2001-31
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2001-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN AS-BUILT ROOF DECK EXTENSION AND
GLASS BLOCK WALL ON A ROOF DECK AT A HEIGHT OF 28 FEET, WHICH
EXCEEDS THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE OF 22 FEET.
(CASE NO. 00-259 ADR/CDP; APN: 254-222-04)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of an Administrative Design Review and Coastal
Development Permit was filed by David Cross for an as-built roof deck extension and glass block
wall located on an existing roof deck, which exceeds the standard building height for residential
structures, in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located in the R-Il zone, legally described as:
Lot 25 in Block 2 of South Coast Park Unit No.4, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego,
State of California according to Map thereof No. 2049, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, July 26,1927.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the
application on January 25, 2001, April 5, 2001 and May 3,2001, at which time all those desiring to
be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation:
1.
The January 25,2001, AprilS, 2001 and May 3, 2001 agenda report to the Planning
Commission with attachments;
2.
The General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Municipal Code, and associated Land
Use Maps;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4.
Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5.
Project plans dated received by the City ofEncinitas on October 31, 2000 consisting
of 5 sheets total: Cover Sheet (CS), Site Plan (AS I), Roof Plan (AI), and Elevations
(A2-1 & A2-2).
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Section
30. 16.01OB7d (Administrative Design Review) ofthe Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Encinitas hereby denies application 00-259 ADR/CDP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, in its independent
judgment, finds that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because the project
consists of a minor alteration to an existing structure.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
Bagg, Birnbaum, Crosthwaite, Jacobson, Patton
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Q[
Adam Birnb , Chairperson
of the Planning Commission
of the City of Encinitas
ATTEST:
.. c:e- ~
~~ "
~::dra Holder, Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits
for legal challenges.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. PC 2001-31
Case No. 00-259 ADR/CDP
FINDINGS FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE
STANDARD: Section 30.16.010.B.7.d of the Municipal Code permits residential structures to
exceed the standard height envelope provided the following findings can be made:
a.
The portion of the building outside of the standard height envelope maintains some of the
significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.
b.
The building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties.
Discussion: The applicant requests approval of an as-built roof deck extension and glass block
privacy wall located on an existing roof deck, which exceeds the standard height of 22 feet for
residential structures.
The as-built glass block wall is constructed at a maximum height of 28 feet from the existing grade
adjacent to the dwelling. The wall is located on top of a portion of the existing parapet wall that
surrounds the existing roof deck. The glass block wall itself is 2 feet in height. The existing parapet
wall around the roof deck was constructed at a height of 26 feet prior to the current height
regulations.
The glass block wall significantly impacts views from the residence east of the site, the Municipal
Code specifically states that a residential building may be built at a maximum height of 30 feet "if it
can be found that the portion of the building outside of the standard envelope maintains some of the
significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties...". The portion of the building that
exceeds the standard height envelope does not maintain some of the significant views from the
property to the east. Specifically, views from the roof deck of 175 Jupiter Street are significantly
impacted.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission has determined that the as-built wall will not maintain some
of the significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.