Loading...
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)