1992-12
RESOLUTION NO. C 92-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF A DUPLEX STRUCTURE
WITH A TANDEM PARKING ARRANGEMENT
AND EXCEEDING THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE
IN THE R-11 ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1370 SUMMIT AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 92-097 DR/V; FREYLING/HAUGH)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Design
Review was filed by Stephen Freyling to allow for the
reconstruction of a duplex structure (after demolition of existing
duplex structure). Variance (per Chapter 30.78 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code) is to permit a tandem parking arrangement
in basement, and Design Review (Chapter 23.08 & Section 30.16.010b-
7b) includes request to exceed standard height envelope, for the
property located at 1370 Summit Avenue, and legally described as:
That portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township
13 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County
of San Diego, State of California as more particularly
described in the attached legal description marked Attachment
"C".
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
June 22, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated June 16, 1992:
2. The application and Statement of Justification and project
plans submitted by the applicant received March 29, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written citizen correspondence submitted in support of the
project, as referenced in the subject staff report;
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board made the
following findings and determinations for variance and design
review pursuant to Chapter 30.78, section 30.16. 010B7-b, and
Chapter 23.08, of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-097DR/V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II B II )
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board
of the City of Encinitas that:
This proj ect was found exempt from environmental review under
Section 15303 (b) of the State CEQA guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-097DR/V
is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June,
following vote, to wit:
1992,
by the
AYES:
Crimmins, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall, Fullwood
NAYS:
None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
_62. /l, ~
Bruce Hall
Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
-,
~ -..// /7
/~.(~.
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
JK/92097DR/V.RES
(6-16-92)
2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS
Resolution No. CARD 92-12
Case No. 92-097DR/V
Applicant: Stephan R. Freyling
Case No: 92-097 DR/V
Subject: Design Review for reconstruction of duplex to exceed
standard height envelope, and Variance to allow tandem parking
configuration.
Location: 1370 Summit Avenue
Findinqs for 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: An access easement 16.5 ft. wide is located along
the north property line. Said easement is located
entirely upon the subject lot. A ten ft. wide street
side yard is required to be measured from the edge of
said easement.
The size of the subject lot is less than one-half the
size of the average size of lots within 300 ft. noticing
radius.
Discussion: The 16.5 ft. wide easement, when combined
with the 10 ft. setback results in an effective setback
of 26.5 ft. from the property line. When combined with
a lot which is relatively small compared to the average
in the area, a relatively constrained building envelope
results.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the subject lot is
subject to special the circumstances of restrictive size
when combined with the location of the subject easement
and setback.
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
3
limitations upon other properties in the same
vicinity and zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The property is subject to a significantly larger
side yard setback than is typical for lots in the area
(16.5 ft. wide easement plus 10 ft. setback), in addition
to being significantly below the average lot size in the
vicinity.
Discussion: The variance permits the subject property to
develop in a manner consistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the surrounding area (i.e. to be able
to construct a structure of reasonable size), while
locating the required parking outside of the front yard
area.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the approval of the
variance would not constitute a grant of special
privileges since its approval would only allow the
subj ect property to enj oy development pri vileges
available to most other properties in the area.
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.
Facts: The applicable zoning is R-11.
for a residential use.
The project is
Discussion: Residential uses are permitted in the R-11
zone and no additional uses are proposed in conjunction
with this project.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project would not
authorize any activity not permissible in the R-11 Zone
since the proposed project is 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
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
4
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 existing site is impacted with an overly
restrictive side yard setback, combined with a lot which
is relatively small.
Discussion: To the restrictive site conditions, an
alternative development plan would be of greater impact
to the site, since such an alternative would place
parking garages along the street-scape and would
constitute a visual detraction from the project and thus
be of greater impact.
2.
Conclusion: Board finds that the variance could not
practically be avoided by the use of an alternate
development plan since the site conditions leave no other
reasonable area in which to locate the required parking
of equal or less impact, and the overall site constraints
necessitate the tandem parking arrangement.
Facts: The existing site conditions of restrictive
street side yard setback and lot size are inherent
conditions.
Discussion: The inherent site conditions constrain the
property from locating all the required parking in the
interior of the garage without a tandem arrangement.
Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance is not
self-induced since the variance request is induced by
inherent site conditions of restrictive side yard and lot
size which create restrictive conditions to the subject
property.
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.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
5
Findinqs for Desiqn 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, except as discussed under findings
for variance, and as discussed under criteria for authority to
exceed standard height envelope. The Municipal Code allows
for the reconstruction of a legal-nonconforming duplex use per
Chapter 30.76.
