1991-01
RBSOLtJ'1'IOIi 110. C-'1-01
A RBSOLtJ'1'IOIi OW TaB CARDIWW-BY-TaB-SBA
COIIIIUIfITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVIIiG A VARIAlfCB nox
SBCTIOII 30.1'.010 A' ~ 14 ~ SBCTIOli 30.1'.010B' OW TEB
BOIIIIIG ORDIIfAlfCB WOR PROPBRTY LOCATBD AT
2287 XAlfCBBSTBR AVBlfUB
(CASB 110: '1-005V)
WHEREAS, Greq Jordan and John Love applied for a Variance in
accordance with Chapter 30.78 of the Zoninq Ordinance to allow the
followinq encroachments into the interior and street side yard
setbacks and exceed the Floor Area Ratio Standard specified by the
Residential 11 Zoninq District:
(1)
Exceed the vertical projection standard of 6 feet within
the interior side yard setback to 12 feet for a stairway
window tower; and
(2)
Encroach into the street side yard setback of 10 feet a
maximum of 5 feet for a portion of the upper level
(3)
kitchen and 2 feet for the upper level bathroom; and
Exceed the vertical projection standard of 8 feet within
the street side yard setback to 18 feet for a mid to
upperlevel chimney; and
(4)
Exceed the .5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standard to .53 for
habitable square footaqe.
WHEREAS, the property is located at 2287 Manchester Avenue and
leqally described as follows:
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 1 of 7
January 28,
Lot 25 and the Southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 26 in Block 22 of
CARDIFF, accordinq to the Map thereof No. 1298, filed in the
Office the County Recorder of San Dieqo County, November 14,
1910.
WHEREAS, a public hearinq was conducted on the application on
and,
Board, at which time all persons desirinq to be heard were heard;
1991 by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
d.
e.
a.
Site plan, floor plans and elevations submitted by the
applicant and dated received by the City on January 7,
1991;
Written information submitted with the application;
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearinq¡
Community Advisory Board aqenda report dated January 23,
1991¡ which is incorporated by this reference as thouqh
fully set forth herein; and
Additional written documentation.
b.
c.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the followinq findinqs are
made by the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board of the City
of Encinitas:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the application for Variance
90-005V is hereby APPROVED, and the subject structure may exceed
development standards as specified above; subject to the followinq
conditions:
(1)
Plans submitted for buildinq plan check shall conform to
the Variance request. The buildinq heiqht shall be
limited to Zoninq Code requirements.
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 2 of 7
(5)
(2)
Developer shall provide a certified heiqht survey by a
licensed civil Enqineer or surveyor verifyinq that the
buildinq heiqht conforms to approved plan heiqhts prior
to the issuance of framinq inspection approval.
Prior to final Buildinq Permit approval, the property
owner shall have recorded a Covenant aqreeinq to maintain
landscape heiqht at, or below the approved buildinq
heiqhts.
(3)
(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 buildinq department
inspection of the foundations for the portion of the
structure requirinq the variance.
City Enaineer: Applicant shall contact the Public Works
Department reqardinq compliance with the followinq
conditions (5A-F):
A.
Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
street Conditions
B.
In Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I.O.D.) shall
be made for 10 feet alonq Manchester Avenue and
Norfolk Drive adjacent to the property for public
riqht-of-way purposed unless waived pursuant to City
Council Policy of March 14, 1990.
C.
Developer shall execute and record a covenant with
the County Recorder aqreeinq not to oppose the
formation of an assessment district to fund the
installation of riqht-of-way improvements or sewer
line extension improvements.
utilities
D.
The developer shall comply with all the rules,
requlations and desiqn requirements of the
respective utility aqencies reqardinq services to
the project.
E.
The developer shall be responsible for coordination
with S.D.G. & E., Pacific Telephone, Cable TV, and
all other applicable utility authorities.
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 3 of 7
(6)
All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underqround includinq existinq utilities
unless exempt by the Municipal Code.
If substantial construction has not been completed in
reliance upon a qranted variance within one year of the
qrant, then upon notice to the property owner, and an
opportunity to present information to the Community
Development Director, the Director may declare the
variance to have expired with the privileqes qranted
thereby cancelled.
F.
(7)
Nothinq shall be placed on, or attached to the second
story or roof decks that would extend beyond the 26 foot
standard heiqht envelope or the hiqhest point of the
buildinq's roof ridqeline. Enclosure of the roof deck
with any material (i.e., plexiqlass) is strictly
prohibited.
