1994-01
RESOLUTION NO. NE-94-01
. A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE REKODEL OF AN EXISTING CARLS JR. RESTAURANT
TO A BOSTON CHICKEN RESTAURANT AND FOR
112 SQUARE FEET OF WALL SIGNAGE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 268 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL
(CASE NO. 94-033 DR/V; APN: 259-121-21)
WHEREAS, Carl Karcher Enterprises / Nancy Patterson applied
for Design Review Permit approval pursuant to Municipal Code
Chapter 23.08 and for Variance approval pursuant to Municipal Code
Chapter 30.78 for wall signage to exceed the "1:1 ratio" [which
would allow for a total of 75 s.f. of signage] and the "not to
exceed 100 square foot" requirement to 112 square feet of wall
signage for property located at 268 North EI Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board conducted
a Public Hearing on the application requests on April 19 and May
17, 1994 and considered without limitation:
1. The Agenda Reports for the April 19 and May 17, 1994 New
Encinitas CAB meetings;
. 2. The Design Review Permit and Variance applications, the
statement of Justification, the Elevation and site Plans
(three pages) and other related material dated received
by the City on March 16,1994, and the revised elevations
plan dated received by the City on May 6, 1994 (one
sheet);
3. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land
Use Maps;
4. Written evidence and oral testimony received at the
Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
required findings pursuant to Section 23.08.070 (et. seq.) and
Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(See Attachment nl")
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applications for Design
Review Permit and Variance approval are hereby approved subject to
the following conditions:
. cd\cro\sr94033.ne2(OS-11-94)
A. STANDARD CONDITIONS:
. 1. This approval will expire on May 17, 1996, two years
after the approval of this proj ect, unless the conditions
have been met or an extension of time has been approved
pursuant to the Municipal Code.
2. This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
3. At all times during the effective period of this permit,
the applicant shall obtain and maintain in valid force
and effect, each and every license and permit required by
a governmental agency for the operation of the authorized
activity.
4. At no time during the effective period of this permit
shall the applicant be delinquent in the payment of taxes
or other lawful assessments relating to the property
which is the subject of this permit.
5. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied, the Community Development Department
shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before the
authorized agency to determine why the City of Encinitas
should not revoke this permit.
. 6. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity
demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas,
acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend or
delete conditions and regulations contained in this
permit.
7. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit and the application
plans on file with the Community Development Department.
B. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Permit and Variance are approved as set
forth on the plans received by the City with the
application material on March 16, 1994 consisting of
three sheets showing the site Plan, Floor Plan, and the
Exterior Elevations; and the Revised Elevations Plan
consisting of one sheet and dated received by the City on
May 6, 1994 which are on file with the Community
Development Department.
2. Wall signs shall be consistent with each other in color
and material, shall conform to the approved plans, shall
.
complement the exterior building materials and shall be
. submitted for Building Permit review and issuance prior
to their installation.
3. within 90 days of this approval, the applicant shall
submit revised drawings and amendments for Sign Program
#91-204 SPRO for the subject shopping center. Said Sign
Program amendments shall contain drawings of the Boston
Chicken signage and a copy of this resolution of
approval.
4. The square footage of all wall signs, including permanent
window signs, shall not exceed 112 square feet and shall
conform to the plans approved by the Community Advisory
Board.
5. All roof and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view adjacent to the structure to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Trash bin areas shall be enclosed with decorative block
walls or other material acceptable to the Community
Development Director and shall be provided view obscuring
gates.
6. Exterior illumination of the structure except for the
approved signage and under the valance (awning) shall be
. prohibited.
7. Landscape plantings within the immediate area of the
remodeled structure shall be upgraded in the existing
planting areas and the plant materials shall be
maintained in a healthy and growing condition at all
times. An automated irrigation system for the
landscaping shall be in place and maintained in an
orderly working condition prior to occupancy of the
remodeled structure.
8. The majority of the structure's exterior (i.e.: the wood
siding) shall be an off-white color as agreed to by the
applicant. The stucco shall be a gray color and the
accent bands shall be off-white (except for the red
band).
C. FIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT: The developer shall contact the
Fire Protection District regarding compliance to the following
conditions:
1. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a
location that will allow them to be clearly visible from
the street fronting the structure. The height of numbers
shall conform to Fire District standards. Note: Where
.
structures are located off a roadway on long driveways,
. a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance where
the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent
address numbers shall be affixed to this marker.
2. FEES: Prior to Final Occupancy, the applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department a letter
from the Fire Prevention District stating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees
have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire
District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board, as Lead Agency and in their independent judgement,
finds this project to be exempt from Environmental Review pursuant
to Section 15302(b) of the CEQA Guidelines since the project is for
the remodel of an existing structure and for minor accessory
structures (on-premises signs, etc.) which are not subject to
Environmental Review.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Beck, DeGaillez, Felker
. NAYS: None
ABSENT: Edde, weinstein
ABSTAIN: None
~/ ~
f ..~~~ ~/ /;¿;Z:-
Vir~iffÍa Felker, Chair of the
New Encinitas Community Advisory
Board, City of Encinitas
ATë:~ (2.~
Craig R. Olson,
Assistant Planner
.
ATTACHMENT "1"
. RESOLUTION NO. NE-94-01
Findings Pursuant to
Section 23.08.070 (et. seq.)
of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
Design Review Permits
(1) The project design is consistent with the General Plan, or
Specific Plan and the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Facts: The subject restaurant use is a permitted use within
the General Commercial Zoning District. The exterior
modifications to the existing structure would not create any
additional square footage to the structure nor require
provisions for additional landscaping or parking spaces.
Discussion: Available evidence has not identified any aspect
of the submitted project which does not comply with Zoning
Code standards or General Plan Policies.
Conclusion: The New Encinitas Community Advisory Board finds,
therefore, that the design of the project conforms to the
policies and standards of the General Plan and Municipal Code.
. (2) The project design is substantially consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines.
Facts: The Design Review Guidelines relate to site Design,
Building Design, Landscape Design, Sign Design and Privacy and
Secur i ty . The proj ect proposes to remodel an existing
structure within a built shopping center. All aspects of site
Design, Landscape Design and Privacy and Security will remain
unchanged. Building Design issues affecting the remodel
include consistency of the building's design with the
architectural style of other buildings within the shopping
center, variety and use of exterior building materials, and
the screening of roof and ground mounted mechanical equipment.
Discussion: The remodel proposes to utilize existing tile
roof features on the structure which are a consistent feature
throughout the shopping center. Approval of the application
request would require screening of all roof and ground mounted
mechanical equipment. Sign design relates to the Design
Guideline issue that "Signs shall be of a size and scale with
the building to which it is attached". The applicant contends
that the proposed signage and placement of the signs relate to
the structure since it is located on a "stand alone" building
pad and all four building elevations are visible adjacent to
the structure.
.
Conclusion: The remodeled structure will incorporate the tile
. roof accent which is a common design feature throughout the
subject shopping center. By retaining the tile roof feature,
the building's remodeled design is consistent with the
architectural style of other buildings within the shopping
center. Signage is harmonious to the remodeled structure in
that the structure is located on a "stand alone" building pad
and all four building elevations are visible adjacent to the
structure and the signs are of a size and scale that is
compatible with the building to which they are attached. The
sign colors and logo are compatible with other signage on
structures within the shopping center. Therefore, the New
Encinitas Community Advisory Board finds that the project
design is consistent with the intent of the Design Review
Guidelines.
(3) The project design will not adversely affect the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community.
Facts: The project design is consistent with the existing
shopping center in that no additional square footage to the
existing structure is proposed by the remodel and all access
and utility services to the shopping center are currently in
place.
Discussion: No evidence has been submitted to indicate that
. the project design would adversely affect the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the project
design will not adversely affect the health, safety or general
welfare of the New Encinitas Community.
(4) The project will not tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Facts: The project design tends to be compatible with the
style of commercial development wi thin the surrounding General
Commercial Zoning District.
Discussion: No evidence has been submitted to indicate that
the project would materially depreciate the appearance or
value of the neighborhood.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the project will
not adversely depreciate the appearance or value of the
immediate neighborhood or the New Encinitas Community.
.
. Findings Pursuant to section 30.78.030
of the Kunicipal (Zoning) Code
Related to Variances
(A) A Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be
granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable
to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Facts: The application requests a Variance to permit
additional wall signage area beyond the standard square
footage permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance
(Muni. Code Section 30.60 .100D 1) reads: "The maximum area for
wall signs, including permanent window signs, on a single
building exterior shall be calculated as: One sq. ft. per
linear foot of building on the same side where the main
entrance to the establishment is located with a maximum of 100
square feet". In accordance with this Code Section, a maximum
of 75 square feet of wall signage would be permitted.
Discussion: The applicant contends that a limit of 75 square
feet of wall signage for this particular location and building
is not justified since the building is located on a free-
standing pad as opposed to an in-line commercial structure.
. Due to this location, all four building exteriors are visible
either to EI Camino Real and/or to the interior of the
shopping center.
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Encinitas Community Advisory
Board finds that the site constraints imposed on the structure
by its location on a "free standing" building pad and the
visibility of all four building elevations warrants the
Variance to the Sign standard for this particular location.
(B) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as
will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
such property is situated.
Facts: The Variance allows for additional signage area beyond
the signage area permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
Discussion: The applicant contends that the additional
signage is justified for this particular location due to the
structure being located on a "stand alone" pad and the
visibility of all four building elevations. Review of the
application indicates that no conditions beyond those
conditions normally applicable to Variance approval are
.
. necessary to assure that the Variance would not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the Variance is
warranted due to the particular circumstances of the subject
structure discussed above and that the Variance approval does
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which the property is situated since similar circumstances
may constitute grounds for Variance approval on other impacted
properties.
(C) A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which
authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of
property.
Facts: The General Commercial Zoning District permits
restaurant uses as a right.
Discussion: The project proposes the remodel of an existing
restaurant to convert it to a similar but different type of
restaurant use.
. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the Variance does
not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the
parcel of property.
(D) No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan; which
would be of less significant impact to the site and
adj~cent properties than the project requiring a
varl.ance;
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute
a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Facts: The project conforms in all aspects with the
development standards of the General Commercial Zoning
.
District and all other applicable standards required by the
. Municipal Code except for the additional square footage for
signage requested by the Variance application.
Discussion: The project design is compatible with similar
commercial development in the area. This Variance approval
has been conditioned to ensure compliance to all adopted
development standards other than the area (square footage)
limitations which are the subject of this Variance. The
Variance is necessitated by the constraints on the property
due to the location of the structure on a "free standing"
building pad and, therefore, the Variance request is not self-
induced. The name "Boston Chicken" contains 13 letters while
other restaurants like Carls Jr. and Red Robin only contain 7
and 8 letters, respectively; thereby adding additional
justification for Variance approval. The Variance does not
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the Zoning Code
since restaurant uses are permitted by right in the General
Commercial Zoning District. No evidence has been submitted to
indicate that any private or public nuisance exists on the
property.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the project does
not impose any significant adverse impacts to the site and
adjacent properties and that the Variance is not self-induced
as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the
. owner's predecessor. The proj ect does not allow such a degree
of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to
the Zoning Code nor has any evidence been submitted to
indicate that the project would authorize or legalize the
maintenance of a private or public nuisance.
.