Loading...
1992-05 RESOLUTION NO. C-92-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF ENCINITAS APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE IN THE R-11 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1284 SUMMIT AVENUE (CASE NUMBER 92-020DR) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit and was filed by Julian Kapuy to permit a duplex development in the R-11 Zone, for property located at 1248 Summit Avenue, legally described as: Portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, according to United States Government Survey, approved April 19, 1881, TOGETHER WITH portion of Block 2 of J.C. Clearman's Addition, according to Map thereof No. 207, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego County, April 19, 1887, more particularly described in Attachment "C" of this resolution of approval. WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on March 23, and April 27, 1992: and WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea considered, without limitation: Community Advisory Board 1. The staff reports dated March 17 and April 17, 1992: 2. The General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use Maps: 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings by staff, by the applicant and by the public: 4. Written evidence and plans submitted with the application and dated received by the city on January 31, 1992 and written evidence received at the public hearings: and WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant to Chapter 23.08.072 (Design Review), of the Encinitas Municipal (Zoning) Code: (SEE ATTACHMENT "A") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-020 DR is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that: This project is found to be exempt from Environmental Review per Section 15303(b) of CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, following vote, to wit: 1992, by the AYES: Crimmins, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall NAYS: None ABSENT: Anderson ABSTAIN: None £J-L ,/( ~ Bruce Hall Vice Chairman of the Cardiff Community Advisory Board ATTEST: .I. ¿¡;. Jim .... ennedy,/ JuI)ior Pla06er 92020DR.RES (4-16-92) ATTACHMENT "A" Findings for Design Review Resolution No. C-92-05 Case No. 92-020 DR A. The project design is not inconsistent with the General Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code. Facts: The project meets all developments standards contained in the Municipal Code, contained in Sect. 30.16.010 subsections A, B, and D. The General Plan and Municipal Code allow multi-unit development in the R-11 Zone, at a maximum density of 11 units per acre. The subject project proposes a density of 7.5 units per acre. Conclusion: The proposed duplex is consistent with the Municipal Code and the General Plan. There is no Specific Plan approved in area of the project site B. The project design is not substantially inconsistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Facts: Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code contains Design Review Guidelines with which the authorized agency must find the project substantially consistent in order to grant approval. Discussion: 1. Site desiqn: with regard to Design Guidelines 1.1 - 1.11, the Board finds that the proposed project adequately addresses these required elements. Specifically, regarding Guideline 1.4, the Board finds that the project adequately provides for views lito the site" in that the front (east) elevation is the "best" side, and provides an acceptable degree of visual relief and interest. The Board finds that the project adequately provides for views "from the site" since the upstairs unit proposes view windows. And the Board finds that the project adequately provides for views "through the site" since the modified, approved plans propose a "hip" type roof (compared with the originally proposed gable roof), and since maximum building height is proposed at 22.5 ft., 3.5 ft. below the height limit. 2. Buildinq desiqn: With regard to Guidelines 2.1 - 2.12, the Board finds that the subject elements are adequately addressed with the proposed addition. Specifically, regarding Guidelines 2.3 - 2.6, the Board finds that the proposed building will create a design in which the architectural elements are consistent and harmonious, in which the construction materials and colors are consistent with existing structures on-site, 92020DR.RES (4-16-92) and in which the proposed roof enhances the architectural unity of the overall design. 3. Landscape Design: Regarding Guidelines 3.1 - 3.12, the Board finds that these items are adequately satisfied with the application. Specifically, regarding Guidelines 3.1 - 3.3, 3.7 and 3.9, the Board finds that the proposed landscaping creates a cohesive and unified design theme throughout the project, primarily with the dominant use of palm trees, which have low water requirements. Planting materials are used to buffer building walls and screen certain project elements. Conclusion: The Board finds that the project is in substantial conformance with the Design Review Guidelines of Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code because of the consistency with Design Review Guidelines. C. The project would not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Facts: The project has been found exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303 (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no potential negative affects on the health, safety, or general welfare of the community have been identified in conjunction with this project. Conclusion: The Board finds that the project would not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. D. The project would not cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Facts: The surrounding neighborhood consists of residential uses, mostly single-family, and generally may be considered to be in good condition. Discussion: The proposed project is to add a dwelling unit above an existing three-car garage which is located close to the street (Summit Ave), and therefore highly visible to the community. The project is to create a more visually interesting site with the addition of creative and architecturally pleasing design elements, and to significantly enhance on-site landscaping. Conclusion: The proposed project enhancement to the neighboring area. would constitute an 92020DR.RES (4-16-92) A. ATTACHMENT IIB" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Resolution No. C-92- 05 Case No. 92-020 DR GENERAL CONDITIONS (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 92020DR.RES (1) This approval will expire on April 27,1994, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency. This approval may be appealed to the Planning commission within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code. The proj ect is approved as submitted, on the plans received by the City on April 8, 1992, and on file with the Planning and Community Development Department, and shall not be altered without review and approval by the Authorized Agency. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from the state Coastal Commission and any other applicable Government agencies. All cost recovery fees associated with the processing of the subject application shall be paid to the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits, all appropriate conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development. Other conditions shall be satisfied prior to final inspection. The Department of Planning and Communi ty Development shall ensure that the plans prepared for building permit for the subj ect proj ect meet minimum parking requirements per Section 30.54 of the Municipal Code, specifically that: 1. The site shall be provided with a fourth legal parking space which is not blocking one of the three garaged spaces and is not located within the front yard setback. Said parking space shall be located in the side yard area with parking surface improved with at least paved wheel strips or grass crete: (4-16-92) B. FIRE (8) (1) (2) 2. The interior of the existing one-car garage shall be modified such that a minimum free-and-clear space of 9'x19' is provided. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall ensure that the landscape plan submitted for building permit for the subject project conform substantially with the landscape plan approved by the Board (dated received April 8, 1992) and specifically that all trees and shrubs as shown shall meet a minimum of 15 gallon and 5 gallon, respectively. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a statement from the Fire Prevention District to the Community Development Department indicating that all impact, plan check, and/or cost recovery fees have been paid. Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform to Fire District standards. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: The structure shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire District. C. city Enqineer: Street Conditions 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 92020DR.RES (1) (2) (3) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective utility agencies regarding services to the project. All proposed utilities within the project site shall be installed underground including existing utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required. (4-16-92)