1996-01
RESOLUTION NO. CA-96-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF ENCINIT AS APPROVING
A V ARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE TO ENCROACH 13 FEET
INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1860 RUBENSTEIN DRIVE
(CASE NO. 96-006V)
WHEREAS, a Variance application was filed by Thomas Olson pursuant to Chapter
30.78 (Variances) of the Encinitas Municipal Code to allow for an addition to an existing single
family dwelling to encroach 13 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for a total setback
of 12 feet, on property located at 1860 Rubenstein Drive, and legally described as:
Lot "C" in Block 82 of CARDIFF VILLA TRACT, in the City of Encinitas, in
the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map thereof No.
1469, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August
10, 1912, EXCEPTING from said Lot "C" that portion thereof lying west of the
Southerly prolongation of the West line of Lot "P" in said Block 82 of said
CARDIFF VILLA TRACT.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board
on January 23, 1996 as required by law, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a.
Site Plan, Floor Plan and Building Elevations, consisting of one sheet, and dated
received by the City of Encinitas on January 5, 1996.
b.
Written infonnation submitted with the application;
c.
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a part of the record at said
public hearing;
cdljk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
1
d.
Old Cardiff Advisory Board staff report for the meeting of January 23, 1996,
which is on file in the Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board approved the varIance request
pursuant to the following fmdings, as per Section 30.78.030 of the Municipal Code.
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community Advisory Board of
the City of Encinitas that Variance Application No. 96-006 V hereby approved subject to the
following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT liB")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the independent judgment of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board the project was found to be exempt from environmental review
under Section 15301, Class e of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Fullwood, Grossman
Nays: MacFall
Absent: Sarkozy
Abstain: None
MacFall, Chairman of the
ardiff Community Advisory Board
cd/jk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
2
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK;
(Section 30.78.030 of the Municipal Code)
Resolution No. CA-96-01
Case No. 96-006 V
Applicant: Thomas Olson
Findings for a Variance Pursuant to Section 30.78.030 of the Municipal Code:
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.
Eacts: The project proposes an addition to an existing single family dwelling to encroach
13 ft. into the required 25 ft. rear yard setback applicable to the R-8 Zoning district.
Discussion: The subject R-8 zone specifies a standard lot depth of 90 ft.; the subject
property has a lot depth of approximately 70 ft. The subject property is therefore
approximately 20 substandard in lot depth. Associated with this condition is the fact that
the subject property, at approximately 4800 sq. ft., is significantly substandard for the R-
8 minimum lot size of 5400 sq. ft. These lot conditions render a property which has a
significantly impacted building envelope.
Further, an analysis of the size and shape of other properties in the vicinity demonstrates
that the subject property has an atypically small lot size and depth, and therefore most
other neighboring properties enjoy a greater privilege for development and expansion
than does the subject property.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board finds that due to
inherent site constraints resulting from a substandard property, the strict application of
the zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties 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.
cd/jk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
3
Eads: As discussed above, the subject property is significantly substandard in lot size
and depth for the applicable zone district. Further, an analysis of the surrounding area
demonstrates that the subject property is significantly smaller in size and depth when
compared with the average lot size in the neighborhood.
Discussion: Given that the subject property has a depth of only 70 ft., it is significantly
below the R-8 standard of 90 ft, and is significantly below the neighborhood standard,
causing the subject property to have an atypically small building envelope.
Conclusion: Therefore, the CAB finds that the approval of the variance does not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is situated since the
variance approval grants the applicant a building envelope more comparable with other
properties in the vicinity.
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.
Eads: The project proposes the continuation of an existing residential single-family use,
consistent with the R-8 zone in which single family residences are pennitted by right.
Discussion: Approval of the variance would allow the applicant to add on to an existing
single family residence which is expressly allowed in the R-8 zone.
Conclusion: Since single family residences are pennitted by right in the subject zone,
the Community Advisory Board finds that approval of the variance, to allow the project
to encroach in the rear yard, will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the subject 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 classifications:
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;
3.
Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other
amendment to the zoning code;
cdljk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
4
4.
Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public or private
nuisance.
facts: As discussed above, the subject property is significantly substandard in lot size
and depth for the applicable zone district. Further, an analysis of the surrounding area
demonstrates that the subject property is significantly smaller in size and depth when
compared with the average lot size in the neighborhood.
Discussion: The inherently constrained condition of the subject property leaves no
alternative for the applicant to construct any addition of living space without encroaching
into setbacks. The substandard lot size induces a restrained building envelope.
Conclusion: Therefore the CAB finds that no alternate development plan is possible
which would be less impacting to the site and adjacent properties, that the need for the
variance is not self induced, that the approval of this variance will not result in a
rezoning; and the project will not legalize the maintenance of any public or private
nuisance .
cd/jk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
5
Applicant:
Case No.
Subject:
Location:
ATTACHMENT "B "
CONDITIONS
Resolution No. CA-96-01
Thomas Olson
96-006V
Conditions of approval for a Variance to allow the proposed addition to encroach
a maximum of 13' into the standard 25 foot rear yard setback.
1860 Rubenstein Drive
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
D.
E.
F.
A.
This approval will expire on January 23, 1998 at 5:00 p.m., two years from the
date of approval, unless the conditions have been met or an extension has been
approved by the Authorized Agency.
B.
This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar
days from the date of this approval.
C.
The project is approved as submitted as evidenced by the Site Plan, Floor Plans
and Building Elevations, consisting of one sheet, and dated received by the City
of Encinitas on January 5, 1996, approved by the Cardiff Community Advisory
Board on January 23, 1996, and shall not be altered without review and approval
by the authorized agency.
Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from complying with the
conditions and regulations generally imposed upon activities similar in nature to
the activity authorized by this permit.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the
Zoning Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance unless specified herein.
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the
time of building permit submittal.
cd/jk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
6
G.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, a covenant shall be
recorded on a form satisfactory to the Community Development Department
setting forth this grant of approval
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONDITIONS:
2.
COMMUNITY
FOLLOWING
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
Prior to issuance of building permits all conditions of approval contained herein
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
B.
For new residential dwelling unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at
the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and
Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Fees,
Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made
prior to issuance of building permits.
C.
All cost recovery fees associated with the processing of this application shall be
paid in full prior to issuance of the building permit.
D. Minor modifications to this Variance if deemed to be in substantial
conformance with the original approval, may be approved, in writing, by the
Director of Community Development. The Director may refer any modification
request to the Community Advisory Board for their review/approval in
accordance with the Municipal Code.
THESE ITEMS MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL FIRE
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE
ENCINIT AS FIRE DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
3.
FIRE
A.
B.
Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly
visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to Fire Department Standards.
Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall pay all development impact,
plan check and/or cost recovery fees to the satisfaction of the Encinitas Fire
Department.
cd/jklreso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
7
4.
BUILDING
The applicant shall submit a complete set of construction plans to the Building Division
for review. The submittal shall include structural calculations and details, complete
framing plans and details, a site plan and floor plan, State Energy compliance
documentation and a Soils Report which includes recommendations for the design of the
foundation. Submitted plans will be reviewed for compliance with State Title 24, the
1991 Editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the
Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1990 Edition of the National Electrical Code. Please
note that project review comments are not intended to be a comprehensive plan review of
applicable Building Codes and additional comments will be made after plans have been
submitted to the Building Division for plan check.
cd/jk/reso/ca96006 (1-24-96)
8