1988-19
8
8
8
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY OF LOTS 27 AND
28, BLOCK 7, MAP 1298, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CITY OF ENCINITAS
2489 NEWPORT AVENUE 88-004/DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE
WHEREAS, Rodney Miles, applied for a Design Review permit
for two single family dwellings on two 25' wide lots as per
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 April 25, 1988, and all persons desiring to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a.
b.
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 report (88-004-DR) dated March 22 and April
18, 1988, which is incorporated by this reference as
though fully setforth herein; and
Additional written documentation.
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 for two single family dwelling units
on
two lots is hereby approved subject to the following findings:
1.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.72 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through D;
LN/06/CR03-31wp (4/19/88-1)
2.
8
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of section 23.08.74 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through J:
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of section 23.08.76 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with
subsections A through G;
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;
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;
8.
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;
9.
10.
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
11.
12.
The proposed design complies with all
applicable requirements of state law and
ordinances.
other
local
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the variance for
8
LN/06/CR03-31wp (4/19/88-1)
a sinqle story garaqe to encroach 1 foot and 3 feet into the
required 5 foot side yard setbacks for the two sinqle-family
8
dwellinq units on two 25' wide lots is hereby approved subject
to the followinq findinqs;
A.
8
8
A Variance from the terms of the zoninq ordinances
shall be qranted only when, because of the special
circumstances applicable to the property, includinq
size, shape, topoqraphy, location or surroundinqs,
the strict application of the zoning ordinance
deprives such property of privileqes enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zoninq
classification since the applicant maintains that the
requested variance would enable the property to be
developed in accordance with the privilege that other
properties in the same vicinity enjoy. His property
is located in the Cardiff 25' lot area and several
properties in the vicinity have been developed with
twin homes. Encroachments are necessary to allow an
adequate size 2 car garage.
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
privileqes inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
such property is situated since other properties in
the vicinity have structures that have been developed
as twin homes which are allowed to be constructed
with 0' interior side yard setbacks (zero lot line
dwelling) . The ordinance seems to be grantinq a
special privileqe to zero lot line dwellings that is
not allowed for sinqle detached homes, al thouqh the
community has expressed a concern with the fact that
zero lot line dwellinqs are replacinq sinqle family
detached homes. It appears that the standards in
the zoninq ordinance are making it more equitable to
construct zero lot line dwellings on the 25' wide
lots in Cardiff rather than single family detached
homes.
C.
The privileqe souqht by the applicant is consistent
with the limitation upon other properties in the
vicinity, and is being enjoyed by owners of property
with zero lot line dwellings in the vicinity, since
other sinqle family zero lot line dwellinqs are
allowed with 0' interior side yard setbacks.
A Variance will not be qranted for a parcel of
property which authorizes a use or activity which is
not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoninq
regulation qoverning the parcel of property. The
LN/06/CR03-31wp (4/19/88-1)
8
D.
provisions of this section
conditional use permits.
apply
to
shall
not
The use of tbe property is proposed to be single
family dwelling units which is allowed in the zone.
No Variance shall be granted if the inability to
enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1.
Could be avoided by an al ternate development
plan;
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; or
4.
Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any private or public nuisance.
Evidence to consider: No other development plan would
accommodate the construction of the required 19' wide two
car garages; the size of the lot is common in the area and
was not self-induced; the variance request would not
constitute a rezoning or amendment to the zoning code;
would not authorize a public nuisance.
8
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED,
that the Design Review Permit is
approved with the following conditions:
A.
8
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.
C.
Applicant sháll enter into a covenant to ensure that
landscaping shall be maintained in such a way so
views are not blocked.
D.
The liquid amber tree shall be replaced with a lower
tree in order to maintain views to the Community
Development Department's satisfaction.
LN/06/CR03-31wp (4/19/88-1)
8
8
8
E.
Project to incorporate textured walkways to
Community Development Department's satisfaction.
the
PASSED AND ADOPTED
this 25th day of April, 1988 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Boardmembers Slater, Hirsch, Shannon, Winkler
None
None
None
of the
LINDA S. NILES,
Assistant Planner
LN/06/CR03-31wp (4/19/88-1)
. . . .
.
.
.
ATTACBKENT "A" CONTINUED
ORDINANCE NO. 88-19
INTERIM REGULATIONS
FINDINGS
The following findings are required to be made by the authorized
agency in order to allow development to extend beyond the interim
regulations for height and setbacks not to exceed existing zoning
regulations.
A.
The projection out of the interim envelope does not
significantly impact the views of adjacent properties, in that
the project takes advantage of views while maintaining some
of the significant views enjoyed by residents of nearby
properties as indicated in the "line of site" study submitted
with the application.
The project is compatible in structural size (bulk and mass)
to adjacent properties and neighborhood.
B.
C.
There is reasonable probability that the land use and design
proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal
being considered or studied since the proposed General Plan
density permits the proposed use.
D.
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 since
the project conforms with existing zoning requirements for
height, circulation, setback, etc.
E.
The proposed design complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances since the
project is exempt under CEQA (Sec. 15303, Class 3(a) and
conforms with existing General Plan and Zoning requirements.
CO/02/CAB10-980wp 8(10-11-88-1)