Loading...
1993-04 RESOLUTION NO. OE 93-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE FOR A PROPOSED 2,000 SQ FT OFFICE BUILDING WITH A 1,280 SQ FT RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REPLACE FIRE DAMAGED STRUCTURE. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO EXCEED LOT COVERAGE, LANDSCAPE COVERAGE AND OTHER RELATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 681 SECOND STREET (CASE NUMBER 93-097 DR/V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit and Variance was filed by Ms. Kitty Meshke for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to replace fire damaged structure. A variance is requested to exceed lot coverage, landscape coverage and other related commercial development standards in accordance with Chapters 23.08 and 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in the GC zone at 681 Second Street, legally described as: Lot 10 in Block 6 of Encinitas, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 148, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County June 12, 1883. WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on July 22, 1993 and August 19, 1993, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the Board considered: 1. The July 22, 1993 staff report to the community Advisory Board with attachments; 2. The August 19, 1993 staff report to the Community Advisory Board with attachments; 3. Application and project plans dated received May 20, 1993; 4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings; 5. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 and 30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal Code: (SEE ATTACHMENT "A") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 93-097 DR/V subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Advisory Board, in their independent judgement, found the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15303. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Birnbaum, Comeau, Wells NAYS: Elliott ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: McGrath ~~ Adam Birnbaum, Chairman of the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board ATTES~ ..- ~ ~/ ~ ¿::--===- Tom cur:l en, Associate Planner TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) ATTACHMENT "A" Resolution No. OE-93-04 Case No. 93-097 DR/V Applicant: Kitty Meshke FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW Findings for a Variance: (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. 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 proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. An almost identical structure to that which is proposed was destroyed by arson on November 7, 1992. Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this property since there is no design concept available which would provide for a similar degree of development to that which is common along Second Street, while maintaining the maximum 30% lot coverage, 15% landscape coverage and the parking size/driveway standards without the need for a variance. In addition, the applicant has identified 6 other properties along Second Street with similar 5,000 sq ft lots which exceed allowable lot coverage. The preceding structure, which closely resembles the one proposed, was constructed under County of San Diego zoning ordinances which did not contain any lot coverage limitation for this property, and the City is presently conducting hearings on a draft specific plan for this downtown area which are higher and are closer to those existing in the area as identified by the applicant. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special circumstances are applicable to the project due to the inability to construct a reasonably-sized office building with residential unit without the need for a variance. TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) 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 proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. The applicant has identified 6 other properties on Second Street which exceed the allowable 30% lot coverage. Discussion: The grant of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties since there are other properties along Second Street which enjoy similar lot coverages and do not comply with other development standards which are required under current ordinances. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other property owners in the neighborhood. 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 proposal is for a 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit on a 5,000 sq ft lot. Office uses are permitted in the General Commercial zone and the residential use is permitted under section 30.78.120 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) which allows the reconstruction of a nonconforming residential structure which was destroyed up to 100% provided it is not increased in density or intensity. Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the GC zone or through section 30.78.120 of the Municipal Code. The office building with residential unit will not change the commercial and residential character of the neighborhood since these uses are typical along Second Street. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this variance will not change the character that previously existed TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) on the subject parcel or currently exists on Second Street. 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; 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance. Facts: The proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. An almost identical structure to that which is proposed was destroyed by arson on November 7, 1992. Discussion: Based on a site analysis, there is no alternate development plan available which would allow the construction of a similar degree of development to other properties in the same vicinity and zone on a 5,000 sq ft lot without the need for a variance. The need for the addition is not self-induced since the request for the variance is due to the desire to rebuild a structure similar to that which was destroyed, and that compliance with the 30% lot coverage as well as other development standards. Additionally, the grant of this variance will not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the Municipal Code since the typical lot coverage is much higher than the 30% standard. Finally, there is no evidence that the grant of this variance would authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that there are no alternate development plans available which would be of less impact to the site, the variance is not self-induced, it will not constitute a rezoning or amendment to the Municipal Code, and it will not authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance. TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) Findings for a Design Review Pend t (Section 23.08.072 of the Municipal Code): A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code. Facts: The proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. An almost identical structure to that which is proposed was destroyed by arson on November 7, 1992. Discussion: Subject to approval of the related variance request to allow the structure to exceed lot coverage, landscape coverage, parking space width and driveway reduction, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. There is no adopted Specific Plan for the site. