1988-40
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINITAS,
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4810
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 405 LIVERPOOL DRIVE
(CASE NO. 88-279-V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was
filed by Beth Abramson to allow a five (5) foot encroachment
into the 35-foot from centerline, front yard setback, as per
Section 4810 of the City of Encinitas Municipal/Zoning Codes,
for the property located at 405 Liverpool Drive, legally
described as;
Lots 47 and 48, Block "E", Cardiff "A", in the County of
San Diego, state of California, according to map thereof
No. 1334, filed in the office of the County Recorder of
said County, May 12, 1911.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application
on October 24, 1988; and all persons desiring to be heard were
heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The staff report dated October 19, 1988;
2. The proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program,
Zoning Code and maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing;
CO/03/CRO3-161WP 1(11-15-88-2)
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the
applicant; and
6. Environmental consideration per CEQA.
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
was unable to make certain findings pursuant to section
30.78.030 and Interim Ordinance 88-19 (see Attachment "A").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the
Variance Application is hereby denied for a deck which would
extend into the 35-foot street setback.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
(1) This project was found to be exempt from
environmental review, Section 15301(e) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1988, by the
following, to wit:
AYES: Orr, Crosthwaite, Shannon, Barker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Slater
ABSTAIN: None
~ ~
Ann Shannon, Chairperson
the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
mmunity Advisory Board
Aë:: ~ ~~
Assistant Planner
craig R. Olson
CO/03/CRO3-161WP 2(11-15-88-2)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board
RESOLUTION NO. C-88-040
CASE NO. 88-279-V
Findings for Variance Denial
(Section 30.78.030 Municipal Code)
A. A Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances 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 ordinance deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence to Consider:
No special circumstances exist which restrict a deck to be
constructed within the setback prescribed by Ordinance.
B. Any Variance granted shall be subj ect 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 to Consider:
The project extends five feet into the 35 foot street
setback and is conditioned to not exceed 12 feet in height
and not permit any enclosure beneath the deck area.
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 to Consider:
The granting of the variance does not authorize a use that
is not expressly authorized by the General Plan and
Zoning Regulations since single family dwelling units on
individual lots of record are permitted in the zone.
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;
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
CO/03/CRO3-161WP 3(11-15-88-2)
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to
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 to Consider:
The project could be designed within the required setback
as an alternative development plan. Such a design would
afford the applicant the benefits of an upper level deck
while avoiding conflicts with the setback requirements.
CO/03/CRO3-161WP 4(11-15-88-2)
ATTACHMENT .. A II CONTINUED
ORDINANCE NO. 88-19
INTERIM REGULATIONS
FINDINGS
The following findings are required to be made by the
authorized agency in order to allow development to extend
beyond the interim regulations for height and setbacks not to
exceed existing zoning regulations.
A. The projection out of the interim envelope does not
significantly impact the views of adjacent properties, in
that the project takes advantage of views while
maintaining some of the significant views enjoyed by
residents of nearby properties.
B. The project is compatible in structural size (bulk and
mass) to adjacent properties and neighborhood.
C. There is reasonable probability that the land use and
design proposed will be consistent with the General Plan
proposal being considered or studied since the proposed
General Plan density permits single family residential
use.
D. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment
to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if
the proposed design is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan since the project conforms with anticipated General
Plan and Zoning densities.
E. The proposed design complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances since
requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, as
well as other applicable codes and ordinances, will be
made contingent upon building permit approval and issuance
of a certificate of Occupancy.
CO/03/CRO3-161WP 5(11-15-88-2)