1992-19
RESOLUTION NO. C-92-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FT REAR YARD SETBACK TO
ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOH ADDITION TO THE SOUTHERLY
UNIT OF A DUPLEX IN CONDOHINIUH FORM OF OWNERSHIP PUR PR)PER!'Y
LOCATED AT 1308 MACKINNON STREET
(CASE NUMBER 92-196 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Hector Rodriguez to allow a 9 ft encroachment into the
required 15 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone to enable the
construction of a room addition to the southerly unit of a duplex
in condominium form of ownership per Chapters 30.16 and 30.78 of
the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at
1308 MacKinnon street, legally described as:
An undivided one-half interest in and to Lot 52 of OCEAN CREST
ESTATES, according to the Map thereof No. 4999, filed in the office
of the San Diego County Recorder, San Diego County, California,
June 27, 1962 excepting therefrom any and all rights to occupy and
use said land.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
November 23, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated November 18, 1992;
2. The application, site plan and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant dated received November 3, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
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 92-196 V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board
of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
section 15301 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of November 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Fullwood, Crimmins, Grossman
NAYS: Hal~ MacFall
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
.(j~~~
/I.
¡)/
Bruce N. Hall, Chairman
of the Cardiff
community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~~-~--
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
7
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. C-92-19
Case No. 92-196 V
Applicant: Hector Rodriguez
Findings: (Code Section, Factual Circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion
What follows are the findings of fact the Board must make to
approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 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 proposal is for the southerly unit of a duplex in
condominium form of ownership to encroach 9 ft into the
required 15 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone to enable a
140 sq ft bedroom and bathroom addition. The existing
structure already legally encroaches to within 8 ft of the
rear property line due to the issuance of Variance Case No.
V66-40 by the County in 1966. section 30.16.010 A requires
that all primary residential structures maintain the 15 ft
rear yard setback and 5 ft side yard setback for nonconforming
lots in the R-15 zone. The lot dimensions of the subject lot
are 88 ft wide x 60'- 76' deep - smaller in depth than many
other lots in the neighborhood. The structure is currently
situated approximately 10 ft south of the center of the lot,
resulting in a 13 ft wide south side yard, but a 28 ft wide
north side yard adj acent to the north unit. The proposed
addition will be in line with the rear of the existing
structure, but the addition will encroach an additional 2 ft
into the setback since the rear property line angles towards
the south unit.
Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this
property due to the minimal depth of the lot, it's shape and
the location of the structure on the lot which denies the
applicant the ability to construct a room addition without the
benefit of a variance. In addition, the proposed addition is
in line with the rear of the building which was approved by
County Variance V66-40.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project due to the minimal
depth of the lot and the location of the structure on the lot
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
8
which denies the applicant the ability to construct a room
addition without benefit of a variance.
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 is for the southerly unit of a duplex in
condominium form of ownership to encroach 9 ft into the
required 15 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone to enable a
140 sq ft bedroom and bathroom addition. The existing
structure already legally encroaches to within 8 ft of the
rear property line due to the issuance of Variance Case No.
V66-40 by the County in 1966. The structure is currently
situated approximately 10 ft south of the center of the lot,
resulting in a 13 ft wide south side yard, but a 28 ft wide
north side yard adjacent to the north unit. The proposed
addition will be in line with the rear of the existing
structure, but the addition will encroach an additional 2 ft
into the setback since the rear property line angles towards
the south unit.
Discussion: The grant of this variance does not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties since other property owners are not
subject to the same degree of building envelope constraints
than that of the applicant. In addition, the adjoining
property owner could construct a similar addition without the
need for a variance since there is a much larger north side
yard than south side yard area.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this
variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other property owners
in the neighborhood.
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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
use permits.
Facts: The proposal is for a variance to encroach 9 ft into
the 15 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone to construct an
addition to an existing duplex in condominium form of
ownership. The room addition will not change the residential
use or character of the residential duplex unit.
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
9
Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the R-15
zone.
conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this
variance will not change the residential use or character of
the residential duplex unit.
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 constitute a
rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
Facts: The proposal is for the southerly unit of a duplex in
condominium form of ownership to encroach 9 ft into the
required 15 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone to enable a
140 sq ft bedroom and bathroom addition. The existing
structure already legally encroaches to within 8 ft of the
rear property line due to the issuance of Variance Case No.
V66-40 by the County in 1966. section 30.16.010 A requires
that all primary residential structures maintain the 15 ft
rear yard setback and 5 ft side yard setback for nonconforming
lots in the R-15 zone. The lot dimensions of the subject lot
are 88 ft wide x 60'- 76' deep - smaller in depth than many
other lots in the neighborhood. The structure is currently
situated approximately 10 ft south of the center of the lot,
resulting in a 13 ft wide south side yard, but a 28 ft wide
north side yard adjacent to the north unit. The proposed
addition will be in line with the rear of the existing
structure, but the addition will encroach an additional 2 ft
into the setback since the rear property line angles towards
the south unit.
Discussion: Based on a site analysis which includes building
location on the site and location of required setbacks, there
is no alternate development plan available which would allow
an addition along the rear building line without the benefit
of a variance. In addition, the project is not self-induced
since the need for the variance is due to the original lot
dimensions and building orientation legally permitted upon
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
10
issuance of Variance Case No. V66-40. Additionally, the grant
of this variance will not constitute a rezoning or other
amendment to the Municipal Code since the need of the variance
is due to the minimal depth of only a small percentage of the
lots within the subdivision. Finally, there is no evidence
that the grant of this variance with authorize the maintenance
of a public or private nuisance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that there are no
alternate development plans available which would be of less
impact to the site, the variance is not self-induced, it will
not constitute a rezoning or amendment to the Municipal Code,
and it will not authorize the maintenance of a public or
private nuisance.
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
11
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. C-92-19
Case No. 92-196 V
Applicant: Hector Rodriguez
Conditions:
1.
2.
D.
I.
II.
Buildina Department: Plans shall be submitted to the Building
Department for plan check approval. A complete plan check
will be done when plans are submitted to the Building
Department.
Fire DeDartment: 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. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the Fire District Standards.
Community DeveloDment
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. 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 Community Development.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. This approval will expire in two years, on November 23,
1993 at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance
unless specifically waived here.
3. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing code,
National Electric Code, Uniform fire Code, and all other
applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
(11-18-92)
12
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
4.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
state Coastal Commission
5. Project is approved as submitted/modified as evidenced by
the site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated received by
the City of Encinitas on November 3, 1992, and signed by a
City Official as approved by the Cardiff Community Advisory
Board on November 23, 1992, and shall not be altered without
community Development Department review and approval.
6. A proponent or 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 Encinitas Municipal Code.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
7. The applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited
to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and
Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, Fire
Mitigation Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these
fees shall be paid prior to Building Permit issuance or as
deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
C:\MATT\92196V.SR
(11-18-92)
13