1990-37
RESOLUTION NO. C90-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 30.16.010 A 7 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
135 SCHUBERT PATH
(CASE NO. 90-200 V)
WHEREAS, Robert and Alberta Nacke applied for a Variance in
accordance with Chapter 30.78 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the
following encroachment into the front yard setback specified by the
Residential 8 Zoning District:
A nine (9) foot structural encroachment into the 25 foot
front yard setback for a garage addition and an
approximately four (4) foot encroachment into the front
yard area for a new entry addition, and a three (3) foot
encroachment into the 25 foot rear yard setback for a
deck enlargement (for a total deck extension of seven (7)
feet, since a four (4) foot projection is allowed per
Zoning Code section 30.16.010E-6).
WHEREAS, the property is located at 135 Schubert Path and
legally described as follows:
Lot H in Block 80 of Cardiff Villa Tract, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1469,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
September 24, 1990 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 plan, floor plans and elevations submitted by the
applicant and dated received by the city on September 17,
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp58(9-25-90/4)
1990;
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 September 11,
1990, 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 FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the application for Variance
90-200V is hereby APPROVED, and the subject structure may encroach
up to 9 feet into the 25-foot front yard setback when measured from
the property line, and 7 feet into the 25 foot rear yard setback
when measured from the property line; subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Plans submitted for building plan check shall conform to
the Variance request. The building height shall be
limited to Zoning Code requirements and as indicated on
plans received September 17, 1990 and approved by the
Board.
(2) Developer shall provide certified height surveys by a
licensed civil Engineer or surveyor verifying that
building heights conform to approved plan heights prior
to the issuance of framing inspection approval.
(3) Prior to final Building Permit approval, the property
owner shall have recorded a Covenant agreeing to maintain
landscape height at, or below the approved structure's
height.
(4) 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 department
inspection of the foundations for the portion of the
structure requiring the variance.
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp5 9(9-25-90/4)
(5) City Engineer: 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.
(6) Fire Deoartment: Prior to permit issuance, the applicant
shall submit proof that the Fire District recovery fees
have been paid. Address numbers shall be clearly visible
from the street fronting the structure.
(7) The property owner shall pay flood control and any other
development impact fees as required by Municipal Code
prior to final inspection/occupancy of the subject
structure.
(8) The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
regarding real property which sets forth this grant of
approval. The covenant shall be in form and content
satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
(9) If substantial construction has not been completed in
reliance upon a granted variance within one year of the
grant, then upon notice to the property owner and an
opportunity to present information to the Director, the
Director may declare the variance to have expired with
the privileges granted thereby cancelled.
(10) In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed
on the variance is violated, the Director, upon notice
and an opportunity to present information, may revoke the
variance or impose additional conditions.
(11) This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
(12) Permits of findings of exemption shall be obtained from
other agencies as follows:
state Coastal Commission
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review
per section 15301(a) of CEQA.
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp5 10(9-25-90/4)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of September, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYE S: M (;. c..p.f;Æ., G~z.. J rv1 ~ MÞOÑ (J..~
NAYS: No~¿
ABSENT: bttoc;Sf..\AÑ t .,..-e fV\
ABSTAIN: ,Jot1€ - /
c: /
Caro c s,
of the Cardiff-
A~e.c;-Q. Community Advis
-
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp5 11(9-25-90/4)
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. C90-37
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 30.78.030
(VARIANCE) OF THE CITY
OF ENCINITAS ZONING ORDINANCE
A. 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 privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under identical
classification.
Evidence: The Cardiff Community Advisory Board finds that the
strict application of the setback requirement would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by surrounding property
owners under the R-8 classification since other properties are
developed with garages, and existing structures and site
conditions for the subject property preclude the possibility
of adding a two-car garage within setback limits. Further,
the Board finds that additional site constraints warrant the
granting of variances for the front yard area living space (4
foot encroachment) and for the deck expansion into the rear
yard area (approximately 7 foot encroachment). The Board
finds that the existing conditions of minimal existing front
and rear yards warrant these variance approvals.
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: The Board finds that the granting of this variance
would not constitute a grant of special privileges since
garages are common and acceptable uses in residential zones
and since the addition to living space to the front of the
subject dwelling and to the rear deck are reasonable
expansions of the existing residential use.
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: The Board finds that the proposed use on the
property is single family residential and the remodel will not
change the use or current residential acti vi ty. single family
residential use is permitted in the R-8 Zoning District.
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp5 12(9-25-90/4)
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;
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 of the Zoning Code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: The Board finds that no alternative location for
a standard sized garage is available on the site and that
current site difficulties (i.e. two carports of limited
utility) created by the prevl.ous owner are sought to be
corrected by this application. The Board also finds that this
application would not constitute a rezoning or amendment to
the Zoning Code or constitute a nuisance since the proposed
residential use would be consistent with the R-8 zoning.
JK/jm/CAB19-1989wp513(9-25-90/4)