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)