1988-43
RESOLUTION C-88-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF ENCINITAS, APPROVING
A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION TO ALLOW
2 ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS
LOCATED AT 2454 MANCHESTER
(CASE NUMBER 88-211/DR)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review
Application was filed by Robert McMichael to allow 2 zero lot
line units as per Chapter 23.08 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal/Zoning Codes, and Ordinance 88-19 for the property
located at 2454 Manchester, legally described as;
Lots 13 and 14 of Block 8 of Cardiff Tract No. 1298
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application
on August 22, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board/Planning Commission
considered:
1. The staff report (88-211-DR) dated August 12, 1988
2. The application and maps submitted by the applicant;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
made the following findings pursuant to the Municipal Code
23.08 and Ordinance 88-19.
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
CO/05/CRO3-115WP 1(11-21-88)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the
Design Review Application 88-211-DR is hereby approved subject
to the following conditions:
( 1) The project as revised dated August 22, 1988 on file
in the Department of Planning and Community
Development is approved and shall not be altered
without City approval.
(2) The height required for hedges or other dense
landscaping is the height to be attained within 3
years of planting. A revised landscaping plan, using
drought tolerant plant material from the City's
Master Plant List, shall be submitted to, and
approved by the Community Development Department
Planning Staff prior to final inspection approval.
( 3 ) The property owner shall sign and record a covenant
agree ing to maintain the height of the landscaping
not to exceed the building height approved.
(4) Permittee to sign and record covenant agreeing not to
protest any proceedings for the installation or
acquisition of public improvements under any
applicable special assessment proceedings.
(5) That the plans be modified as requested by the
applicant to include a roof deck and pipe railing
with the changes to be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Planning and Community Development
staff. Revised elevations incorporating the roof
deck and pipe rail shall be submitted to and approved
prior to issuance of building permits.
(6) The garages are approved to be setback from the side
lot lines a distance of 5'.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
( 1) This project was found to be exempt from
environmental review, section 15303;
CO/O5/CRO3-115WP 2(11-21-88)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 1988, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Boardmembers Barker, Orr, Slatter, and Shannon
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Boardmember Crosthwaite
ABSTAIN: None
Jio Ann Shannon, Chairperson
the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
mmunity Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~~~
Assistant Planner
CO/05/CRO3-115WP 3(11-21-88)
ATTACHMENT "A"
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-043
CASE NO. 88-211/DR
Findings For Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Regulatory 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 proposed design (two zero lot line units) is consistent
with the General Plan. Each unit is located on a separate
legal lot of 25' in width.
B. The project design is not substantially inconsistent
with the Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence to Consider:
The project varies in front and rear yard setbacks which varies
the design of the units. A pitch roof is provided. The garage
is located 4 to 7 feet below grade minimizing the overall
height.
C. The project would not adversely affect the health,
safety or general welfare of the community.
Evidence to Consider:
The project meets the interim setbacks with the exception of
the subterranean garages proposed with a 5 foot setback.
D. The project would not tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Evidence to Consider:
A large percentage of the residential units on Manchester
includes twin homes. The easterly units views are blocked by
existing units while the proposed units are lower in elevation
than the westerly (existing) units.
E. That the projection out of the interim envelope does
CO/O5/CRO3-115WP 4(11-21-88)
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.
Evidence to Consider:
The project elevation is at a height to impact views of
easterly dwellings, however, the twin home west of the subject
site is at a higher elevation than the proposed project. As
such, views are already impacted and approval of this project
would not create a greater impact.
F. That the project is compatible in structural size
(bulk and mass) to adjacent properties and neighborhood.
Evidence to Consider:
The project consists of 2 zero lot line units at a height of
24' as measured from the east side of the structure. The
neighborhood on Manchester south of Dublin is developed with
similar type projects.
G. There is reasonable probability that the land use and
design proposed will be consistent with the General Plan
proposal being considered or studied.
Evidence to Consider:
The proposed General Plan is Residential 8-11 units per acre.
since the project consists of two single family units on
separate lots, no change is anticipated.
H. 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.
Evidence to Consider:
Several twin homes have been built within the area on
Manchester south of Dublin. As such, it is doubtful that this
twin home will interfere with the anticipated General Plan.
I. The proposed design complies with all other
applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Evidence to Consider:
The project complies with all setbacks and height regulations,
and other requirements as conditional.
CO/O5/CRO3-115WP 5(11-21-88)