1988-08
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
FOR TWO ZERO LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
FOR PROPERTY OF LOTS 31 AND 32, IN BLOCK 6 OF CARDIFF,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, MAP 1298, CITY OF ENCINITAS
(COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2473 SAN ELIJO AVENUE, ENCINITAS)
WHEREAS, G. Russell Buzza applied for a Design Review
permit for 2 zero lot line single family dwellings on two
lots as per City Council Ordinance 87-68 Cardiff Interim
Zoning Regulations,
and Chapter 23.08 Design Review, of the
City of Encinitas Zoning
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application
by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
on March
"
28, and Februry 8,
1988, and all persons desiring to be hearã
were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a.
site plan submitted by the applicant;
Written information submitted with the application;
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made
a part of the record at said public hearing;
CAB staff reports (87-154-DR) dated February 8, and
March 28, 1988, which is incorporated by this
reference as though fully setforth herein; and
Additional written documentation.
b.
c.
d.
e.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the
Design <¡ Review
permit
is
hereby
subject
approved
to
the
following
findings:
"
LN/ln/CABll-490wp
.
.
7.
s.
9.
10.
11.
.
1.
That the proposed proj ect is in conformance with
the intent of Section 23.0S.72 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through D;
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.0S.74 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through J;
2.
3.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.0S.76 of the Design Review
ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through G;
4.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.77 of the Design Review
ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through D;
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.79 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through F;
"
5.
.,;,
6.
The project design does preserve significant public
views to the extent possible, and offers mitigation
for lost views. Public views are defined as those
views provided from public property;
The project takes advantage of views and/or protects,
to the extent possible, some of the significant view
enjoyed by the residents of nearby properties;
That the projection out of the interim envelope does
not significantly impact the views of adjacent
properties, in that the proj ect takes advantage of
views while maintaining some of the significant views
enjoyed by residents of nearby properties;
That the proj ect is compatible in structural size
(bulk and mass) to adjacent properties and
neighborhood;
There is reasonable probability that the land use and
design proposed will be consistent with the General
Plan proposal being considered or studied;
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future adopted
General Plan if the proposed design is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan; and
LN/ln/CAB11-490wp
.
.
.
12~
The proposed design complies with all
applicable requirements of state law and
ordinances.
other
local
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the design review permit is
approved subject to the following conditions:
A.
The project is approved as submitted and shall not be
altered without Community Advisory Board review and
approval.
B.
Prior to the City Building Department issuing a final
inspection on framing, the applicant shall provide a
survey from a civil engineer as to the building
height.
A covenanct shall be recorded with the County
Recorders Office agreeing to plant and maintain the
planting in conformance with the approved landscape
plan at a height no greater than the height of the
building.
D. That roll up garage doors be required.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th Clay of March, 1988, by the
C.
x-
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Boardmembers Slater, Shannon, Winkler
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Hirsch
ABSTAIN:
None
I
I
, //I~ ~f
JO NE SHANNON, Chairman of the ~J.
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Communit¥ I
Advisory Board /
ATTEST:
LN/ln/CAB11-490wp
I
- _,