1992-16
,
RESOLUTION NO. C-92-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF ENCINITAS APPROVING
A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR
THE REMODEL OF A DUPLEX STRUCTURE
TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE
IN THE R-11 ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2166 OXFORD AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 92-129DR)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit
and was filed by Architura to permit the remodel of a duplex
structure to exceed the heiqht envelope in the R-11 Zone, for
property located at 2166 Oxford Avenue, legally described as;
Lots 17 and 18, Block 28 of CARDIFF, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No.1298,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego
County, November 14, 1910.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
August 24 and September 21, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
considered, without limitation:
Community Advisory
Board
1.
The staff reports dated August 18 and September 14,1992:
2.
The General Plan, Municipal 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 July 9, 1992 and
written evidence received at the public hearings; and
5.
A second set of building plans and statement of
justification for authority to exceed the standard height
envelope dated received 9-10-92.
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the following findings pursuant to Chapter 23.08.072 (Design
Review), and discussed the following criteria pursuant to Section
30.16.010B(7) (authority to exceed the standard height envelope) 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
92-129 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 15301(e) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
C:J ;1. 'f'-b/(
Bruce Hail
vice Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Ji~n~:::1
Junior Planner
92129DR.RES
(9-15-92)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Findings for Design Review
Resolution No. C-92-16
Case No. 92-129 DR
Applicant: Architura/Elmore
Case No: 92-129 V
Subject: Design Review for the remodeling of an
structure to exceed the standard height envelope.
Location: 2166 Oxford Avenue
existing duplex
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.
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 design: with regard to Design Guidelines
1.1 1.11, the Board finds that the proposed project
adequately addresses these required elements. Specifically,
regarding Guidel ine 1. 4 , the Board finds that the proj ect
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 project proposes a structure
which preserves to the extent possible significant views from
nearby properties.
2. Building design: 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
92129DR.RES
(9-15-92)
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 existing landscaping
proposed to remain is in substantial conformance with these
guidelines.
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 15301 (e) 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 multie-family structures, and generally may be
considered to be in good condition.
Discussion: The proposed project is to remodel the interior
and exterior of an existing duplex structure. The project is
to create a more visually interesting site with the addition
of creative and architecturally pleasing design elements.
Conclusion: The proposed project
enhancement to the neighboring area.
would
constitute
an
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.
92129DR.RES
(9-15-92)
92129DR.RES
B.
The building is compatible in bulk
buildings on neighboring properties.
with
and
mass
A.
Facts: The applicant has submitted a line-of-sight
diagram which documents the relationship of the project
si te to the adj acent property to the east. Additionally,
the topography in the vicinity of the project site is
significantly steep, with the project site being
significantly lower than nearby uphill properties which
may have existing and future views through the subject
property.
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. The barrel vaulted skylights,
being relatively small in mass, with rounded edges, will
tend to have small impact on any existing views through
the site.
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, with
the structure to the south of the project site being
significantly taller.
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.
(9-15-92)
Applicant:
Case No:
Subject:
structure
Location:
ATTACHMENT nB"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. C-92-16
Case No. 92-029 DR
Architura/Elmore
92-129 DR
Design Review for the remodeling of an
to exceed the standard height envelope.
2166 Oxford Avenue
existing duplex
A.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
B.
This approval will expire on september 21, 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 September 10, 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.
Prior to final framing inspection of the building permit,
building height shall be verified to conform with this
approval by a registered surveyor or engineer.
SPECIAL CONDITION
92129DR.RES
The skylight feature of the project shall be modified
such that the north-south elements of the skylight are
(9-15-92)
C.
FIRE
(1)
(2)
eliminated, leaving the east-west skylight element as
presently located on the approved plans.
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: Plan review at building
permit application shall determine whether the structure
shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Any sprinkler systems shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Fire District.
D.
city Engineer:
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
92129DR.RES
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.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G & E, Pacific Telephone, and othe applicable
authorities.
(9-15-92)