The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV 334; Sixpence Inns; Variance (V)APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: 1/21/82 STAFF REPORT DATE : March 10, 1982 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: V-334, SIXPENCE INNS - Request for a Variance to exceed the maximum height restrictions for a freeway-oriented sign to identify uses located on the north side of Elm Avenue immediately adjacent to the Interstate 5 Freeway off ramp . I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION This is a request for a variance to exceed the maximum height restriction for a freeway-oriented sign. The ordinance allows a maximum height of 50 ft. for a freeway sign identifying three or more uses. The applicant is proposing a 58 ft. sign which, therefore, exceeds the ordinance by 8 ft. The sign will identify three freeway-oriented uses; the existing Chevron Service Station, the existing Denny's Restaurant and the soon to be con- structed Sixpence Inns Motel. As the Planning Commission may recall, the Commission made a determination late last year to allow these three uses to share common parking as one freeway- oriented facility. The sign will be installed along the easterly boundary of the site adjacent to the freeway and will replace the existing Denny's and Chevron sign. The proposed sign was considered and approved by the Redevelop- ment Advisory Committee on January 6, 1982. The committee rec- ommended that consideration also be given to attaching an additional sign immediately below the proposed sign which would identify the Village Redevelopment Area. 11. ANALYSIS A) Planning Issues Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made which are as follows: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vic- inity and zone. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos- sessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but denied to the property in question. 3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in- jurious to the property or improvements in such vic- inity and zone in which the property is located. 4) Will the variance adversely affect the General Plan? B) Discussion Staff believes that there are exceptional or extra- ordinary circumstances applicable to the subject prop- erty and intended use. The property is below the grade of the freeway. Therefore, additional height is war- ranted to make the sign clearly visible from the free- way. Also, the sign will identify three separate freeway-oriented uses on one sign. Most other freeway signs in the city identify just one single use. A similar variance (57 ft.) was granted for the Texaco Service Station located directly across the street from the subject property and, therefore, the variance would appear justified in terms of enjoyment of a right pos- sessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. All other freeway uses at the other corners of this intersection have signing that is clearly visible to the freeway. Staff feels that approval of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to the public welfare since a location will be selected for the sign which will not in any way obstruct visibility for traffic exiting the freeway or using surface streets. Finally, staff does not believe the sign will hinder the intent of the General Plan. The use of one sign to identify three uses complies with the intent of the Gen- eral Plan to minimize the proliferation of numerous large signs along the city's major streets and freeways. Also, the sign will be designed using wood trim around the sign cabinet and wood covering on the support col- umns. The sign will be more aesthetically pleasing than the existing sign which it will replace. For the above reasons, staff is recommending approval of Variance 334. There are two additional items which need to be addressed in conjunction with the consideration of the requested sign. The first has to do with the Redevelop- ment Advisory Committee's recommendation to have the Village Redevelopment Area identified on the sign. -2- Staff is opposed to this for several reasons. The city's ordinance regulating freeway signs is very res- trictive and only allows the identification of uses which are definitely freeway-oriented (i.e., motel, service station) and which are located immediately on a freeway on-ramp or off-ramp. The reasons for this is to preserve the visual quality presently existing along the freeway in Carlsbad by not allowing a proliferation of numerous, large signs identifying non-freeway- oriented uses. The city must be very conservative in approving freeway-type signs by only allowing those needed for businesses directly serving the freeway trav- eler . The second issue involves the proposed blank sign panel shown on the lower portion of the requested sign struc- ture which is labeled "proposed sign by others". This is being shown as a possible sign area for a property which is located north of Denny's Restaurant across Grand Avenue. This property is zoned R-P and has an old specific plan for a motel. When the original Chevron and Denny's sign was constructed, this property partici- pated in the cost of the original sign. Because of this, Sixpence Inns feels that it is necessary for them to provide an additional area on the new sign for poss- ible future use by this other property. Staff is opposed to this for several reasons. One of the reasons staff is supporting the new sign is because all of the uses are being comprehensively and compatibly identified on the new sign. The blank panel on the lower portion of the sign does not fit this concept. Secondly, because the other property is zoned R-P, it is possible that it will not develop with a freeway-oriented use, but rather an office or residential use. If this hap- pens, the property would not be permitted to be identi- fied on a freeway sign. For these reasons, staff is recommending that this sign panel be deleted from the proposed plan. If, in fact, the other property does develop with a freeway-oriented use, the owner could request an amendment to allow his business to be identi- fied on the subject sign in a comprehensive and compat- ible manner similar to the three uses now being proposed for identification on the sign. 111. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this variance request is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070(D) of the city's Environmental Protection Ordinance. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1928, APPROVING V-334 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. -3- ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 1928 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Exhibits A and B dated, January 25, 1982 MJH:ar 2/25/82 -4- I , R-1 .. GRAND AVE . .^ 1 c-2 ELM AVE c-2 I AppLIm: SIXPENCE INNS FEQUEST AND LOCATION: Variance to construct a 58' high siqn on the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and Interstate 5. LEGF,I, DE~ION: All that portion of Tract 117 as shown on Map No. 1661 filed March 15, 1915. __ Assessors Parcel m: 203 - 320 - 03,04,05,06,12,21,23,32,33,34 and 35. Acres N/A No. of Lots N/A General Plan Land Use Designation TS Existing zone c-2 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: zoninq Land use School North R-P Vacant & Residential south c-2 Commercia 1 East c-2 West C-2 District Freeway Come r ci a 1 PUBLIC FACILITIES CARLSBAD Water District CARLSBAD Sewer District CARLSBAD mu's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated January 20, 1982 (other: 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSIvENT Negative Declaration, issued Log No. E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, EXEMPT (Section 19.04.070(D))