1990-39
RESOLUTION NO. C-90-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST
TO ENCROACH TEN (10) FEET INTO THE 25 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 400 BRIGHTON AVENUE (AKA: ROSSINI DRIVE)
(CASE NO.: 90-218 V)
WHEREAS, Marvin Hoiseth and Kenneth wiant applied for a
Variance per Chapter 30.78 (Variance) of the Municipal Code of the
city of Encinitas; and,
WHEREAS, the property is located at 400 Brighton Avenue
(Rossini Drive) and legally described as:
Lot 2 of CITY OF ENCINITAS PARCEL MAP NO. 16035 in the city
of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, filed
with the County Recorder of San Diego County on March 28,1990
as number 90-16577 of official records.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
October 8, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board directed staff to return
to the meeting of October 22, 1990 with a Resolution of Denial for
the Board's review and adoption; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff report dated October 3, 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;
5. Proposed development plans submitted by the applicant and
dated received by the City on August 31, 1990 and a revised
site plan dated received October 1, 1990.
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the findings of
cO/jm/CRO8-675WP5 (10-15-90/2) Page 1 of 3
application denial of the variance request pursuant to section
30.78.030 of the city of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance as follows:
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 no supporting documentation
was submitted to substantiate the contention that other
structures in the neighborhood are set back less than
currently required by Code. In addition, no evidence has been
submitted to support applicant's contention that a 2264 square
foot buildable area (i.e.: area without variance approval) is
inconsistent with the buildable areas of other lots in the
vicinity and deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
other property owners. Although evidence has been submitted
to substantiate the height restriction imposed on the Lot 2
structure by the property CC & R's, the Board finds that the
subject lot was designed and approved for subdivision with
building restrictions imposed by development standards and
private CC & R's in mind and that potential development of
the property should conform to the design constraints of the
lot.
2. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as
will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not
consti tute 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 Variance to permit
a ten (10) foot encroachment into the 25 foot front yard
setback for the proposed single family residence. If
approved, the encroachment could pose a significant view
impact to other property within the vicinity.
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.
4. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
CO/jm/CRO8-675WP5 (10-15-90/2) Page 2 of 3
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
varl.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
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 map creating the subject lot was
designed and approved with development restrictions in mind
and found to be of sufficient size (z 2264 square feet of
buildable area) to support an appropriately designed single
family residence without variance approvals.
Therefore, be it resolved by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community
Advisory Board that Variance Application No. 90-218 V is hereby
denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 1990 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cruz, Grossman, MacManus, Tom
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: McCabe
A~e.~
Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/jm/CRO8-675WP5 (10-15-90/2) Page 3 of 3