1992-05
.'
r ¡j ~ Iq_'"
"é i\ Þ
1 >-' t,
" ò r .,' 'ù<,)
RESOLUTION NO. OE92-05 ,.- ;. ;I
',;;>U
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
TO MODIFY THE EXISTING SIGN PROGRAM A MOONLIGHT PLAZA PHASE II
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FIRST STREET
(CASE NUMBER 91-225 ADP)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit
was filed by Mr. Robert Richard to modify the existing sign program
at Moonlight Plaza Phase II per Chapter 23.08 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 315 First
street, legally described as:
Lots 9 through 12, Block 57 and the northerly one half of "C"
Street (as vacated), per Map 148, along with a portion of Section
16, T13S, R4W, San Bernadino Meridian.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
February 25, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated February 20, 1992;
2. The application and proposed sign program submitted by the
applicant dated received December 30, 1991;
3. Letter of authorization from Grossmont Bank dated January
30, 1991;
4. Fax from applicant which states that the landlord
authorizes the sign program to allow only canned wall signs on
Moonlight Plaza Phase II;
5. Resolution No. OE-3 which approved the Sign Program for
Moonlight Plaza Phase I dated June 4, 1987;
6. Resolution No. OE89-24 which approved the Sign Program for
Moonlight Plaza Phase II dated October 26, 1989;
7. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
8. _!'lritten. evidc~!lCe submitted at the hearing; and
--'. "" .- - --, -
- . -. -
WHE:IŒA~l tlle Oi~i-Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
followir.g f'lndings pursqant to Chapter 23.08 of the Encinj.tas
Municipal Code: ..
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A~')
MN\91225ADP.RES (2-20-92) 1
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-225 ADP
is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encini tas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15301 (g) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Cartwright, Steyaert
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Lewis, Cowen
ABSTAIN: None
Virginia Cartwright,
Chairperson of
the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
I
MN\91225ADP.RES (2-20-92) 2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW (CHAPTER 23.08 MUNXCIPAL CODE)
Case' 91-225 ADP
Resolution No. OE92-05
Findings: The following findings must be made by the Board to
warrant approval of the design review permit pursuant to
Chapter 23.08 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan,
a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
Facts: The design and type of Moonlight Plaza Phase II wall
and monument signs are proposed to be modified from the sign
program that was approved on October 26, 1989.
Discussion: No increase in number of signs is proposed and
the size of the proposed signs do not exceed the area which
was previously approved. However, the sign design has been
modified to allow interior-lit canned wall signs in lieu of
the individual letter neon and can signs.
Conclusion: Therefore, although the proposed modification is
in compliance with many of the provisions of the General Plan
and the Municipal Code, this finding cannot be made since the
sign modification is inconsistent with section 23.08.078
(Signs) of the Municipal Code which regulate sign design.
B. The project design is substantially inconsistent with the
City's Design Review Guidelines.
Facts: The applicant proposes to modify the sign program to
allow only interior-lit canned wall signs at Moonlight Plaza
Phase II. Currently, the adj acent commercial building permits
only individual neon or can letters, and wooden signs.
I
Discussion: The guidelines applicable to this project are
guidelines 4.4 and 4.7 of Section IV (Sign Design), Design
Review Guidelines, and Section 23.08. 078C of the Design Review
Ordinance. with respect to guideline 4.4, 4.7 and Section
23.08.078 C, the black background color of proposed monument
sign contrasts with the colors of the adjacent buildings, wall
signs and other tenant identification sign which has a blue
background. In addition, the colors of the wall signs do not
avoid excessive contrast with other signs in the center and
with the light-colored stucco of Moonlight Plaza Phase II.
The canned wall signs do not relate well with the other sign
type of both Moonlight Phase I and II, and approval of these
signs will effectively permit any type of sign in the center
and defeat the purpose of the sign program. Finally, although
C:\MATT\91225ADP.SR (3-31-92) 5
0
the applicant contends that allowing only canned wall signs in
the Phase II center will result in a visually compatible sign
program within the Phase II center, it would not be compatible
throughout the entire commercial center.
Conclusion: Therefore, the proposed sign program modification
is not consistent with the Design Review Guidelines.
C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community.
Fact: The applicant is only proposing to modify an existing
sign program.
Discussion: There is no evidence that the existing sign
program has adversely affected the welfare of the community.
Conclusion: No evidence can be found that a modified sign
program will adversely affect the health, safety of welfare of
the community.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Fact: The applicant is proposing to modify the sign program
to allow interior-lit canned wall signs.
Discussion: The purpose of a sign program is to provide a
unified building front with signage which relate well to the
building and other signs in the neighborhood. The canned wall
signs may result in a less unified building front which could
depreciate the appearance of the neighborhood. In addition,
the proposed tenant identification plastic interior-lit
monument sign at the corner of First street and Encinitas
Boulevard is modified to allow tenant identification colors
and logos which out of character for a corner that is a
visible gateway to Downtown Encinitas.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed
monument sign with its corporate colors and logos located at
the Corner of First street and Encinitas Boulevard could tend
to cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate in
appearance since this is a highly visible entrance to Downtown
Encinitas. In addition, the modified sign program which
includes interior-lit canned wall signs could also tend to
cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate in appearance
since this would result in a variety of different sign types
in one retail center.
C:\MATT\91225ADP.SR (3-31-92) 6