1990-22
8 RESOLUTION NO. L-90-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD TO APPROVE
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT INTO
THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ADDITIONS
TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 663 HYMETTUS AVENUE
(CASE NO. 90-110-V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance to permit
an encroachment of 5 feet into the side yard setback was filed by
Gary Stone 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 663 Hymettus Avenue legally described as:
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application,
July 19,1990, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The staff report dated July 12, 1990;
8 2. The proposed General Plan, 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 "B"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance
Application is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in one year, on July 19, 1991,
at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 1 of 6
8 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 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:
Coastal Commission
F. Project is approved as evidenced by the site plan and
elevations dated May 3, 1990, received by the City of
Encinitas on May 18, 1990, and signed by a City Official
as approved by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board on
July 19, 1990, and shall not be altered without review
and approval by the Planning and Community Development
Department and the Leucadia Community Advisory Board.
G. The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
8 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. FIRE
A. Prior to final approval, 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.
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 2 of 6
8
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Shur, Eldon, Locko, Jacobson, Kaden
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None (þ~ fl-
Allen Shur, Chairperson
of the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST~ ¡;." /
',,"/
,,(l1Î{{? ~)(l~ ~--t-
8 Jam~ G. Jone
Assistant Planner
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 3 of 6
.
8
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. L-90-22
THAT PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 5, IN BLOCK "C" OF SOUTH COAST PARK
ANNEX, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 1788, FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MARCH 29, 1924, LYING
SOUTHERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 IN SAID
BLOCK "C", DISTANT THEREON NORTH 15°43'30" WEST 80.00 FEET
FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE NORTH
74°16'30" EAST 143.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86°11'00" EAST 113.72
FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5, IN
SAID BLOCK "C", DISTANT THEREON NORTH 03°49'00" EAST 80.00
FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 5.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY DISTANT THEREON NORTH
8 74°16'30" EAST 133.78 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 74°16'30"
EAST, 120.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER THEREOF.
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 4 of 6
.
.
8
ATTACHMENT nBn
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. L-90-22
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 10,380 square feet, the subject property is well
below the minimum 14,500 square feet required in the R-3 zone.
This factor serves to limit and restrict the options for
adding onto an existing structure. Other special
circumstances include the fact that the existing garage was
sited and constructed on the lot considerably before the
adoption of the current zoning code and was legal when
8 constructed.
Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as
B.
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 construction of or reasonable addition to an
existing garage 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.
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 5 of 6
-
. .
. .
8 Evidence: with the garage addition, the use of the structure
remains a single family residence, a use permitted by right
in the R-3 Zone. Therefore, allowing the addition 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
varlance.
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:
8 1. An alternative development plan could relieve the need
for a variance, but as the structure has legally existed
with a 5' side yard setback for quite some time, 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 existing building and garage location were
legally constructed prior to the adoption of the City
Zoning Code.
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.
JJ/03/CRO7-617WP5 (7-24-90) CASE NO. 90-110-V
8 Page 6 of 6