1995-03
RESOLUTION NO. C-95-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE
CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS DENYING
A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, VARIANCE,
WAIVER, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TO ALLOW A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION
IN THE R-8 ZONE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 955 GRANGE HALL ROAD
(CASE NO. 95-114 TPM/V/CDP; APN 260-192-16)
WHEREAS, an application for a Tentative Parcel Map, Variance,
Waiver, and Coastal Development Permit application was filed by
Jeffrey Blid pursuant to Chapters 24.60 (Tentative Parcel Maps),
24.12 (lot dimension waiver), 30.78 (Variances), and 30.80 (Coastal
Development Permits) of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code to
allow a two-lot split in the R-8 Zone for property located at 955
Grange Hall Road, and legally described as;
THE EASTERLY 75 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 380 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY
192 FEET OF THE NORTHERLY 1192 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH,
RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES SURVEY,
SAID DISTANCES BEING MEASURED PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY AND
NORTHERLY LINES RESPECTIVELY OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER.
WHEREAS,
a public hearing was
conducted by the
Cardiff
Community Advisory Board on July 25, 1995, as required by law, and
all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
A.
Application dated received by the City of Encinitas on
May 22, 1995, with attachments.
Revised project plans dated received May 26, 1995
B.
cd/jk\SR95114.
1
C.
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
D.
Cardiff Community Advisory Board agenda report (95-114
TPM/V/CDP) for the meeting of July 25, 1995, which is on
file in the Department of Community Development;
WHEREAS,
the
Cardiff
Community
Advisory
Board made
the
following findings pursuant to Chapters 24.60 (Tentative Parcel
Maps), 24.12 (lot dimension waiver), 30.78 (Variances), and 30.80
(Coastal Development Permits) of the Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A" )
NOW THEREFORE,
BE
IT RESOLVED
by the
Cardiff
Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that Tentative Parcel Map,
Variance, Waiver Request, and Coastal Development application No.
95-114 TPM/V/CDP is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
25th day of July,
1995
by the
following vote, to wit:
Ayes:
Fullwood, Grossman, Sarkozy
Nays:
None
Absent:
Crimmins, MacFal1
Abstain:
None
~d~
Harold Grossman
Vice Chairman of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
cd/jk\SR95114.0E
2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS
Resolution No. C-95-03
Case No. 95-114 TPM/V/CDP
Applicant: Jeffrey Blid
I. Section 30.78.030 - Variance
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 identical zoning
classification.
Facts: The variance request seeks to allow a reduction in the
required rear yard setback from 25 ft. to 20.3 ft. for the
existing dwelling, as measured from the proposed property
line.
Discussion: The variance request results from inadequate space
available to accomplish the proposed subdivision given the
location of existing development on the parcel. The variance
request is not the result of special circumstances applicable
to the property, such as "size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings", since the variance request is essentially
induced by the location of the existing dwelling on the
property, rendering the proposed rear setback and proposed
rear parcel substandard. The fact that this variance is being
requested in coniunction with a lot depth reduction of 16 ft.
for the rear lot (the house would be located approx. 4 ft.
from the rear property line absent the waiver), indicates that
an abnormal pattern of development would result and that the
applicant is requesting exceptional relief from the setback
regulations beyond that which is typically enjoyed by others
in the same vicinity and zone.
Further, when considering the development pattern in the
surrounding area (i.e. typical lot sizes and shapes), it could
not be found that the applicant is to be denied a similar use
of property or privilege with denial of the variance.
Conclusion: The CAB finds that the denial of the variance
will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zoning classification.
cd/jk\SR95114.0E
3
II. section 24.12.020 - Lot Dimension Waiver Request
Suspension of any requirement of this Chapter (Subdivisions)
may be granted by the authorized agency in a particular case.
Application for such suspension must show that there are
special circumstances or conditions affecting the property in
question, also, that such suspension, if granted, will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property in the immediate vicinity.
Facts: The waiver request seeks to allow a reduction in the
standard lot depth for the R-3 Zone from 90 ft to 74 ft.
Discussion: The waiver request results from inadequate space
available to accomplish the proposed subdivision without
having to rely on both a variance (as discussed above) and the
waiver. The above cited standard requires that special
circumstances be found to apply to the property, and that the
granting of the waiver not "be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the immediate
vicinity". Since the applicant is already seeking relief in
the form of a rear setback variance in this case, granting an
additional waiver to allow the rear lot to be 16 ft. less than
standard would create an unusually dense character of
development which would work to the detriment of the
neighborhood.
Conclusion: The Community Advisory Board finds that special
circumstances are not applicable and that the waiver could be
detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, thus not
warranting approval of the waiver request.
cd/jk\SR95114.0E
4