1988-21
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
C-88-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR PROPERTY OF LOTS 37 AND 38,
BLOCK 14, MAP 1298, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
CITY OF ENCINITAS 2341 AND 2343 MONTGOMERY AVENUE
88-015-DESIGN REVIEW
WHEREAS,
L & Y
Interests applied for a Design Review
permit
for two zero lot line single family dwellings on two
lots
Chapter 23.08
Design Review,
as per
of the City of
Encinitas Zoning
Ordinance;
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application
by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
on April
11,
and June 2 ,
1988,
and all persons desiring to be heard
were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a.
site plan submitted by the applicant and dated May 3,
1988;
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 (88-015-DR) dated April 6, and May
18, 1988, which are on file in the Department of
Planning and Community Development; 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 for two zero lot line 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
LN/ln/CABll-603wp
.
.
6.
7.
.
Ordinance, since the project is consistent with the
proposed General Plan in that one single family home
is allowed on one lot in the RV-11 zone;
2.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.74 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project is designed to take
advantage of the site constraints, preserves
significant views since the structures are proposed
to be within the interim development envelope except
for architectural projections, and is proposing
adequate on-site parking in the proposed two car
garages;
3.
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 the
bulk and scale of the neighborhood in that the two
structures are one story off the alley side of the
project and two stories on the street side as are
several other structures in the neighborhood;
4.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.77 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the landscape design will reach a
mature stage in three years so as to provide
softening of the elevations of the structure, and
will blend in with the design aspects of the
structure providing an aesthetically pleasing
streetscape;
5.
That the proposed project is in conformance with the
intent of Section 23.08.79 of the Design Review
Ordinance, since the project design takes into
consideration the privacy of the occupants of the
proposed units and adjacent property units to the
extent possible by off-setting the entryways from
each other and from the neighboring properties and by
providing adequate planting to act as screening;.
The proj ect design does preserve significant public
views to the extent possible, and offers mitigation
for lost views by providing a structure that is
wi thin the interim development height and setback
envelope. 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, since
the project has been designed to have view windows
directed to the westerly view and the proj ect has
LN/ln/CABll-603wp
.
.
.
11.
12.
been designed within the interim height and setback
envelope;
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, since the
only portions of the proj ect outside the interim
envelope are architectural projections;
9.
That the proj ect is compatible in structural size
(bulk and mass) to adjacent properties and
neighborhood, since there are several two story
structures in the neighborhood of similar size and
bulk;
10.
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
land use is not proposed to be changed;
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 neighborhood is
built at a higher density than the proposed General
Plan Land Use at this time; and
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 with the following conditions:
A.
B.
C.
The project is approved as submitted and shall not be
altered without Community Advisory Board review and
approval.
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 covenant shall be recorded in the County Recorder's
office agreeing to plant and maintain the landscaping
approved on the landscape plan, requiring that all
trees be maintained at a height not to exceed the
building height directly adjacent to the subject
tree.
LN/ln/CABll-603wp
.
.
.
D.
That a construction plan be submitted for review and
approval by the Department of Planning and Community
Development addressing that the alley access be
maintained and kept clear throughout construction;
that construction related noise be monitored during
the construction process; and that the construction
be accomplised in a manner keeping in mind the
health, safety and welfare of the neighboring
properties and the community.
E.
That alley improvements be required per standard
conditions as deemed necessary upon evaluation by the
City Engineer. Should the applicant object to those
improvements, those objections would be referred to
the Community Advisory Board for determination.
F.
That the applicant not oppose participation in an
assessment district for future right-of-way
improvements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED
this 2nd day of June, 1988 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Boardmembers Slater, Barker, Shannon and Winkler
None
Boardmember Hirsch
None
ANN SHANNON, Chairman of the
rdiff-by-the-Sea
ommunity Advisory Board
ATTEST:ð ~ 5, ~
~s, /
Assistant Planner
LN/ln/CABll-603wp