds that proper sign control is necessary to maintain the high aesthetic values which both residents and visitors to the city have come to expect. Signs shall complement the architecture of the building on which they are placed and/or the immediate surroundings, including such elements as size, color, location, graphic presentation, landscaping, lighting and construction material. A sign ordinance provides equitable standards for all businesses to identify the location of goods and services. Main identification sign(s) shall be allowed in conjunction with accessory/convenience signs as necessary." "The purpose of the sign ordinance (Sections 93.20.00 through 93.20.11) is to provide standards to safeguard life, health, property and the public welfare and to provide the means for adequate identification of businesses and other sign users by regulating and controlling the design, location and maintenance of all signs in the city." The contemporary materials and design of the sign is compatible with the signage that has been approved previously at this property. However, the additional sign may set a precedent for future requests on the building and provide additional visual blight on this portion of the upper floor elevation. Furthermore, an approval of an additional main sign Planning Commission Resolution No. 6182 Case 8.523 SI VAR March 9, 2011 Page 4 of 4 for one tenant at this location would not provide an "equitable" standard for all businesses to identify location of goods and services, as stated in the intent of the sign ordinance. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively recommend this finding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Variance Case 8.523 SI VAR. ADOPTED this 9th day of March 2011. AYES: 4, Klatchko, Donenfeld, Munger and Conrad NOES: 1, Chair Caffery ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: 1, Hudson ATTEST: �17- Dire,-j7Wrif Plan ti- - CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA K