1991-16
RESOLUTION NO. OE91-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY
ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A 898 SQ FT COMMERCIAL
BUILDING WITH TAKE-OUT FOOD BUSINESS TO MODIFY PARKING DESIGN
AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS ON A 2,995 SQ FT LOT, MINOR USE PERMIT
FOR 5 OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT 320 N HIGHWAY 101,
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR BUILDING REMODEL
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 232 N HIGHWAY 101 0
(CASE NUMBER 91-068 MIN/DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance, Minor Use
Permit and Design Review was filed by Mr. Joseph vitale for a 898
sq ft commercial building with take-out food business to modify
parking design and landscape standards including reduction of car
back-out distance from 24 ft to approximately 20 ft and to reduce
side back-up distance from 5 ft to approximately 3 ft, and
reduction of minimum landscape coverage from 15% to approximately
10%, for 5 off-site parking spaces located approximately 600 ft
north of the site at 320 N Highway 101, and Design Review for
building, site plan, landscape plan and signs per Chapters 30.78,
30.74 and 23.08 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 232 N Highway 101 legally described as:
Lot 4, Block A of North Encinitas Map 1845 of Encinitas,
California, filed in the office of the San Diego County
recorder on July 18, 1925;
and off-site parking lot located at 320 N Highway 101 legally
described as:
Lot 5, Block Q of North Encinitas Map 1800 of Encinitas,
California, filed in the office of the San Diego County
recorder.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
July 25, 1991 and August 29, 1991;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff reports dated July 16, 1991 and August 22,
1991.
2. The application, revised site plan, floor plan,
elevations,landscape plans and off-site parking
site plan dated received August 19, 1991 submitted
by the applicant.
3. Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant.
MN\91068DRV.RES (8-22-91) 1
4. Parking study prepared by ACE Parking Management, Inc.
dated June 19,1991, detailing existing parking demand at
"Papa Toni's Pizza" located at 554 Santa Fe Drive.
5. Request for Bakery determination and supporting
documentation submitted by Joseph Vitale March 7, 1991.
6. Letter of determination from City Planner Bill Weedman
dated April 8, 1991.
7. Letter and petition supporting the project dated received
July 10, 1991.
8. Letter of concern regarding (eliminated) parking variance
and comments regarding parking issues along Highway 101
in general, from Gerry Soifer, D.V.M. dated May 20,1991.
9. Off-site parking agreement between Joseph vitale and Van
Bechtel, Cal-West Escrow Co., dated July 16, 1991.
10. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing.
11. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.74, 30.78 and 23.08 of
the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-068
MIN/DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15301 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
MN\91068DRV.RES (8-22-91) 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of August, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cartwright, Steyaert, Lewis
NAYS:
ABSENT: Birnbaum
ABSTAIN: cowen
"
~/ ~
c..~""
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
MN\91068DRV.RES (8-22-91) 3
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE91-16
Case No. 91-068 MIN/DR/V
Findings for a variance:
Findings: (Code Section, Factual Circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion)
What follows are the findings of fact the Board must make to
approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance
Section 30.78.030:
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning regulations 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
regulations deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification.
Evidence: In his Statement of Justification, the applicant
contends that special circumstances are appl icable to this
property including small lot area and substandard dimensions,
which result in his inability to provide the required back-out
distance and meet the required 15% landscape coverage. The
Parking Design Manual requires a combined 43 ft depth for the
parking space and back-out distance, but since the lot width
is only 38 ft, this standard cannot be met with the proposed
parking configuration. In addition, the applicant contends
that the 15% landscape coverage cannot be achieved since the
building and parking area require almost all of the lot area.
The Board finds that the findings for parking back-out
distance and that a 10% landscape coverage can be made since
the lot width is only 38 ft and the lot size is substandard
for the General Commercial zone.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions
as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not
consti tute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
Evidence: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
will not result in a grant of special privileges since many
other property owners in the neighborhood provide neither
adequate parking nor landscaping on-site.
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 4
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 regulations governing the
parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not
apply to use permits.
Evidence: commercial take-out food uses are permitted in the
General Commercial zone per Chapter 30.09 of the Municipal
Code.
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 adjacent properties than the project
requiring a variance;
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;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(1) The Board finds that an alternate development plan
to modify the parking layout is possible, but only if the
building depth is reduced 5 ft and at least 100 sq ft in
floor area deleted from the project. This design would
not be less impacting to the si te since the parking
spaces would be rotated to face westward and this would
resul t in insufficient parking space width (for four
parking spaces plus the additional 2 ft adjacent to a
wall, the Parking Design Manual requires a minimum 40 ft,
but the lot width is only 38 ft). This alternative would
also deny the applicant a reasonable use of the property
since the building would be much smaller.
(2) The Board finds that the need for the variance is
not self-induced since it is the result of substandard
lot area and dimensions.
(3) The Board finds that the variance is minor in nature
and would not constitute rezoning or an amendment to the
zoning code.
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 5
(4) The Board finds that the variance would not legalize
maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
Findings for a Minor Use Permit:
The findings necessary to approve a Minor Use Permit are as
follows:
Zoning Ordinance section 30.74.070:
1. The location, size design or operating characteristics of
the proposed project will not be incompatible with and
will not adversely affect and will not be materially
detrimental to adjacent uses, residences, buildings,
structures or natural resources, with consideration to,
but not limited to:
a. The adequacy of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
b. The suitability of the site for type and intensity
of use or development which is proposed; and
c. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental
quality and natural resources of the city;
Evidence: The Board finds that the proposed project is a
commercial use which is consistent with surrounding uses in
terms of intensity of development, since there are other take-
out food establishments with off-site or no parking. Although
the site is constrained due to substandard size, the operation
will be consistent with the scale of others in the
neighborhood. The public facilities and services are in place
to serve the project. The Board cannot identify any harmful
effects upon environmental quality or natural resources in
conjunction with this project.
2. The impacts of the proposed project will not adversely
affect the polices of the Encinitas General Plan or the
provisions of this Code;
Evidence: The Board finds that the project conforms to the
General Plan policies and Zoning Code development standards
with the exception of the parking and landscape standards for
which a variance is requested. . sections 30.54.020 and
30.54.050 provide for off-site and/or shared parking within a
reasonable walking distance from the site. The proposed off-
site parking area is approximately 600 ft north of the subject
site which is the maximum allowed pursuant to Parking Design
Manual section 1E. In addition, the parking study prepared by
ACE Parking Management, Inc. of a similar take-out food
business located at 554 Santa Fe Drive found that an average
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 6
of only 2 vehicles were in the parking lot at the same time
since high percentage of the total sales is from the pizza
delivery service.
3. The project complies with all other regulations,
conditions or policies imposed by this Code.
Evidence: The Board finds that the project will comply with
all Zoning Code requirements pertinent to the type of
development proposed with approval of the associated variance.
The resolution contains conditions which covenants the off-
site parking on both properties and require that the employees
park at the off-site location, reserving the four on-site
parking spaces for customers. This covenant will run with the
use such that its termination by either party will result in
revocation of this use permit. These and other conditions
must be satisfied prior to building occupancy.
Findings for Design Review
The following findings must be made by the authorized agency
to warrant approval of the design review permit in accordance
with section 23.08.072 of the Municipal Code:
A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan, a
Specific Plan, or the provisions of this code.
Evidence: Subject to the approval of the associated variance
as proposed to modify standards for auto backing distance and
landscape coverage, the Board finds that this proposal will be
in conformance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
No Specific Plan is applicable at this time.
I
B. The design is substantially consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines.
Evidence: The guidelines applicable to site design are
guidel ines 1. 1, 1. 5, 1.7, and 1.10 from section I of the
Design Review Guidelines. section II, Building Design,
guidelines 2.1 through 2.7, 2.9, 2.11 and 2.12 are also
applicable. Additionally, guidelines 3. 1 through 3. 4, 3.6,
3.7 and 3.10 of Section III, Landscape Design are applicable.
Finally, Guidelines 4.1 through 4.3, and 4.6 through 4.8 from
Section IV, Sign Design are applicable.
with regard to the site Design guidelines, the Board finds
that the proposed commercial development is substantially
consistent. Guideline 1.1 encourages the project to take
advantage of the opportunities and constraints of the site.
The proposal to place the building at the front property line
with the parking partially screened in the rear of the site,
maintains the zero lot-line street-scape of this area of
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 7
Highway 101. with respect to Guidelines 1.5, 1.7, and 1.10,
the plans indicate an attractive entrance plaza protected with
landscaping to encourage pedestrian traffic.
The Board finds that the design of the commercial building is
substantially consistent with the Building Design guidelines
\ as well. with regard to 2.1 through 2.5, the building has
been custom designed with the site potentials and constraints
in mind. The style is consistent throughout the structure.
The main material proposed is eggshell stucco with reddish
"candyapple" horizontal trim features. A large multi-colored
fiberglass and tile entrance column feature with a large
yellow awning is proposed to focus attention to the front of
the building. Although Guideline 2.4 encourages the use of
only 2-3 main materials and colors, in this case the use of
colors "rising sun", "crayon" , "candyapple" and black are
complementary and create a sense of arrival.
with regard to Guidelines 2.6, 2.7, 2.9 and 2.11, the
applicant has designed a parapet type roof structure to screen
the mechanical equipment and provide architectural unity at
all elevations. The colored elevations indicates vertical
bands of "aegea"n" and "cove", two shades of blue, for the roof
structure. Finally, Guideline 2.12 encourages the project
design to harmonize with some elements of adjacent buildings.
Since the building is designed at the same scale and with
similar materials as surrounding structures, the Building
Design findings can be made.
with respect to the Landscape Guidelines, the applicant has
provided a detailed landscape plan which includes two 36 inch
box size Red Gum Eucalyptus street trees and two more of 15
gallon size in the rear parking area, a variety of shrubs
incl uding Jade Plant, Raphiolepis and Ficus Repens, and
African Daisies used for ground cover. with respect to
guidelines 3.1 through 3.4,3.6 and 3.7 the landscape plan has
been designed to portray a cohesive appearance and will give
the project the appearance of maturity within 3 years after
planting. In addition, the designer has provided drought
tolerant plants that will require low water usage. Finally,
the designer has increased the size of the planter areas and
provided a 6 ft solid wall on the west property line with
wrought iron fencing on both the north and south property
lines as requested by the Board in the CAB I hearing. The
Board finds that with these landscape and fencing
enhancements, the Landscape Design findings can be made.
The Board finds that the proposed project is substantially
consistent with the Sign Design Review guidelines. with
respect to Guidelines 4.1 through 4.3, the plans indicate 7
small signs totaling 26 sq ft distributed throughout the front
elevation. Since the section 30.60.100 of the Municipal Code
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 8
provides for signs to be calculated at the rate of 1 sq ft per
linear ft of frontage and the proposed building frontage is 26
linear ft, the proposed signage is consistent with the sign
regulations. Three of the signs are proposed to be on the
facia above the yellow awning and the remaining four will be
painted on three side of the awning. Although there are a
large number of signs on the front elevation, they will be
displayed in a manner that will create a unified appearance.
with respect to Guidelines 4.6 through 4.8, the Board finds
that the applicant has proposed signs to be composed of high
quality materials including colored tile and brass which
relate well to the building colors and materials. Finally, the
plans indicate that the applicant has provided a small
directional sign in the planter area on the south side of the
building to direct drivers to both the rear parking area and
the off-site parking area, as requested.
wi th the resolution of the issues identified in the CAB I
hearing, the Board finds that the building remodel is
substantially consistent with the design review guidelines.
C. The project would not adversely affect the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community.
Evidence: The Board finds that the commercial building
amounts to less than 900 sq ft floor area and no negative
effects on the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community have been identified.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence: The Board finds that the project represents an
upgrade in appearance to the existing building on the
site and to the neighborhood in general.
MN\91068DRV.ATA (8-22-91) 9
RESOLUTION NO. OE91-16
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT "B"
Applicant: Vitale
Case No: 91-068 MIN/DR/V
Subject: Variance for a proposed, 898 sq. ft. commercial
building with take-out food business to modify
parking design and landscape standards on a 2,995
sq. ft. lot, Minor Use Permit for off-site parking
located at 320 N. Highway 101, and Design Review
for the building remodel.
Location: 232 N. Highway 101 and off-site parking location of
320 N. Highway 101.
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall
cause to be recorded a covenant on both properties (232
and 320 N. Highway 101) which sets forth the conditions
of this approval.
B. At any time the lease agreement for off-site parking at
320 N. Highway 101 is terminated by either party and
substitute parking has not been provided to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Department, the
Use Permit shall be deemed null and void and the use
shall be required to come into compliance with all
provisions of the Municipal Code.
II. STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in two years, on August
29, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have
been met or an extension has been approved by the
Authorized Agency.
B. This approval may be appealed to the Planning .
Commission within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval.
C. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
with any sections of the Zoning Code and all other
applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived
here.
CO/03/CRO9-848wp51 (9-24-91-1)
D. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
E. This approval shall become null and void if
building permits are not issued for this project
within two years from the date of project approval.
F. Permits from other agencies will be required as
follows:
state Coastal Commission
G. Project is approved as submitted/modified as
evidenced by the revised site plan, floor plans,
elevations, landscape plans, and off-site parking
site plan dated received by the City of Encinitas
on August 19, 1991, and signed by a City Official
as approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board on August 29, 1991, and shall not be altered
without Planning and Community Development
Department review and approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. SITE DEVELOPMENT
A. The applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but not
be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees,
School Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic
Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements
to pay these fees shall be paid prior to:
Building permit issuance; or
as deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
3. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
A. Driveways shall meet the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, Public Works Standards, and the
Offstreet Parking Design Manual.
CO/03/CRO9-848wp51 (9-24-91-1)
4. LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS
A. All required plantings and irrigation systems shall
be in place prior to use or' occupancy of new
buildings or structures. All required plantings
and irrigation system shall be maintained in good
condition, and whenever necessary, shall be
replaced with new materials to ensure continued
compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering,
and screening requirements. All landscaping and
irrigation systems shall be maintained in a manner
that will not depreciate adjacent property values
and otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
5. FIRE
A. Prior to final recordation, the applicant shall
submit a letter from the Fire District stating that
all development impact, plan check and/ or cost
recovery fees have been paid or secured to the
satisfaction of the District. Future structures
shall be protected by automatic fire sprinkler
systems. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Protection
District. Address numbers shall be clearly visible
from the street fronting the structure.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
6. DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
A. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing
of all surface water originating within the
project, and all surface waters that may flow onto
the project from adjacent lands, shall be required.
Said drainage system shall include any easements
and structures as required by the City Engineer to
properly handle the drainage.
B. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or
sidewalks shall not be permitted.
7. STREET CONDITIONS
A. Developer shall execute and record a covenant with
the County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the
formation of an assessment district to fund the
installation of right-of-way improvements.
~
CO/03/CRO9-848wp51 (9-24-91-1)
B. Improvements constructed within the present or
future public right-of-way shall be considered
temporary. Applicant shall enter into an
encroachment removal covenant agreeing to remove
those improvements at the direction of the city.
Improvements shall include existing roof overhead
and proposed awning.
8. UTILITIES
A. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the
respective utility agencies regarding services to
the project.
B. The developer shall be responsible for coordination
with SDG&E, Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV
authorities.
C. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities
unless exempt by the Municipal Code.
I
CO/03/CRO9-848wp51 (9-24-91-1)