1990-21
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE AND
DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW A TWO ROOM ADDITION
TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX TO EXCEED THE REQUIRED
FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR PR~TY LOCA~ED AT
11 AND 15 EAST TREET -i" ¡,¡. It
(CASE NUMBER 90-140 DR/V) ~-
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Design
Review was filed by Mr. Robert Redmon allow a two room addition to
an existing duplex to exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio, per
Chapters 30.16, 30.78 and 23.08 of the City of Encinitas Municipal
Code, for the property located at 11 and 15 East E Street, legally
described as:
The easterly 50 feet of lots 1 and 2 of Samuel F. Smi th IS
subdivision of east block 9 in the town of Encinitas, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No.
38, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder, January
11, 1887.
Together with that portion of the southerly 10 feet of East "H"
Street as vacated and closed to public use lying northerly of and
adjacent to the northerly line of said lot 1.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
August 16, 1990, September 13, 1990, and September 27, 1990;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated August 16, 1990, revised on
September 6, 1990, and further revised on September 19,
1990;
2. The application, site plan, landscape plan, elevations,
and statement of Justification submitted by the applicant;
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 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 90-140
DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT liB")
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 27th day of September, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Townsend
ABSTAIN: None
/ 7~t;; ~ f2 ~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encini tas community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~~.~
;;;;;.-"~ --'"
Tom Currlden
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE90-21
Findings: 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 determined that special
circumstances applicable to the property exists to
warrant the grant of a variance to exceed the required
Floor Area Ratio. The lot size is smaller than many
others in the neighborhood (4,750 sq ft compared to 5,000
to 6,000 sq ft) which contain both single family
residences and duplexes. The lot directly to the west
contains an identical duplex on a much larger lot. The
Zoning Code would permit these adjacent property owners
to build a larger duplex than the applicant's are
requesting. In addition, the apartment directly to the
east of the subject property appears to be larger than
that of the applicant's while it is also built on a 4,750
sq ft lot.
The Board identified other duplexes and triplexes in the
neighborhood that appear to be much larger than the
applicant's, both in terms of square footage and in Floor
Area Ratio. Two properties were identified as having. 67
and .70 FAR. The addition will only result in a larger
bedroom for family members while the existing bedroom
will be converted to a den (since due to ventilation
requirements, the bedroom wall can only be 4 ft in
height) .
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 determined that special privileges
will not be granted the applicant with the approval of
this variance. Addresses of several other duplexes in
the neighborhood which are much larger and appear to have
greater Floor Area Ratio's than that which is requested
were found.
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.
Evidence: Residential uses are permitted in the R-ll
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
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(1) An alternate development plan of building less floor
area above the garages could be provided, but it would
not necessarily be of less significant impact to the site
since there is no proposal for a larger building
footprint. The Board determined that reducing the size
of the addition would be inadequate space for the
residents located at 11 and 15 East H street and this
option would require additional structural footings since
it would be in the center of the garage rather than at
the corners. Since there is minimal view impact of the
addition from adjacent properties, the Board determined
that another design option is not feasible.
(2) The need for the variance is a result of the
original design of the duplex which did not have an
interior arrangement which lends itself to an addition
of less than 819 sq ft.
(3) The variance does not constitute a rezoning or other
amendment to the zoning code due to the small size of the
lot. The request for additional floor area is not
unreasonable when the proposed 1,540 sq ft is compared
to the sizes of other duplexes in the neighborhood.
(4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any
public or private nuisance.
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:
A. The project design is consistent with the General
Plan, a Specific Plan, or the provisions of this code.
Evidence: Subj ect to the approval of the associated
variance to exceed the allowable FAR by 611 sq ft, 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 building design
are guidelines 2.3 through 2.7 and 2.11 in section II of
the Design Review Guidelines. section III, Landscape
Design is also applicable. with regard to these
guidelines, the proposed addition is substantially
consistent. Guidelines 2.3 and 2.4 encourage consistency
in style and exterior materials used. This proj ect
continues the existing architectural style, colors and
materials with the addition. Guideline 2.5 which
encourages residential buildings to reflect their
intended use in terms of scale and proportion, is also
consistent.
The other three applicable guidelines, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.11
encourage architecturally compatible roof lines and
materials. Guideline 2.6 recommends that buildings with
minimum visual relief should have roof lines that are
varied to provide greater visual relief. This project
includes a 5 in 12 roof pitch to provide visual relief
from the existing flat roof. The project includes two
parallel roof lines which separate the two units, the
westerly roof line being 1 ft lower than the easterly
roof. In addition, this roof pitch is consistent with
other proj ects in the neighborhood and the dark grey
asphalt shingles complement the color of the building.
Finally, the existing landscaping on the site is
consistent with the Design Review Guidelines.
C. The project would not adversely affect the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community.
Evidence: The addition is minor in nature and no
negative effects on the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community have been identified.
D. The proj ect would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence: The project represents an upgrade in
appearance to the duplex on the subject property.
Currently the space above the 4-car garage is unusable
to the people living in the duplex. Since this addition
will only minimally impact the views from the property
to the east, no negative impact on the surrounding
neighborhood can be identified.
Applicant:
Case No:
subject:
Location:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT "B"
Robert Redmon
90-140 DR/V
variance to Exceed the Required Floor Area Ratio
and Design Review for a Two Room Addition Above
Garages of an Existing Duplex.
11 and 15 East "H" street
1.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A.
1.
This approval will expire in two years, on September
27, 1992, 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 authorized
agency within 15 calendar days from the date of this
approval.
C.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
wi th any sections of the Zoning Development 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.
permi ts from other agencies will be required as
follows:
a.
Coastal commission
F.
Project is approved as modified as evidenced by the
plot plan dated September 18, 1990 received by the
City of Encinitas on September 18, 1990 and signed
MN/jm/MS15-1773wp5 (9-21-90/2)
CASE NUMBER:
90-140 DR/V
Page 1 of 2
G.
by a City Official as approved by the Old Encinitas
community Advisory Board on September 27, 1990 and
shall not be altered without Planning and Community
Development Department review and approval.
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 Director of Community
Development.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
B.
site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plans which are dated and signed as
approved on September 27, 1990 by Community Advisory
Board and which are on file in the Planning and
Community Development Department and the conditions
contained herein.
For new residential development, 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 and Sewer
Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park
Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be paid
prior to:
a.
Building permit issuance.
as deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
3.
FIRE
A.
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. Address numbers shall
be displayed on this monument.
B.
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.
MN/jm/MS15-1773wp5 (9-21-90/2)
CASE NUMBER:
90-140 DR/V
Page 2 of 2