1992-13
RESOLUTION NO. OE92-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COKKUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
AND VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SECURITY TRELLIS ABOVE AN EXISTING
CONDOMINIUM BASEMENT GARAGE ENTRANCE AND TO RE-CONSTRUCT AN
EXISTING GATE AND RETAINING WALL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 940 SEALAHE DRIVE
(CASE HUKBER 92-071 DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit
and Variance was filed by the Pacific Panorama Homeowners
Association to construct a security trellis above an existing
condominium basement garage entrance and to re-construct an
existing gate and retaining wall 12 ft into the required 20 ft
front yard setback of the R-25 zone per Chapters 23.08 and 30.78 of
the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at
940 Sealane Drive, legally described as:
Lot 1 in Block 37 of Pacific Panorama Condominium, according
to Map thereof No. 8294 filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
June 18, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated June 10, 1992;
2. The application, site plan, and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant dated received May 5, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 23.08 and 30.78 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 92-071
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:
5
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15301 (e) of the state CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of June 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cartwright, Birnbaum, Lewis
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Steyaert
ABSTAIN: None
Board
ATTEST: .-.--'
~--:>_.--- ~
--- /" ~>--ê;~ ~--c 4---- -
Tom Curr1den
Associate Planner
6
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE92-13
Case No. 92-071 DR/V
Applicant: Pacific Panorama Homeowners Association
Findings ror a Design Review Permit:
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:
A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan, a
Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
Facts: The proposal is to construct a trellis above an
existing condominium parking garage entrance encroaching 12 ft
into the required 20 ft front yard setback of the R-25 zone,
and to re-construct an entrance gate and retaining wall to
provide improved security for residents of the condominium
building.
Discussion: Subject to approval of the related variance
request to allow the structure to encroach into the front yard
setback, the project is consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Code. There is no adopted Specific Plan for the site.
Conclusion: Therefore, the board finds that subject to
approval of the related variance, the project is consistent
with the General Plan and the provisions of this Code.
B. The proj ect design is substantially inconsistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
Facts: The request is to construct a trellis above and
existing basement garage entrance and to re-construct an
entrance gate and wall to provide increased security for
condominium residents. The applicable guidelines from Section
V (Privacy and Security) of the Design Review Guidelines are
guidelines 5.5 through 5.7.
Discussion: The proposed trellis, gate and wall extension are
design to provide increased security for the residents of the
condominium building. With regard to Guideline 5.5, the
security gate and trellis will provide improved security
within the parking garage since there will no longer be easy
access to the parking area. with regard to guideline 5.6, the
proposed security trellis and gate will make a more defined
distinction between public, semi-public and private places to
discourage intruders. Finally, with regard to guideline 5.7,
the wall and landscaping on the adjacent bank is designed to
7
provide improved visibility from the street so as to limit the
areas for intruders to hide.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the project
design for the security trellis, gate and wall is
substantially consistent with the applicable Design Review
Guidelines.
C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community; and
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding neighborhood
to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Facts: The proposal is to construct a security trellis over
an existing condominium basement garage entrance driveway and
to re-construct an existing gate and retaining wall within the
front yard setback.
Discussion: The proposal is to enhance security of the
condominium residents and there is no evidence that this
project would negatively affect the appearance of the
neighborhood.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the proposed
security trellis will not adversely affect the general welfare
of the community or cause the neighborhood to depreciate
materially in appearance or value.
Findings for a Variance: (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. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.87.030 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.
Facts: The request is to construct a trellis above and
existing basement garage entrance and to re-construct an
entrance gate and wall to provide increased security for
condominium residents. The proposed gate and trellis will
encroach 12 ft into the front yard setback to a minimum 8 ft
from the front property line. Since Section 30.16.010 E6 of
the Municipal Code provides for architectural projections to
8
encroach 4 ft into the front yard setback (to 16 ft in the R-
25 zone), the variance request is to encroach an additional 8
ft. Further, since Section 30.16.010 F4 of the Municipal Code
does not permit fences and walls over 4 ft in height within 15
ft of an intersection of the driveway and the street right-of-
way, the variance request for the wall and gate is to encroach
an additional 7 ft. The original condominium structure was
constructed with an inadequate provision for security to the
basement garage since people can easily climb over the
retaining wall and enter the garage. Finally, evidence has
been submitted which indicates that adjacent properties have
security gates and structures within the required 20 ft front
yard setback.
