Loading...
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