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)