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