Loading...
1994-04 RESOLUTION NO. C-94-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 5 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 10 FT INTERIOR SIDE YARD OF THE R5 ZONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ONTO AN ADJOINING LOT, LOCATED AT 1321 BELLEVIEW AVE. (CASE NUMBER 94-030 V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed by Scott Roberts to allow a 5 ft. interior side setback on one side in conjunction with the proposed relocation of an existing single- family residence, presently built straddling a lot line, onto one of the lots, in accordance with Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in the R5 zone at 1321 Belleview Ave. in Cardiff, legally described as: Lots 9 and 10 in Block 2, Resubdivision of M.L. Durand's Addition, in the County of San Diego, State of California¡ according to Map thereof No. 3491, filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder August 22, 1956; 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 March 7, 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 94-030V 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/9/94030V.RES (3-30-94) PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of March, following vote, to wit: 1994, by the AYES: Crimmins, MacFall, Sarkozy NAYS: Grossman ABSENT: Fullwood ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ~~//~ ,-~~ Tom C~, Associate Planner TCj9/94030V.RES (3-30-94) 2"/, . , /' 'J ) .' . 1 , " ,/." /;,7 ," /rL f.:../L../ '/ ¡ l ;L" { -r,L C C ../ John MacFall, . ."Chairman of the Cardiff Community Advisory Board ATTACHMENT "A" Resolution No. C-94-04 Case No. 94-030 V Applicant: Roberts 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 subject residence is presently built across a lot line between two 45 ft. wide by 109 ft. deep lots on the east side of Belleview Ave. The applicant proposes to relocate the home to the more southerly lot, but because the house is 30 ft. side and the setback envelope is 25 ft. on these 45 ft. wide lots, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow one of the interior side setbacks (the north side setback on the south lot) to be reduced from the required 10 ft. of the R5 zone to 5 ft. Discussion: The "privilege" the applicant seeks to enjoy similar to others in the area is to be able to accommodate two homes on the two lots, one via the relocation of the existing older home to the south lot. Special circumstances related to the properties include the fact that they are significantly substandard for the R5 zone; the lots are each 4905 sq. ft. whereas the minimum lot size is 8,700 sq. ft. and their 45 ft. width is well below the 70 ft. minimum of the zone. The setback envelope resulting when two 10 ft. side setbacks are taken from the 45 ft. width is an atypically narrow 25 ft. 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/9/94030V.RES (3-30-94) Facts: The subject residence is presently built across a lot line between two 45 ft. wide by 109 ft. deep lots on the east side of Belleview Ave. The applicant proposes to relocate the home to the more southerly lot, but because the house is 30 ft. side and the setback envelope is 25 ft. on these 45 ft. wide lots, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow one of the interior side setbacks (the north side setback on the south lot) to be reduced from the required 10 ft. of the R5 zone to 5 ft. Discussion: The applicant has submitted documentation in the form of a letter dated March 14, 1994 to indicate that a substantial number of other homes on the same block have setback encroachments with side yards of 5 ft. or less. Thus, approval of the variance request would be in keeping with the pattern of existing development in the area and 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(s) on individual legal lots, 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 R5 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; TC/9/94030V.RES (3-30-94) 3 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 subject residence is presently built across a lot line between two 45 ft. wide by 109 ft. deep lots on the east side of Belleview Ave. The applicant proposes to relocate the home to the more southerly lot, but because the house is 30 ft. side and the setback envelope is 25 ft. on these 45 ft. wide lots, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow one of the interior side setbacks (the north side setback on the south lot) to be reduced from the required 10 ft. of the R5 zone to 5 ft. Discussion: The alternative is available of demolishing the 30 ft. older home, however this alternative would not allow the applicant to achieve the similar use of the property to others in the vicinity and zone since the setback envelopes widths would still be 25 ft., the basis upon which the variance argument is based. The need for the variance is related to the atypically small size of the lots in this 1956 subdivision and is thus not self-induced by the applicant or his predecessor. Additionally, the grant of this variance will not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the Municipal Code because of its limited and specific nature and 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 would 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/9/94030V.RES (3-30-94) Applicant: Case No: subject: Location: RESOLUTION NO. C 94-04 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ATTACHMENT "B" Roberts 94-030 V Variance to encroach 5 ft. into the required interior side yard setback in conjunction with the relocation of an existing single-family dwelling. 1321 Belleview Ave. I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS A. B. C. The applicant shall execute and record a covenant setting forth the terms and conditions of this approval prior to permit issuance. 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. Prior to final occupancy of the relocated dwelling or issuance of building permits on the property vacated by the relocation, the applicant shall submit for and receive certificates of Compliance from the City of Encinitas setting forth the status of the lots as separate legal lots. II. STANDARD CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. 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 wi thin 15 calendar days from the date of this approval. C. 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. D. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: California Coastal Commission. E. Project is approved as evidenced by the project plans including site plan, floor plans, and TC/9/94030V.CND (3-22-94) elevations consisting of seven sheets dated received by the city of Encinitas on March 7, 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: DEPARTMENT 2. SITE DEVELOPMENT A. The applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be I imi ted to: permi t 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 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. TC/9/94030V.CND (3-22-94)