1989-26
RBSOLUTION NO. C-89-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS,
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE
REQUEST TO ALLOW A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX
AT 2567 AND 2569 MANCHESTER AVENUB
(CASE NUMBER: 89-238 DR/V)
WHEREAS, requests for consideration of a Design Review
Application and Zoning variance were filed by Mark McNaughton and
Wayne Holden to allow a remodel of an existing duplex structure per
Chapter 23.08 (Design Review) of the Municipal Code and a Variance
to permit the following encroachments:
(1) ~ 2 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback, and
(2) ~ 15 feet into the 20 foot rear yard setback, per Chapter
30.78 of the Zoning Ordinance; for property located at 2567
and 2569 Manchester Avenue and legally described as:
All of Lot 44 and that portion of Lots 42 and 43 in Block 3
of Cardiff, according to Map thereof no. 1298, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November
13,1910, lying Northerly of the Northerly line of Road Survey
No. 1132.
TOGETHER with that portion of the Northeasterly Half of
Newcastle Avenue lying adjacent Southwesterly of Lots 43 and
44, excepting that portion lying Southeasterly of a line that
is parallel with and 28.00 feet Northwesterly of the
centerline of San Elijo Avenue (40.00 feet wide) according to
Map thereof Road Survey No. 1132 filed in the Office of the
County Engineer of said County, as vacated and closed to
public use by Resolution of the Board of supervisors of San
Diego County, a certified Copy of which was recorded September
26, 1977 as File No. 77-393401 of Official Records.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
November 13 and December 11, 1989; and
CO/jm/CROS-430WPS 1(12-20-89/2)
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff reports dated November 9 and December 6, 1989;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing;
s. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea community Advisory Board made
the required findings pursuant to Chapters 23.08 (Design Review)
and 30.78 (Variance).
(See Attachment "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application
89-238 DR/V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) The project as submitted is approved and shall not be altered
without City approval. The Variance approval allows a ~ two
(2) foot encroachment into the 20 foot front yard setback and
a ~ fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the 20 foot rear yard
setback.
(2) Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall submit a
letter from the Fire Protection District stating that all plan
review fees have been paid.
(3) Applicant shall contact the Public Works Department regarding
compliance with the following conditions [(3) 1 throuqh 7]:
Drainaae Conditions:
1. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of
all surface water originating within the project, and all
surface waters that may flow onto the project from
adjacent lands, shall be required. said drainage system
shall include any easements and structures as required
by the City Engineer to properly handle the drainage.
2. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
CO/jm/CROS-430WPS 2(12-20-89/2)
street Conditions:
3. Developer shall execute and record a covenant with the
County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of
an assessment district to fund the installation of right-
of-way improvements. No Irrevocable Offer of Dedication
is required since the curve radius on San Elijo Avenue
does not comply to City standards. The IOD is waived
pursuant to Section 23.36.040 of the Municipal Code.
utilities:
4. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and des ign requirements of the respective
sewer and water agencies regarding services to the
project.
s. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G.& E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
6. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
7. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required
pursuant to Section 23.36.120 of the Municipal Code.
(4) Prior to issuance of building permits, a landscape plan which
substantially conforms to the landscaping identified in the
color elevation reviewed by the Board, shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Planning and Community Development
Department.
(5) The three lots of record shall be merged into a single parcel
through a certificate of Compliance procedure prior to
issuance of building permits. (If deemed applicable by the
Director of Planning and Community Development).
(6) A parking easement shall be granted to the adjoining property
to the northwest for the portion of parking area encroaching
onto the subject property. Said easement shall be recorded
prior to building permit issuance. In lieu of this
requirement, the two property owners may choose to eliminate
the encroachment to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Community Development. The easement, if
appropriate, shall contain language that the parking
encroachment has existed prior to the incorporation of the
City of Encinitas (October 1, 1986), thus is a nonconforming
situation.
CO/jm/CR05-430WPS 3(12-20-89/2)
(7) The applications are approved for a duplex (two unit)
structure only. Conversion of the use to additional living
units is strictly prohibited unless provided for by Municipal
Code and the City's development standards. A covenant shall
be recorded limiting the property to a duplex (two unit)
structure and providing for reasonable inspection by the
City's Code Enforcement Officer to verify compliance with the
limitation. said covenant shall be recorded prior to building
permit issuance.
(8) A proponent of protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
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 15301(e) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crosthwaite, McCabe, Barker, Orr
NAYS: None
ABSENT: MacManus
ABSTAIN: None ~ /k£-
Terrance BarKer, Chairperson of the
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Û+,Ct:> e. o-Q~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/jm/CROS-430WPS 4(12-20-89/2)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Cardiff-by-the-sea community Advisory Board
RBSOLUTION NO. C-89-026
CASE NO. 89-238 DR/V
I. Findings for Design Review
(section 23.08.076 Kunicipal 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: Having made findings to approve the variance
request, the Board has determined that the project is
consistent with the General Plan and development
provisions of the Municipal Code.
B. The project design is substantially consistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence: The site design proposes no new grading, and
the remodeled structure will not exceed the height
envelope of 26 feet. The project will not tend to
significantly impact views of the residents to the north
since the subject property is below the pad elevations
of their properties and future development may extend to
26 feet in height. The remodel will tend to provide
architectural variation beyond the current design. The
current mature landscaped areas are not proposed to be
disturbed.
C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
Evidence: The property has been developed as a duplex
for many years and no evidence exists to verify that the
use adversely affects the health, safety or general
welfare of the community.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence: The proposed remodel is found to be consistent
to the bulk and mass of surrounding development.
CO/jm/CROS-430WPS 5(12-20-89/2)
II. Findinqs ror Variance Approval
(section 30.78.030 Kunicipal Code)
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning regulations shall
be granted only when, because of the special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning regulations deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence: The irregular shape of the lot is due to its
location adjacent to the curved portion of San Elijo
Avenue. The property is at a lower pad elevation than
properties to the north. strict application of the
Zoning Code would deprive the property owner of a
feasible building envelope on the subject property
because front and rear setback lines come to wi thin 2
feet of each other over a majority of the property.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions
as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized
will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated.
Evidence: The Board finds that the property's longest
side being adjacent to the street is a unique situation.
The adjoining property to the north will be able to use
the common property line as its interior side yard, yet
it is the subject property's rear yard line. The
variance will not grant a special privilege or use since
the existing structure is a legal non-conforming duplex
and duplexes are permitted within the R-11 zoning
District. The project is conditioned to meet City
standards for residential development.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property
which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing
the parcel of property.
Evidence: The R-11 Zoning District permits duplex units.
The subject property is developed as a legal non-
conforming duplex since evidence is on file indicating
separate gas and electric meters as well as rental
receipts for each unit.
CO/jm/CROS-430WPS 6(12-20-89/2)
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy
the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
which would be of less significant impact to the
site and adjacent properties than the project
requiring a variance;
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by
the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: An alternate development plan is not feasible
since the property is currently developed and front and
rear yard setback requirements would limit the buildable
envelope to a fraction of the lot's gross size. The
variance is not self-induced since the owner was not
responsible for the curve radius of the San Elijo Avenue
right-of-way. The variance would not constitute a re-
zoning nor legalize a public or private nuisance.
cO/jm/CRO5-430WPS 7(12-20-89/2)