Discussion: In the submitted Statement of Justification, the
applicant contends that special circumstances are applicable
to this property since the project was constructed without
adequate provision for security of the parking area and that
there is no reasonable design alternative available which will
provide the same level of security that adjacent property
owners enjoy. In addition, adjacent buildings have been
constructed with security gates and similar structures within
the front yard setback. Finally, the proposed trellis will
not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the
existing security gate.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the property since the
condominium building was constructed without the provision for
adequate basement parking security and that other properties
in the neighborhood also have structures which encroach into
the front yard setback.
B. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030 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 request is to construct a trellis above and
existing basement garage entrance and to re-construct an
entrance gate and wall to provide increased security for
condominium residents. The proposed gate and trellis will
encroach into the front yard setback to within 8 ft of the
front property line. There are a4jacent properties which also
have structures which encroach 1~o ~he required 20 ft front
yard main building setback.
Discussion: The applioant contends that the approval of this
request does not: represent a special ti:ivilege since there are
several other 8~ructures in the.o. ghborhood that encroach
9
into the front yard setback and that the approval of the
variance would provide a similar level of security that others
in the neighborhood enjoy.
Conclusions: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of
this variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege
since other property owners also enj oy encroachments into
front yard and others enjoy similar security fencing in the
front yard.
C. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
use permits.
Facts: The proposal is to encroach into the front yard
setback with a security trellis above an existing condominium
basement garage entrance and to re-construct an existing gate
and wall which currently encroaches into the front yard.
Discussion: The security trellis, gate and wall is accessory
to the primary multi-family residential use of the property
and no change in use is proposed.
Conclusions: Approval of the security trellis, gate and wall
in the front yard does change the primary residential use
which is expressly permitted in the R-25 zone.
D. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030 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 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 request is to construct a trellis above and
existing basement garage entrance and to re-construct an
entrance gate and wall to provide increased security for
condominium residents. The proposed gate and trellis will
10
encroach 12 ft into the required 20 ft front yard setback of
the R-25 zone to a minimum 8 ft from the property line. The
condominium project was not constructed with an adequate
provision for security for the lower level garage and the
existing gate and retaining wall provides only limited
security.
Discussion: The applicant contends that due to the original
design of the condominium building, there is no reasonable
alternative design available to provide adequate security for
the lower level parking area which does not result in a front
yard encroachment. In addition, the need for the variance
cannot reasonably be considered self-induced since it would
not have been possible as a practable matter to have predicted
future security needs in the original design which did not
provide for adequate security. Finally, the approval of this
variance would not constitute a rezoning or create a public or
private nuisance.
Conclusions: Therefore, the Board finds that no alternate
development plan is possible which would provide the level of
security that the proposed trellis, gate and wall would. In
addition, the project is not self-induced due to the original
design of the structure, does not constitute a rezoning and
does not create a public or private nuisance.
11
--
ATTACHMENT liB"
Resolution No. OE92-13
Case No. 92-071 DR/V
Applicant: Pacific Panorama Homeowners Association
Conditions:
1. Buildina Department: A Building Permit is required for
electrical work and retaining walls over 4 ft in height
(including footing) and gates over 6 ft in height.
2. F ire Department: Prior to building permit issuance, applicant
shall submit a statement from the Fire District to the
Community Development Department indicating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have
been paid.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure.
3. Enaineering:
None
4. Communitv Development: If substantial construction has not
been completed in reliance upon a granted Design Review and
Variance within one year of the grant, then upon notice to the
property owner, and an opportunity to present information to
the Community Development Director, the Director may declare
the Design Review permit and Variance to have expired with the
privileges granted thereby canceled.
5. In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed on the
variance is violated, the Director, upon notice and an
opportunity to present information, may revoke the Design
Review permit and Variance or impose additional conditions.
6. The approved project shall conform to plans reviewed and
approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board and
shall not be increased in height, extend beyond the
limitations of the approved Design Review Permit and Variance,
or otherwise modified beyond the approved plans and
limitations of this Design Review permit or Variance without
prior approval by the city.
7. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from the
state Coastal Commission and any other applicable Government
Agencies.
8. A proponent or protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
12
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
9. The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant regarding
real property which sets forth this grant of approval. The
covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the
Direct of Community Development.
13