Loading...
1991-06 RESOLUTION NO. OE91-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE, DESIGN REVIEW, AND AUTHORITY TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR BOTH UNITS OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX TO BE REMODELED AND EXPANDED TO INCLUDE: A 1 FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD, A 2 FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD, TO EXCEED THE STANDARD 26 FT HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE, AND TO WAIVE THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 30.76.120 OF THE ENCINITAS MUNICIPAL CODE (AFFORDABILITY AND INTENSITY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 734 AND 736 DEWITT STREET (CASE NUMBER 90-278 DR/V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance, Design Review, and authority to exceed the standard height envelope was filed by Mr. Paul Basten for both units of an existing duplex to be remodeled and expanded which include: A 1 ft encroachment into the south 5 ft required side yard; a 2 ft encroachment to the 20 ft required front yard; to exceed the 26 ft standard height envelope to a maximum 29' 8" above the lower of existing or proposed grade; to exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio and lot coverage; and to waive the regulations of section 30.76.120 of the Encinitas Municipal Code which require that a second unit of a nonconforming duplex which is expanded be provided for low and very low income households, and that an increase in the number of bedrooms shall be considered an increase in intensity of the nonconformity per Chapters 30.16, 30.76, 30.78, and 23.08 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 734 and 736 Dewitt street, legally described as: Lot 5, Block "A" East Block 7 of Sturges and Rattan's Subdivision in Encinitas, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 33, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on March 19, 1887. WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on February 14, 1991, March 28, 1991, and April 11, 1991; WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered: 1. The staff reports dated February 8, 1991, March 20, 1991, and April 5, 1991; 2. The application, site plan, elevations, landscape plan, and site line study dated received December 17, 1990, and revisions dated received April 2, 1991 submitted by the applicant; 3. Original statement of Justification, additional letter dated January 9, 1991, additional letter dated received March 21, 1991, and final letter dated received April 4, 1991 MN\90-278DR.RES\4-5-91 1 submitted by the applicant; 4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings; 5. Written evidence submitted at the hearings; and 6. Letter from neighbor Rick Kleinsasser dated received January 17,1991 regarding possible precedents an approval may have on the neighborhood; 7. Letter from neighbor Madeline Foster dated received March 28, 1991 regarding possible view impacts; WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant to Chapters 30.16, 30.78, and 23.08 of the Encinitas Municipal Code: (SEE ATTACHMENT "A") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 90-278 DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that: This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of April, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Steyaert, Lewis, Cowen NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cartwright ATTEST: ~c2~ Tom Curriden Associate Planner MN\90-278DR.RES\4-5-91 2 \ ATTACHMENT "A" RESOLUTION NO. OE91-06 FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE, DESIGN REVIEW, AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR AUTHORITY TO EXCEED STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE 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. Evidence: The Board finds that special circumstances are applicable to this lot which warrant a waiver from the affordable unit regulations of Chapter 30.76.120 of the Municipal Code which would require the applicant to provide one unit for low and very low income households if it were to be remodeled and expanded. The Board finds that because of the high land costs in the neighborhood, no other low income rental units are available and the requirement to provide a low income unit in this project would deprive the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the neighborhood. The Board finds that the social environment, i.e. higher income environment, is linked to the physical environment, and low income rental units would be out of character in this neighborhood. In addition, the Board Finds that a variance from the "intensity" regulations of the above Section which would not permit the property owner the ability to increase the number of bedrooms ~n the second unit would deny him the same privileges enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. The Board finds that special circumstances exist on the property which warrant the requested variance in Floor Area Ratio and lot coverage because the requirement for shift the garage westward to permit a third level and to provide a living environment which would cater to a typical family within the required lot coverage and FAR would be overly restrictive. The Board also finds that the garages should not be considered in the Floor Area Ratio calculation since the property owner would be MN/90-278DR/V 1 -~ penalized for providing secured garages while another developer could provide the required parking outside and build an additional 400 sq ft of floor area. In addition, the Board finds that there are other buildings in the neighborhood with comparable FAR's (.7 to .74 FAR). The Board finds a variance to encroach 1 ft. into the south side yard setback is necessary to maintain the existing building setback. structurally and visually the requirement to maintain the 5 ft. setback would be an overly restrictive requirement and not a desirable design option. In addition, the Board finds that because the north side of the building is proposed to maintain the existing 6 ft. setback with the addition, this 1 ft. encroachment will offset the south encroachment. The Board finds that the steep topography that exists on the lot justifies the 2 ft. encroachment into the front yard setback. A requirement to maintain the 20 ft. setback would result in the rear of the structure being built 2 ft. further towards the alley, thus the appearance of a more massive structure. The Board finds that this encroachment is justified because other structures in the neighborhood encroach into the front yard setback. In addition, only two 11 ft. wide sections of the building encroach into the front yard while the rest of the front elevation is set further back from the 20 ft. setback line. 