1990-09
RESOLUTION NO. C-90-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT
AND OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, RESPECTFULLY,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1061 NOLBEY STREET
(CASE NO.: 90-015 MIN/V)
WHEREAS, Paul Van Camp applied for a Minor Use Permit and
Variance per Section 30.48.040 Wand Chapters 30.74 (Use Permits)
and Chapter 30.78 (Variance) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Encinitas; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1061 Nolbey Street and
legally described as:
Lot 65 of Poinsettia Heights unit No. 2, in the City of
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 4483, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 16, 1960.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
March 12, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff report dated March 7, 1990;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the findings of
CO/04/CR07-482WP5 (3-15-90-2) Page 1 of 4
grounds for denial of the Major Use Permit and Variance Request as
follows:
MINOR USE PERMIT (CHAPTER 30.74):
1. The location, size, design or operating characteristics of the
proposed project will be incompatible with or will adversely
affect or will be materially detrimental to adjacent uses,
residences, buildings, structures or natural resources, with
consideration given to, but not limited to:
a. The inadequacy of public facilities, services and
utilities to serve the proposed project;
b. The unsuitability of the site for the type and intensity
of use or development which is proposed; and
c. The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality
and natural resources of the City;
EVIDENCE: The Board finds that no evidence has been
submitted indicating that the existing cabana was ever
approved as a dwelling unit designed to have kitchen
facilities. The site is found unsuitable for the
intensity of a second unit given the fact that off-street
parking cannot be provided to satisfy Municipal Code
requirements due to the configuration of structures
existing on the property as presented in the plans
submitted by the applicant.
2. The impacts of the proposed project will adversely affect the
policies of the Encinitas General Plan or the provisions of
the Municipal Code;
EVIDENCE: The Board finds that the project, as proposed, does
not conform to parking requirements for Accessory Apartments.
3. The proj ect fails to comply wi th any other regulations,
conditions or policies imposed by the Municipal Code.
EVIDENCE: The Board finds that the applicant does not reside
at the subject location and is currently renting two units at
the subj ect location in violation of the Municipal Code
provisions for the R-8 (single family residential) Zoning
District. section 30.48.040WG requires the property owner to
live within one of the dwelling units on the property.
COI04/CR07-482WP5 (3-15-90-2) Page 2 of 4
VARIANCE (CHAPTER 30.78):
1. A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance 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 the privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Evidence: The Board finds that the approval of a Variance to
the parking standard would grant the property owner a special
privilege not enjoyed by other property owners within the
neighborhood who would be expected to comply with the code
requirements if they were seeking approval for an Accessory
Apartment.
2. 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: The Board finds that no conditions of approval
could mitigate the impact of granting the Var iance to off
street parking requirements.
3. 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: Single family residences are permitted within the
R-8 Zoning District and Accessory Apartments are permitted
within residential zones with an approved Minor Use Permit.
4. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
a. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan; which
would be of less significant impact to the site and
adj~cent properties then the project requiring a
var~ance.
b. If self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
c. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute
a rezoning or other amendment to the Zoning Code; or
COI04/CR07-482WP5 (3-15-90-2) Page 3 of 4
d. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: The Board finds that the necessity for the variance
is self-induced since the cabana area has been converted to
a rental unit by the installation of kitchen facilities
without any evidence of being allowed by benefit of permit.
Therefore, be it resolved by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board that Minor Use Permit and Variance Application No.
90-015 MIN/V is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 1990 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: err, MacManus, McCabe, Crosthwaite
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Barker
ABSTAIN: None ~f¿
y Crosthwaite, Vice-Chairperson
f e Cardiff-by-the Sea
community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~t ~ e.. o-r~
craig Olson, Assistant Planner
COI04/CR07-482WP5 (3-15-90-2) Page 4 of 4