1991-09
RESOLUTION NO. NE-91-09
. A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO
AS EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR CONVERSION
TO A MEDICAL/DENTAL OFFICE USE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1443 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD
(CASE NO.: 91-081 DR/V)
WHEREAS, David Simonson and Mort O'Grady applied for a Design
Review permit and Variance for an addition of 1,159 sq. ft. to an
existing 2,552 sq. ft. bank structure to convert it to a
medical/dental office use for property located at 1443 Encinitas
Boulevard and legally described as:
Parcel 3 in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego,
State of California, as shown on page 6896 of Parcel Maps
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, February 9, 1978.
. WHEREAS, the Variance Approval permits a maximum six foot
encroachment into the 20-foot front yard setback as specified on
the plans reviewed and approved by the Board; and
WHEREAS, A public hearing was conducted on the application by
the New Encinitas community Advisory Board on June 3,1991, and all
persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a. Plans submitted with the application and dated received
by the City on May 7, 1991 including sheets 1 through 4
consisting of the site and landscape plan, the existing
floor plan, the proposed floor plan, and two sheets of
exterior elevations;
b. written information submitted with the application;
c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
d. CAB staff report dated May 29, 1991, which is on file in
the office of Planning and Community Development; and
.
CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 1 of 7
"
. e. Additional written documentation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Design Review
Permit and Variance for Case #91-081 DR/V is hereby approved in
accordance with the following findings:
(See Attachment "A")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Design Review Permit and
Variance Request are approved subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. The project is approved as described on the plans received by
the City on May 7, 1991 and shall not be altered without
Community Advisory Board approval or as provided by Municipal
Code.
2. A plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, the City Engineer, and the
Encinitas Fire Protection District regarding the treatment of
. the site during the construction phase, and the circulation
and parking of construction workers' vehicles and any heavy
equipment needed for the construction of the project.
3. The property owner shall record a landscape covenant in the
office of the County Recorder to run with the land, agreeing
that all required plantings and irrigation systems shall be in
place prior to use or occupancy of the remodeled buildings or
structures. All required plantings shall be maintained in
good growing condition and irrigation systems shall be
maintained in good condition, and whenever necessary, shall be
replaced with new equipment and/or plant materials to ensure
continued compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering,
and screening requirements. All landscaping shall be
maintained in a manner that will not depreciate adjacent
property values and otherwise adversely affect adjacent
properties.
4. A sign shall be placed at the intersection of the east
driveway to Encinitas Boulevard stating: "Exit only: Do Not
Enter. " The sign and painting of the driveway (if deemed
appropriate) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning and community Development and the City Engineer prior
to issuance of a building permit. Pursuant to section
30.54.03E, the Board waives the "loading space" requirement
. for the medical/dental use. Future uses shall be evaluated by
CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 2 of 7
,
. the City to determine if the loading space provision should be
implemented.
5. All proposed signs shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval pursuant to Chapter 30.60 (signs) of the
Municipal Code. No signs for the proposed use are permitted
by the this Design Review Permit and all proposed signs shall
be authorized by separate permit.
6. outside storage of any material on the subject property is
prohibi ted unless an enclosure (approved by the ci ty) is
provided to screen any storage areas from view.
7. Fire Prevention District: The applicant shall contact the
Fire Prevention District to assure compliance with the
following condition:
Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall
submit a letter from the Fire District stating that all
plan review fees have been paid. Address numbers shall
be clearly visible from the street fronting the
structure. The height of the numbers shall conform to
Fire District standards.
8. Buildinq Department. Submit complete drawings and
construction plans and details to the Building Department for
. plan check review to determine compliance to Uniform
Construction Code Standards.
9. This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
10. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit are not
satisfied, the Planning and Community Development Department
shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before the authorized
agency to determine why the City of Encini tas should not
revoke this approval.
11. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity demonstrated at
a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas, acting through the
authorized agency, may add, amend, or delete conditions and
regulations contained in this permit.
12. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
13. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any
sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable City
Ordinances except as permitted by this approval.
. CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 3 of 7
. 14. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from the
Coastal Commission prior to Building Permit issuance for the
proposed facility expansion, if applicable.
15. Prior to foundation and/or pad preparation for the proposed
addition, the property shall be staked and lined to indicate
all property lines to the satisfaction of the Director of
community Development. An inspection shall be made of the
site prior to building department inspection of the
foundations for the portion of the structure requiring the
variance.
16. The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant regarding
real property which sets forth this grant of approval. The
covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the
Director of Planning and Community Development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from Environmental Review
per Section 15301 (e) (2) of CEQA;
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June, 1991, by the
. following vote, to wit:
AYES: Weaver, Felker, Patton, Grajek
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Beck
ABSTAIN: None
A~ Q. 4----
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
. CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 4 of 7
. ATTACHMENT A
New Encinitas community Advisory Board
RESOLUTION NO. NE-91-09
CASE NO. 91-081 DR/V
1. Findings for Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Requlatory Conclusions - Generally
A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan,
a Specific Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Evidence: The New Encinitas Community Advisory Board
finds that while the project seeks variance to the front
yard setback standard for the GC Zoning District, other
setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping, floor area
ratio and lot coverage conform to the standards for the
GC District. Pursuant of section 30.54.03E, the Board
waives the "loading space" provision since the medical
and dental use is not anticipated to generate a large
amount of parcel deliveries or pick-ups.
B. The project design is substantially consistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
. Evidence: The Board finds that the proposed design is
consistent with design review guidelines for access, site
design, building design and landscaping. The project
will provide a trash bin enclosure and all roof mounted
mechanical equipment is screened from view. The project
is conditioned to require separate signage approval and
to prohibit any unenclosed outdoor storage.
C. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety
or general welfare of the community.
Evidence: The property has been used for bank office
space since constructed and no evidence exists to
indicate that the proposed medical/dental office use
would adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of
the Community.
D. The project would not tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence: The project design tends to provide a
compatible architectural element which is anticipated to
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. No
. increase to the existing roofed area is proposed and the
CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 5 of 7
. project will utilize existing exterior building material
for the proposed expanded areas.
II. FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE
(Section 30.78.030D Municipal Code)
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances 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 ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence: The variance to encroach ~ 6 feet into the 20-
foot front yard setback is necessary due to the fact that
the existing structure has roofed overhang areas
extending above the areas proposed to be enclosed and the
current northerly wall is setback 14 feet from the front
property line. The Board finds that the variance is
justified due to the current location of the structure
and the increase in utility of the building that the
remodel will afford the proposed use as a medical/dental
office.
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 vicini ty and zone in which such property is
situated.
Evidence: The project is conditioned to satisfy all
other requirements of city Code. There is not a grant of
special privileges since the existing situation is a
legal nonconformity, and the remodel can be accomplished
as setforth in Chapter 30.76, (Nonconformities) of the
zoning Code, and Chapter 30.78 (Variances) and in
conformance with the standards setforth in the Design
Review ordinance, (Chapter 23.08) of the zoning Code
since the existing building setback is already less than
presently required.
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 regulation governing
the parcel of property.
Evidence: Medical/dental office use is permitted by
right in the General Commercial Zoning District l.n
accordance with section 30.09.200 of the Municipal
. (Zoning) Code Use Matrix.
CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 6 of 7
I
. 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;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: The Variance Request is minimal and does not
constitute a rezoning, nuisance, nor is it self-induced.
The project was originally approved by the County for a
retail center (bank use) with the fourteen foot front
yard setback. The applicant is requesting the Design
Review and variance to allow for an upgrading remodel of
the existing nonconforming structure. In order for the
. City to encourage the remodel of existing older
structures that may be nonconforming, Chapter 30.76
(Nonconformities) allows for the remodel of a
nonconformity when it does not exceed 50% of the
valuation of the existing buildings. The situation is,
therefore, not self-induced. The variance does not
constitute a rezoning since the proposed use is permitted
within the General Commercial Zone. No evidence has been
submitted to indicate that the proposed use would
constitute a public or private nuisance.
. CO/03/CRO8-816wp51 (6/5/91-2) Page 7 of 7