1990-19
RESOLUTION NO. C-90-019
A RESOLUTION OF THB CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS,
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AND VARIANCE
REQUEST TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE WESTERLY DUPLEX UNIT AT
1761 HAYDN DRIVE
(CASB HtJKBER: 90-112 DR/V)
WHEREAS, requests for consideration of a Design Review
Application and Zoning Variance were filed by Stephan Schuette to
allow the reconstruction of one unit of a duplex structure per
Chapter 23.08 (Design Review) of the Municipal Code and a Variance
(per Chapter 30.78) to permit the following encroachments:
(1) 5 foot encroachment into the 25 foot front yard setback; and
(2) 4 foot encroachment into the 10 foot (southerly) side yard
setback.
For property located at 1761 Haydn Drive and legally described as:
Lot "c" in Block 79 of Cardiff Villa Track, in the City of
Encinitas, County of San Diego, state of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1469, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, August 10, 1912.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
June 11, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff report dated June 6, 1990;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
COI04/CR07-555wp5 1(6-13-90/2)
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant and
dated received by the City on May 14, 1990; 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
90-112 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 front
yard and southerly side yard encroachments as indicated on the
plans reviewed and approved by the Community Advisory Board.
Said plans are identified as dated received May 14, 1990.
(2) Fire Prevention: Applicant shall contact the Encinitas Fire
Prevention District regarding compliance to the following
conditions:
(a) Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. Where structures are located,
off a roadway on long driveways, a monument shall be
placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects the
main roadway. Permanent address numbers shall be
displayed on this monument.
(b) The remodeled structure shall be protected by automatic
fire sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire
Protection District.
(c) Prior to final recordation, the applicant shall submit
a letter from the Fire District stating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees
have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the
District.
(3) Applicant shall contact the Public Works Department regarding
compliance with the following conditions:
COI04/CR07-555wp5 2(6-13-90/2)
street Conditions:
(a) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I. o. D.) shall be made
for ten feet along Haydn adjacent to the property for
public right-of-way purposes, unless waived pursuant to
City Council Policy dated March 14, 1990.
(b) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I.O.D.) shall be made
for 5 feet along westminster adjacent to the property for
public right-of-way purposes, unless waived pursuant to
City Council Policy dated March 14, 1990.
(c) 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:
(d) The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
sewer and water agencies regarding services to the
project.
(e) The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing and/or proposed public
utilities, as required by the Municipal Code.
(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.
(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 or before 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) The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant regarding
real property which sets forth this grant of approval. The
CO/04/CR07-555wp53(6-13-90/2)
covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the
Director of Planning and Community Development.
(9) 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 15301(e) (1) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: McCabe, MacManus, Orr, Barker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Crosthwaite
ABSTAIN: None
~
Te rance Barker, Chairperson
ardiff-by-the- ea Community
ÿ!:;~ ~
ATTEST:
~t,-f2.~ -
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/04/CR07-555wp5 4(6-13-90/2)
ATTACBKENT "A"
cardiff-by-the-sea Community A4visory Board
RESOLUTION RO. C-90-019
CASB NO. 90-112 DR/V
I. Findings for Design Review
(Section 23.08.076 Municipal Code)
23.08.072 Recrulatory Conclusions - GenerallY.
A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan,
a Specific Plan or the provisions of the Municipal 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 on adjacent property
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. The design provides
architectural variation and is compatible with existing
development in the neighborhood.
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 and project design and color are found to be
compatible with developed properties in the neighborhood.
COI04/CRO7-555wp55(6-13-90/2)
II. pin4inga 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
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: Due to the existing configuration of the
structure, the front yard encroachment would only enclose
an area currently used as an entry court yard and extend
existing exterior wall lines. The side yard variance
would preclude having to excessively grade into the slope
of the lot to provide a rear yard area for the subject
unit.
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 vicini ty and zone in which such property is
situated.
Evidence: 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 Zoning Code permits reconstruction of
existing duplex units within any residential district
pursuant to section 30.76.120.
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
COI04/CRO7-555wp56(6-13-90/2)
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 would not tend
to significantly lessen the impact of the development on
the site, or to adjacent property since the encroachment
into the front yard only extends existing exterior wall
lines and the side yard encroachment is necessary to
provide a rear yard area while avoiding excessive
grading. The variance is not self-induced since existing
structures and the property's topography constrain the
site. The variance does not constitute a re-zoning nor
authorize any private or public nuisance.
CO/04/CRO7-555wp5 7(6-13-90/2)