1994-03
RESOLUTION NO. L-94-03
. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE MODIFICATION
TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TO EXCEED THE STANDARD 22 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT
BY EIGHT FEET FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET,
TO ALLOW A LARGER DECK/DRIVEWAY
THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TO MAINTAIN
THE ONE FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
AUTHORIZED BY CASE NO. 92-125 V,
AND TO ALLOW THE MAIN STRUCTURE
TO MAINTAIN A 21 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1265 SAXONY ROAD
(CASE NO. 94-071 DR/V/MOD)
WHEREAS, an application for a Design Review Permit and
Variance Modification was filed by Julie Castiglia pursuant to
Section 30.l6.0l0B7b (Exceeding the Height Limit) and Chapter 30.78
(Variances) of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code to allow an a
. new single family residence to exceed the standard 22 foot height
limit by eight feet for a maximum height of 30 feet, to allow a
larger deck/driveway than previously approved to maintain the one
foot front yard setback authorized by Case No. 92-l25V, and to
allow the main structure to maintain a 21 foot front yard setback
on property located at l265 Saxony Road and legally described as;
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 10207, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July lO, 1980 as File No.
80-214145 of Official Records, being a portion of the
southerly 330.00 feet of the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of Section 3, Township 13 South, Range 4
West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California according to official plat thereof.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board on June 9, 1994 as required by law, and
all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -1-
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
. without limitation:
a. Site plan, section, floor plans, building elevations,
topographic cuts diagram and building sections consisting
of three pages dated April 1994 and dated received by the
City of Encinitas on May 13, 1994;
b. Building Elevation/Height Diagram dated received May l2,
1994;
c. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
d. Leucadia Community Advisory Board agenda report (94-071
DR/V/MOD) for the meeting of June 9, 1994; which is on
file in the Department of Community Development;
e. Original Project Plans associated with Case No. 92-125V;
f. Resolution No. L-92-14; and
g. Additional written documentation.
. WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Section 30.16.010B7b and Section
30.78.030 of the Municipal Code.
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A ")
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that Design Review and
Variance Modification application No. 94-071 DR/V/MOD is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT liB")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
. cd/DSL/RL9407l.403 (6/28/94) -2-
This project was found to be exempt from environmental
. review under Section 15303, class 3(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June 1994 by the following
vote, to wit:
Ayes: Boardmembers Buck, Burkhart, Eldon, Hughes and Suttie
Nays: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Marilyn B k, Chairperson
Leucadia Community Adviso
ATTEST:
. .----t-. '.. ...<;' //
.) I ,/ £,--¡ (L... < -.. V L
---..L (.""'-" -' ~ . ¿;, ... \C'. \ ~
Dian; S. Lan~ager " ~/ \ /~-
Assistant Planner (-,-~
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -3-
. ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR EXCEEDING THE STANDARD 22 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT
(SECTION 30.16.010B7b OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE)
AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE MODIFICATION
(SECTION 30.78.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE)
Resolution No. L-94-03
Case No. 94-071 DR/V/MOD
Applicant: Julie Castiglia
Findinqs for Exceedinq the Standard 22 Foot Heiqht Limit Pursuant
to Section 30.16.010B7b of the MuniciÞal Code:
1. The portion of the building outside of the standard envelope
maintains some of the significant views enjoyed by residents
of nearby properties.
Facts: The proposed project is in conformance with the 12 foot
height envelope for lots sloped greater than 10%, however it does
exceed the 22 foot height limit at various points of the structure
as measured from the lower of natural or finished grade. As shown
on the south elevation/Cut "A" of the project plans, at the south
property line the structure is well below the l2 foot height
. envelope measured from the crown of the right-of-way. As depicted
on the west elevation the structure will appear as a single story
structure when viewed directly from Saxony Road and will obtain a
maximum height of 12' as measured from the crown of the right-of-
way. The site slopes down in an uneven northeasterly direction,
therefore building elevation sections were provided as part of the
project plans to clearly depict the actual building height when
measuring directly down to natural grade in various locations of
the structure. Five sections are provided which depict that
building heights vary from a minimum of l8' ( Cut II B ") and a maximum
of 29'(Cut liD"). A Building Elevation/Height diagram depicts one
point of the structure, which is not included in the cut sections,
that attains a height of 30'. This point occurs in the northwest
corner of the proposed kitchen and occurs due to the steep drop off
which occurs in this location of the site. The fireplace/chimney
proposed for the lower level office is to be deleted since it would
attain a height of 33' in order to meet building code requirements.
An elevation drawing has been submitted to show the deletion of the
chimney. The project architect has noted that consideration is
being given for relocating the office fireplace midway along the
northwest wall; if this is to occur the chimney would attain a
maximum height of 24' - 26'.