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. Evidence: The Board Finds that special privileges will not be granted the applicant with the approval of this variance. The applicant has provided the addresses of several other duplexes in the neighborhood which are approximately the same size in terms of lot coverage and floor area ratio. In addition, the Board finds that other nonconforming duplexes in the neighborhood have been permitted to expand both units without a requirement to provide one unit for low and very low income households. 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 MN/90-278DR/V 2 governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to use permits. Evidence: Duplex residential uses are permitted in the R-l1 zone and no changes in use are proposed. 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 consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance. Evidence: (1) The Board finds that an alternate development plan of building less floor area, reducing lot coverage, maintaining the 20 ft. front yard setback, maintaining the required 5 ft. side yard setback, expanding only one of the two units, and providing only two bedrooms per unit is possible, but it would not be of less significant impact to site. The Board finds that if the second unit could not be expanded, there would be no economic incentive to improve either unit, and the existing unimproved duplex would likely remain. Thus, the proposed project would be of less significant impact to the site and adjacent property owners than that which exists or likely would be proposed. (2) The Board finds need for the variance is partially the result of the original design of the duplex which did not have a bottom floor which met the definition of "basement" and was constructed within the side yard setback. In addition, the rest of the project is self induced only because no other acceptable alternative would result in an improved duplex. (3) The Board finds that a grant of the variance would not result in a rezoning because many of the existing buildings in the neighborhood are duplexes which have MN/90-278DR/V 3 been permitted to expand to similar lot coverages, floor area ratios, and setbacks to that of which is proposed. (4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any public or private nuisance. Findinqs for Design Review (Authority to Exceed Height) In order to approve the requested 3'8" projection above the maximum height limit for a roof pursuant to Section 30.16.010 B7b of the Municipal Code, the Board must determine that the portion of the building outside the standard envelope maintains some of the significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties, and that the building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties. 1. The portion of the building outside of the standard envelope maintains some of the significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby properties. Evidence: The Board finds that a site line diagram dated received December 17, 1990, a perspective drawing dated received April 2, 1991, and the story poles attached to the roof of the existing duplex provides evidence that the views from properties to the east will not be significantly impacted as a result of this project. The plans indicate that the maximum height of the building will be approximately 14 ft. above the crown of Dewitt, 2 ft. under the maximum height limit for a 4 in 12 pitch roof pursuant to Section 30.16.010 B7b of the Municipal Code. The project exceeds the maximum 26 ft. height limit above grade towards the rear (west side) of the building, however, the Board finds that some significant views will be protected. 2. That the building is compatible in bulk and mass with buildings on neighboring properties. Evidence: The Board finds that there are other structures in the neighborhood with comparable floor area ratio's, and that the degree of bulk proposed to exceed the 26 ft height limit is consistent with other projects in the neighborhood. Findings for Design Review The following findings must be made by the authorized agency to warrant approval of the design review permit in accordance with Section 23.08.072 of the Municipal Code: MN/90-278DR/V 4 A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or the provisions of this code. Evidence: The Board finds that subject to the approval of the variance to waive Section 30.76.120 (affordability and intensity) of the Municipal Code, to exceed allowable Floor Area Ratio, lot coverage, and setbacks, this proposal will be in conformance with the Municipal Code and the General Plan. No Specific Plan is applicable. B. The design is substantially consistent with the Design Review Guidelines. Evidence: The guidelines applicable to site design is guideline 1.4 a through c, from Section I of the Design Review Guidelines. Section II, Building Design, guidelines 2.1 through 2.7, 2.10 and 2.11 are also applicable. Finally, guidelines 3.1 through 3.7 of Section III, Landscape Design are applicable as well. with regard to the site Design guidelines, the Board finds that the proposed duplex is substantially consistent. Guideline 1.4 encourage the project to take advantage views from the site, to the site and through the site. The applicant has designed the structure to step down the slope to minimize view impacts from other properties which should be verified by installation of story poles. The proj ect is also designed to retain significant views for the eventual residents of the duplex. In addition, the front elevation has been designed to show it's best, but least impacting side to the public street. The Board finds that the design of the duplex is substantially consistent with the Building Design guidelines as well. With regard to 2.1 through 2.5, and 2.10, the building has been custom designed with the site potentials and constraints in