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)