Loading...
1990-19 RESOLUTION NO. C-90-019 A RESOLUTION OF THB CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERLY DUPLEX UNIT AT 1761 HAYDN DRIVE (CASB HtJKBER: 90-112 DR/V) WHEREAS, requests for consideration of a Design Review Application and Zoning Variance were filed by Stephan Schuette to allow the reconstruction of one unit of a duplex structure per Chapter 23.08 (Design Review) of the Municipal Code and a Variance (per Chapter 30.78) to permit the following encroachments: (1) 5 foot encroachment into the 25 foot front yard setback; and (2) 4 foot encroachment into the 10 foot (southerly) side yard setback. For property located at 1761 Haydn Drive and legally described as: Lot "c" in Block 79 of Cardiff Villa Track, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of California, according to Map thereof No. 1469, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 10, 1912. WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on June 11, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without limitation; 1. The staff report dated June 6, 1990; 2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use Maps; 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; COI04/CR07-555wp5 1(6-13-90/2) 4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; 5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant and dated received by the City on May 14, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made the required findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 (Design Review) and 30.78 (Variance). (See Attachment "A") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 90-112 DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (1) The project as submitted is approved and shall not be altered without City approval. The Variance approval allows front yard and southerly side yard encroachments as indicated on the plans reviewed and approved by the Community Advisory Board. Said plans are identified as dated received May 14, 1990. (2) Fire Prevention: Applicant shall contact the Encinitas Fire Prevention District regarding compliance to the following conditions: (a) Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. Where structures are located, off a roadway on long driveways, a monument shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent address numbers shall be displayed on this monument. (b) The remodeled structure shall be protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire Protection District. (c) 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. (3) Applicant shall contact the Public Works Department regarding compliance with the following conditions: COI04/CR07-555wp5 2(6-13-90/2) street Conditions: (a) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I. o. D.) shall be made for ten feet along Haydn adjacent to the property for public right-of-way purposes, unless waived pursuant to City Council Policy dated March 14, 1990. (b) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I.O.D.) shall be made for 5 feet along westminster adjacent to the property for public right-of-way purposes, unless waived pursuant to City Council Policy dated March 14, 1990. (c) 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. utilities: (d) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. (e) The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing and/or proposed public utilities, as required by the Municipal Code. (4) Landscaping and automated irrigation systems shall be installed and shall conform to the plans reviewed and approved by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board. A covenant shall limit landscape height to the approved structural height to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development. (5) A licensed surveyor shall verify the height of the structure at the time of framing inspection to certify that the height does not exceed the height measurements specified on the approved plans. (6) The developer shall pay Traffic Mitigation and Drainage Fees at the established rate at or before the date of final inspection. (7) This permit shall expire and become null and void after two (2) years of the effective date if building permits have not been issued for the approved project in accordance with section 23.08.160 of the Municipal Code. (8) The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant regarding real property which sets forth this grant of approval. The CO/04/CR07-555wp53(6-13-90/2) covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community Development. (9) A proponent of protestant of record may appeal a final decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that: This project was found to be exempt from environmental review, section 15301(e) (1) of CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: McCabe, MacManus, Orr, Barker NAYS: None ABSENT: Crosthwaite ABSTAIN: None ~ Te rance Barker, Chairperson ardiff-by-the- ea Community ÿ!:;~ ~ ATTEST: ~t,-f2.~ - Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner CO/04/CR07-555wp5 4(6-13-90/2) ATTACBKENT "A" cardiff-by-the-sea Community A4visory Board RESOLUTION RO. C-90-019 CASB NO. 90-112 DR/V I. Findings for Design Review (Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code) 23.08.072 Recrulatory Conclusions - GenerallY. A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code. Evidence: Having made findings to approve the variance request, the Board has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and development provisions of the Municipal Code. B. The project design is substantially consistent with the Design Review Guidelines. Evidence: The project will not tend to significantly impact views of the residents to the east since the subject property is below the pad elevations of their properties and future development on adjacent property may extend to 26 feet in height. The structures will tend to provide architectural variation beyond the current design. Some current mature trees are proposed to be trimmed and retained. The design provides architectural variation and is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Evidence: The property has been developed as residential use for many years and no evidence exists to verify that the use adversely affects the health, safety or general welfare of the community. D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Evidence: The proposed structures are found to be consistent to the bulk and mass of surrounding development and project design and color are found to be compatible with developed properties in the neighborhood. COI04/CRO7-555wp55(6-13-90/2) II. pin4inga for Variance Approval (section 30.78.030 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 identical zoning classification. Evidence: Due to the existing configuration of the structure, the front yard encroachment would only enclose an area currently used as an entry court yard and extend existing exterior wall lines. The side yard variance would preclude having to excessively grade into the slope of the lot to provide a rear yard area for the subject unit. 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 vicini ty and zone in which such property is situated. Evidence: The project is conditioned to meet City standards for residential development. 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 regulation governing the parcel of property. Evidence: The Zoning Code permits reconstruction of existing duplex units within any residential district pursuant to section 30.76.120. 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 COI04/CRO7-555wp56(6-13-90/2) constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance. Evidence: An alternate development plan would not tend to significantly lessen the impact of the development on the site, or to adjacent property since the encroachment into the front yard only extends existing exterior wall lines and the side yard encroachment is necessary to provide a rear yard area while avoiding excessive grading. The variance is not self-induced since existing structures and the property's topography constrain the site. The variance does not constitute a re-zoning nor authorize any private or public nuisance. CO/04/CRO7-555wp5 7(6-13-90/2)