1993-03
RESOLUTION NO. C-93-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 15 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FT
FRONT YARD TO ENCLOSE AN EXISTING BALCONY, AND TO EXCEED FLOOR
AREA RATIO AND LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS OF THE R-11 ZONE FOR AN
ADDITION TO ONE UNIT OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 2040 GLASGOW
(CASE NUMBER 93-144 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Flo and Rick Chandick to encroach 5 ft into the required 20 ft
front yard setback with enclosure of an existing 36 sq ft balcony,
and to exceed the allowed 40% lot coverage to 43% and exceed the
allowed .5 floor area ration to .79 in conjunction with the balcony
enclosure and a 112 sq ft addition to the rear (west) of the ground
floor of the existing attached single-family dwelling in accordance
with Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located in the R-11 zone at 2040 Glasgow Avenue, legally
described as:
Lot 11 in Block 40 in Cardiff "A", in the 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 application on
August 30, 1993, by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1.
The August 30, 1993 staff report to the Community
Advisory Board with attachments;
Application and project plans dated received July 22,
1993;
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
2.
3.
4.
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following
findings pursuant to Chapters 30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal
Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 93-144V
subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Advisory board, in
their independent judgement, found the project exempt from
environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e) since the
TC/8/93144V.RES
(9-1-93)
project is an addition of less than 2,500 sq ft in an area with
existing facilities and not environmentally sensitive.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3 oth day of August,
following vote, to wit:
1993,
by the
AYES: Crimmins, Fullwood, Sarkozy
NAYS: MacFal1
ABSENT: Grossman
ABSTAIN:
None
hn MacFal ,
hairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATT~~'J:'::::~:::",~~ .---.--- ",
-~_::"""':.,:C"~~:;:: '-~
/ ~--...",.-,L--<--,,-..~- ¿.c-¿;':.,"""'"
Tom Curriden,
Associate Planner
TC/8/93144V.RES
(9-1-93)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. C-93-03
Case No. 93-144 V
Applicant: Chandick
Findings:
Conclusion
(Code
Section,
Factual
circumstances,
Reasoning,
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 to encroach 5 ft into the required 20
ft front yard setback with enclosure of an existing 36 sq ft
balcony, and to exceed the allowed 40% lot coverage to 43% and
exceed the allowed .5 floor area ration to .79 in conjunction
with the balcony enclosure and a 112 sq ft addition to the
rear (west) of the ground floor of the existing attached
single-family dwelling in the R-11 zone.
Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this
property since the existing structure already encroaches 5 ft
into the front yard setback and enclosure of the small 36 sq
ft balcony would not represent any significant expansion of
the encroaching portion of the building. Similarly, the den
addition to the rear of the home is partially under an
existing balcony and can be added without encroachment into
setbacks and without significantly reducing the already larger
than typical rear yard area.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that because of these
special circumstances the variance is warranted to enable the
appl icant to enj oy a comparable use of their property to
others in the same vicinity and zone.
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
TC/8/93144V.RES
(9-1-93)
zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The proposal is to encroach 5 ft into the required 20
ft front yard setback with enclosure of an existing 36 sq ft
balcony, and to exceed the allowed 40% lot coverage to 43% and
exceed the allowed .5 floor area ration to .79 in conjunction
with the balcony enclosure and a 112 sq ft addition to the
rear (west) of the ground floor of the existing attached
single-family dwelling in the R-11 zone.
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 do not have
the small balcony area of limited utility already in the
setback area and could not construct the rear addition while
maintaining a larger than required or typical rear yard area.
For that reason, no special conditions are necessary to insure
that the variance is not a grant of special privilege.
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 use of the property will continue to be the
existing legal attached single family residence, and no aspect
of this application would allow a non-permitted use.
Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the R-11
zone.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this
variance will not change the existing legal use of the
property.
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;
TC/8/93144V.RES
(9-1-93)
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 to encroach 5 ft into the required 20
ft front yard setback with enclosure of an existing 36 sq ft
balcony, and to exceed the allowed 40% lot coverage to 43% and
exceed the allowed .5 floor area ration to .79 in conjunction
with the balcony enclosure and a 112 sq ft addition to the
rear (west) of the ground floor of the existing attached
single-family dwelling in the R-11 zone.
Discussion: No alternative is available which would allow any.
addition or balcony enclosure for the home without benefit of
a variance because of its present lot coverage and floor area
ratio. In addition, the project is not self-induced since the
need for the variance is due to the original design of the
building and its location on the site, not any action of the
applicants or their predecessor. 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 tied to the special circumstances set forth in Finding (A.)
above. 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.
TC/8/93144V.RES
(9-1-93)
ATTACHMENT "B"
Project description. : CHANDIK, RICK AND FLO
Project number. . . : 93-144
Project type. . . . : MAJOR VARIANCE
Application date. . : 07/22/93
Variance to encroach 5 ft into required 20 ft FYS and to exceed
allowable Floor Area Ratio Lot Coverage.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.This approval will expire in two years (on the date below)
unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been
approved by the Authorized Agency.
Expiration date: August 30, 1995
2. This approval may be appealed to the Authorized Agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
3. The applicant shall obtain permits from the California
Coastal Commission and all other applicable regulatory agencies.
4.Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any
sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance
unless specifically waived here.
5.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.
6. A Building permit is required for this project. Submit plans
and specifications to the Building Division for a complete
plancheck and review. Please contact the Building Division if you
have specific questions about your plan submittal.
7.The project is approved in accordance with the plans dated
received as of the date described below and by the agency also
described below on the specified date, and shall not be altered
without Community Development Department review and approval:
site plan, floor plans, and elevations cosisting of 3 sheets
dated received July 22, 1993.
8.For new residential dwelling unit(s) , 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 Mitigation Fees,
Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees
shall be made prior to building permit issuance to the
satisfaction of the respective agencies.
9.prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall execute and
record a covenant setting forth the terms and conditions of this
approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department.
THE APPLCIANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PREVENTION
DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
10.ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location
that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform
to Fire District Standards.
11.RECORDATION: Prior to granting final development approval, the
applicant shall submit to the community Development Deparment a
letter from the Fire District stating that all fees including
plan check reviews and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or
secured to the satisfaction of the Fire District.
12.SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be inspected by the
Fire Department.