mind. The mediterranean style is consistent throughout the structure. The main material proposed is beige stucco with some white painted handrails. The designer has incorporated several architectural features such as window "pop-outs" and insets to provide a varied facade. Finally, guidelines 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11 encourage roofs to be aesthetically designed and provide architectural unity to the building. The Board finds that the proposed a grey asphalt shingle roof with several 4 in 12 pitch gables work effectively tominimi,ze view impacts and to tie the building together architecturally. MN/90-278DR/V 5 Finally, the Board finds that the detailed landscape plan which includes a variety of native trees, shrubs and ground cover, is consistent with the Design Review Guidelines. with respect to guidelines 3.1 through 3.7, the landscape plan has been designed to portray a cohesive appearance and will give the project the appearance of maturity within 3 years after planting. In addition, the designer has provided drought tolerant plants that will require low water usage. The landscape plan proposes low growing Banana palms and shrubs in the front yard to protect views through the site, and taller growing Queen Palms in the lower level rear yard. The Board finds that the minor revision in the landscape plan to provide vertical landscaping on the south elevation is effective at reducing the visual impact of the 2 story high south building facade. c. The project would not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Evidence: The Board finds that since the addition amounts to less than 2,500 sq ft and no negative effects on the health, safety, or general welfare of the community have been identified. D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Evidence: The Board finds that the project represents a significant upgrade in appearance to the duplex on the subject property and no evidence can be found that would cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. MN/90-278DR/V 6 RESOLUTION NO. OE91-06 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHMENT "B" Applicant: Basten Case No: 90-278 DR/V Subject: Variance, Design Review, and authority to exceed the standard height envelope for both units of an existing duplex to be remodeled and expanded which include: A 1 ft encroachment into the south 5 ft required side yard; a 2 ft encroachment into the 20 ft required front yard; to exceed the 26ft standard height envelope to a maximum 29'9" above the lower of existing or proposed grade; to exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio and lot coverage; and to waive the regulations of section 30.76.120 of the Encinitas Municipal Code which require that a second unit of a nonconforming duplex which is expanded be provided for low and very low income households, and that an increase in the number of bedrooms shall be considered an increase in intensity of the nonconformity. Location: 734-736 DeWitt I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS A. The maximum height of the single family home shall not exceed 29' 11" above the lower of existing or proposed grade. II. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. This approval will expire in two years, on April 11, 1993, 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. COj02/CRO9-747wp5 1(4/5/91) 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 here. 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 here. E. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within two 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 two year period, this approval may be extended by the Director of Planning and Community Development to allow for the issuance of building permits. F. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: state Coastal Commission G. Project is approved as submitted/modified as evidenced by the site plan and elevations dated received by the City of Encinitas on December 17, 1990, and revised on April 2, 1991, and signed by a City Off icial as approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board on April 11, 1991, and shall not be altered without Planning and Community Development Department review and approval. H. Prior to issuing a final inspection on framing, the applicant shall provide a survey from a licensed surveyor or a registered civil engineer verifying the building height is in compliance with the design review permit. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMKUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT A. For new residential dwelling unites), 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 CO/02/CRO9-747wp52(4/5/91) and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be paid prior to: Building permit issuance; or as deemed necessary by the appropriate agency. 3. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS A. Driveways sha II meet the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, Public Works Standards, and the Offstreet Parking Design Manual. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 4. FIRE A. Prior to final recordation, the applicant shall submit a letter from the Fire District stating that all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the District. Future structures shall be protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Protection District. Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 5. DRAINAGE CONDITIONS A. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water originating within the project, and all surface waters that may flow onto the project from adjacent lands, shall be required. B. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall not be permitted. c. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any offsite siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. CO/02/CRO9-747wp5 3(4/5/91) 6. 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. 7. UTILITIES A. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective utility agencies regarding services to the project. B. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with SDG&E, Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. C. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including existing utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code. CO/02/CRO9-747wp5 4(4/5/91)