Loading...
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.