Discussion: It does not appear that significant views enjoyed by
nearby properties would be affected by the height of proposed
residence. The view for the general vicinity is to the east. The
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -4-
proposed project will not affect the view corridor of the
. properties to the west or the north and south, since it attains a
maximum height of 12 feet as measured from the crown of the road.
Additionally it will not impact views maintained by properties to
the north and south since it is located in the westerly 60 feet of
the 241 feet of the lot depth. The property to the east, although
vacant, is located significantly lower than the subject site and
does not enjoy any significant view to the west.
Conclusion: since no existing views of nearby properties will be
affected by the subject project the Board finds that the portion of
the building outside of the standard envelope maintains some of the
significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.
2. The building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on
neighboring properties.
Facts: A two story 2374 square foot home with an attached 420
square foot garage with a deck/driveway is proposed. The home,
including the garage and deck/driveway, is proposed to be
constructed on continuous footings with stem wall construction.
Only a minimal amount of fill will occur at the front property
line, otherwise no grading (cut or fill) is proposed for the
structure. The flat roof structure is proposed with white stucco
siding, and with stained brown, wood window frames and doors.
. The structure appears as a single story structure as viewed from
Saxony Road and measures a maximum of 12 feet from the crown of the
right-of-way.
Discussion: The project is designed to blend with the topography,
utilizing the existing slope. The residence is designed to run
with the contour of the slope with 8 foot high ceilings and flat
roofs to maintain as low a profile as possible. The request to
exceed the standard height envelope is necessary due to the steep
topography and due to the fact that height is measured from the
lower of natural or finished grade. Since the project is not
altering the site topography, the structure itself needs to be
raised to enable access from Saxony and to make it level.
The proposed residence will be compatible in bulk and mass with
surrounding residences since many of the homes are two story
structures and the proposed structure is designed with many
offsets, two levels, varying rooflines and many protrusions which
minimize bulk and mass.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed residence is
compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring
properties since two-story structures exist wi thin the neighborhood
and since the project appears as single story structure from Saxony
Road. Additionally, the project was designed to maintain a low
profile and to blend with the natural topography.
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -5-
Findinqs for a Variance Pursuant to Section 30.78.030 of the
. Municipal Code:
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 zonlng
classification.
Facts: The proposal is to allow an attached garage and
deck/driveway to encroach 29' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of l' and to allow a single family
residence to encroach 9' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of 21'. The length of the
encroachment for the garage and the deck/driveway is
approximately 100'. The length of the encroachment for the
residence is approximately 91'. The lot size is approximately
.54 net acres with dimensions of approximately 111' x 244'.
A steep incline exists on the west side of the property,
starting at the edge of Saxony Road whereby the property gains
legal access.
Discussion: Although the site is of a significant size, the
variance is requested due to the steep topography of the site
. directly adjacent to Saxony Road. To create a standard
driveway to access the future residence would require
significant grading and could significantly impact the site.
The deck/driveway, garage and residence are proposed of
stemwall construction to minimize grading impacts to the site.
In essence, the project is designed to fit with the existing
topography rather than changing the topography to accommodate
the project.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that due to the steep
topography of the site, special circumstances are applicable
to the property and that the strict application of the zoning
regulations would deprive such property of conveniently
accessible parking which is a privilege enjoyed by other
property ln the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification.
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 to allow an attached garage and
deck/driveway to encroach 29' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of l' and to allow a single family
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -6-
residence to encroach 9' into the required 30' front yard
. setback for a total setback of 21'.
Discussion: The existing single family residence adjacent to
the subject site to the south has a similar topographic
constraint and according to County of San Diego documents
received a variance for a similar garage/access. The subject
project would allow the applicant the same privilege as the
property to the south and as other properties in the
neighborhood which do not have such severe topographic
constraints. Approving the variance will preserve the right
of the applicant to construct a single family home on the
property.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board
finds that the approval of the variance does not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which
the property is situated.
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.
Facts: The proposal is to allow an attached garage and
. deck/driveway to encroach 29' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of l' and to allow a single family
residence to encroach 9' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of 21'. The site is located
within the RR-2 zone in which single family residences are
permitted by right.
Discussion: Approval of the variance would give the property
viable access in order to accommodate the construction of a
single family residence which is expressly allowed in the RR-2
zone. Additionally, it would allow for the construction of
the residence with minimal impacts to the existing topography.
Conclusion: Since single family residences are permitted by
right, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board finds that
approval of the variance to allow the proposed garage,
deck/driveway and single family residence to encroach in the
required front yard setback will not authorize a use or
activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the
zoning regulations governing the parcel of the property.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classifications:
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -7-
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
varlance;
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 allow an attached garage and
deck/driveway to encroach 29' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of l' and to allow a single family
residence to encroach 9' into the required 30' front yard
setback for a total setback of 21'. The length of the
encroachment for the garage and the deck/driveway is
approximately 100'. The length of the encroachment for the
residence is approximately 9l'. The lot size is approximately
.54 net acres with dimensions of approximately 111' x 244'.
