1994-08
RESOLUTION NO. C-94-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE CREATING A LOT COVERAGE EXCEEDING THAT ALLOWED
IN THE R-11 ZONE, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2156 EDINBURGH IN CARDIFF
(CASE NUMBER 94-104 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mark Francois to allow a proposed 236 sq. ft. addition to an
existing single-family residence to create a lot coverage of 44%,
exceeding the 40% limitation of the R11 zone, in accordance with
Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 2156 Edinburgh Ave. in Cardiff, legally
described as:
Lots 15 and 16 in Block E of Cardiff "A", in the City of
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 1334, filed in the office of the San Diego
County Recorder May 12, 1911; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
July 26, 1994, by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1.
The July 26, 1994 staff report to the Community Advisory
Board with attachments;
Application and project plans dated received July 1,
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 II A ")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 94-104V
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/9/94104V.RES
(7-18-94 )
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following vote, to wit:
26th day of July,
1994,
by the
AYES:
Crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, MacFall, Sarkozy
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
~ 1Æ~~
ohn MacFall,
Chairman of the Cardlff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST: ~
------- ~
~~ -
- .. - .
To ' lden,
Acting Senior Planner
TC/9/94104V.RES
(7-18-94)
ATTACHMENT "All
Resolution No. C-94-08
Case No. 94-104 V
Applicant: Francois
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 site is presently occupied by an approx. 2,450 sq.
ft. residence taking access from the alley to the west between
Edinburgh and Cambridge. Through this variance request the
applicant seeks to allow a 236 sq. ft. addition to that
residence, which brings the lot coverage to 44%, above the 40%
limitation for the R-11 zone set forth in Section 30.16.010 of
the Municipal Code.
Discussion: Even with the front addition, because of the
location and configuration of the existing home on the lot,
the home will be 6% under the allowable 60% Floor Area Ratio
of the R-11 zone. The applicant has satisfactorily documented
that this is significantly less building area than that
enj oyed by other similarly sized properties in the area
including those to the immediate north and south, such that
strict application of the 40% lot coverage limitation would
deprive the applicant a similar development privilege enjoyed
by others in the same vicinity and zone.
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/9/94104V.RES
(7-18-94)
Facts: The site is presently occupied by an approx. 2,450 sq.
ft. residence taking access from the alley to the west between
Edinburgh and Cambridge. Through this variance request the
applicant seeks to allow a 236 sq. ft. addition to that
residence, which brings the lot coverage to 44%, above the 40%
limitation for the R-11 zone set forth in section 30.16.010 of
the Municipal Code.
Discussion: The Statement of Justification and the
photographs submitted by the applicant indicate that there are
numerous other larger structures in the area which enjoy equal
or greater degrees of variation from the lot coverage, floor
area ratio, and front setback limitations of the zone, such
that no conditions would be necessary to ensure that approval
of the variance request would not constitute grant of a
special privilege.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that no conditions are
necessary to ensure that 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 on an 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 R-11
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/9/94104V.RES
(7-18-94)
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 site is presently occupied by an approx. 2,450 sq.
ft. residence taking access from the alley to the west between
Edinburgh and Cambridge. Through this variance request the
applicant seeks to allow a 236 sq. ft. addition to that
residence, which brings the lot coverage to 44%, above the 40%
limitation for the R-11 zone set forth in Section 30.16.010 of
the Municipal Code.
Discussion: The only alternative development plans, other
than the removal of the addition which would deprive the
applicant of a similar development potential as others in the
same vicinity and zone, are either to (1) convert the garage
to living area, or (2) excavate under the northeast portion of
the existing home. These alternatives would be of greater
impact to the site and/or adjoining areas because they would
involve (respectively) either removal of off-street parking or
extensive reworking of the existing structure and the floor
above to access the area below. The circumstances under which
the applicant is unable to enjoy the similar development
potential have to do with the location and configuration of
the existing home on the property and thus are not the result
of an action taken by the applicant or the immediate
predecessor. The fact that the variance has only to do with
a minor addition to an existing single-family residence will
ensure that it will not by degree constitute a rezoning or
amend the zoning code, and no public or private nuisance has
been identified.
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/9/94104V.RES
(7-18-94)
Applicant:
Case No:
Subject:
Location:
1.
RESOLUTION NO. C 94-08
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT
liB"
Francois
94-104 V
Variance to allow an addition to an
single-family residence to exceed the
coverage limitation of the R-11 zone.
existing
40% lot
2156 Edinburgh Ave.
SPECIFIC CONDITION
II.
The applicant shall execute and record a covenant setting
forth the terms and conditions of this approval prior to
permit issuance.
1.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
D.
E.
A.
This approval will expire in two years on July 26,
1996, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been
met, or an extens ion 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
wi th 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.
proj ect is approved as evidenced by the proj ect
plans including site plan, floor plan, cross-
sections, and elevations consisting of seven sheets
dated received by the City of Encinitas on July 1,
1994, and signed by a City Official as approved by
the Cardiff Community Advisory Board on July 26,
1994 and shall not be altered without Community
Development Department review and approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
2.
DEPARTMENT
SITE DEVELOPMENT
TC/9/94104V.CND
(7-18-94)
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 CONDITION:
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.
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE CITY ENGINEERING
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
DEPARTMENT
4.
The developer shall execute and record a covenant
with the County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the
formation of an assessment district to fund the
installation of right-of-way improvements,
including alley improvements.
TC/9/94104V.CND
(7-18-94)