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)