1992-20
r ~C'C
; , . J 1.
r-,".) ¡.j
f.e,Alo (tiC) ì ~ ..
r . ..(0.'
RESOLUTION. NO. OE92-20 ð'r-. 0 r '. '.
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS ~..
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 3RD
RESIDENTIAL IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN FRONTING ON ENCINITAS
BOULEVARD. IN ADDITION, VARIANCE TO ALLOW SIGNS TO EXCEED
ALLOWABLE 6 FT HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM 16 SQ FT IN AREA OF THE R-25
ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
120 VIA CANTEBRIA
(CASE NUMBER 92-095 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Ms. Patricia Simmons to allow a 3rd residential monument sign
fronting on Encinitas Boulevard. In addition, variance to allow
signs to exceed allowable 6 ft height limit and maximum 16 sq ft in
area per Chapters 30.60 and 30.78 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal Code, for the property located at 120 Via Cantebria,
legally described as:
Parcell, of Parcel Map 14055, in the City of Encinitas, State
of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
August 20, 1992 and September 17, 1992:
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff reports dated August 13, 1992 and September 9,
1992:
2. The application, Statement of Justification and site plan
submitted by the applicant dated received July 20, 1992:
3. Section drawing of freestanding sign dated received
July 28, 1992.
4. Resolution No. DCD 91-021 dated August 6, 1991.
5. Coastal Commission Permit No. 6-91-235/LM for the monument
wall sign dated October 15, 1991 and Permit Authorization
dated November 12, 1991.
6. Letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Ahlgren, and Mr.
and Mrs. Weatherby dated received August 13, 1992.
7. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing:
8. written information submitted at the public hearing:
3
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 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 92-095 V
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 ADO~ED this 17th day of September 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cartwright, Birnbaum, Steyaert, Lewis, Comeau
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Virginia Cartwright,
Chairperson of
the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
4
ATTACHKENT "A"
Resolution No. OE92-20
Case No. 92-095 V
Applicant: Patricia simmons
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. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.87.030A, 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.
Facts: The request is for a variance to allow a 3rd
residential monument sign for the Cape Apartments fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard. In addition, variance to allow Sign 2 to
exceed allowable 6 ft height limit and both Signs 2 and 3 to
exceed the maximum 16 sq ft in area for permanent signs in the
R-25 zone. The two signs were illegally placed on the site
and were required to be legalized (either through a variance
to retain the signs as they exist, or by removing Sign 3 and
reducing Sign 2 in area and height) by a condition in
Resolution No. DCD 91-021, approval of Sign 1 on August 6,
1991. The two signs are placed on a steep bank fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard.
Discussion: In the attached Statement of Justification, the
applicant contends that special circumstances are applicable
to the site since the property fronts on three public streets,
(Encinitas Boulevard, Via Cantebria and Balour Drive), the
apartment building is at the top of the hill and is not as
visible as other apartment complexes in the vicinity.
Finally, the applicant contends that the larger signs are
necessary for both visibility and auto safety since they are
high on steep slope next to a busy street.
Conclusion: The Board finds that no special circumstances are
applicable to this property since a 6 ft tall Sign 2 would
provide adequate visibility to potential customers turning
right from Balour Drive, thus eliminating the need for Sign 3.
In addition, the Board does not find that special
circumstances are applicable which would justify a sign which
5
exceeds 6 ft in height as measured from the uphill side of
the bank since such a sign would still provide adequate
visibility.
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 same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The request is for a variance to allow a 3rd
residential monument sign for the Cape Apartments fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard. In addition, variance.to allow Sign 2 to
exceed allowable 6 ft height limit and both Signs 2 and 3 to
exceed the maximum 16 sq ft in area for permanent signs in the
R-25 zone. The two signs were illegally placed on the site
and were required to be legalized (either through a variance
to retain the signs as they exist, or by removing Sign 3 and
reducing Sign 2 in area and height) by a condition in
Resolution No. DCD 91-021, approval of Sign 1 on August 6,
1991. The two signs are placed on a steep bank fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard.
Discussion: In her Statement of Justification, the applicant
contends that the grant of this variance will not constitute
a grant of special privileges since there are many other
apartment complexes in the vicinity with freestanding
residential monument signs that do not comply with Section
30.60 (Signs) of the Municipal Code.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
may constitute a grant of special privileges since other
complexes are not allowed more than 2 monument signs on a
corner lot (and would not have been allowed more that 2 under
any recent Municipal Code provisions), without grant of a
variance based on special circumstances, which have not been
established in this instance. Many apartment complexes have
smaller tenant identification signs and only at entrance
driveways. Other apartment complexes with permanent signs in
excess of that which is provided for in Chapter 30.60 of the
Municipal Code have signs which were not necessarily placed on
their property with proper permits, and are therefore may be
illegal as well.
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.
Facts: The request is for a variance to allow a 3rd
residential monument sign for the Cape Apartments fronting on
6
Encinitas Boulevard. In addition, variance to allow Sign 2 to
exceed allowable 6 ft height limit and both Signs 2 and 3 to
exceed the maximum 16 sq ft in area for permanent signs in the
R-25 zone. The two signs were illegally placed on the site
and were required to be legalized (either through a variance
to retain the signs as they exist, or by removing Sign 3 and
reducing Sign 2 in area and height) by a condition in
Resolution No. DCD 91-021, approval of Sign 1 on August 6,
1991. No change in use is proposed in conjunction with this
variance.
Discussion: The grant of this variance will not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly authorized in the R-25
zone since permanent monument signs are accessory to the
primary residential use.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
will not authorize a use or activity which is not authorized
in the R-25 zone.
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 sel f- 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.
Facts: The request is for a variance to allow a 3rd
residential monument sign for the Cape Apartments fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard. In addition, variance to allow Sign 2 to
exceed allowable 6 ft height limit and both Signs 2 and 3 to
exceed the maximum 16 sq ft in area for permanent signs in the
R-25 zone. The two signs were illegally placed on the site
and were required to be legalized (either through a variance
to retain the signs as they exist, or by removing Sign 3 and
reducing Sign 2 in area and height) by a condition in
Resolution No. DCD 91-021, approval of Sign 1 on August 6,
1991. The two signs are placed on a steep bank fronting on
Encinitas Boulevard.
Discussion: The applicant maintains in the attached
Statement of Justification that no alternatives would provide
7
the desired level of exposure and that the need for the
variance is not self-induced.
Conclusion: The Board finds that there are alternate plans
for signage along Encinitas Boulevard which would provide an
acceptable level of visibility and comply with Section
30.60.070 of the Municipal Code, specifically the allowed 2
monument signs of a maximum 16 sq ft each. In addition,
approval of distracting excessive signing along the public
right-of-way can be seen as maintenance of a nuisance.
8