1992-04
. RESOLUTION NO. NE 92-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR A 7' ENCROACHMENT INTO A
REQUIRED 25' REAR YARD SETBACK AREA
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1612 TRAVELED WAY
(CASE NO. 92-015-V)
WHEREAS, Charles D. Hoffman applied for a Variance in
accordance with Chapter 30.78 Variances from Section 30.16.010
Residential Zones of the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance to
allow an addition to an existing residence encroach 5' with an
additional 2' encroachment for a bay window into the required 25'
rear yard setback and a variance to exceed the required lot
coverage standard from 40% to 42.3% for property located at 1612
Traveld Way and legally described as follows:
. Lot 100 of Villanitas unit No. 1, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No. 7280, filed
in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, Map
17, 1972.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on application
No. 92-015-V on March 2, 1992 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
to include without limitation:
a. site plan, floor plans and elevations consisting of three
pages submitted by the applicant and received by the city
on February 7, 1992.
b. Written information submitted with the application;
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
d. CAB staff report (92-015-V) dated February 24,1992 which
is on file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
e. Additional written documentation.
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78, of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
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.
Facts: The proposal is for an addition to an existing
residence to encroach 5' into the required 25' rear yard
setback with an additional 2' encroachment for a bay
window. The existing residential structure is currently
. 30' from the rear property line, and therefore, any
addition greater than 5' in width would require a
variance.
Discussion:
The applicant contends that special circumstances are
applicable to this project due to the location of the
residence on the lot which would require any addition
greater than 5' in width to process a variance
application regardless of where the addition is placed.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the Board finds that special circumstances are
applicable to this project due to the location of the
existing residence on the property which dictates that
any addition larger than 5' in width would require a
variance. The rear yard is the most logical section for
the addition.
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. 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 vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated.
Facts:
The applicant states in his statement of justification
that several other properties in the area have rear yard
setbacks less than 25 feet, including the properties to
the north and east of the subject property.
Discussion:
The proposal for adding onto the back of the residence is
consistent with other additions in the area, and it is
not a special privilege to allow the construction of an
addition onto a single family residence on an R-8 lot.
Conclusion:
The Board finds that the allowed use of the R-8 property
is single family residential. It is not a special
privilege to allow the construction of an addition onto
. the single family residence on an R-8 lot. The Board
finds that the special circumstances which apply to the
subject lot and existing structure constitute adequate
reason for the variance approval and no special
conditions are necessary since the variance does not
authorize a grant of special privilege.
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.
Facts:
The proposal is for an addition to encroach 5' into the
rear yard setback with an additional 2' bay window
encroachment into the required 25' rear yard setback.
Discussion:
The use is an addition to a single family residence,
which is in keeping with the R-8 zone.
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. Conclusion:
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 R-8
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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
. Facts:
The proposal is for an addition to encroach 5' into the
required 25' rear yard setback with an additional 2'
encroachment for a bay window. Any alternate development
plan which shows an addition greater than 5' in width
anywhere on the subject property woulod require a
variance due to the existing structure's location on the
lot.
Discussion:
An alternate development plan would still require a
variance, unless the addition is less than 5' in width.
The requested addition covers a 7' x 19' area of the rear
yard area, and there is no other area on the lot to
handle an addition such as the one requested.
Conclusion:
The New Encini tas CAB has determined that the
approximately 120 square feet of building that encroaches
into the rear yard setback is warranted due to the
special circumstances applicable to the lot and structure
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. (as discussed in these findings) and an alternate
development plan would not be of any less significant
impact to the site and adjacent property than the
approved project. The request is not self induced since
the Board has determined that special conditions
applicable to the property and existing structure
warrants the variance approval. The project does not
constitute a rezoning since single family residences are
a permitted use in the R-8 Zone. No evidence has been
received to indicate a public or private nuisance exists
on the subject property.
The CAB has determined, however, that a variance to
exceed the required 40% lot coverage is excessive due to
the fact that the applicant has a 7' x 40' existing shed
structure on the property abutting the eastern property
line. This shed is an active violation, and is to be
brought in compliance with the Municipal Code per
condition #11 of this Resolution of Approval. The
applicant has verbally agreed to remove a portion of the
shed (approximately 160 square feet) in order to meet the
40% lot coverage requirement. Removal of the 160 square
feet will permit the applicant to maintain the remaining
portion of the shed as it will then be considered a minor
accessory structure.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the application for
Variance 92-015-V is hereby approved to allow for an addition to
encroach into the required 25' rear yard setback by 5' with an
additional 2' encroachment for a bay window subject to the
following conditions:
(1) Buildinq Department: Plans shall be submitted to the
Building Department for plan check approval. A complete
plan check will be done when plans are submitted to the
Building Department.
(2) Fire Department: Prior to building permit issuance,
applicant shall submit a statement from the Fire District
to the Community Development Department indicating that
all development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery
fees have been paid. Address numbers shall be clearly
visible from the street fronting the structure.
(3) Enqineerinq:
(a) Developer shall execute and record a covenant with
the County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the
formation of an assessment district to fund the
installation of right-of-way improvements.
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. (b) The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the
respective utility agencies regarding services to
the project.
(c) The developer shall be responsible for coordination
with S.D.G. & E., Pacific Telephone and other
applicable utility authorities.
(d) All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities
unless exempted by the Municipal Code.
(e) The developer shall be responsible for the
relocation and undergrounding of existing public
utilities, as required.
(4) If substantial construction has not been completed in
reliance upon a granted variance within one year of the
grant, then upon notice to the property owner, and an
opportunity to present information to the Community
Development Director, the Director may declare the
variance to have expired with the privileges granted
thereby canceled.
(5) In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed
. on the variance is violated, the Director, upon notice
and an opportunity to present information, may revoke the
variance or impose additional conditions.
(6) The approved project shall conform to plans reviewed and
approved by the New Encini tas Board and SHALL NOT be
increased in height, extended beyond the limitations of
the approved variance, or otherwise modified beyond the
approved plans and limitations of this variance without
prior approval by the City.
(7) Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from
the state Coastal Commission and any other applicable
Government Agencies.
(8) The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
regarding real property which sets forth this grant of
approval. The covenant shall be in form and content
satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. (9) Prior to foundation and/or pad preparation for the
proposed remodel, the property shall be staked and lined
to indicate all property lines to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development. An inspection shall
be made of the site prior to Building Department
inspection of the foundations for the portion of the
structure requiring the variance.
(10) A proponent or protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encini tas Municipal Code.
(11) The existing shed structure (the active violation) shall
be brought into compliance with the City of Encinitas
Municipal Code within 30 days of the date of approval of
the variance. Further, a portion of the shed structure
is to be removed in order to maintain the permitted 40%
lot coverage requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board finds the application request exempt from
Environmental Review per Section 15301 (e) of CEQA.
.
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of March, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Beck, Felker, Weaver, Wilkey
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Patton
ABSTAIN: None
'I -- fY CJ/~
l{,
Cindy Beç , Chairperson of
the New ncinitas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
. ~~, 0-9~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
. wp92-015v (3-2-92)