Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 09-12 - (1818 Monterey sign var)RESOLUTION PC 09-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM SIGN STANDARDS AT 1818 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (ST. CROSS EPISCOPAL CHURCH), LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PORTION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDITION; LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, P. McNERNEY'S REPLAT OF A PORTION OF LOT 12, BLOCK 71 OF 2ND ADDITION; LOTS 11, 12,13 & 14, BLOCK 53, FIRST ADDITION; LOTS 19, 20 & 21, TRACT NO. 1129, BLOCK 53; LOTS 17 & 18, TRACT NO. 1128, BLOCK 53, HERMOSA BEACH. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application for a sign variance was filed by Craig Boelsen, Pacific Coast Landscape on behalf of Rector Wardens & Vestrymembers, St. Cross Parish. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for sign variance (VAR 09-1) on June 16, 2009, at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was presented to a considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15311(a) on -premises signs. Section 4. Based on the Staff Reports, testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The applicant proposes to replace an existing 18 square foot, 8 foot high ground sign located in front of a church oriented parallel to the street, with a 22 square foot, 6 foot high message board sign to be located on top of a planter wall in front of the church, oriented perpendicular to the street. 2. The subject property is zoned R-2 and is surrounded by R-1 and R-2 zoned lots and uses. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.50.190: Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to the other properties in the vicinity so that the strict application of this chapter works a demonstrated hardship on the particular property. The property is split zoned as R-1 and R-2 and churches are allowed in both residential zones subject to a conditional use permit; however, this particular church is legal nonconforming as it as it was constructed before 1953 and does not have a conditional use permit. The existing sign also does not meet the code requirements for signs in residential zones. Replacement of the sign with a conforming sign is impractical in that churches, primary educational facilities, day care centers and similar uses may be located within the local neighborhood areas they serve, providing social services and events, and creating a sense of community; however, the sign code does not make any distinction among uses in residential zones and the, sign requirements do not account for the signage needs of institutional uses Churches, schools and similar facilities allowed in residential zones occupy larger sites than the residential uses. In this case, lot frontage is about 320 feet, versus 34 to 50 feet for residential uses in the same block. A sign conforming to residential sign standards (i.e. sign area) would be substantially out of scale with physical dimensions of the subject property. Therefore, the property is unique in terms of use type, community function and physical dimensions compared with other properties in the vicinity, and it is advantageous that this facility be allowed a message board sign that exceeds the allowed sign area, provided the sign is not intrusive. 2. A variance authorized is not a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. The proposed sign will replace an existing sign for a non-profit, community use and will assist in notifying the community of the events and community services at the facility. Other properties in the vicinity are restricted to residential uses and do not have the same needs to notify the community of events and services offered. Therefore, allowing increased sign area for the institutional use in the form of a message board is not a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the other residential properties in the area. Residential lot frontages are typically 34 to 50 feet in the same block, while the Church frontage is about 320 feet. Therefore, in terms of visibility, a conforming sign located at this property may 'disappear' and not be as readily visible as would a sign of the same size on nearby residential lots. In addition, allowing increased sign area is reasonable and consistent with signage at the other churches in residential zones. Our Lady of Guadalupe, 320 Massey Street (R-1 zone), has an approximately 15 square foot message sign, 8 feet high, and an identification sign approximately 8 square feet in size attached to a gate. The Christian Science Church, 1574 Manhattan Avenue (R-3 zone), has two signs approximately 21 square feet in size; one is about 6 feet in height and the other is a banner type wall sign. Therefore, the proposed sign is not out of character with signs at comparable facilities in residential zones and would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with other churches in residential zones. 3. The variance will not adversely affect public safety and the design and appearance of the signing and structures of the surrounding area. The proposed sign is not out of scale with the size of the subject parcel and improvements on the site and will not impact line of sight or public safety; there are no other nearby signs. Its scale and location on a planter wall ensures that it will not be visually obtrusive. The closest property is owned by the Church; the location is several hundred feet from residential uses to the south, and the orientation makes the sign less visible to the closest residence across the street. Given the neighborhood location, the sign illumination will be static, external and oriented so that only the sign face is illuminated with a low intensity light, and only turned on between sunset and 9:00 p.m. With these provisions, the sign will be adequately conditioned to prevent adverse impacts to public safety and the surrounding area. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves sign Variance 09-1, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: The sign shall comply with and not exceed the sign area, height and other standards of the plan approved by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2009. 2. A sign permit, and building and/or electrical permits as may be applicable, shall be obtained prior to erecting the sign or lighting. 3. Any illumination shall be static, external and oriented so that only the sign face is illuminated, only between sunset and 9:00 p.m., and is low intensity subject to approval by the Community Development Director per H.B.M.C. Section 17.50.070.A.5. 2 Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this Sign Variance. Each of the above conditions is separately enforceable and, if one of the conditions is found unenforceable by a court of law, all other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. The Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this Sign Variance. The City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City. The Permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees that the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the Permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action but such participation shall not relieve the Permittee of any obligation under this Sign Variance. Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Darcy,Hoffman,Perrotti,Chmn.Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm.Allen CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 09-12 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of June 16, 2009. s Ron Pizer, Chairman oeer6on, Secretary June 16 2009 Date