1992-16
. RESOLUTION NO. L92-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVINGH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
APPROXIMATELY 68 SQUARE FEET OF A PROPOSED ADDITION TO ENCROACH
A MAXIMUM OF 5' INTO THE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
IN THE R-3 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
663 HYMETTUS AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 92-199 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Gary R. Stone to permit a maximum 5' encroachment into the
required 10' side yard setback in the R-3 zone to allow the
construction of a building addition pursuant to Chapters 30.16 and
30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property
located at 663 Hymettus Avenue, legally described as:
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, filed 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 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 ';4 16'30"
east, 120.00 feet from the southwesterly corner thereof.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
December 10,1992, and all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated December 2, 1992;
2. The application, site plan, floor plan, elevations and
Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant dated
received November 12, 1992;
. 3. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and publ ic made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
I
. 4. Additional written documentation.
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A ")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-199 V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15301 (e) (1) and section 15305 (a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
. AYES: Allen, Buck, Cameron, Fahlberg
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Eldon
ABSTAIN: None
-f¡1.~ J 'b.' C J )
lefV\.lG > /UJi//V
Melissa Allen,
Chairperson of
the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board
.
. ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. L-92- 16
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK
PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.78.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO ALLOW A PROPOSED ADDITION TO ENCROACH A
HAXIKUK OF 5' INTO THE REQUIRED 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK
CASE NO. 92-199 V
APPLICANT: GARY STONE
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the Board must
make to approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance
section 30.78.030:
A. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.87.030A, a
variance from the terms of the zoning regulations 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
regulations deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification.
Facts: The proposal is to encroach 5' into the required 10'
side yard setback with an addition to the garage and
. residence. The length of the encroachment is 14' x 5'. The
lot size is 10,380 square feet which is well below the minimum
14,500 square feet required in the R3 zone.
Discussion: Due to the location of the existing single car
garage on the residential lot, any addition to create a two-
car garage would require encroachment into the side yard
setback. A two-car garage is a privilege enjoyed by others in
the area, and currently, the applicant's single car garage is
considered sub-standard by City regulations.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project due to the
location of the existing garage on the property which makes
the side yard the most logical location for the garage
addition.
B. In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030B, 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 same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The applicant states in his statement of justification
. that the majority of homes in the vicinity have two-car
garages.
. Discussion: The proposal for adding onto the garage at the
side yard is consistent with other structures in the area, and
it is not a special privilege to allow the expansion of a
garage and addition onto a single family residence on an R-3
lot. Further, the proposal for construction of a garage will
allow the applicant to park in a covered parking space which
is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
Conclusions: The Board finds that the allowed use of the R-3
property is single family residential. It is not a special
privilege to allow the expansion of the garage and addition
onto the single family residence on the R-3 lot. The Board
finds that the special circumstances which apply to the
subject lot and existing structure constitute adequate reason
for the variance approval and no special conditions are
necessary since the variance does not authorize a grant of
special privilege. Further, the proposal for construction of
a garage will allow the applicant to park two cars in the
garage which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity, and therefore, does not constitute a grant of
special privileges.
C. In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030CA 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 regulations governing the parcel of
. property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
use permits.
Facts: The proposal is to encroach a maximum of 5' into the
required 10' side yard setback with a garage expansion and
addition. Total square footage to encroach into the side yard
setback is approximately 68 square feet.
Discussion: The garage is an accessory use to the primary
residential use on the lot which is permitted in the R-3 zone.
Conclusions: Approval of the garage encroachment will not
result in any change in residential use on the property.
D. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030D, 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;
. 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
Facts: The proposal is to encroach 5' into the required 10'
side yard setback with a garage and addition. The side yard
is the only location on the property for the garage expansion
as there currently exists a single, sub-standard garage at the
side yard. The garage was approved by the County of San
Diego. At the time of construction, the permitted side yard
setback was 5' from the property line.
Discussion: In his statement of justification, the applicant
states that the existing garage was permitted to maintain a 5'
side yard setback and therefore, the need for the variance is
not the result of an action of the applicant. Any alternate
development plan would require a variance due to the location
of the garage on the lot.
Conclusions: Therefore, the Board finds that no alternate
development plan is possible which would be less impacting to
the site and adjacent properties, that the garage encroachment
is not self induced, and that the approval of this variance
will not result in a rezoning or other amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance, or legalize the maintenance of any public or
private nuisance.
.
.
I
. ATTACHMENT "B"
RESOLUTION NO. L92-16
CASE NO. 92-199 V
APPLICANT: GARY R. STONE
Conditions:
1. This approval will expire in two years on December 10,1994 at
5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an extension
has been approved by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board.
2. In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed on the
variance is violated, the Director, upon notice and an
opportunity to present information, may revoke the variance or
impose additional conditions.
3. The approved project shall conform to site plan, elevations
and floor plans dated received by the City of Encinitas on
November 12, 1992 consisting of 3 sheets and reviewed and
approved by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board and shall
not be altered without review and approval by the Community
Development Department and the Leucadia Community Advisory
Board.
4. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from the
. state Coastal Commission and any other applicable Government
Agencies. '
5. 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.
6. A proponent or protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
7. All eave overhangs are to encroach a maximum of 3' into the
side yard setback.
8. The applicant shall pay development fees at the established
rate. Such fees may include but shall not be limited to:
Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Impact Fees, Water and
Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Impact Fees and Drainage Fees.
Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the
appropriate department or agency to pay the fees prior to
Building Permit issuance of Final Occupancy approval.
9. Buildinq Department: Plans shall be submitted to the Building
. Department for plan check approval. A complete plan check
will be done when plans are submitted to the Building
Department.
. 10. Fire Department: Prior to building permit issuance, applicant
shall submit a statement from the Fire District to the
Community Development Department indicating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have
been paid.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the Fire District standards. Where structures are
located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument marker
shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects
the main road. Permanent numbers shall be affixed to this
monument.
11. Enqineerinq Department: All City Codes, regulations and
policies in effect at the time of building permit issuance
shall apply.
.
.