1988-47
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-047
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS,
---- APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE TO
ALLOW TWO ZERO LOT LINE DWELLINGS AND A 15 FOOT
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
(50 FEET FROM CENTERLINE) AT 2128 MONTGOMERY AVENUE
(CASE NO: 88-184-DR/V)
WHEREAS, requests for consideration of a Design Review
Application and Zoning Variance were filed by Brooks Morck to allow
two zero lot line dwellings and Encroachments into the front yard
setback, as per Chapter 23.08 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located at 2128
Montgomery, legally described as;
Lots 7 and 8 Block 59 of Cardiff "A" in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1334.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
\..- August 8, 1988 and November 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff reports dated August 1, and November 23, 1988;
2. The proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning
Code and maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; and
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearding; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the following findings pursuant to the 23.08, Ordinance 88-19, and
Section 30.78
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-By-The-Sea
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Design Review
"---
CO/04/CRO2-186wp51(12-09-88\2)
'Application and Variance are hereby approved subject to the
following conditions:
"'--~ (1) The project as submitted is approved and shall not be
altered without City approval.
(2) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Community Development Department.
(3) The height required for hedges or other dense landscaping
is the height to be attained within 3 years of planting.
(4) Drought tolerant landscaping shall be utilized.
(5) The property owner shall sign a covenant to prohibit the
landscaping from blocking views by maintaining heights
not to exceed 25 feet.
(6) Permittee to pave the 15' alley adjacent to the subject
property to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
(7) An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made for 10'
along Montgomery Avenue adjacent to the property for road
purposes. Montgomery is classified as a local street
requiring a 60' right-of-way or 30' from centerline.
(8) 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-By-The-Sea Community
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
(1) This project was found to be exempt from environmental
review, Section 15303(a) of CEQA.
'.
'-
CO/04/CRO2-186wp52(12-09-88\2)
"'-- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of November, 1988, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Barker, Crosthwaite, Shannon
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Orr, Slater
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
~& e... c1J~
Assistant Planner
Craig R. Olson
'-
~
CO/04/CRO2-186wp53(12-09-88\2)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-047
CASE NO. 88-184-DR/V
'--
Findings For Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Reaulatorv Conclusions - Generally.
A. The project design is consistent with the General
Plan, a Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
EvideDo8 to Consider:
The project conforms to existing General Plan and Zoning Code
Requirements for the subject site since it conforms to the
density (10.9 Du/Ac), 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.
EvideDce to Consider:
The project does not intensify the existing use of the subject
location since two single family dwellings are proposed.
D. The project would not tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Evidenoe to Consider:
The project will add 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/04/CRO2-186wp54(12-09-88\2)
, .
ATTACHHENT "A" CONTINUED
ORDINANCB NO. 87-80
INTERIM REGULATIONS
---
FINDINGS
The followinq findinqs are required to be made by the authorized
aqency in order to allow development to extend beyond the interim
requlations for heiqht and setbacks not to exceed existing zoning
requlations.
A. The projection out of the interim envelope does not
siqnificantly impact the views of adjacent properties, in that
the project takes advantage of views while maintaining some
of the siqnificant views enj oyed by residents of nearby
properties as indicated in the "line of siqht" study submitted
with the application and on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Development.
B. The project is compatible in structural size (bulk and mass)
to adjacent properties and neighborhood.
c. There is reasonable probability that the land use and design
proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal
beinq 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 will conform with existing zoninq requirements for
heiqht, circulation, setback and lot coverage.
E. The proposed design complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances since the
proj ect meets ordinance requirements, zoning standards, design
standards, and is exempt from CEQA requirements.
'-
CO/04/CRO2-186wp5 6(12-09-88\2)
. '
. , . .
'.
,. ATTACHMENT "A" CONTINUED
ORDINANCE SECTION NO. 30.78
Findinas for Variance
'--
1. The Variance allows the property owner privileges lawfully
enjoyed by a substantial number of other property owners in the
vicinity and under the same zoning district in that the
encroachment into the front setbacks meets the 35 foot from
centerline common to other properties in the area.
2. The applicant's property is physically special and unique
in contrast with other lots in the same vicinity since it is
located in an unusual 2 1/2 block area that requires a 50 foot from
centerline setback.
3. The privilege sought by the applicant is not inconsistent
with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity, and is
being enjoyed by owners of property in the vicinity, since other
single family dwellings, apartments and duplexes in the same
vicinity have been developed to the 35' from centerline setback.
4. The granting of this Variance would not authorize a use
that is not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations, since
single family dwelling units are allowed in the zone.
5. The granting of this Variance would not grant a privilege
not enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, since other
properties are presently built at the 35' from centerline setback,
and the City is recommending a change to the zoning code to allow
'--- a special centerline "J*" setback designator for this 2 1/2 block
area.
' ,--
CO/O4/CRO2-186wp57(12-09-88\2)