1993-05
RESOLUTION NO. OE 93-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE LIMITATION OF THE
GC ZONE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT, AND DESIGN
REVIEW FOR AN ADDITIONAL PLANTER AND OTHER EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 490 FIRST STREET IN OLD ENCINITAS
(CASE NUMBER 93-140 DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Design
Review permit was filed by Mr. Robert Schubert to allow an addition
of a rest room for an existing restaurant to exceed the allowed 30%
lot coverage of the GC zone to 36.8%, along with design review for
a planter area adjacent to an existing outdoor seating area of the
restaurant and fencing for a proposed new parking space and trash
enclosure, in accordance with Chapters 30.78 and 23.08 of the City
of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in the GC
zone at 490 First Street, legally described as:
Lots 7 and 8 in Block 4 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, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
August 19, 1993 and September 23, 1993 by the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The August 19 and September 23,1993 staff reports to the
Community Advisory Board with attachments;
2. Application and project plans dated received July 19,
1993;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following
findings pursuant to Chapters 30.78 and 23.08 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 93-140
DR/V subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Advisory board, in
their independent judgement, found the project exempt from
environmental review pursuant to CEQA section 15301 (e) since the
project is an addition of less than 2,500 sq ft in an area with
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
existing facilities and not environmentally sensitive.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September, 1993, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Comeau, McGrath, Wells
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~nb\~
-----
Chairman of the Old
Encinitas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST~ --.
~- c::;;:::?
Tom Curriden,
Associate Planner
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE-93-05
Case No. 93-140 DR/V
Applicant: Schubert
Findings: (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 to exceed the allowable 30% lot
coverage ration of the General Commercial zone to 36.8% for a
46 sq. ft., 5' 8" x 8' rest room addition to an existing
restaurant to meet current Health Dept. standards.
Discussion: The special circumstance applicable to this
property, stated by the applicant in the Statement of
Justification attached to the application, is that this
restaurant does not presently have a rest room appurtenant to
it and thus does not meet present Health Dept. standards,
unlike the predominant majority of restaurants in the same
vicinity and zone. It is not possible to incorporate a rest
room without increasing the present nonconformity relative to
lot coverage or reducing the already relatively small area of
the restaurant kitchen or flower shop.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project which deprive the
property of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone.
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.
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
Facts: The proposal is to exceed the allowable 30% lot
coverage ration of the General Commercial zone to 36.8% for a
46 sq. ft., 5'8" x 8' rest room addition to an existing
restaurant to meet current Health Dept. standards.
Discussion: The grant of this variance does not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties since most other restaurant facilities
in the same vicinity and zone have rest room facilities, and
many also exceed the lot coverage limitation of the zone.
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: Both the restaurant and retail use on the property are
expressly allowed in the GC zone.
Conclusion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the GC
zone.
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 to exceed the allowable 30% lot
coverage ration of the General Commercial zone to 36.8% for a
46 sq. ft., 5'8" x 8' rest room addition to an existing
restaurant to meet current Health Dept. standards.
Discussion: Any alternative to enable the applicant to
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
incorporate the rest room facility that would not increase the
nonconformity relative to lot coverage would require reduction
to the already relatively small area of the restaurant kitchen
or flower shop. The restaurant was presumably constructed at
a time when a rest room was not required to meet Health Dept.
standards, such that the need for the variance was not self-
induced by the owner or owner's predecessor. There is no
evidence to suggest that the variance would allow such a
degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other
amendment to the zoning code or that their is any public or
private nuisance on the property which would be maintained
through the variance.
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.
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW (CHAPTER 23.08 MUNICIPAL CODE)
(Case * 93-140 DR/V)
A. The project design is not inconsistent with the General Plan, a
Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
Facts: The design review permit is required for minor
exterior changes involving conversion of 50 sq. ft. of the
existing outdoor dining area to a planter, and installation of
a new 6 ft. high wood fence around the trash enclosure and new
parking space off the alley.
Discussion: The project meets all applicable development
standards contained in the Municipal Code, contained in Chapt.
30.20 (Commercial Zones) as well as other applicable Municipal
Code Requirements, subj ect to approval of the associated
variance for lot coverage with the rest room addition. other
aspects of the site are legal nonconforming, such as existing
setback encroachments and parking, which will not be expanded
or intensified through this application.
Conclusion: ThE~ project is consistent with the Municipal Code
and the General Plan. There is no Specific Plan approved in
the area of the project site.
B. The project design is not substantially inconsistent with the
City's Design Review Guidelines.
Facts: The design review permit is required for minor
exterior changes involving conversion of 50 sq. ft. of the
existing outdoor dining area to a planter, and installation of
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
a new 6 ft. high wood fence around the trash enclosure and new
parking space off the alley.
Discussion:
Since the aspects of the project subject to design review are
related to the trellis and awning (with sign) and the small
landscaped area adjoining the outdoor eating area, the
applicable design findings of Chapter 23.08 (design review)
are related to the "Landscape Design" regulatory conclusions
of Section 23.08.077. with regard to those conclusions, no
aspect of building design changes, the Board finds that the
proposed landscaping consists of drought tolerant species
which are appropriate for the size of the planter in which
they are proposed. The fencing is to be of a color to tie in
with the existing restaurant and is compatible with the site
and adjoining properties.
Conclusion: The Board finds the project finds the project to
be in substantial compliance with the design review guidelines
and regulatory conclusions contained in Chapter 23.08 of the
Encinitas Municipal Code.
C. The project would not adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community.
Facts: The proj ect is categorically exempt from environmental
review under Section 15301 (e) of CEQA which exempts minor
additions and alterations to existing structures. No evidence
has been identified to suggest any possible adverse
environmental impacts from this project.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project would not
adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
D. The project would not cause the surrounding neighborhood to
depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Facts: The design review permit is required for minor
exterior changes involving conversion of 50 sq. ft. of the
existing outdoor dining area to a planter, and installation of
a new 6 ft. high wood fence around the trash enclosure and new
parking space off the alley.
Conclusion: The design changes to the project represent an
upgrade to the appearance of the property and thus would not
detrimentally affect the appearance or values of the
surrounding neighborhood.
TC/8/93140DRV.RE2 (9-14-93)
ATTACHMENT "B"
Project description . : SCHUBERT, ROBERT
Project number.. . 93-140
. .
Project type. .. . VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW
. .
Application date . 07/19/93
. . .
Variance for commercial center to exceed allowable 30% lot
coverage for the addition of a 50 sq ft restroom, and Design
Review for a planter area and fencing.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.This approval will expire in two years (on the date below)
unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been
approved by the Authorized Agency.
DATE OF EXPIRATION: September 23, 1995
2. This approval may be appealed to the Authorized Agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
3.At all times during the effective period of this permit, the
applicant shall obtain and maintain in valid force and effect,
each and every license and permit required by a governmental
agency for the operation of the authorized activity.
4.Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
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.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.
7. The applicant shall obtain permits from the California
Coastal Commission, County Health Dept. and all other applicable
regulatory agencies.
8.The project is approved in accordance with the plans dated
received as of the date described below and by the agency also
described below on the specified date, and shall not be altered
without Community Development Department review and approval:
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 building permit issuance to
the satisfaction of the respective agencies.
10.AII 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.
11.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.
THE APPLCIANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PREVENTION
DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
12.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.
13.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.