1991-19
RESOLUTION NO. C-91-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH
4 FEET 6 INCHES INTO THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK IN ADDITION TO THE 4 FOOT ALLOWED PROJECTION
FOR A PROPOSED DECK
LOCATED AT 2147 EDINBURG AVENUE
(CASE NO.: 91-091V)
WHEREAS, Salvatore DiPrima 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 four
feet six inches 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 2147 Edinburg Avenue and
legally described as:
Lot 35, Block 41 of Cardiff "A", in the city of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 1334, filed in the office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, May 12, 1911.
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was
conducted on the variance
application on June 24, 1991; and
WHEREAS,
the
Community Advisory
Board
considered without
limitation;
1.
The staff report dated June 19, 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
and the deck in elevation submitted by the applicant and dated
received by the City on May 29, 1991; and
DiPrima.Reso
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, the Cardiff-by-the-Sea Community Advisory Board made
the findings of denial of the variance request pursuant to Section
30.78.030 of the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance as follows:
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 no
special circumstances apply to the subj ect property that would
constitute variance
approval.
The
Board
finds
that
the
existing structure is constructed beyond the setbacks which
would be permitted under current development standards and,
therefore, the property owner already has an advantage over
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 since the existing structure is
buil t 6
ft.
6
in.
beyond the current 20
foot front yard
setback, and the existing deck extends 2 ft. 6 in. beyond the
currently permitted 4
foot proj ection beyond" the 2 0
foot
setback,
the variance will constitute a grant of special
privilege.
This is due to the fact that the applicant already
DiPrima.Reso
Page 2 of 4
has
an
advantage over other property owners
in that the
structure is setback only 14 feet from the front property
line.
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;
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 an alternate development plan
could be employed to create deck area out of existing living
area without having to extend beyond the current building
envelope.
The requested variance is seen to be self-induced
since the applicant's predecessor designed the structure with
a large lower deck knowing that the ocean view could someday
DiPrima.Reso
Page 3 of 4
be blocked.
The building's design allows for a large upper
level (indoor) living area which has the advantage of ocean
views.
To approve the variance could set a precedent for
other property owners who have front yard setbacks less than
the current standard to request similar variance requests.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 1991 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
Cruz, Tom, Grossman, Hall
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Anderson
ABSTAIN:
None
¡ l, c Q in..." "',\ ~
" r- ,.~~
Calvin F. Tom, Chairman of the
Cardiff-By-The-Sea Community Advisory
Board
ATTEST:
W'Prt~ rz.. c.-+2.~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
DiPrima.Reso
Page 4 of 4