1994-09
RESOLUTION NO. C 94-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX BUILDING
IN THE R8 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1824 - 1826 SOMERSET AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 94-138 DR)
WHEREAS, a request for Design Review Permit was filed to allow
an addition to an existing duplex building in the R-8 Zone, in
accordance with Chapter 23.08 of the City of Encinitas Municipal
Code, for the property located at 1824 - 1826 Somerset Avenue,
legally described as:
North 15 feet of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Block 101 of
Cardiff Vista, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No. 1547,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, March 18, 1913.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
September 27, 1994, by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1.
The September 27, 1994, staff report to the Community
Advisory Board with attachments;
Application dated received August 26, 1994;
Plans consisting of two sheets, dated received by the
City August 26, 1994.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
Any written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
')
c. .
3 .
4.
5.
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following
findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 of the Encini tas Municipal
Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A ")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application
94-138 DR, subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of September, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crimmins,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Fullwood, Grossman, MacFall, Sarkozy
ATTEST:
~~~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
6
John MacFal1
Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. C 94-09
Case No. 94-138DR
Applicant: Harper / Barstad
Findings:
Conclusion
(Code section,
Factual Circumstances, Reasoning,
section 23.08.072 of the
applicable to Design Review:
Municipal
Code
provides
findings
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 applicable standards contained
in the General Plan. No specific plan applies to the project.
B. The project design is substantially consistent 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. The applicant proposes to add 822 sq. ft. of living
area the an existing duplex building in a single family (R-8)
zone.
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
project proposes an addition of living space in the front
portion of the building, visible from the street. Regarding
building design, the addition would continue the same roof
pi tch, building materials and colors. It is the Board's
determination that the addition would be consistent in design
wi th the existing building. As the building currently exists,
the garage structure stands out from the main building as the
primary visual element visible from the street. The addition
would aid in incorporating the garage into the whole building
and minimize its visual prominence, creating a more balanced
appearance between the residential use and the automobile-
oriented use. The Board finds that the project would
constitute an enhancement to the project site and the
surrounding area.
The Board finds that the project adequately provides for views
"from the site" since the project will continue to maintain
existing views from the site. And the Board finds that the
project adequately provides for views "through the site" since
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
7
the proposed addition would have an insignificant impact on
any existing views through the site.
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, as discussed above, the
addition would constitute an enhancement to the property.
3. Landscape Desiqn: The applicant proposes to maintain the
existing landscaping.
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 wel fare 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 existing
residential buildings, primarily single family dwellings.
Discussion: The proposed project consists of a duplex use in
a single family zone, and in what is a predominantly single
family neighborhood. The proposed addition would not add a
dwelling unit to the building, but would add living space to
one of the units.
Conclusion: The proposed project would not intensify the
nonconformity (i.e. duplex in single family residential zone),
and would constitute an enhancement to the neighboring area.
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
8
1.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. C 94-09
Case No. 94-138DR
Applicant: Harper / Barstad
A.
SPECIAL CONDITION
2.
One of the two external stairways shall be deleted from
the building permit set of plans, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Department, prior to issuance
of building permits.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
B.
This approval will expire on September 27, 1995, two
years from the date of approval, unless a building permit
has first been obtained, or an extension has been
approved by the Authorized Agency.
G.
H.
C.
This approval may be appealed to the authorized agent
within 15 days from the date of this approval.
D.
The project is approved as submitted/modified as
evidenced by the project plans dated received August 26,
1994, and consisting of two sheets.
E.
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.
F.
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 unless specified herein.
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 or findings of exemption shall be obtained from
the state Coastal Commission and any other applicable
Government agencies.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
3.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
9
J.
K.
1.
Prior to issuance of building permits, all conditions of
approval contained herein shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
All cost recovery fees associated with the processing of
this application shall be paid in full prior to issuance
of the building permit.
Minor modifications to this Design Review Permit, if
deemed to be in substantial conformance with the original
approval, may be approved, in writing, by the Director of
Communi ty Development. The Director may refer any
modification request to the CAB for their review/approval
in accordance with the Municipal Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PROTECTION DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
M.
N.
L.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
be to Fire District standards. 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
affixed to this monument.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the appl icant
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.
Smoke detectors shall be installed per Fire Department
requirements and shall be inspected by the Fire
Department.
JK/94138DR.SR
(9-27-94)
10