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)