1990-15
.
~
. RESOLUTION NO. L-90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD TO APPROVE
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT INTO
THE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ADDITIONS
TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 407 PARKWOOD LANE
(CASE NO. 90-057-V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance to permit
an encroachment of 5 feet into the side yard setback and 7.5 feet
into the rear yard setback was filed by William Nowell to allow
the construction of building addition, as per Chapter 30.78 of the
City of Encinitas Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located
at 407 Parkwood Lane legally described as:
Lot 11 of Holly Estates, according to Map No. 5109 filed
in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application,
June 7, 1990, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
. without limitation:
1. The staff reports dated May 31, 1990;
2. The proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning
Code and maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
required findings pursuant to Section 30.78 of the Zoning Code (see
Attachment "A").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance
Application is hereby approved subj ect to the following conditions:
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in two years, on June 7, 1992,
at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
. jg/03/cro6-559wp5 (6/20/90-4) Case No. 90-057-V
Page 1 of 5
.
.
. B. This approval may be appealed to the authorized agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
C. Nothing in this permit shall relieve the applicant from
complying with the conditions and regulations generally
imposed upon activities similar in nature to the activity
authorized by this permit.
D. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Development Code and all other
applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
E. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
a. Coastal Commission
F. Project is approved as evidenced by the site plan
received by the City of Encinitas on March 27, 1990, and
signed by a City Official as approved by the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board on June 7, 1990, and shall not
be altered without review and approval by the Planning
and Community Development Department and the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board.
. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. FIRE
A. Prior to 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.
B. Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. Where structures are located off
a roadway on long driveways, a monument shall be placed
at the entrance where the driveway intersects the main
roadway. Permanent address numbers shall be displayed
on this monument.
. jg/03/cro6-559wp5 (6/20/90-4) Case No. 90-057-V
Page 2 of 5
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of June, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Kaden, Locko, Eldon, Shur
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Jacobson
ABSTAIN: None ~r~
of the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board
~
. Ja s:. Jones
Assistant Planner
. jg/03/cro6-559wp5 (6/20/90-4) Case No. 90-057-V
Page 3 of 5
0<
.
.
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. L-90-15
Findings for a Variance
(Section 30.78.030 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.
Evidence: At 10,440 sq. ft., the subject property is well
below the minimum 14,500 sq. ft. required in the R-3 Zone.
Being located at the end of a cul-de-sac, with lot lines
radiating out from the turnaround, the lot is trapezoidal.
Both these factors serve to limit and restrict the options for
adding onto an existing structure. Other special
. circumstances include the fact that the structure was sited
and constructed on the lot considerably before the adoption
of the current zoning code.
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 reasonable addition to an existing single
family residence does not grant a special privilege to the
applicant but rather allows him the same rights provided to
neighboring properties.
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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
conditional use permits.
. jg/03/cro6-559wp5 (6/20/90-4) Case No. 90-057-V
Page 4 of 5
H
, .
.
Evidence: With the building additions the use of the
structure remains a single family residence, a use permitted
by right in the R-3 Zone. Therefore, allowing the additions
will not constitute a use or activity not otherwise allowed
by Code.
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. An alternative development could relieve the need for a
variance, but as the structure has existed as-is for over
twenty years, it can not be proven that the alternative
development plan would be less of an impact to the
neighborhood.
2. The need for a variance can not be considered as self-
induced as the additions were constructed prior to the
adoption of the current zoning code and was done on the
assumption that the contractor would obtain the required
permits.
3. The variance, if granted, would not constitute a rezoning
or other amendment to the Zoning Code.
4. The variance, if granted, would not authorize or legalize
the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
. jg/03/cro6-559wp5 (6/20/90-4) Case No. 90-057-V
Page 5 of 5