Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 80790 RESOLUTION NO. 8079 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DENYING A VARIANCE TO JESUS LOPEZ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 310 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE (VARIANCE CASE NO. V-902) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Azusa does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. There has been filed with the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa the applica- tion of Jesus Lopez requesting a variance from the provisions of Section 19.50.070 of the Azusa Municipal Code to maintain a pre- viously painted wall sign on the southern wall of the building on the southern property in excess of the permitted sign area and without a side entrance on that side of the building for the subject property. B. The subject property is generally described as 310 North Azusa Avenue and legally described as Lot 22, Block 61, Map of Azusa. C. The application for the variance was duly initiated, and notice of public hearings thereon before the Planning Commission and the City Council were duly given and pub- lished in accordance with applicable law. D. Public hearings thereon were duly held by the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa on June 4, 1986, and by the City Council of the City of Azusa on July 21, 1986. E. On June 4, 1986, the Planning Commission of the City of Azusa by Resolution No. 2318 voted to deny the variance for the subject property. F. Thereafter, the applicant duly filed a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within the time required by law for such appeal. G. The City Council has considered all of the information presented to it at the public hearing held on July 21, 1986. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Azusa after careful consideration of the evidence presented to it, does hereby deny said Variance No. V-902 based upon the following findings: A. Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Title of the Azusa Municipal Code will not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the subject property inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of this title. The applicant has shown 0 0 no reason for the variance other than the expense of the sign, which has fluctuated with different statements from the applicant, and cost alone is not a sufficient justifica- tion for permitting the sign which was illegally erected. Other merchants in the area and the City have had no trouble comply- ing with the sign regulations contained in the Code and have painted or erected attrac- tive and legal signs on their businesses. B. There are no exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject proper- ty and to the intended use of the subject pro- perty that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone for the reasons stated in subparagraph A above. Additionally, the meat market on the subject property is located on one of the City's major business thoroughfares, Azusa Avenue, which has a number of commercial buildings of similar size and use, which have also complied with the sign ordinance. C. The granting of the variance for the subject property would be materially detrimen- tal to the public welfare and would be injur- ious to the property and improvements in the zone and neighborhood in which the property is located in that the sign which has been painted is cluttered in design and contains excessive detail which is visually disruptive for traffic on Azusa Avenue. Motorists traveling along this major commercial thorough- fare will be forced to slow down to read the entire sign causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. The sign also violates Section 19.50.020(7) of the Azusa Municipal Code which states that private signs should be designed in order to "reduce possible traffic and safety hazards." D. The granting of the variance for the subject property is inconsistent with the General Plan of the City of Azusa and, particu- larly, with the Community Design Element. According to the Community Design Element of the Azusa General Plan, all private sector signs should be "simple in design, well- proportioned and easy to read, and with colors that do not clash with the color of the build- ing facade." Further, the design element provides that "information on the sign should be limited to (a) name of individual firm, (b) business or service, (c) address, and (d) logo of business or service." The sign on the building for which the variance is requested violates all of the principles for signs as stated in the Community Design Element as the sign contains detailed product listings and illustrations in addition to the information necessary for a proper sign. More- over, Section 19.50.020(3) of the Azusa Municipal Code states that the purpose of the -2- 0 City sign regulations is to "encourage a desirable urban character." The subject sign is reflective or a rural character in that it is so large and is essentially a product listing of all of the products sold at the business. E. The proposed sign is far in excess of the area limitation requirements for signs within the commercial zones even if the sign were painted on a wall with a side entrance. F. In taking this action the City Council considered the effects of the decision on the housing needs of the region in which the City is located and balanced those needs against the public service needs of the City residents and available.fiscal and environmental resources. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August , 1986. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of August 1986, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AVILA, COOK, CRUZ, LATTA, MOSES NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE I C Y LERK -3-