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.