Loading...
1990-04 RESOLUTION NO. C-90-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COKHtJHITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS, APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-ZERO LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2121 AND 2123 MONTGOMERY AVENUE (CASE HtJKBER: 89-275 DR/V) WHEREAS, requests for consideration of a Design Review Application and Zoning Variance were filed by William McKenna to allow the construction of a twin home structure per Chapter 23.08 (Design Review) of the Municipal Code and a Variance (per Chapter 30.78) to permit the following encroachments: (1) Exceed maximum lot coverage of 900 sq. ft. by 80 sq. ft.; (2) On grade steps encroach 1 ft. 8 in. into required side yard setback; For property located at 2121 and 2123 Montgomery Avenue and legally described as: Lots 43 and 44 in Block 58 of CARDIFF "A", in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of California, according to Map thereof No. 1334, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 12, 1911. WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on January 8, and February 26, 1990; and WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without limitation; 1. The staff reports dated January 3, and February 21, 1990; 2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use Maps; CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 1(3-7-90/1) 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings; 4. Written evidence submitted at the hearings; 5. 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 89-275 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 lot coverage to be exceeded by 80 sq. ft., and on grade steps to encroach 1 ft. 8 in. into side yard setbacks. (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. Units shall be fully fire sprinklered and plans for such system shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. (3) Applicant shall contact the Public Works Department regarding compliance with the following conditions [(3) a through m]: Gradina Conditions a. The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the commencement of any clearing or grading of the site. b. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. c. A soilslgeologicallhydraulic report (as applicable) shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work at first submittal of a grading plan. CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 2(3-7-90/1) d. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any proposed construction site within this project the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the ci ty Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regard to the hauling operation. Drainaae Conditions: e. 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. f. Concentrated flows across driveways andlor sidewalks shall not be permitted. Street Conditions: g. An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I. O. D.) shall be made for ten feet along Montgomery adjacent to the property for public right-of-way purposes. h. Prior to any work being performed in the public right- of-way, a right-of-way construction permit shall be obtained from the Public Works office and appropriate fees paid, in addition to any other permits required. i. 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. utilities: j. The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. k. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and undergrounding of existing public utili ties, as required. SDecific Conditions: I. Applicant shall submit an engineered plan showing the proposed drainage system from the alley to Montgomery street. CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 3(3-7-90/1) m. Applicant shall patch the alley adjacent to the subject property to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (4) Landscaping and automated irrigation systems shall be installed and shall conform to the plans reviewed and approved by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board. A covenant shall limit landscape height to the approved structural height to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development. Three of the five Eucalyptus trees (i.e.: most northerly trees) may be removed to increase view opportunities for properties to the east. (5) A licensed surveyor shall verify the height of the structure at the time of framing inspection to certify that the height does not exceed the height measurements specified on the approved plans. (6) The developer shall pay Traffic Mitigation and Drainage Fees at the established rate at the date of final inspection. (7) This permit shall expire and become null and void after two (2) years of the effective date if building permits have not been issued for the approved project in accordance with Section 23.08.160 of the Municipal Code. (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: This project was found to be exempt from environmental review, Section 15303(a) of CEQA. CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 4(3-7-90/1) PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Orr, Crosthwaite, McCabe, Barker NAYS: MacManus ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None of the ATTEST: ~tbg. 0-9~ - Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 5(3-7-90/1) ATTACHMENT "A" Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board RESOLUTION NO. C-90-004 CASE NO. 89-275 DR/V I. Findings for Design Review (Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code) 23.08.072 Recrulatorv 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 project will not tend to significantly impact views of the residents to the east since the subject property is below the pad elevations of their properties and future development may extend to 26 feet in height. The structures will tend to provide architectural variation beyond the current design. Some current mature trees are proposed to be trimmed and retained. C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Evidence: The property has been developed as residential use 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 structures are found to be consistent to the bulk and mass of surrounding development. II. Findings for Variance Approval (Section 30.78.030 Municipal Code) A. A variance from the terms of the zoning regulations shall be granted only when, because of the special CO/dc/CR07-486WP56(3-7-90/1) 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 proposed structures conform to bulk and mass and setbacks of existing property in the area. The strict application of the zoning regulations would not allow the land owner to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. 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 proj ect is condi tioned 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 2-zero lot line developments. 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 consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or CO/dc/CR07-486wp57(3-7-90/1) 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance. Evidence: The development plan proposed will not significantly impact adjacent properties and will permit the property owner to enjoy privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The degree of variance does not constitute a re-zoning nor legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance. CO/dc/CR07-486wp5 8(3-7-90/1)