1994-06
RESOLUTION NO. C-94-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 5 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 10 FT
INTERIOR SIDE YARD OF THE R5 ZONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1321 BELLEVIEW AVE.
(CASE NUMBER 94-064 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Mike Lloyd to allow a 5 ft. interior side setback on one
side in conjunction with the proposed construction of a single-
family residence, 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:
Lot 9 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
May 24, 1994, by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1.
The May 24, 1994 staff report to the Community Advisory
Board with attachments;
Application and project plans dated received May 4,1994;
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
2.
:3 .
<1.
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 Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby denies application
94-064V.
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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED
following vote, to wit:
this
24th
day
of
May,
1994,
by
the
TC/9/94064V.RES
(6-1-94)
AYES: Crimmins,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Fullwood, Grossman, MacFall, Sarkozy
ohn MacFall,
Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST: ---? .
~-C ~
Tom Curriden,
Acting Senior Planner
TC/9/94064V.RES
(6-1-94)
ATTACHMENT IIA"
Resolution No. C-94-06
Case No. 94-064 V
Applicant: Lloyd
Findings:
Conclusion
Section,
(Code
Circumstances,
Factual
Reasoning,
What follows are 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.
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.
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;
Facts: The subject site contains a residence that is presently
built across a lot line between two 45 ft. wide by 109 ft. deep
lots on the east side of Belleview Ave. A previous applicant
received approval via variance application 94-030 V to relocate the
home to the more southerly lot. The applicant is requesting
through this variance to now construct a home on the northerly lot
(the two lots would revert to being separate legal lots upon
removal on the home presently combining them), with the north
interior side setback reduced from the required 10 ft. setback of
the zone to 5 ft.
Discussion: Even though the site is substandard in width, the
applicant can enjoy the "privilege" of a home similar in size to
TC/9/94064V.RES
(6-1,-94)
others in the area by designing accordingly with a longer, narrower
design configuration, or pursue the alternative of less impact to
the adjoining property to the north of seeking a variation, if any,
on the south side of the property from the common lot line from
which the home to the south has been permitted to be built 5 ft.
back.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board is unable to find for the
variance because the applicant would not be deprived of a similar
privilege in terms of development potential and that there are
alternatives available of less impact to the adjoining property to
the north, and that in not pursuing such option the variance
request arises from self-induced circumstances.
TC/9/94064V.RES
(6-1-94)