1990-22
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A
DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF 22 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
ON EXISTING LOTS
LOCATED AT 319 LA VETA IN OLD ENCINITAS
(CASE NUMBER 89-256DR/EIA)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a design review permit
was filed by Pacific Scene, Inc. to allow construction of 22
proposed single family homes on existing separate legal lots per
Chapter 23.08 of the City of Encini tas Municipal Code, for the
property located on the site of the existing st. John's Church,
rectory, and school located at 319 La Veta in Old Encinitas, more
particularly described as:
Lots 3 through 18 in Block N and Lots 1 through 6 in Block 0 of
Seaside Gardens, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No.1800, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder August 6, 1924; and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
August 30 and September 27, 1990, and;
WHEREAS,
limitation:
the
Community Advisory
Board
considered,
without
1. The staff reports dated August 21 and Sept. 17, and
October 2 1990;
2. The application, project plans received May 22, 1990
consisting of site plans, elevations, floor plans, and
typical landscape plans, as well as the revised plans
dated received Sept. 13, 1990 consisting of site plans,
front elevations, floor plans and typical landscape plan;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 23.08 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT" A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 88-
256DR/EIA is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of September,
following vote, to wit:
1990,
by the
AYES: Birnbaum, Steyaert, Tobias
NAYS: Rotsheck
'"""
ABSENT: Townsend
ABSTAIN: None
p¿t;:: c;, a £~ ~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encini tas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~ê~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-22
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW (MUNI. CODE CHAPT. 23.08)
CASE # 89-256DR/EIA
The following findings must be made by the authorized agency to
warrant approval of the design review permit in accordance with
Sect. 23.08.072 of the Municipal Code:
A. The project design is consistent with the General Plan, a
Specific Plan, or the provisions of this code.
Evidence: The project involves 22 detached single family
homes on separate legal lots, as is explicitly allowed
for in the RS-ll zone in accordance wi th section
30.08.010 of the Municipal Code and in the land Use
Element of the General Plan (p.LU-44).
However, Encinitas Municipal Code Sect. 23.08.070(B)
requires that projects subject to design review shall be
approved "unless findings of fact are made based upon the
information presented in the application or during the
hearings which support one or more of the regulatory
conclusions contained in this Chapter. The decision maker
shall elaborate on each of the regulatory conclusions
made in support of a denial in sufficient detail to
explain as clearly as possible the reasons for the
denial. II
In this instance, the regulatory conclusions made by the
Board in support of the denial are as follows:
Regulatory conclusion 23.08.076 (G) reads "The project
design is substantially out of scale with the predominant
scale of structures in the adjacent neighborhood." The
Board finds that the project is out of scale with the
predominant scale of the neighborhood because each and
everyone of the proposed homes is two stories and of a
24 to 26 ft. height, whereas the majority of the homes
in the surrounding neighborhood are of a lesser scale in
terms of height, and many are one story.
Regulatory conclusion 23.08.076 (E2) reads "The project
is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible
with the adjacent property in .... location of structures
on the site." The Board finds that the project is not
harmonious with adj acent properties in terms of the
location of the structures on the site because each of
the homes is at or near the minimum required front yard
setback whereas the neighborhood maintains a variety of
setbacks greater than the minimum required front yard
setback.
B. The design is substantially consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines.
Evidence: The Board finds that the project is not
substantially consistent with the Design Review
Guidelines for reasons including the inconsistencies with
the surrounding areas in terms of scale and building
siting described under finding "A" above.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Evidence: The Board finds that the appearance of the
neighborhood would be depreciated by the construction of
homes out of scale with the preponderance of other homes
in the area.