1994-03
RESOLUTION NO. C-94-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 12 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 15 FT
EXTERIOR SIDE YARD OF THE RR-1 ZONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 1859 CREST DR.
(CASE NUMBER 94-023 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by James and Susan Comforti to encroach 12 ft. into the required 15
ft exterior side yard setback of the RR-1 zone in conjunction with
an addition to an existing single-family residence in accordance
with Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 1859 Crest Dr. in Cardiff, legally described
as:
Lot 28 in Block liE" of Palomares Heights, in the County of San
Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2114,
filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
March 29, 1994, by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1.
The March 29,1994 staff report to the Community Advisory
Board with attachments;
Application and project plans dated received February 18,
1994;
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 94-023V
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
project is an addition of less than 2,500 sq ft in an area with
existing facilities and not environmentally sensitive.
TC/9/94023V.RES
(3-29-94)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of March,
following vote, to wit:
1994,
by the
AYES:
Crimmins, Grossman, MacFall, Sarkozy
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Fullwood
ABSTAIN:
None
'.~
ATTEST~.
---- ~ ~, ~
...-- ~ .---c::-
Tom Curriden,
Associate Planner
TC/9/94023V.RES
(3-29-94)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. C-94-03
Case No. 94-023 V
Applicant: Comforti
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 12 ft into the required 15
ft exterior side yard setback of the RR-1 zone in conjunction
with the proposed conversion and expansion of an existing
garage to living space. That garage is located 3 ft. from an
access easement across the north 20 ft of the applicant's
property, from which the 15 ft. exterior side setback is
2measured pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Discussion: The "privilege" the applicant seeks to enjoy
similar to others in the area is the expansion of the existing
1,737 sq. ft. 2 bdrm. 2 bath home by 488 sq. ft. Special
circumstances cited by the applicants in their statement of
justification include the fact that the topography of the site
is such that it slopes away toward the rear preventing
additions in that area and that the existing circulation
pattern and garage location constrain possibilities for
additions to the west (front) and south sides of the property.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that because there are
special circumstances present the variance is warranted to
enable the applicant to enjoy 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
zone in which property is situated.
TC/9/94023V.RES
(3-29-94)
Facts: The proposal is to encroach 12 ft into the required 15
ft exterior side yard setback of the RR-1 zone in conjunction
with the proposed conversion and expansion of an existing
garage to living space. That garage is located 3 ft. from an
access easement across the north 20 ft of the applicant's
property, from which the 15 ft. exterior side setback is
measured pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Discussion: Since the applicant seeks a relatively small
addition and the resulting house would not be larger that many
in the area, and other properties in the area are not subject
to the same constraints relative to site topography and
existing development and circulation pattern, approval of the
variance request would not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone.
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 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 RR-1
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/9/94023V.RES
(3-29-94)
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 12 ft into the required 15
ft exterior side yard setback of the RR-1 zone in conjunction
wi th the proposed conversion and expansion of an existing
garage to living space. That garage is located 3 ft. from an
access easement across the north 20 ft of the applicant's
property, from which the 15 ft. exterior side setback is
measured pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Discussion: Any alternative to add the living space proposed
elsewhere would need to be larger that the 187 sq. ft.
proposed. Such an addition would need to either be built over
the existing house, which would appear 3 stories when viewed
from the east and could be considered more impactful to the
site, or would have to be built in the south side or west
portions of the property, which would require a major
reworking or possible demolition and would thus also be more
impactful. Even though the garage was built in its present
location under a previous variance approval, the variance need
is not self-induced by virtue of the fact that this area
remains the only practical area on the property for expansion
given the constraints of topography, the location of the
septic system, and other existing improvements. 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
or equal 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/9/94023V.RES
(3-29-94)
Applicant:
Case No:
Subject:
Location:
I.
RESOLUTION NO. C 94-03
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT
"BII
Comforti
94-023 V
Variance to encroach into required exterior side
yard setback for addition to existing single-family
dwelling.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1859 Crest Dr.
II.
A.
The applicant shall execute and record a covenant
setting forth the terms and conditions of this
approval prior to permit issuance.
B.
A building permit is required for this project.
The applicant shall submit plans to the Building
Division for plancheck and review. Please contact
the Building Division if you have specific
questions about your plan submittal.
1.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
C.
D.
E.
TC/9/94023V.CND
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A.
This approval will expire in two years on March
29, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have
been met, or an extension has been approved by the
Authorized Agency.
B.
This approval may be appealed to the authorized
agency within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval.
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 herein.
Permi ts from other agencies will be required as
follows: California Coastal Commission.
Project is approved as evidenced by the project
plans including site plan, floor plans, and
elevations consisting of two sheets dated received
by the City of Encinitas on February 18, 1994, and
signed by a City Official as approved by the
Cardiff Community Advisory Board on March 29, 1994
and shall not be altered without Community
Development Department review and approval.
(3-21-94)
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2.
DEPARTMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
The applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but not
be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees,
Water and Sewer Service Fees, School Fees, Traffic
Fees, Drainage Fees and Park Fees. Arrangements to
pay these fees shall be made prior to building
permit issuance to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department.
B.
Any change to the natural drainage or concentration
of drainage shall be adequately handled and shall
not impact adjacent properties.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
3.
FIRE
A.
B.
C.
TC/9/94023V.CND
-
ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be clearly
visible from the street fronting the structure.
The height of numbers shall conform to Fire
District Standards. Where structures are located
off a roadway on long driveways, a monument shall
be placed at the entrance where the driveway
intersects the main roadway. Permanent numbers
shall be affixed on this marker.
RECORDATION: Prior to final development approval,
the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department a letter from the Fire
District stating that all development impact, plan
check and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or
secured to the satisfaction of the Fire District.
SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors
inspected by the Fire Department.
shall
be
(3-21-94)