Loading...
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