Loading...
1992-07 RESOLUTION NO. C-92-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF ENCINITAS APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THREE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2142-2144 MANCHESTER AVE (CASE NUMBER 92-049DR/V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review and Variance Permit and was filed by Geof Belden to permit three detached single family homes in the R-15 Zone, for property located at 2142-2144 Manchester Avenue, legally described as; Lots 11,12 and 13, Block 30 CARDIFF, according to Map thereof Number 1298, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 14, 1910. WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on May 18, 1992; and WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea considered, without limitation: Community Advisory Board 1. The staff report dated April 20, 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 April 9, 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 Chapters 23.08.072 (Design Review), and 30.78 (Variance) of the Encinitas Municipal (Zoning) Code: (SEE ATTACHMENT II A II ) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-049 DR/V 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 18th day of May 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None bJ- Il, u Chairman of the Cardiff Community Advisory Board ATTEST: 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) ATTACHMENT "A" Findings for Design Review/variance Resolution No. C-92-07 Case No. 92-049 DR/V 1. FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW 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, with the exception of the requirements for side yard setbacks, per the Variance approval discussed in this attachment under item II 2 ". The General Plan and Municipal Code allow detached single family homes in residential zones. The subject project proposes three detached single family homes on three separate legal lots. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and the General Plan, with the exception of the variance approved for side yard setbacks, as documented below under item "2". 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 "to 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 areas. And the Board finds that the project adequately provides for views "through the site" since the project meets the standard height envelope. 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 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) 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, and in which the proposed roof enhances the architectural unity of the overall design. 3. Landscape Desiqn: 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 proj ect would not cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Facts: The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of residential uses, and the proposed residential use will occupy three vacant parcels. Discussion: The proposed project is to construct three detached single family homes which are considered to be of a quality design and will create a visually interesting site with design elements considered creative and architecturally pleasing, with a significant landscape plan which proposes substantial quality landscaping. Conclusion: The proposed project enhancement to the neighboring area. would constitute an 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) 2. FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE A. In reference to Municipal Code 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. Facts: The proposal is to allow construction of three detached single family residences of three separate legal lots of 2,500 sq. ft. each. The standard lot size in the R-15 Zone is 20,000 sq. ft. The required side yard setback for substandard sized lots in the R-15 zone is 5 ft. The application proposes setbacks reduced to 2.5 ft. for the four side yards which are to the interior of the project site. Discussion: The subject lots are significantly substandard in size and are such a size that developing three detached units, which is allowed by-right, would be very difficult to achieve on the 25 ft. wide lots without a variance from the required 5 ft side yard setbacks. Conclusion: The Board finds that the size of the subj ect lots, being substandard in size, is a special circumstance since the 25ft. wide lots create an unusual constraint when the 5 ft. side yard setback is applied. B. In reference to Municipal Code Section 30.78.024 (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. Facts: The 25 ft. wide lots are proposed to be developed individually, with detached units, compared to most other properties in the surrounding area which rely on one or more combined lots for their development. Discussion: The project site is utilizing building sites which are smaller in comparison with most other development sites in the surrounding area, since most other development sites rely on combined lots. Conclusion: The board finds that the approval of this Variance request would not constitute a grant of special 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) privileges since the project sites are relatively constrained compared wi th most other surrounding development sites which rely on larger total areas. C. In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.024 (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. Conclusion: The subject site is zoned Residential-15 and the proposed three detached units would maintain a residential use. D. In reference to Municipal Code Section 30.78.024 (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 consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code: 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance. 1. Facts: The building lots existing are 25 ft. wide. When combined with the two 5 ft. setbacks, the remaining building envelope would be 15 ft. wide. Discussion: The three lots, without a variance, would yield a restrained floor plan of less than 15 ft. wide. Conclusion: The Board finds that the Variance request could not reasonably be avoided by an alternate development plan since the alternative of homes with interior space of less than 15 ft. wide is not a reasonable alternative. 2. Facts: The project lots of 25 inherent condition. ft. in width is an 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) Discussion: The inherent condition of the restrictively small lots would result in living units of excessively small living area if the 5 ft. side yard setback were to be applied. Conclusion: The Board finds that the variance is not self-induced since existing site conditions (lot size) would result in building envelopes unreasonably constrained. 3. Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance would not consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code since the continuation of a residential use would be consistent with the zoning code. 4. Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance would not legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance. 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) A. ATTACHMENT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Resolution No. C-92-07 Case No. 92-049 DR/V GENERAL CONDITIONS (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) This Design Review approval will expire on May 18, 1994, and the Variance approval on May 18, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency. (2) 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. (3) The proj ect is approved as submitted, on the plans received by the city on April 9, 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 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. 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) (8) In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed on the variance is violated, the Director, upon notice and an opportunity to present information, may revoke the variance or impose additional conditions. (9) 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. (10) The property owner shall pay flood control, traffic, and park & recreation fees (if applicable) and any other development impact fees as required by Municipal Code prior to final inspection of the subject structure. B. FIRE (11) 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. (12) AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: All new structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire District. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE CITY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: C. PUBLIC WORKS Gradinq Conditions: (13) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. (14) The grading for this project is defined in Chapter 23.24 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. Grading shall be performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the city Engineer and verify compliance of the work with the approved grading plan and verify compliance with Chapter 23.24 of the Encinitas Municipal Code. 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) (15) No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. (16) A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disposal site in located within city limits. (17) A soils/geological/hydraulic report (as applicable) shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the state of California to perform such work prior to building permit issuance: or at first submittal of a grading plan. (18) Prior to hauling direct or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the ci ty Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Drainaqe Conditions (19) The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent any off- site siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities, slope erosion control measures and other methods required or approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall maintain the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer. (20) A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of all surface water originating within the project, and all surface waters that may flow onto the project from adjacent lands, shall be required. Said drainage system shall include any easements and structures as required by the city. (21) Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks shall not be permitted. 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92) street Conditions (22) The developer shall obtain the City Engineer's approval of the proj ect improvement plans and enter into a secured agreement with the city for completion of said improvements prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project. The improvements shall be constructed and accepted for maintenance by the City Council prior to final occupancy permit approval. The following improvements shall be installed in conformance with the "special case local" section of the City of Encinitas Public Road Standards. (23) 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 (24) The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective utility agencies regarding services to the project. (25) The developer shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., Pacific Telephone, and other applicable utility authorities. (26) All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including existing utilities unless exempt by the Municipal Code. (27) The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required. 92049DR/V.RES (5-45-92)