1991-10
RESOLUTION NO. C-91-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH
TWO (2) FEET INTO THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK IN ADDITION TO THE 4 FOOT ALLOWED PROJECTION
FOR A PROPOSED DECK
LOCATED AT 2381 AND 2383 OXFORD AVENUE
(CASE NO.: 91-031V)
WHEREAS, David Lendinsky applied to the Cardiff community
Advisory Board for consideration of a variance to section 30.16.010
E6 of the Municipal Code to permit a proposed deck to encroach two
(2) feet beyond the permitted four (4) foot projection into the 20
foot front yard setback per Chapter 30.78
(Variances)
of the
Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas;
WHEREAS, the property is located at 2381/2383 Oxford Avenue
and legally described as:
Lots 27 and 28 Block 13, Cardiff, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 1298, filed in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, November 14, 1910.
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was conducted on the variance
application on March 25, 1991; and
WHEREAS,
the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1.
The staff report dated March 20, 1991;
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.
Development plans consisting of one page showing the site
plan, the deck in elevation and the framing plan, submitted
by the applicant and dated received by the City on February
19, 1991; and
CO/04/CRO9-730WP5 (3/29/91-8)
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the
findings
of
application approval
of the variance request
pursuant to section 30.78.030 of the City of Encinitas Zoning
Ordinance as follows:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the
(SEE ATTACHMENT" A" )
application
for
Variance
91-031V is hereby APPROVED, and the subject deck may encroach into
the 20 foot front yard setback is described above subject to the
following conditions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
4.
Buildinq Department: Plans shall be submitted to the
Building Department for plan check approval. A permit
is required for decks in excess of 30 inches above grade.
A complete plan check will be done when plans are
submitted to the Building Department.
Fire Department: Prior to building permit issuance,
applicant shall submit a statement from the Fire District
to the Community Development Department indicating that
all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery
fees have been paid. Address numbers shall be clearly
visible from the street fronting the structure.
City Enqineer: Applicant shall contact the Public Works
Department regarding compliance with the following
conditions:
Street Conditions:
(A)
An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (I.O.D.) shall
be made for 10 feet along Oxford Avenue adjacent to
the property for public right-of-way purposes unless
found to be exempt per City Council policy of March
14, 1990.
(B)
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.
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 Community
Development Director, the Director may declare the
variance to have expired with the privileges granted
thereby cancelled.
CO/04/CRO9-730WP5 (3/29/91-8)
Page 2 of 5
5.
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.
6.
The approved deck areas may not be enclosed, increased
in height, or otherwise modif ied beyond the approved
plans and limitations of this variance without prior
approval by the city.
7.
Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from
the state Coastal Commission and any other applicable
Government Agencies.
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.
A proponent of protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1. 12 of the Encini tas Municipal Code.
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(e) (1) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
25th day of March,
by the
1991
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Anderson, Grossman, Hall, Tom
Cruz
None
None
/") (1 r--- ~~-
(---" ~ '-----.., r-. \~-
Calvin Tom, Chairman
of the Cardiff-by-the-Sea
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST: 0 n
(~~~ .~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
CO/04/CRO9-730WP5 (3/29/91-8)
Page 3 of 5
A.
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. C-91-10
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 30.78.030
(VARIANCE) OF THE CITY
OF ENCINITAS ZONING ORDINANCE
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
application of the 4 foot projection into the 20 foot front
yard setback for decks is inadequate to provide sufficient
clear space between existing chimney structures and the end
of the deck. without variance, the property owner would be
deprived of sufficient outdoor recreational area as enjoyed
by other property owners in the vicinity.
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 variance will not grant a
special privilege since the adjustment does not authorize or
constitute any grant of special privilege due to the fact that
the existing structure on the lot was legally permitted at the
time of construction and the owner only seeks to provide
usable outdoor recreational area which would otherwise be
precluded due to the existing chimney structures. In
addition, the residential use conforms to permitted uses
within the R-11 Zone.
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 residential use of the
property conforms to the allowed uses within the R-11 Zone.
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;
CO/04/CRO9-730WP5 (3/29/91-8)
Page 4 of 5
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
private or public nuisance.
the maintenance
of
any
Evidence: The Board finds that an alternate development plan
is not viable due to the fact that no other area of expansion
exists for the deck that would not otherwise cause
insufficient clear space between the chimneys and the end of
the deck. The requested variance is not seen to be self-
induced since the chimney areas exist and strict adherence to
the zoning standard would not provide adequate clear space and
usable deck area. The deck is not seen to constitute a
rezoning of the residentially zoned property; nor is there any
evidence that the deck is a public or private nuisance.
CO/04/CRO9-730WP5 (3/29/91-8)
Page 5 of 5