1992-04
RESOLUTION NO. C-92-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE A VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE EXTENDING TO THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE, TO ALLOW THE REAR YARD AND LOT
COVERAGE LIHIT TO BE EXCEEDED, TO ALLOW
THE GARAGE-TO-DWELLING SIZE RATIO TO BE EXCEEDED,
AND TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE TURN-RADIUS REQUIREMENT
IN THE R-11 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2107 GLASGOW AVENUE
(CASE NO: 91-221V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. William V. Howe, to allow an a detached 400 sq. ft. garage
to extend to the rear property line, to allow the 50% rear yard
coverage limit to be exceeded to approximately 72%, to allow the
lot coverage limit of 40 % to be exceeded to approximately 42 %, to
allow the 24 ft. vehicular turn-radius requirement to be reduced to
15 ft., and to allow the 50% garage-to-dwelling size ratio limit to
be exceeded to approximately 52%. per Chapter 30.78 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 2107 Glasgow
Avenue, legally described as:
Lots 45 and 46 in block 42 of Cardiff "A", in the City of
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to
the 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 application on
March 23, 1992:
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated March 16, 1992;
2. The application and proposed development plans submitted by
the applicant and received by the City December 19, 1991:
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing:
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing;
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-221 V
is hereby denied.
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March,
following vote, to wit:
1992,
by the
AYES: Anderson, Crimmins, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
( -, ~. 'i
I '
} . /\," ,/I
"/. ; . " . V I
,~/ ,1/111 ,. . ;1/1 lib -11' '
David L. Ande son
Chairman of the Cardiff
community Advisory Board
jk\91221v.res
(3-13-92)
2
A.
ATTACHMENT nAil
Resolution No. CARD 92-
Case No. 91-221 V
FINDINGS
In reference to Municipal Code Section 30.78.030
(A), a variance from the terms of the zoning
regulations 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 regulations deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under the same zoning classification.
Facts: The variance proposals are to encroach to the
rear property line with a proposed 400 sq. ft. garage, to
exceed the 50% rear yard coverage limit, to exceed the
garage-to-dwelling ratio limit of 50%, to exceed the 40%
lot coverage ratio, and to allow a garage turn-radius
substandard to the required 24ft. The rear yard
contains an existing detached garage of 283 sq. ft. which
extends to the property line, and a storage building.
Discussion: The rear yard area is occupied by a detached
garage which extends to the rear property line and is 20
ft. wide. This is adequate width to allow a 400 sq. ft.
garage to be built in the location of the present garage
without requiring any discretionary approvals, given that
said garage would be accessed from the side (i.e. not
directly off the alley).
Conclusion: The Board concludes that there are no
special circumstances applicable to the subject site
depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other
surrounding properties since the site could be developed
with a standard-sized two-car garage without relying on
a Variance.
B.
In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.024
(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 same
vicinity and zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The proposal would result in a total garage area
of 683 sq. ft. The standard garage area for one such
3
dwelling unit is considered to be from 342 - 400 sq. ft.
Discussion: The application proposes to add 400 sq. ft.
to an existing 283 sq. ft. of garage area, significantly
in excess of the Zoning Code standard for one unit, and
likely in excess of that which is standard for existing
parking ratios for nearby structures.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges since the 683
sq. ft. of garage area is significantly in excess of Code
standards and likely to be significantly in excess of
existing parking ratios for surrounding properties.
C.
In reference to Municipal Code Section 30.78.024
(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 regulations governing the parcel of
property.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the project would not
authorize any activity not permissible in the R-11 Zone
since the proposed project is a residential use.
D.
In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.024
(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 than 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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code:
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
1.
Facts: The applicant has the opportunity to construct a
new 400 sq. ft. garage in place of the existing 1-car
garage without relying on a variance (if access is taken
from the side of the garage).
jk\91221v.res
(3-13-92)
4
Discussion: The applicant may locate a new 400 sq. ft.
garage in the rear yard area of the subject property, as
desired, with alternative development plans which are of
less impact to the site.
Conclusion: The Board finds that alternative plans are
available which are of less impact to the site
2.
Facts: The proposal requires multiple variances, and the
Board has identified alternate development plans which
would reduce or eliminate the variances required.
Discussion: The proposal requires multiple variances,
and the Board has identified alternate development plans
which would reduce or eliminate the variances required.
Conclusion: Board finds that the variances are self-
induced since the site can accommodate a standard 2-car
garage for the single family dwelling, and that alternate
development plans exist.
3.
Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance would
not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code since the continuation of a residential use
would be consistent with the R-11 zoning code.
4.
Conclusion: The Board finds that this variance would not
legalize the maintenance of any public or private
nuisance.
jk\91221v.res
(3-13-92)
5