Conclusion: The proposed duplex is consistent with the above
referenced Municipal Code section. 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 II 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 a view deck and view windows. And the
Board finds that the project adequately provides for views
"through the site" since the determinations required for
authority to exceed the standard height envelope have been
made, and since the project proposes an increased view
corridor for the dwelling across Summit Avenue to the east.
2. Building 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,
and in which the proposed roof enhances the architectural
unity of the overall design.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
6
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
proj ect. Planting materials are used to buffer building walls
and provide a generally pleasing visual buffer for the
structure.
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 of residential
uses, mostly single-family, and generally may be considered to
be in good condition.
Discussion: The proposed project is to construct a new and
attractive duplex structure in place of an older and less
visually attractive structure. The project is to create a
more visually interesting site with the addition of
architecturally designed elements, and to significantly
enhance on-site landscaping.
Conclusion: The proposed project
enhancement to the neighboring area.
would
constitute
an
Criteria for Desiqn Review to Exceed Heiqht Envelope:
A.
The portion of the building outside of the standard
envelope maintains some of the significant views enjoyed
by residents of nearby properties.
B.
The
building
is
compatible
in
bulk
and
mass
with
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
7
buildings on neighboring properties.
A.
Facts: The existing structure affords no existing views
above the roof-line, and the proposed structure height
will therefore not reduce any views from above the roof-
line.
Discussion: The existing structure affords no existing
views above the roof-line, and the proposed structure
height will therefore not reduce any views from above the
roof-line.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposal to exceed
the standard height envelope would not result in
significant view blockage, and therefore authorizes the
subject building to project a maximum of 30 inches above
the standard height envelope.
B.
Facts: The surrounding area is occupied with numerous
buildings of similar bulk and mass
Discussion: The proposed building would not be out of
character with buildings in the surrounding area with
respect to bulk and mass due the existence of numerous
buildings of similar scale.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed building
would not be out of character with buildings in the
surrounding area with respect to bulk and mass due the
existence of numerous buildings of similar scale.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
8
ATTACHMENT liB"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. CARD 92-12
Case No. 92-097DR/V
Applicant: stephan R. Freyling
Case No: 92-097 DR/V
Subject: Design Review for reconstruction of duplex to exceed
standard height envelope, and Variance to allow tandem parking
configuration
Location: 1370 Summit Avenue
1.
F.
G.
H.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A.
This approval will expire on June 22, 1994, 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 agent
within 15 days from the date of this approval.
C.
The project is approved as submitted and shall not be
altered without review and approval by the authorized
agency.
D.
Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from
complying with the conditions and regulations generally
imposed upon activities similar in nature to the activity
authorized by this permit:
E.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable
City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit
issuance.
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 submittal.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
- California Coastal Commission
The applicant shall be caused 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 Planning and Community
Development.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
9
2.
E.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPHENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
Prior to issuance of building permits, all appropriate
conditions of approval contained herein shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. Other conditions shall be
satisfied prior to final inspection.
B.
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.
c.
Prior to final inspection of framing, project height as
approved shall be verified by survey by a qualified
licensed engineer to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Dept.
D.
The subject 16 ft. wide easement, located along the north
property line of the building site, shall remain free-
and-clear of any building, construction or other item to
allow unrestricted passage of traffic.
The City does not authorize any encroachment of structure
into the 16.5 ft. wide access easement located along the
property's north lot line.
THESE ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL FIRE DISTRICT
APPROVAL. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
3.
FIRE
A.
B.
c.
Address 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. Permanent address numbers shall be displayed on
this monument.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, 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.
structure
shall
be
protected
by
automatic
fire
an
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
10
4.
E.
F.
sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems shall be installed
to the satisfaction of the Fire District.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Public Works
Grading Conditions
A.
The grading for this project is defined in Chapter 23.34
of the Encini tas 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
approve grading plan, submit required reports to the City
Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 23.24 of the
Encinitas Municipal Code.
B.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the PROJECT
unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners
of the affected properties.
C.
A soils/geological/hydraulic report (as applicable) shall
be prepared be a qualified engineer licensed in the State
of California to perform such work prior to building
permi t issuance: or at first submittal of a grading
plan.
D.
The developer shall obtain a grading permit, if
applicable, prior to any commencement of any clearing or
grading of the site.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any
proposed construction si te wi thin this proj ect, the
developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City 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.
A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved
and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or
disposal site if located within the City limits.
Drainaqe Conditions
G.
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
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
11
K.
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.
H.
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.
I.
Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
street Conditions
J.
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.
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
L.
M.
The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S . D. G. & E., Paci f ic Telephone, and other appl icable
utility authorities.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
12
N.
All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
o.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required.
JK/92097DR/V.RES (6-16-92)
13