Loading...
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