1990-08
, ,.
8 RESOLUTION NO: NE 90-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS COMMUNITY
ADVISORY BOARD CITY OF ENCINITAS, APPROVING
A VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO ALLOW A SOLID WALL
IN THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 1314 DIAMOND HEAD DRIVE
TO EXCEED THE STANDARD HEIGHT LIMIT BY TWO FEET FOR A TOTAL
HEIGHT OF SIX FEET AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SIX FOOT SOLID
WALL IN THE REAR YARD OF 1340 DIAMOND HEAD DRIVE
LOCATED AT 1314 AND 1340 DIAMOND HEAD DRIVE
(CASE NUMBER 90-070-V/DR)
WHEREAS, a request for a variance from Chapter 30.78
Variances, and Section 30.16.010 Residential Zones and Design
Review per Section 23.08 of the Design Review Guidelines was filed
by John R and Pat S. Sweeten and John and Bernie Sarkasian for the
properties located at 1340 and 1314 Diamond Head Drive, legally
described as;
8 See Attachment "A"
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
May 7, 1990, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated May 1, 1990;
2. The application and maps submitted by the applicant dated
March 29, 1990.
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance is
approved subject to the following findings:
8 LN/dc/CRO7-532wp5 (5-18-90/4)
..
8 . A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances 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
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Evidence:
The .57 acre lot is larger than the minimum 14,500 square foot
lot required by the R-3 zone. The lot is irregularly shaped,
however, and is located on a heavily traveled roadway. Due
to the location of the house on the site, and the site being
located adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway (local
augmented facility), the noise and visual impacts on the
residence are greater than they might be on more regularly
shaped rectangular lots, and is more disturbing. The request
for an additional two feet of fence height is to help mitigate
the visual impacts, afford some privacy, and soften the noise
levels to some degree. A noise study has not been submitted,
however, the noise material submitted for the adjacent wall
indicates a decrease in the noise levels with the construction
of the wall.
The proposed design is not detrimental to the surrounding area
8 and does not interfere with sight distances along the roadway
as access for the property is prohibited from Santa Fe. No
comments have been received from the neighboring property
owners in opposition to the wall.
In conclusion, because of the location of the site adjacent
to a heavily traveled roadway and the unusual shape of the lot
with a shorter depth than length, there are special
circumstances which do deprive the subject site of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification that may not be located on a major
roadway or that are more regularly shaped having greater
depths than widths which would provide a buffer from the
visual effects and the noise of the traffic to a greater
degree.
B. The granting of this variance would not constitute the
granting of special privileges inconsistent with limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
Evidence:
A substantial body of evidence has been submitted showing that
there are a considerable number of 6' high or taller fences
8 and walls located in this area along Santa Fe Road.
LN/dc/CRO7-532wp5 (5-18-90/4)
.
8 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 regulation governing the parcel of
property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
conditional use permits.
Evidence:
The granting of this variance would ,not authorize a use or
activity not expressly authorized by the zoning regulations
governing this property since the use is a single family
dwelling which is consistent with the zone.
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
varJ.ance.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
8 3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute
a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence:
1. The fence is needed in its present location along the
exterior side yard of the property. In order to locate
the fence outside the setback so as not to need a
variance, it would put the fence as close as 10' to the
dwelling. The fence in its present location allows more
flexibility in the yard area and serves the purposes
mentioned above.
2. The need for the variance is not self-induced since the
roadway has existed in its present location as a heavily
traveled east/west connection, and the lot was created
prior to the applicant's purchase of the lots.
3. The granting of the variance would only permit a single
family home as currently allowed and would not,
therefore, constitute a rezoning.
8 LN/dc/CRO7-532wp5 (5-18-90/4)
, .
8 4. There are currently no private or public nuisances on the
site which the zoning would legalize or authorize.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Design Review is hereby
approved subject to the following findings:
A. The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan
or the provisions of this code.
Evidence:
The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the
Residential Zoning as fencing is a permitted use.
B. The project design is substantially inconsistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence:
The proposal is substantially consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines as it reflects an acceptable level of design
appearance and substantially conforms to the City's adopted
design criteria.
8 C. The project would adversely affect the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
Evidence:
Having identified no aspects in which this proposal could have
any significant adverse impacts on the environment, a
determination that this project is exempt from CEQA per
Section 15303(e) has been made.
D. The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence:
The project will not cause the surrounding neighborhood to
depreciate materially in appearance or value in that it will
be consistent in design, color and size of the adjacent
fencing which was approved by the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board.
8 LN/dc/CRO7-532wp5 (5-18-90/4)
. ..
8 BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the application for Variance
and Design Review 90-070-V/DR is approved with the following
conditions:
(1) Fire Department:
Prior to approval of the variance the applicant shall
submit a letter from the fire district stating that all
project review fees have been paid.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure.
(2) Planning:
The 6' high solid wall in the rear yard of the properties
is to conform in color, material, size and design
including section offsets per the existing slump block
wall along Santa Fe Drive adjacent to the subject
properties. It is to be located at 40' or more from the
center line of Santa Fe Drive out of the ultimate right-
of-way.
A landscape plan exhibiting an unregimented look which
8 incorporates eucalyptus trees and meluca landscaping
shall be reviewed and approved for the solid wall along
Santa Fe Drive by staff.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 1990, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Patton, White, Quinn, Beck
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Colgan
ABSTAIN: None ~ C-~
ANNE PATTON, Chairman of the
New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
'?,
8 Li da S. Niles
Associate Planner