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that subject to approval of the related variance, the project is consistent with the General Plan and the provisions of this Code. B. The project design is substantially inconsistent with the Design Review Guidelines. Facts: The proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. The applicable guidelines from section I (Site Design) of the Design Review Guidelines are guidelines 1.1 and 1.5 through 1.8. Applicable guidelines from section II (Building Design) are guidelines 2.3 through 2.7. Applicable guidelines from Section III (Landscape Design) are guidelines 3.2 through 3.4. Discussion: with regard to the site Design Guidelines, the site is constrained since it is only 5,000 sq ft, therefore, the office building has been designed with the majority of the floor area on the second floor while providing for the parking at the street level. with regard to guidelines 1.5 through 1.8, the parking is accessed from the alley while pedestrian access is from the public sidewalk on Second Street. The main entrance is visible from the street, but the parking area is screen by the building and landscaping. TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) with regard to the Building Design Guidelines, the commercial building was designed to indicate it's intended primary use and is in scale with other buildings on Second street as is discussed in section 2.5. Regarding 2.3, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7, the building has been designed using compatible colors and materials which include beige stucco with teal trim around the windows on both front and rear elevations, and red-colored tile. The roof has been designed with a break in the middle to provide visual relief from Second street. with regard to the Landscape Design Guidelines, there is a 387 sq ft landscape planter area in front of the building between the structure and the sidewalk. with regard to sections 3.2 through 3.4, the landscape plan indicates drought tolerant shrubs and ground cover which includes Hibiscus, Sageleaf Rockrose and Rosea Ice Plant. No trees are proposed since there are existing street trees in the public right-of-way. The project is in substantial conformance with the applicable Design Review Guidelines and, therefore, the findings to approve the office building can be made. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the project design for the office building with residential unit is substantially consistent with the applicable Design Review Guidelines. C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community; and D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Facts: The proposal is for a proposed 2,000 sq ft office building with a 1,280 sq ft residential unit to be constructed on a 5,000 sq ft lot. The request will exceed the allowable lot coverage of 30% to 84%, to reduce the minimum landscape coverage of 15% to approximately 8%, to reduce required parking space width on 2 spaces, and to reduce required width for a 2-way driveway is requested. Discussion: The proposal is to construct and office building on a vacant site in Downtown Encinitas and there is no evidence that this project would negatively affect the appearance of the neighborhood. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed office building will not adversely affect the general welfare of the community or cause the neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. TC/8/93097DRV.RES (8-20-93) ATTACHMENT "B" Project description . : MESHKE, KITTY Project number. . . : 93-97 Project type. .. . MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS . . Application date . . . OS/25/93 . CASE NO: 93-097 DR/V APPLICANT: Kitty Meshke LOCATION: 681 Second Street ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Exempt per Section 15303 of CEQA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design Review and Variance for a proposed office building with residential unit to replace fire-damaged structure. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. This approval will expire in two years on August 19, 1995 unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency. 2. The project is approved in accordance with the plans dated received August 12, 1992 by the Community Development Department, and approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board on August 19, 1993, and shall not be altered without Community Development Department review and approval. 3. The applicant shall obtain permits from the California Coastal Commission and all other applicable regulatory agencies. 4. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 2 years from the date of project approval. If the applicant is not able to obtain building permits due to a growth management program within the 2 year period, this approval may be extended by the Community Development Director to allow for the issuance of building permits. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived here. 6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated, shielded from view and sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required and approved by the Community Development Department. 7. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed and approved in accordance with the Municipal Code. 8. All required landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be in place prior to use or occupancy of the new buildings or structures. All required landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in good condition, and whenever necessary, shall be replaced with new plant materials or irrigation systems to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping, buffering, and screening requirements. All landscaping and irrigation systems shall be maintained in a manner that will not depreciate adjacent property values and otherwise adversely affect adjacent properties. 9. For new commercial or industrial development, or addition to existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic Fees, and Drainage Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to Final Map approval (where applicable) or building permit issuance to the satisfaction of the respective agencies. 10. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall execute and record a covenant setting forth the terms and conditions of this approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 11. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 12. The applicant should submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division for review. The submittal should include structural calculations and details, complete framing plans and details, a site plan and floor plan showing State mandated Disabled access requirements, State Energy compliance documentation and a Soils report which includes recommendations for the design of the foundation. Submitted plans will be reviewed for compliance with State Title 24, the 1991 Editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1990 Edition of the National Electrical Code. Please note that project review comments are not intended to be a comprehensive plan review of applicable Building Codes and additional comments will be made after plans have been submitted to the Building Division for plancheck. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 13. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform to Fire District standards. NOTE: Where structures are located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent numbers shall be affixed to this marker. 14. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKER SYSTEM: Structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system installed to the satisfaction of the Fire District. 15. RECORDATION: Prior to granting final recordation or development approval, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Deparment a letter from the Fire District stating that all fees including plan check reviews and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire District. 16. SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be inspected by the Fire Department. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 17. The applicant shall repair the sidewalk on Second Street as needed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 18. The applicant shall improve the alley to City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.