Loading...
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