A steep incline exists on the west side of the property,
starting at the edge of Saxony Road whereby the property gains
legal access.
. Discussion: Construction of a standard driveway to access the
future residence is an alternate development plan, however a
standard driveway would require significant grading and could
significantly impact the site. The deck/driveway, garage and
residence are proposed of stemwall construction to minimize
grading impacts to the site. The entry deck originally
proposed between the garage and the residence for pedestrian
access to the residence has been eliminated. The residence
has been relocated further to the west, whereby access can be
directly gained from the deck/driveway. In essence, the
project is designed to fit with the existing topography rather
than changing the topography to accommodate the project.
The need for the variance is not self-induced since the
existing topographic constraints of the subject site are
creating the need for the variance. The need for the variance
is unique to the site due to the topographic constraints and
would not result in a new front yard setback standard and it
would not constitute a rezoning since the variance request is
to allow for the construction of a single family residence
which is expressly allowed for in the RR-2 zone.
Granting of the variance will not authorize or legalize the
maintenance of any public or private nuisance. The original
project (Case No. 92-125) proposed a garage with a door only
. cd/DSL/RL9407l.403 (6/28/94) -8-
. on one side. The revised plan and larger driveway eliminates
the need for vehicles to turn around within the driveway and
the drive-through garage and circular driveway provides for
safer ingress/egress onto Saxony Road since drivers will not
be tempted to back directly into Saxony Road.
Conclusion: Therefore the Leucadia Community Advisory Board
finds that no alternate development plan is possible which
would be less impacting to the site and adjacent properties,
that the need for the variance is not self induced, that the
approval of this variance will not result in a rezoning or a
new front yard setback standard; and the project will not
legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
.
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -9-
ATTACHMENT "B"
. RESOLUTION NO. L-94-03
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Applicant: Julie Castiglia
Case No. 94-071DR/V/MOD
Subject: Conditions of approval for a design review and
variance request to allow a proposed single family
residence to exceed the standard 22 foot height
envelope by 8' for a maximum height of 30' and to
allow an attached garage and deck/driveway to
maintain aI' setback in the required 30' front
yard setback and to allow a single family residence
to maintain a 21' setback in the required 30' front
yard setback the RR-2 zone.
Location: 1265 Saxony Road
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in two years, on June 9, 1996,
at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
. B. This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
C. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable
City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit
issuance unless specifically waived herein.
D. 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 unless
specifically waived herein.
E. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
California Coastal Commission
F. Project is approved as submitted as evidenced by the site
plan, section, floor plans, building elevations,
topographic cuts diagram and building sections,
consisting of three pages, dated April 1994 and dated
received by the City of Encinitas on May 13, 1994; and
building Elevation/Height Diagram dated received May 12,
. cd/DSL/RL9407l.403 (6/28/94) -10-
1994; signed by a City Official as approved by the
. Leucadia Community Advisory Board on June 9, 1994 and
shall not be altered without Community Development
Department review and approval.
G. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
H. Prior to Building Permit Issuance the applicant shall
record a covenant with the County Recorder which sets
forth the this approval.
1. All cost recovery fees associated with the processing of
the subject application shall be paid to the Department
of Community Development prior to building permit
issuance.
J. For residential dwelling unit(s), the applicant shall pay
development fees at the established rate. Such fees may
include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking
Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Serv ice Fees, and
Flood Control Fees.
K. The driveway shall meet the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, Public Works Standards, and the Off-Street
. Parking Design Manual and this grant of approval.
L. Prior to receiving a final inspection on the framing, the
applicant shall provide a survey from a licensed surveyor
or a registered civil engineer verifying that the height
of the structure is in compliance with approved plans.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. FIRE
A. 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 he.lght of numbers
shall conform to Fire District Standards.
B. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: Structure(s) shall be
protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system installed
to the satisfaction of the Fire District.
C. IMPACT FEES: Prior to building permit issuance, the
applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department a letter from the Fire District stating that
all fees including plan check reviews and/or cost
. cd/DSL/RL9407l.403 (6/28/94) -11-
recovery fees have been paid or secured to the
. satisfaction of the Fire District.
D. SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be inspected by
the Fire Department.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
All City Codes, regulations, and policies in effect at the time of
building permit issuance shall apply.
3. STREET CONDITIONS
A. Developer 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.
B. Five feet (5) shall be dedicated by the developer along
the project frontage based on a center line to right-of-
way width of 30 feet and in conformance with City of
Encinitas Standards.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
. 4. Buildinq:
The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction
plans to the Building Division for review. The submittal
shall 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 plan check.
. cd/DSL/RL94071.403 (6/28/94) -12-