Loading...
1990-03 , \ " 8 RESOLUTION NO. NE 90-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 30.78 VARIANCES, AND SECTION 30.16.010 RESIDENTIAL ZONES, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROPERTY BEING PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON PAGE 9082 OF PARCEL MAPS, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AUGUST 23, 1979 (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1324 SANTA FE DRIVE, ENCINITAS) WHEREAS, Robert A. and Ruth W. Gregory, applied for a Variance from Chapter 30.78 Variances, and section 30.16.010 Residential Zones of the City of Encinitas zoning Ordinance to allow an existing fence height to exceed the allowed 4' height limit in the front yard satback by 2' for a total of 61 in height, located at 1324 Santa Fe Drive; and 8 WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application 89-302-V on March 5, 1990 by the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and, WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation: a. site plan submitted by the applicant dated June 12, 1987; b. written information submitted with the application; c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a part of the record at said public hearing; d. CAB staff report (89-302-V) dated February 27, 1990 which is on file in the Department of Planning and Community De';elopment; and e. Additional written documentation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Encinitas community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that: 8 LN/CAB14-189wp , 8 A. 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. Ev~,dence: The .86 acre lot is considerably larger than the minimum 14,500 square foot lot required by the R-3 zone. The lot is irregularly shaped, and is located on a heavily traveled roadway. Due to the location of the house on the site, the short depth of the site, and the site being located adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway (local augmented facility), the noise and visual effects 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, afford some privacy, and soften the noise levels to some degree. A noise study has not been submitted, and an adequate noise attenuation wall is not being proposed. In order to determine the noise levels at that point along the roadway and to determine the type of wall necessary to 8 actually reduce the noise levels sufficiently, a noise study would be required. The applicant is aware that the fence that he has constructed will not provide adequate noise attenuation to significantly lower the traffic noise levels at the house. He does feel, however, that there will be some noticeable difference, and staff agrees. The proposed design is not detrimental to the surrounding area and does not interfere with sight distances along the roadway. No comments have been received from the neighboring property owners in opposition to the fence, however, a request for additional landscaping was received from a caller. 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 roadways 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. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized 8 LN/CAB14-189wp , 8 will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. Evidence: 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 because a substantial body of evidence has been submitted showing that there are a considerable number of 6' high or taller fences and walls located in this area along Santa Fe Road. C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property wh Lch 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 8 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 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; 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 8 LN/CAB14-189wp 8 the front 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 231 to the dwelling. The fence in its present location allows more fexibility in the yard area and serves the purposes mentioned above, thereby providing less impact of the traffic on the site. 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 with its irregular shape and shallow depth prior to the applicant I 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. 4. There are currently no private or public nuisances on the site which the zoning would legalize or authorize. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED THAT the application for Variance for 89- 302-V is hereby APPROVED with the following conditions: 8 1. Fi:e 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. 2. The fence shall not be located within three feet of the existing fire hydrant. 3. The location of the fence shall not block the view of a vehicle exiting the driveway. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted for the area in front of the southerly fence to include trees and shrubery to be placed a minimum of 301 on center I and shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 5. The portion of the fence that is constructed in the right-of-way is approved contingent upon approval of an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works if applicable, and the fence shall be removed within 30 days of notification by the city that the right-of-way is to be widened. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 1990, by the 8 LN/CAB14-189wp . . 8 following vote, to wit: AYES: Boardmembers Beck, Quinn, Colgan, and white NAYS: None ABSENT: Boardmember Patton ABSTAIN: None ~ ~ ¿ kJ -òì-- Anne Patton, Chairperson of the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board ATTEST: 8 8 LN/CAB14-189wp