2002-36
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2002-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ENCINITAS APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED CASE NO. 98-161 DR/CDP, WHICH ALLOWED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT EXCEEDS
THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ENCROACHES INTO STEEP
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25% GRADE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE IDLLSIDE INLAND BLUFF OVERLAY ZONE, R-ll ZONE
AND THE COASTAL APPEAL ZONE AT 2600 MONTGOMERY AVENUE.
(CASE NO. 01-172 TE; APN: 261-191-16)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Time Extension of previously approved Case
No. 98-161 DR/CDP was filed by Lynn Kunkle in accordance with Chapter 23.08 (Design Review)
and Chapter 30.80 (Coastal Development Permits) of the Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 2600 Montgomery Avenue, legally described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17367, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 27, 1994 as File
No. 1994-0349102 of Official Records.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the
application on September 5, 2002, at which time all those desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation:
1.
The September 5, 2002 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 drawings previously approved by the Planning Commission on August 26,
1999 by Resolution No. PC 99-43 and dated received by the City of Encinitas on
December 15, 1998 consisting of 6 sheets titled Design Review Site Plan, Lower
Level & Middle Level Floor Plans, Roof Plan & Upper Level Floor Plan, South
Elevation & East Elevation, West Elevation & North Elevation, Section BB &
Section AA.
G :pc:resos :pcreso2002- 36
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapter
23.80 (Design Review) and Chapter 30.80 (Coastal Development Permits) of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Encinitas hereby approves application 01-172 TE subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, in its independent
judgment, finds that this project is exempt from environmental review as per Section 15303 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which exempts the construction of a
single-family dwelling from environmental review.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of September 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
Bagg, Chapo, Crosthwaite
Birnbaum, Ehlers
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Joyce Cro . e, Chairperson
of the Planning Commission
of the City ofEncinitas
~ cU-ljÁ~ *-
Patrick Murphy, Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits
for legal challenges.
G :pc :resos: pcreso2002- 36
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. PC 2002-36
Case No. 01-172 TE
FINDINGS FOR EXTENSION OF A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
STANDARD: In accordance with Section 23.08.160B of the Municipal Code, a Design
Review Permit may be extended provided the following is determined:
1.
No change in City policies has occurred which would be in conflict with the project.
Facts: The original project was approved on August 26, 1999; resolution PC 99-43 was adopted
to reflect the findings and conditions for that approval. According to Municipal Code Section
23.08.160B, a Design Review Permit may be extended up to a total of two (2) years; "provided no
change in City policies has occurred which would be in conflict with the project". In addition,
Municipal Code Section 30.80.164 states that a Coastal Development Permit may be extended
provided that "there are no changed circumstances which would affect the development's
consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program".
Discussion: . The applicant is not proposing any change to the approved project, and there have
been no changes in City codes or policies that would be in conflict with the approved project. With
the exception of a requirement for additional geotechnical investigation prior to building plan
review, the Engineering Department did not provide standard conditions of approval with the
original project. However, after reviewing the request for a time extension, the Engineering
Department is recommending that standard engineering conditions be included with the time
extension approval. The standard conditions are not a result of any change in City policies.
Although the standard conditions are not part of Resolution No. PC 99-43, the standard Engineering
conditions are standard policies that are applied to all applicable projects, and if construction plans
had been submitted for review prior to the expiration of the project approval the project would have
been subject to those standard conditions/policies. The recommended Engineering conditions of
approval do not conflict with the approved project.
Another change that has occurred since the origmal approval of the project is the removal of a car
deck from the site, which was originally intended to become a part of the approved dwelling. The
original project applicant decided to design the dwelling around and over the car deck. Although
the deck has been removed, the approved project design is not changed because the deck was
designed to become an interior part of the home that was not visible from the exterior. The project
approval was not contingent upon the deck remaining on the site. Therefore, the removal of the
deck does not create a conflict with the project approval. The construction of the project is still
required to be consistent with the project drawings approved by the Planning Commission on
August 26, 1999.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that even though there has been some added
conditions for the project approval added by staff and the car deck has been partially removed from
G :pc:resos:pcreso2002-36
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that even though there has been some added
conditions for the project approval added by staff and the car deck has been partially removed from
the site, that the conditions and circumstances of the project remain substantially the same as
originally approved, therefore the request for time extension is warranted .
