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