Loading...
1992-17 RESOLUTION NO. C 92-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO EXCEED THE FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT TO .76 AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING TWIN-HOME TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT ENVELOPE TO 30FT. FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING THIRD STORY IN THE R-11 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2576 HONTGOHERY AVENUE (CASE NUMBER 92-156DR/V; STEVEN' SALLY ANGUS) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed by Steven and Sally Angus to allow building encroachments into the required 20 ft. front yard setback for architectural additions to existing structures to the front property line, and to allow the floor area ratio limit of .5 to be exceeded to .76 (for the subject northerly unit), per Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code (variances), and Design Review request to allow remodeling of the subject twin-home to exceed the standard height limit to a maximum of 30 ft. with additions to an existing second and third story, and authori ty to exceed the standard height envelope with a third story story addition per section 30.16.010b- 7b (Design Review) for the property located at 2576 Montgomery Avenue, and legally described as: Lots 20 and 21, Block 2, 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 hearing was conducted on the application on September 21, 1992; WHEREAS, considered: the Cardiff-By-The-Sea Community Advisory Board 1. 2. The staff report dated September 14, 1992; The application and Statement of Justification and project plans submitted by the applicant received August 17, 1992; Oral evidence submitted at the hearing: Written evidence submitted at the hearing; 3. 4. 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") 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-156DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") 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 21st day of September, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None {), IJ. ~y Bruce Hall Chairman of the Cardiff Community Advisory Board ATTEST: Jim~e(~ Junl.or Planner JK/92156DR/V.RES (9-14-92) 2 ATTACHMENT "A" FINDINGS Resolution No. CARD 92-17 Case No. 92-156DR/V Applicant: Angus Case No: 92-l56DR/V subject: Design Review for addition to twin home to exceed the standard height envelope with addition to existing third story, and Variance to allow encroachment into the required front yard setbacks, and to allow floor area ratio limit of .5 to be exceeded to .76. Location: Findings for variance: 2576 Montgomery Avenue 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 subject property slopes steeply down away from the street. This condition has caused the existing building to be oriented toward the front of the property, with existing structures in the front yard setback. Regarding the request to exceed the lot coverage limit, other properties in the area enjoy a similar building envelope as that requested with the variance, particularly southerly "unit B" which is attached as part of the same building. Discussion: The variance would enable the applicant to construct architectural additions to existing building in the front yard area of the property. The variance would also enable the subj ect property to have a building envelope comparable to other properties in the area, and most particularly, to have a building envelope comparable with the attached unit "B". Conclusion: The Board finds that the project site is subject to special circumstances in that the subject unit does not enjoy a floor area comparable with surrounding properties, and that site topography constitutes a special restraint, warranting the proposed additions into the front yard setback. 3 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: Other properties in the area have building mass and floor area equal to or greater than that of the subj ect unit. The proposal to construct additions in the front setback area are architectural in nature and do not consti tute a building expansion. The existing non- conforming elements of the building are so located per the above discussion. Discussion: The approval of the variance would permit the property owner to enjoy a building envelope and floor area 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 and floor area comparable to other properties in the area. The additions in the front yard area are architectural in nature and do not constitute a grant of special privileges. 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: JK/92156DR/V.RES (9-14-92) 4 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 architectural additions located in the front yard setback would be ~ocated on existing structure. The request to add floor area has no alternate development plan which would allow the applicant the same development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and under the same zoning classification. Discussion: The architectural additions proposed in the front yard area would modify existing structure and not be an expansion of living space. The request to add floor area has no alternate development plan, which would allow the applicant the same development privileges enj oyed by other properties in the same vicini ty and under the same zoning classification. 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 the inherent conditions of restrictive topography and an unbalanced floor plan between the north and south units i.e. the subject north unit has smaller floor area. Discussion: The inherent site conditions restrain the property from making an addition of living space and architectural features. Many other structures in the area appear to have equal or larger floor areas than that being requested by the applicant. 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. 5 3. 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. 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, other than that for which variance is sought. Conclusion: The proposed remodel and addition are consistent with the Municipal Code and the General Plan, as qualified above. 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 Guideline 1.4, the Board finds that the project adequately provides for views lito the site" in that the front (east) elevation is the elevation given the most attention by the applicant in the subject remodel/improvement attempt. The Board finds that the project adequately provides for views "from the site" since the upstairs units have view windows and decks. And the Board finds that the project adequately provides for views "through the site" since the building plans propose an addition (to exceed standard height envelope) which will produce a minimal view obstruction to neighboring 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 JK/92156DR/V.RES (9-14-92) 6 create a design in which the architectural elements are consistent and harmonious, especially when compared with the existing building conditions. 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 applicant's proposal to retain existing landscape conditions is acceptable. 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 proj ect would not cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. Facts: The surrounding neighborhood consists of residential uses, and generally may be considered to be in good condition. The proposal is to construct addi tions of floor area and archi tectural elements in an effort to improve the visual quality of the existing structure. Conclusion: The proposed project would constitute enhancement to the subject site and neighboring area. an criteria for Design Review to Exceed Heiqht Envelope and Add Livinq Space to an Existinq Third story: 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. and mass with 7 Discussion: The applicant has submitted a line-of-site diagram which documents the relationship of the project site to the adjacent property to the east. Additionally, the topography in the immediate 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. The requirement to preserve some of the nearby significant views would be achieved, as evidenceq by the line of site diagram (per approved plans dated 8-17-92) and particularly since the proposal is to add building mass in a portion of the building in such a way that the addition would essentially "fill in" a corner of the building, and would not project above the level of the existing building. Additionally, the surrounding neighborhood is developed with numerous structures of similar bulk and mass'. Discussion of findings for variance to exceed Floor Area Ratio limits is found above under Findinqs for Variance. Conclusion: The Board therefore finds that the proposed addition will preserve some of the significant views in the surrounding area, and finds that the proposed addi tion 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/92156DR/V.RES (9-14-92) 8 ATTACHMENT liB" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Resolution No. CARD 92-17 Case No. 92-156DR/V Applicant: Angus Case No: 92-156DR/V Subject: Design Review for addition to twin home to exceed the standard height envelope with addition to existing third story, and Variance to allow encroachment into the required front yard setbacks, and to allow floor area ratio limit of .5 to be exceeded to . 7 6 . Location: 1. A. GENERAL CONDITIONS 2576 Montgomery Avenue B. c. D. E. F. G. H. . 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 authorized agent within 15 days from the date of this approval. The project is approved as submitted and shall not be altered without review and approval by the authorized agency. 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 9 Development. 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 COHPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2. 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. 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. B. C. This approval shall be contingent upon the final adoption by the City Council of 92-080 ZOA (Zoning Amendment) which authorizes additions to existing third story addi tions, as proposed. Should this amendment fail to be adopted, the application shall be declared IIno projectll and this approval null and void. 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 all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the District. JK/92156DR/V.RES (9-14-92) 10 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. 11