G :pc:resos :pcreso2002- 36
SCI
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. PC 2002-36
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project No.:
Applicant:
Subject:
01-172 TE
Lynn Kunkle
An application for a time extension of previously approved Case No. 98-161
DR/CDP Resolution No. PC 99-43, which allowed for the construction of a
single-family dwelling that exceeds the standard height envelope and encroaches
into steep slopes in excess of 25% grade.
2600 Montgomery Avenue
Location:
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
All Conditions of Approval as specified in Resolution No. PC 99-43 shall remain in full force
and effect, unless otherwise conditioned herein.
SCA This approval will expire on August 26, 2003 at 5 :00 p.m., two years after the expiration
date of the original approval, unless the conditions have been met. No additional time
extensions may be granted for this project.
SCB
Gl
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the development, the applicant shall submit
evidence to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that the California
Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the project and found that the project is consistent
with the conditions of coastal development permit 6-93-48, including, but not limited to, the
deed restrictions recorded on March 7, 1994 as document 1994-0150173. If no grading
permit is required, then this condition must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit
for the project.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
G2
G3
This approval may be appealed to the City Council within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code.
This project is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone and may be appealed to the
California Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603 and Chapter 30.04
of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code. An appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision must be filed with the Coastal Commission within 10 days following the Coastal
Commission's receipt of the Notice of Final Action. Applicants will be notified by the
Coastal Commission as to the date the Commission's appeal period will conclude.
Appeals must be in writing to the Coastal Commission, San Diego Coast District office.
G :pc:resos :pcreso2002- 36
El
EB
EC
E2
ED 1
G4
Prior to gradinglbuilding permit issuance, the applicant shall cause a covenant regarding
real property to be recorded. Said covenant shall set forth the terms and conditions of this
grant of approval and shall be of a form and content satisfactory to the Community
Development Director.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
CONTACT THE ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
REGARDING
EA
Best Management Practice shall be utilized for storm water pollution control to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The surface runoff shall be directed over grass and
landscaped areas prior to collection and discharge onto the street and/or the public storm
drain system.
A grading permit shall be obtained for this project unless the proposed grading is exempt
under Section 23.24.090 of the Municipal Code.
If the proposed grading is exempt from permit requirements, the owner shall provide a
precise site plan prior to approval of a building permit. The building site plan shall provide
design for drainage improvement, erosion control, storm water pollution control, and on-site
pavement.
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of building/grading permit
issuance shall apply.
Drainage Conditions
ED2
ED3
The owner shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent
any offsite siltation. The owner shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct
temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the
Engineering Services Director. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and
specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Services Director prior to the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the removal of
any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional
drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved
by the Engineering Services Director. The owner shall maintain the temporary basins and
erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the Engineering Services
Director and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash
deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the Engineering Services Director.
A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water originating within
the project site, and all surface waters that may flow onto the project site from adjacent
lands, shall be required. Said drainage system shall include any easements and structures as
required by the Engineering Services Director to properly handle the drainage.
G :pc:resos:pcreso2002-36
ESl
ES5
ES6
ES7
EUI
Utilities
EU4
ED5
The owner shall pay the current local drainage area fee prior to approval of the final map for
this project or shall construct drainage systems in conformance with the Master Drainage
Plan and City of Encinitas Standards as required by the Engineering Services Director.
Street Conditions
Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way, a right-of-way construction
permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Director and appropriate fees paid,
in addition to any other permits required.
In accordance with Chapter 23.36 of the Municipal Code, the owner shall execute and
record a covenant with the County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of an
assessment district to fund the installation of right-of-way improvements.
In accordance with Chapter 23.36 of the Municipal Code, the owner shall execute and
record a covenant with the County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of an
assessment district to fund the undergrounding of utility facility improvements.
All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including existing
utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code.
G :pc :resos :pcreso2002- 36