1989-23
RBSOLUTION NO. C-S9-023
A RBSOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COIOlUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCB FROK
SBCTION 30.16.010 A 7 OF
THB ZONING ORDINANCB FOR PROPERTY LOCATBD AT
1606 MACKINNON AVBNUB
(Case No. 89-208V)
WHEREAS, Richard Baker, applied for a Variance in accordance
with Chapter 30.78 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the following
encroachment into the front yard setback as specified by the
Residential 8 Zoning District:
A 10 foot encroachment into the front 25 foot setback
when measured from ultimate street right-of-way.
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1606 Mackinnon Avenue, and
legally described as follows:
Lot 11 in Block 106 Cardiff Vista, in the City of
Encinitas, in the County of San Dieqe, state of
California, according to Map thereof No. 1547, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
March 18, 1913.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
October 9, 1989, by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory
Board, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a. site plans and elevations submitted by the applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a part
of the record at said public hearing;
d. Community Advisory Board staff report dated October 4, 1989,
Co/05/cro4-371wp51(10/18/89-3)
which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set
forth herein; and
e. Additional written documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following findings are
made by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City
of Encinitas:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED THAT the application for Variance 89-208V
is hereby APPROVED, and the subject structure may encroach 10 feet
into the 25 foot front yard setback subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The plans submitted to, and approved by the Community Advisory
Board shall not be altered without the board's approval, or
as stipulated in these conditions.
(2) 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.
(3) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I.O.D.) shall be made for
10 feet along Mackinnon adjacent to the property for public
right-of-way purposes. Mackinnon is classified as a local
street requiring a 60 foot right-of-way or 30 feet from the
official centerline of such street.
(4) An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication shall be made for 10 feet
along Warwick adjacent to the property for road purposes.
Warwick Avenue is classified as a local street requiring a 60
foot right-of-way or 30 feet from centerline.
(4) Prior to building permit issuance, applicant shall submit a
statement form the Fire District to the Community Development
Department indicating that all development impact, plan check,
and/or cost recovery fees have been paid.
co/05/cro4-371wp5 2(10/18/89-3)
(6) Prior to foundation and/or pad preparation for the proposed
remodel, the property shall be staked and lined to indicate
all property lines to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. An inspection shall be made of the
site prior to building inspection approval of the foundation
forms.
(7) Proof of approval or exemption of this project by the Coastal
Commission shall be provided prior to issuance of building
permits.
(8) Applicant shall revise the site plan (prior to submitting for
plan check) to indicate the appropriate 10-foot area along
Warwick Avenue to be offered for dedication (IOD). The 10-
foot street side yard setback will then be indicated from the
IOD line.
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) (1) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Crosthwaite, MacManus, Barker, Orr
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McCabe
ABSTAIN: None T~~~ðf:..on of
the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~(., Q. . vQ~
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
co/05/cro4-371wpS 3(10/18/89-3)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Findings for Variance Approval (Section 30.78.030)
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 the
other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Evidence to Consider: The board finds that the strict
application of the Zoning setbacks would deprive the applicant
ability to remodel the residence in a manner to utilize the
current interior circulation patterns to the home's entry and
create a more attractive facade within the confines of the
existing structure and lot utilization. The proposed addition
would not exceed the distance other structures to the south
maintain from Mackinnon Avenue.
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 to Consider: The proj ect proposes to maintain a
building setback of approximately 45 feet from the centerline
of Mackinnon Avenue which is consistent with other structures
in the area. The proposed remodel is for a single family
residence which is permitted within the R-8 Zoning District.
The variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege, nor authorize an incompatible use within the Zoning
District.
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
the property.
Evidence to Consider: Single family residences are permitted
in the R-8 Zoning District.
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 then the project requiring a
variance.
co/O5/cro4-371wp54(10/18/89-3)
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 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 board finds that an alternate
development plan is not viable due to the existing
configuration of the structure upon the lot. The variance
would not significantly impact surrounding structures since
most structures to the south of the property exist at the
setback proposed by this project. The building area
restrictions are required by the City and are not self-
induced. The proposed re-model is consistent with the Zoning
District use and would not be a public or private nuisance.
The building area restrictions are applied throughout the R-
8 Zone; the need for the variance is to add to an existing
structure.
co/O5/cro4-371wp5 5(10/18/89-3)