1994-02
RESOLUTION NO. C 94-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING
A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST
TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AND REMODEL OF
AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN THE VSC ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2588 SO. HIGHWAY 101
(CASE NO: 94-010 DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration for Design Review and
variance permits was filed by The Chart House Restaurant to allow
an addition of a foyer and interior modifications including
conversion of a lounge area to restroom facilities, along with a
variance to enable the addition without provision of additional
parking, and to allow a proposed screening wall, garden wall, and
planter wall to exceed the allowable height within front setbacks,
pursuant to Chapters 23.08 (Design Review) and 30.78 (Variances),
for the property located in the VSC zone at 2588 So. Highway 101,
legally described as:
All of Lots 122, 123, 124 and 125 and Lots 158, 159, 160, and
161 in Block G of Crescent Beach, according to the Map thereof
No. 1642, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder
on July 14, 1914; as well as Lot Q of Crescent Beach,
according to the Map thereof No. 1642, filed in the Office of
the San Diego County Recorder on July 14, 1914; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
February 22, 1994;
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated February 22, 1994;
2. The applications and Statement of Justification submitted
by the applicant and dated received by the City January 27,
1994;
3. Proposed development plans dated received by the City
January 27, 1994;
4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 and 30.78 of the
Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A ")
TC/9/9401DRV.RES
(2-24-94)
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application
94-010 DR/V is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crimmins, Grossman, Sarkozy
NAYS: Fullwood
ABSENT: MacFal1
ABSTAIN:
None
John MacFal1
Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
TC/9/9401DRV.RES
(2-24-94)
2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS
Resolution No. C 94-02
Applicant:Chart House Restaurant
Case No: 94-010 DR/V
Subject: Design Review and Variance
existing restaurant.
Location: 2588 So. Highway 101
for
addition/remodel
of
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS
section 23.08.072 (Design Review Regulatory Conclusions - General)
A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan,
Specific Plan, or the provisions of this Code.
a
Facts: Floor area is defined in Chapter 30.04 of the
Municipal Code and includes areas which are more than 50%
enclosed by exterior walls and/or roof. The project includes
construction of a foyer in the front portion of the building
which is fully enclosed and thus does constitute floor area in
accordance with that definition, resulting in an increase of
452 sq. ft. in floor area. The parking standards for
restaurants contained in section 30.54.030 of the Municipal
Code requires 1 parking space per 75 sq. ft. of floor area,
such that the addition would require 6 additional parking
spaces.
Discussion: Since the project fails to provide the required
parking for the building addition, it is inconsistent with
Section 30.54.030 of the Municipal Code. In addition, the
raised "batter-side" planter wall in front of the entry
encroaching into the public right-of-way is inconsistent with
City policy. Only temporary encroachments have been allowed
by the City previously with execution of a removal agreement.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project is inconsistent
with the Municipal Code in failing to provide the off-street
parking required under Section 30.54.030 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code and by proposing a permanent encroachment into
the public right-of-way in contradiction to City policy.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Municipal Code 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
TC/9/9401DRV.RES
(2-24-94)
3
regulations deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification.
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.
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;
Facts: The proposed addition is 452 sq. ft. and would require
6 additional parking spaces under Municipal Code Section
30.54.030, a requirement from which the applicant is seeking
relief through the variance. The applicant is also seeking
the variance to enable a proposed screening wall parallel to
the east and north faces of the building to rise to a max. 6
ft. within the 20 ft. front setback of the VSC zone, contrary
to Section 30.20.010 (J4.) of the Municipal Code which limits
walls within the front setback to 4 ft.
Discussion: with respect to finding "A", no special
circumstances have been identified which preclude the
applicant from a similar use of the property to other
restaurants. The restaurant already enjoys a legal
nonconformity relative to parking, providing 51 spaces for a
6,602 sq. ft. restaurant (1 space per 130 sq. ft.), such that
the inability to provide additional parking on site does not
deprive the applicant of enjoying a use of the property
similar to other restaurant uses. With regard to finding "B",
since other restaurants have been required and/or would be
required to provide parking in conformance with Code
requirements for all enclosed area. Thus, approval of the
variance from parking standards would constitute a grant of
special privilege. with respect to finding "D1. ", the
applicant can install rest room facilities consistent with ADA
requirements as proposed without the foyer addition and still
enj oy a use of the property on a par with other similar
restaurant uses, since they would still enjoy more restaurant
floor area relative to the amount of off-street parking on
site than is required under present Code requirements.
Finally, the need for the variance is self-induced because the
TC/9/9401DRV.RES
(2-24-94)
4
applicant has chosen to propose the additional floor area
without providing the parking required under Municipal Code
Section 30.54.030.
Conclusion: The Board finds that there are not special
circumstances in this instance which deprive the property
owner of a privilege enjoyed by others in the same vicinity
and zone, that grant of the variance would be a grant of
special privilege, that the need for the variance could be
avoided by alternate development plans of less or equal impact
to the site and neighboring properties and is self-induced by
the applicant.
TC/9/9401DRV.RES
(2-24-94)
5