1991-03
RESOLUTION NO. C-91-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A RECONSIDERATION OF 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 to the
Cardiff Community Advisory Board for reconsideration of a Variance
as referred to the board by the Planning Commission 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 Dieqo County on March 28,1990
as number 90-16577 of official records.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the reconsideration
of the variance on January 28, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission had directed the applicant
to return to the Community Advisory Board to present additional
information concerning the variance request; and
WHEREAS,
the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1.
The staff report dated January 23, 1991;
The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
2.
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
4.
5.
Proposed development plans submitted by the applicant and
dated received by the City on Auqust 31, 1990 and a revised
CO/05/CRO8-715WP5 (1-30-91-1)
Page 1 of 3
3.
4.
site plan dated received October 1, 1990 and site plans
indicating buildable areas with and without the variance dated
received November 6, 1990; and a neighborhood site plan
indicating existing setbacks on adjacent properties dated
received November 7, 1990.
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the findings of
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 vicini ty and under identical zoning
classification.
2.
Evidence: The Board finds that the application of the 25 foot
front yard setback specified by the R-8 Zoning District
provides ample building area for a future residential
structure. In addition, a building designed to conform to
development standards would not deprive the property owner of
any privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity.
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 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.
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 requlation governing the parcel of
property.
Evidence: Single family residences are permitted within the
R-8 Zoning District.
No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
CO/05/CRO8-715WP5 (1-30-91-1)
Page 2 of 3
a.
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.
b.
If self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute
a rezoning or other amendment to the Zoning Code; or
c.
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 (ΕΎ 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 reconsideration of Variance Application No. 90-
218 V is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cruz, MacManus, Tom
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: McCabe, Grossman
A c;;. '<=> e . crP ~
Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/05/CRO8-715WP5 (1-30-91-1)
Page 3 of 3