Loading...
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