Loading...
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. . .