Loading...
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)