1988-33
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS,
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW
TWO ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS
LOCATED AT 2136-24 GLASGOW AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 88-094-DR)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review
Application was filed by Jerry Peters to allow two zero lot line
dwellings, as per Chapter 23.08 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located at 2136 and 2140
Glasgow Avenue, legally described as;
Lots 9 and 10, Block 41 of Cardiff "A" in the City of
Encinitas, according to the Map thereof No. 1334 filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; May 12,
1911.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
September 26, 1988; and all persons desiring to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The staff report dated September 21, 1988;
2. The proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning
Code and maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant;
and
CO/02/CAB9-979WP 5(10-11-88-2)
6. Environmental consideration per CEQA.
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the following findings pursuant to Section 23.08 of the Zoning Code
(see Attachment "A").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Design
Review Application is hereby approved subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The project as submitted is approved and shall not be altered
without City approval.
(2) Landscaping and an automated irrigation system shall be
provided per the landscape plan submitted and approved. The
property owner shall sign and record a covenant to prohibit
landscaping from blocking views.
(3) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication shall be made for 10 feet
along Glasglow Avenue adjacent to the property for road
purposes. Glasglow is classified as a local street requiring
a 60 foot right-of-way or 30 feet from centerline.
(4) The property owner shall execute and record a covenant for the
benefit of the City with the County Recorder agreeing not to
oppose the formation of an assessment district to fund the
installation of right-of-way improvements.
(5) The design is approved in accordance with "Alternative 1" as
reviewed by the Board and on file with the Planning
Department. A wall or fence shall be constructed along the
southern property line to screen the entry from view. Said
wall/fence shall be approved by the Planning Department staff
prior to its construction.
(6) Other standard requirements for engineering and fire code
approval shall be satisfied by the project developer.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
CO/02/CAB9-979WP 6(10-11-88-2)
(1) This project was found to be exempt from environmental
review, Section 15303; Class 3(a) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of ~ 1988, by
the following, to wit:
AYES: Crosthwaite, Orr, Slater
NAYS: Barker
ABSENT: Shannon
ABSTAIN: None
?~~-
Pamela Slater, Vice-Chairperson
of the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~Ic.. ~ . cP~
Assistant Planner
Craig R. Olson
CO/02/CAB9-979WP 7(10-11-88-2)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-033
CASE NO. 88-094-DR
Findings For Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Requlatory Conclusions - GenerallY.
A. The project design is consistent with the General
Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
Evidence to Consider:
The project conforms to existing General Plan and Zoning
Code Requirements for the subject site it conforms to the
density (10.9 Du/Ac) and zoning setback, parking and
height requirements.
B. The project design is substantially consistent with
the Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence to Consider:
The project conforms with architectural, landscape, and
circulation specified in the guidelines for Design
Review.
C. The project would not adversely affect the health,
safety or general welfare of the community.
Evidence to Consider:
The project does not intensify the existing use of the
subject location since two single family dwellings are
proposed as permitted by the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance currently in effect.
D. The project would not tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Evidence to Consider:
The project provides architectural variation to the
front, sides, and rear elevations of the structure; and
is compatible in structural size to adjacent properties
and the neighborhood.
CO/02/CAB9-979WP 8(10-11-88-2)