1992-15
RESOLUTION NO. C 92-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
VARIANCE PERMIT TO ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE
REQUIRED 20-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND TO
ENCROACH 6 FT. INTO THE STREET SIDE YARD AND TO
EXCEED THE 6 FT. VERTICAL LIHIT FOR A TWO FT.
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD
OF THE R-11 ZONE
AND A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO EXCEED THE 22 FT.
STANDARD HEIGHT LIMIT TO 29.5 FT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
DUPLEX STRUCTURE TO BE CONVERTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
305 NORFOLK DRIVE
(CASE NUMBER 92-055 DR/V; JOHN KLINE)
HOME
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by John Kline to allow a maximum 10 ft. encroachment into the
required 20 ft. rear yard setback, a 6 ft. encroachment into the
street side yard, and request to exceed the 6 ft. vertical limit
applicable to the proposed 2 ft. encroachment into the interior
side yard, and Design Review to exceed the standard 22 ft. height
limit to a maximum of 29.5 ft. for an existing duplex structure to
be converted to a single family residence per Chapter 30.78 of the
City of Encinitas Municipal Code (Variance), and authority to
exceed the standard height envelope of 22 ft. to 29.5 ft. per
Section 30.16.010b-7b (Design Review) for the property located at
305 Norfolk Drive, and legally described as:
Lots 47 and 48, Block 14, Cardiff, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map
thereof no. 1298, filed in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, November 14, 1910.
WHEREAS, a public hearings were conducted on the application
on June 22, July 27, and August 24, 1992:
WHEREAS,
considered:
the
cardiff-By-The-Sea
Community Advisory
Board
1.
The staff reports dated June 9, July 15, and August 20,
1992:
The application and Statement of Justification and
project plans submitted by the applicant received March
20, 1992, and plan revision dated August 14, 1992;
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
Written evidence submitted at the hearing:
2.
3.
4.
1
'\
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board made the
following findings and determinations pursuant to Chapter 30.78 and
Section 30.16. 010B7-b, respectively ,of the Encinitas Municipal
Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-055DR/V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT IIB")
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 15301 (e) of the State CEQA guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August,
following vote, to wit:
1992, by the
AYES:
Crimmins, Fullwood, Hall
NAYS:
Grossman, Mac Fall
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
()~ ß rif
Bruce Hall
Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
.~.. ~ A -.0
- /L, {_.A>~~~.
¿/JIm Kennedy
. Junior Planner
JK/92055DRV.RES
(8-24-92)
2
ATTACHMENT nAn
FINDINGS
Resolution No. CARD 92-15
Case No. 92-055DR/V
Applicant: John Kline
Case No: 92-055 DR/V
Subject: Design Review for addition to exceed the standard 22
ft. height envelope and Variance to allow encroachment into the
required street side, interior side, and rear yard setbacks.
Location: 305 Norfolk Drive
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: Other properties in the area enj oy a similar
building envelope as that requested with the variance.
The application proposes a special circumstance in which
the intensity of the site would be reduced by the
elimination of one of two dwelling units.
Discussion: The variance will enable the subject
property to have a building envelope comparable to other
properties in the area and proposes a special
circumstance in which the intensity of the site would be
reduced by the elimination of one dwelling unit.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the subject lot is
subject to special the circumstances in that the
intensity of the site will be reduced. The approval of
the variance will allow the applicant to have a building
envelope comparable to other nearby properties.
B.
Facts:
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.
other properties in the area have building mass
3
which are built to maximum floor area ratio.
Discussion: The approval of the variance would permit
the property owner to enjoy a building envelope
comparable to other properties in the area.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the approval of the
variance would not constitute a grant of special
privileges since approval of the variance would permit
the property owner to enjoy a building envelope
comparable to 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
by the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to
constitute 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 building
envelope
provides
no
JK/92055DRV.RES
(8-24-92)
4
additional area in which to construct additions.
Discussion: Since no usable building envelope exists,
there is no feasible alternate development plan.
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
area of the site for development.
2.
Facts: The site consists of inherent conditions in which
a building envelope with no additional space in which
construct additions.
Discussion: The inherent site conditions restrain the
property from making an addition of living space and
architectural features.
3.
Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance is not
self-induced since the variance request is induced by
inherent site conditions of a building envelope which is
developed in such a way that a variance is required to
accomplish the proposed additions.
Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance would
not constitute 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.
criteria for Desiqn Review to Exceed Height 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
buildings on neighboring properties.
mass
with
and
A.
Facts: The applicant has submitted a line-of-site
diagram which documents the relationship of the project
si te to the adj acent property to the east. Additionally,
the topography in the immediate vicinity of the project
site is amongst the steepest in the Cardiff area, with
the project site being significantly lower than all
nearby uphill properties which may have existing and
future views through the subject property.
5
Discussion: The requirement to preserve some of the
nearby significant views is achieved with the subject
application as evidenced by the line of site diagram and
by the fact that the steeply sloping topography places
the subject site at a significantly lower elevation than
surrounding properties.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed addition
will preserve some of the significant views in the
surrounding area, based upon the facts and discussion
above.
B.
Facts: The surrounding neighborhood is developed with
numerous structures of similar bulk and mass.
Discussion: The surrounding neighborhood is developed
with numerous structures of similar bulk and mass.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the proposed addition
of building mass above the standard height envelope will
result in a building which is consistent with the
surrounding area in bulk and mass.
JK/92055DRV.RES
(8-24-92)
6
ATTACHMENT nBn
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. CARD 92-15
Case No. 92-055DR/V
Applicant: John Kline
Case No: 92-055 DR/V
Subject: Design Review for addition to existing structure to
exceed the standard 22 ft. ft. height envelope and Variance to
allow encroachments into the required rear, street side and
interior side yard setbacks.
Location: 305 Norfolk Drive
1.
E.
F.
G.
H.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A.
This approval will expire on August 24, 1993, 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:
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.
7
I.
Prior to final inspection on framing, the applicant shall
provide a certification from a licensed engineer that the
height of the structure is in conformance with this
permit.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
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.
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.
The property owner shall cause to be recorded a covenant
requiring that one of the units currently existing in the
subject building be eliminated prior to final inspection
of the subject building permit.
The plan revision dated August 14, 1992, showing a
reduced stair tower and chimney shall be incorporated
into the building permit set of plans, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
In addition to complying with condition "D" above, the
subject stair tower, as depicted on the approved set of
plans, shall be reduced in width by 1 ft. 6 in, and shall
be reduced in height by 3 to 4 inches.
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.
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
JK/92055DRV.RES
(8-24-92)
8
all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery
fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the
District.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4.
Public Works
street Conditions
A.
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
B. The owner shall comply with all the rules, regulations and
design requirements of the respective utility agencies
regarding services to the project.
C. The owner shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G &E., Pacific Telephone, and applicable authorities.
D. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
E. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required.
b:92055v.res
9