1990-23
.
.
8
RESOLUTION NO. L-90-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD TO APPROVE
A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIREPLACE/CHIMNEY
WITH A VERTICAL PROJECTION OF MORE THAN EIGHT FEET
INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 927 HYMETTUS AVENUE
(CASE NO. 90-156-V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance to permit
an encroachment of 3 feet into the required side yard setback was
filed by Barbara Shores to allow the construction of a
fireplace/chimney with a vertical projection of more than eight
feet, as per Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located at 927 Hymettus
Avenue legally described as:
The Southerly 144 feet of Lot 4, Block D, South Coast Park
Annex, according to Map thereof No. 1788 filed on March 29,
1924, in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, excepting the South Quarter of Lot 4.
8 WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application,
August 23, 1990, and all persons desiring to be heard was heard;
and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The staff report dated August 15, 1990;
2. The 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 "A"
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:
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 1 of 7
8 1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in two years, on August 23,
1992, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met
or an extension has been approved by the Authorized
Agency.
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:
Coastal Commission
F. Project is approved as evidenced by the site plan
received by the City of Encinitas on June 27, 1990, and
8 signed by a City Official as approved by the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board on August 23, 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
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 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 2 of 7
.
8 3. GRADING CONDITIONS
A. The developer shall obtain a grading permit, if
applicable, prior to the commencement of any clearing or
grading of the site.
B. The grading for this project is defined in Chapter 23.24
of the Encini tas Municipal Code. Grading shall be
performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose
responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection
and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the
approved grading plan, submit required reports to the
City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 23.24
of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
C. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the PROJECT
unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners
of the affected properties.
D. All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than
2: 1.
E. A soils/geological/hydraulic report (as applicable) shall
be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the state
of California to perform such work at first submittal of
8 a grading plan.
4. DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
A. The developer shall exercise special care during the
construction phase of this project to prevent any offsite
siltation. The developer shall provider erosion control
measures and shall construct temporary
desiltation/detention basins of type, size and location
as approved by the City Engineer. The basins and erosion
control measures shall be shown and specified on the
grading plan and shall be constructed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer prior to the start of any other
grading operations. Prior to the removal of any basins
or facilities so constructed the area served shall be
protected by additional drainage facilities, slope
erosion control measures and other methods required or
approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall
maintain the temporary basins and erosion control
measures for a period of time satisfactory to the City
Engineer and shall guarantee their maintenance and
satisfactory performance through cash deposit and bonding
in amounts and types suitable to the City Engineer.
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 3 of 7
.
8 B. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of
all surface water originating within the subdivision, and
all surface waters that may flow onto the subdivision
from adjacent lands, shall be required. Said drainage
system shall include any easements and structures as
required by the City Engineer to properly handle the
drainage.
C. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
D. The drainage system shall be designed to ensure that
runoff resulting from a 10-year frequency storm of 6
hours or 24 hours duration under developed conditions,
is equal to or less than the runoff from a storm of the
same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations
shall be analyzed to determine the detention basin
capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
5. STREET CONDITIONS
A. An Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (1. O. D.) shall be made
for 5 feet along Hymettus adjacent to the property for
public right-of-way purposes.
8 B. 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.
6. UTILITIES
A. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
B. The developer shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G. & E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
C. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 4 of 7
8 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of August, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Eldon, Locko, Shur, Kaden, Jacobson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None .." /
ji~ 'tl'~) {I ltl'-- I{./'f.i
AI~en Shur, Chairperson (
of the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~
Assistant Planner
8
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 5 of 7
.
.
8 ATTACHMENT nAn
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. L-90-23
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: The'subject lot is quite narrow when compared to
the minimum width in the R-3 zone (69' vs. 80' ) .
Additionally, the adjacent structure to the north is well
setback from the subj ect property thus affording the view
corridor intended by the Zoning Ordinance. The topography of
the area is such that views are not a significant issue. The
construction of the fireplace/chimney will not impact the
light and air afforded the surrounding development.
8 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: A fireplace/chimney is a reasonable and commonplace
component of a single family residence. Granting of this
variance would not constitute the grant of a 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
conditional use permits.
Evidence: Single family residences are a use permitted by
right in the R-3 zone. Allowing a fireplace addition to the
residence would not constitute a use or activity not otherwise
allowed by Code.
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 6 of 7
.
.
8 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:
1. The applicants have attempted redesigning and relocating
the fireplace. All design options have proven
impractical. The one design alternative available is
to eliminate the fireplace. Given the other
considerations in this case, width of lot, topographic
setting, siting of adjacent structures, the elimination
8 of the fireplace is viewed as an extreme remedy to a
relatively minor design problem.
2. The need for a variance can not be considered to be self-
induced given the fact that the narrow lot width was not
created by the applicants. If the lot were the minimum
width of 80' there would be no need for a variance.
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.
8 JJ/02/CR07-635wp5 (08/24/90-1) Case No. 90-156-V
Page 7 of 7