1991-15
. RESOLUTION NO. NE 91-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR A .8' (Lot 26) and l' (Lot 29) ENCROACHMENT INTO
THE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK AREAS
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
611 CREST DRIVE
(CASE NO. 91-127-V)
Af'N '2:5(1-'1""0 J '.~b '1/ ~yo ticv:.~(f.'J) >SI \îf",ittll.c"i
WHEREAS, Warmington Associates, L~P. applied for a Variance in
accordance with Chapter 30.78 Variances from Section 30.16.010A8
for the R-8 Residential Zone of the City of Encinitas Zoning
Ordinance to allow two residences to encroach .8' (Lot 26) and l'
(Lot 29) into the required 10' side yard setbacks, located at 611
Crest Drive, and legally described as follows:
The Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter of Section 14, Township 13 South, Range 4
east, San Bernardino Maridian, in the County of San Diego,
State of California, according to official plat thereof.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on application
No. 91-127-V on August 5, 1991 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 and received by the
City on July 15, 1991.
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 (91-127V) dated July 23, 1991 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
. MMB\91-127V 8/5/91
-
. property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence to Consider:
The subject properties are irregularly shaped due to
their locations on cul-de-sac roads. Those portions of
the buildings that encroach into the required side yard
setbacks are located at the narrower portion of the
irregular shaped lots and the overall encroachment is
less than 2 square feet for each site. The variance
request is due to original survey and staking errors. To
process a boundary adjustment to legalize the
encroachment would cause the lot lines to conflict with
existing grading and drainage improvements. Staff feels
that approving the variance would be less impact on the
site and neighboring properties due to the minimal
encroachment being requested than it would be to deal
with the grading and drainage corrections that would be
necessary with the boundary adjustment.
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.
Evidence to Consider:
The variance request is intended to legalize two
encroachments into the required side yard setbacks which
were caused as a result of original survey and staking
errors.
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.
Evidence to Consider:
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.
. MMB\91-127V 8/5/91
-
. 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 to Consider:
1. An alternate development plan would be to require
the applicant to process a boundary adjustment,
which would cause the lot lines to conflict with
the existing grade and drainage improvements.
staff feels that processing a boundary adjustment
. and correcting the drainage improvements and grade
would have more of an impact than approving a
variance for such a minimal encroachment.
2. The applicant is requesting this variance to
mitigate the encroachments that were the result of
original survey and staking errors.
3. The variance, if granted, would not constitute a
rezonl.ng or other amendment to the zoning code
since single family residence uses are permitted
within the R-8 district.
4. The variance, if granted, would not authorize or
legalize the maintenance of any private or public
nuisance since no evidence has been submitted to
indicate a public or private nuisance exists.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the application for
Variance for 91-127V is hereby APPROVED with the following
conditions:
1. This approval will expire in one year, on August 5, 1992,
at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
. MMB\91-127V 8/5/91
-
. 2. This approval may be appealed to the authorized agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable
City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit
issuance unless specifically waived herein.
4. Permits from other agencies, if applicable, will be
required as follows:
state Coastal Commission
5. Project is approved as evidenced by the site plan and
elevations received by the City on July 15, 1991 and
approved by the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board on
August 5,1991, and shall not be altered without Planning
and Community Development Department review and approval.
6. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied, the Planning and Community Development
Department shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before
the authorized agency to determine why the City of
Encinitas should not revoke this approval.
7. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity
. demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas,
acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or
delete conditions and regulations contained in this
permit.
8. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the approved variance beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
9. Prior to occupancy approval, the applicant shall submit
to the Planning Department a letter from the Fire
District stating that all development impact, plan check,
and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to
the satisfaction of the Fire District.
. MMB\91-127V 8/5/91
-
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Weaver, Beck, Patton, Grajek
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Felker
ABSTAIN: None
. ATTEST:
. MMB\91-127V 8/5/91
-