1992-09
RESOLUTION NO. C-92-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA COHHUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF ENCINITAS DENYING
A DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A "TWIN-HOME" STRUCTURE IN THE R-11 ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2477-2483 OXFORD AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 92-030DR)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Design Review Permit
and was filed by Joseph Mourao to permit a "Twin-Home" development
in the R-11 Zone, for property located at 2577-2483 Oxford Avenue,
legally described as;
Lots 27 and 28, Block 11, of Cardiff, as per Map No. 1298
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, November 14, 1910.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
May 18, 1992: and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
considered, without limitation:
Community Advisory
Board
1.
The staff report dated May 13, 1992;
2.
The General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearings by staff, by the
applicant and by the public;
4.
Written evidence submitted with the application and dated
received by the City on March 3, 1992, and plans dated
received by the City on May 6,1992, and written evidence
received at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the following findings pursuant to Chapter 23.08.072 (Design
Review), of the Encinitas Municipal (Zoning) Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT" A " )
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application
92-030 DR is hereby DENIED.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following vote, to wit:
18th day of May,
1992,
by the
AYES: Crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ATTEST:
92030DR.RES
(5-22-92)
fl~ A ~
Bruce Hall
Chairman of the Cardiff
community Advisory Board
ATTACHMENT nAil
Findings for Design Review
Resolution No. C-92-09
Case No. 92-030 DR
A. The project design is not inconsistent with the General Plan, a
Specific Plan or the provisions of this Code.
Facts: Since there are numerous inconsistencies in the project
plans, the Board cannot confirm conformance with Municipal
Code requirements.
Conclusion: The proposed twin-home cannot be determined to be
consistent with the Municipal Code and the General Plan since
the project plans have inconsistencies. There is no Specific
Plan approved in area of the project site
B. The project design is not substantially inconsistent with the
city's Design Review Guidelines.
Facts: Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code contains Design
Review Guidelines with which the authorized agency must find
the project substantially consistent in order to grant
approval.
Discussion:
1. site desiqn: with regard to Design Guidelines 1.1 - 1.11,
the Board finds that the proposed project does not adequately
address these required elements. Specifically, regarding item
1.4, the Board finds that the proposal (to exceed the height
envelope) does not adequately address the issue of whether
significant views of surrounding properties are being
preserved.
2. Building desiqn: with regard to Guidelines 2.1 - 2.12, the
Board finds that the proposal does not adequately address the
required findings. Specifically, with regard to items 2.1 and
2.3, the Board finds that proposal is of a generic design type
with no particular design theme proposed, or carried out
consistently among elevations. The project does not attempt
to blend with the character of the existing community (i.e.
site potential).
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project is not in
substantial conformance with the Design Review Guidelines of
Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code because of the above
discussed inconsistencies .with Design Review Guidelines.
92030DR.RES
(5-22-92)
C. The project would not adversely effect the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community.
Facts: The project has been found exempt from environmental
review pursuant to section 15303 (b) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no potential negative
affects on the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community have been identified in conjunction with this
project. '
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project would not
adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community.
D. The proj ect would not cause the surrounding neighborhood to
depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Facts: The surrounding neighborhood consists of residential
uses, mostly single-family, and generally may be considered to
be in good condition and consisting of attractive designs.
Discussion: The proposed project is construct add a twin-home
development on a vacant parcel. The Board finds that the
project proposes a design which is not consistent with the
standards of appearance and architecture commonly found in the
surrounding area.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the proposed twin-home
would cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate in
appearance due to the design of the proposed development.
92030DR.RES
(5-22-92)