1991-16
. RESOLUTION NO. NE-91- 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH
4 FEET 9 INCHES INTO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR A ONE-STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 1644 TRAVELED WAY
(CASE NO.: 91-101V)
WHEREAS, John and Mary Jane Greenland applied to the New
Encinitas Community Advisory Board for consideration of a revised
variance application to" Section 30.16.010 A10 of the Municipal Code
to permit a proposed one-story addition to encroach four feet nine
inches into the required 25 foot rear yard setback per Chapter
30.78 (Variances) of the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas;
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1644 Traveled Way and
legally described as:
. Lot 96 VILLANITAS, UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 7280, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 17,1972.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the original
variance application on August 5, 1991 and was denied by the Board
without prejudice to allow the resubmittal of revised plans; and
WHEREAS, a revised application for a variance to the 25 foot
rear yard setback standard was submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff reports dated July 31, and October 2, 1991;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
. 3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearings;
GREENSR 6(07-31-91)
-
. 5. Revised development plans consisting of.one page showing the
site plan and the proposed addition in elevation and plan view
submitted by the applicant and dated received by the City on
September 19, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
findings for Variance approval pursuant to Section 30.78.030 of the
City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance as follows:
(see Attachment "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that revised application
91-101V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) Plans submitted for building plan check shall conform to
the variance request as submitted to, and approved by,
the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board.
. (2) Prior to foundation and/or pad preparation for the
proposed addition, 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.
(3) 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
GREENSR 7(07-31-91)
-
. variance to have expired with the privileges granted
thereby canceled.
(4) Fire Department: Applicant shall contact the Fire
Prevention District regarding compliance to the following
conditions prior to building permit issuance:
(a) Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the
street fronting the structures.
(b) Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant
shall submit 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 District.
.
(5) The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
(6) The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G.& E., Pacific Telephone, and other applicable
utility authorities.
(7) All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
. (8) In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed
on the variance is violated, the Director, upon notice
GREENSR 8(07-31-91)
-
. and an opportunity to present information, may revoke the
variance or impose additional conditions.
(9) 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.
(10) The property owner shall pay flood control and any other
development impact fees as required by Municipal Code
prior to final inspection/occupancy of the subject
structure.
.
(11) Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from
the State Coastal Commission and any other applicable
Government agencies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
,
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review
per Section 15303(e) of CEQA.
.
GREENSR 9(07-31-91)
-
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1991 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Grajek, Patton, Beck, Weaver, Felker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
C
ATTEST: rJ . i
~ ~ f- . c..-;'y-
.
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
.
GREENSR 10(07-31-91)
-
. ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 16
CASE * 91-101 V
Findings for Variance approval pursuant to Section 30.078.070 of
the Municipal (Zoning) Code:
(1) A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance 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 classification.
Evidence: The New Encinitas Community Advisory Board finds
that the existing structure, in combination with the
relatively small lot and the 25 foot rear yard setback,
requires variance to permit a remodel to provide adequate
privacy, access, light and ventilation to the existing master
bedroom. Without some degree of variance to the rear yard
setback standard, the applicant would be deprived of a
remodeled structure of adequate size to provide the privacy,
access, light and ventilation enjoyed by other property owners
in the vicinity.
. 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: The Board finds that granting approval of the
revised variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege to the applicant due to the relatively small lot
size and the orientation of the existing structure on the lot
prohibiting a remodel of the structure wi thin the setbacks
established by Code to allow adequate access, light and air as
enjoyed by other property owners within the same zoning
district. The Board acknowledges that the existing residence
has less living area square footage than current square
footage required for similar homes and without variance, the
expansion of the existing structure would be extremely
limited.
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.
. GREENSR 11(07-31-91)
-
. Evidence: The Board finds that the residential use of the
property conforms to the allowed uses within 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 then the project requiring a
varl.ance;
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 of the Zoning Code; or
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: The Board finds that the revised variance
application is warranted due to the current interior
circulation pattern of the structure and the confined area of
the buildable rear yard area outside the 25 foot setback. The
. Board finds that some degree of variance is warranted to allow
a remodel which affords the bedroom access and adequate light
and air while providing a greater degree of privacy. The
Board also finds that an alternate development plan which
would conform to the rear yard setback standard would not have
any less significant impact to the site and adjacent
properties than the submitted project since a 20 foot 3 inch
setback is maintained from the rear property line.
. GREENSR 12(07-31-91)
-