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.
(8)
(9)
The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
reqardinq real property which sets forth this qrant of
approval. The covenant shall be in form and content
satisfactory to the Director of Planninq and Community
Development.
(10) The project is for a sinqle family residential use only.
Any conversion of the existinq structure or proposed
remodel to a second dwellinq unit is strictly prohibited.
(11) Fire DeDartment: Prior to permit issuance, the applicant
sha~l submit proof that the Fire District recovery fees
have been paid. Address numbers shall be clearly visible
from the street frontinq the structure. The structure
shall be fully fire sprinklered to the satisfaction of
the Encinitas Fire Prevention District.
(12) 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.
(13) Permits or findinqs of exemption shall be obtained from
the state Coastal Commission and any other applicable
Government aqencies.
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 4 of 7
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 15303(a) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January 1991, by the
followinq vote, to wit:
AYES:
Tom, Grossman, Cruz, McCabe, MacManus
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ATTEST: ~
~'4e.~
Craiq R. Olson
Assistant Planner
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 5 of 7
B.
C.
ATTACJDIBIf'1' "A"
RBSOLU'1'IOIiIlO. C-'1-01
WIIfDIIiGS PURSUAIfT TO
SBCTIOIl30.78.030
(VARIAlfCB) 01' TIIB CITY
01' BlfCIIiITAS :&OIlIIiG ORDIIfUCB
A.
A Variance from the terms of the Zoninq Ordinance shall be
qranted only when, because of the special circumstances
applicable to the property, includinq size, shape, topoqraphy,
location or surroundinqs, the strict application of the Zoninq
Ordinance deprives such property of privileqes enjoyed by
other property in the vicini ty and under identical
classification.
Evidence: The Cardiff Community Advisory Board finds that the
.5 FAR standard is due to the unique size of the lot since it
only measures 35 x 100 feet and does not satisfy the minimum
lot standard of 3950 square feet. If the lot had an
additional 450 sq. ft. the project would easily comply to the
.6 FAR; enjoyed by most surroundinq properties. The
encroachments into the street side yard and exceedinq the
vertical encroachment standard are due to the lots unique
small size and its corner location. No variance request would
be necessary for the proposed structure if it were located on
an interior, 50 x 100 foot lot, which are typical in the
neiqhborhood.
Any variance qranted shall be subject to such conditions as
will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not
constitute a qrant of special privileqes inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which such property is situated.
Evidence: The Board finds that the variance will not qrant
a special privileqe since the adjustment does not authorize
or constitute any qrant of special privileqe since the deqree
of nonconformity of the existinq structure is reduced and the
unique lot size of 35 x 100 feet is uncommon in the
neiqhborhood and R-11 Zoninq District.
A Variance will not be qranted for a parcel of property which
authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zoninq requlation qoverninq the parcel of
property.
Evidence: The Board finds that the current use on the
property is sinqle family residential and the remodel will not
chanqe the use or current acti vi ty . Sinqle family residential
use is permitted in the R-11 Zoninq District.
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 6 of 7
D.
No variance shall be qranted if the inability to enjoy the
privileqe enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoninq classification:
1.
Could be avoided by an alternate development plan; which
would be of less siqnificant impact to the site and
adjacent properties then the project requirinq 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 deqree of variation as to constitute
a rezoninq or other amendment of the Zoninq Code; or
Would authorize or leqalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
4.
Evidence: The Board finds that an alternate development plan
is not viable due to the constrained lot width. The project
desiqn tends to reduce existinq nonconformities while
providinq adequate and functional Ii vinq area for future
occupants and an archi tectural desiqn to complement
surroundinq properties and the community. The Board finds
that the deqree of variance requested is minor in relation to
the lot's constraints and that an alternate desiqn not
requirinq variance would not pose less of a siqnificant impact
to the site and adjacent properties than the project requirinq
a variance. The variance is not self-induced since the unique
lot width was not due to actions of the applicant or
immediately proceedinq owners. The deqree of variance will
not constitute a rezoninq or amendment to the Zoninq Code
since sinqle family residences are permitted in the R-11
District and the unique lot size of 35 x 100 feet is uncommon
in the neiqhborhood and the R-11 Zoninq District. No evidence
has been received to indicate that the project constitutes a
public or private nuisance.
CO/04/CR09-710wp5 (1/29/91-3)
paqe 7 of 7