1992-02
RESOLUTION NO. L 92-02
. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH 14.5 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
FOR A PROPOSED REMODEL TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1550 SURF ROAD
(CASE NUMBER 92-014 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. James Christensen to allow a 14.5 ft encroachment into the
required 25 ft rear yard setback for a remodel of an existing
single family residence in the R-8 zone per Chapters 30.16 and
30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property
located at 1550 Surf Road, legally described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 13529, in the City of Encinitas, County
of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, October 26, 1984 as File No.
84-405573 of Official Records.
An easement and right-of-way for road utility purposes and
incidentals thereto over, under, along and across that portion of
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 13529 in the County of San Diego, State
of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, October 26, 1984, as File No. 84-405573 of Official
. Records being delineated and designated on said Parcel Map as
"PROPOSED PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT."
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
March 5, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated February 25, 1992;
2. The application, site plan, floor plans, elevations and
Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant dated
received February 6, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
. CDj03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2)
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-014 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) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of March 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Allen, Buck, Cameron, Eldon, Fahlberg
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
. ~'1'7.~
Melissa Allen, Chairperson of the
Leucadia Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~/á/~~-- -'~
Diane Langag
Assistant PI
. CDj03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2)
ATTACHMENT nAn
. Resolution No. L 92-02
Case No. 92-014 V
Applicant: James christensen
Findings:
A. 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 zoning ordinance (Chapter 30.16) requires a 25 ft.
rear yard setback in the R-8 zone.
Discussion: The strict definition of rear lot line forces the
property to maintain a 25 foot setback from the easterly
property line. The existing structure presently maintains a
setback of 14.5 feet from the east property line. Forcing the
applicant to maintain a 25 foot rear yard setback results in
a narrow building envelope (31' x 76'). The maximum lot
coverage attainable in such an envelope is 26%, whereas a
. standard R-8 lot would allow 40% lot coverage.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the location of the existing
structure on the site in combination with the configuration of
the site creates a situation where strict application of the
setback standards contained in the zoning ordinance would
preclude the applicant from enjoying a privilege enjoyed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone (Le. the
ability to construct a substantial single family addition).
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 same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege if the subject property were identical or similar to
others in the area, such that the entitlement of the variance
would be applicable to them as well.
Discussion: Since the special circumstance in this case is
related to the location of an existing structure on a lot
located at the end of a private road and the configuration of
that lot, it is improbable that other property owners would
find themselves in the same position and thus no conditions
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2)
. would be necessary to insure that approval of this variance
would not constitute a grant of special privilege.
Conclusion: The Board finds that no conditions are necessary
to insure that approval of this variance does not constitute
a grant of special privilege since few if any other properties
in the area would be under similar circumstances.
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 regulations governing the parcel of
property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to
use permits.
Facts: Single family residences are expressly allowed in the
R-8 zone.
Discussion: Use of the subject site for a single family
residence is expressly allowed in the R-8 zone, and no other
uses will be authorized through this permit.
Conclusion: The Board finds that granting the variance will
not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the
parcel of property.
. 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;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
Facts:
(1) There is an alternate development strategy available
which would avoid the variance: demolition of the existing
structure and rebuilding in compliance with required setbacks.
(2) The need for the variance is a result of the location of
the existing home on the property and the configuration of the
lot.
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2)
. (3) The variance would be of such a degree of variation as to
constitute a rezoning if other properties in the area were
similar and could thus assert the same entitlement.
(4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any public
or private nuisance as none has been identified.
Discussion:
(1) Demolition of the existing home would eliminate the need
for a variance but would not be of equal or less impact to the
site since such demolition would involve disturbance to the
site.
(2) None of the factors which are identified above under
"Facts" which result in the need for a variance are an action
taken by the applicant or the applicant's predecessor.
(3) Since few if any properties in the same vicinity and zone
are under the same circumstances, they would not be able to
assert the same entitlement and this variance would thus not
constitute a rezoning in effect.
(4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any public
or private nuisance as none has been identified.
. Conclusion:
Board finds an alternative strategy
(1) The that although
exists (Le. demolition and rebuilding), that alternative
would not be of equal or less impact to the site since it
would involve extensive disturbance of it.
(2) The Board finds that none of the factors resulting in the
need for the variance are the result of any action of the
applicant or the applicant's predecessor.
(3) The Board finds that approval of the variance will not
constitute a rezoning since few if any properties in the area
are under comparable circumstances and could thus claim rights
to the same entitlement.
(4) The Board finds that the variance will not legalize
maintenance of any public or private nuisance since none has
been identified.
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2)
. D. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
E. Permits from other agencies will be required as
follows:
California Coastal Commission
F. Project is approved as submitted as evidenced by
the site plan dated received by the City of
Encinitas on February 6, 1992, and signed by a city
Official as approved by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board on March 5, 1992, and shall not be
altered without Community Development Department
review and approval.
G. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the
applicant to intensify the authorized activity
beyond that which is specifically described in this
permit.
. H. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant
shall prepare a covenant which sets forth the
conditions of this approval.
I. All cost recovery fees associated with the
processing of the subject application shall be paid
to the Department of Community Development prior to
building permit issuance.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2. SITE DEVELOPMENT
A. site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plan which is dated and signed as
approved on March 5, 1992, by the Leucadia
Community Advisory Board and which is on file in
the Community Development Department and the
conditions contained herein.
B. For residential dwelling unit(s), the applicant
shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but not be limited to:
Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees. Water
and Sewer Service Fees, and Drainage Fees.
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2) CASE NUMBER 92-014 V
. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior
to building plan check approval as deemed necessary
by the appropriate agency.
C. Any change to the natural drainage or concentration
of drainage shall be adequately handled and shall
not impact adjacent properties.
3. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
A. Applicant shall provide a third off-street parking
space of at least 9'x18' with a backup distance of
22' if 90° parking is used.
B. Driveways shall meet the standards of the zoning
Ordinance, Public Works Standards, and the Off-
Street Parking Design Manual.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
4. FIRE
A. ACCESS ROADWAYS: The clear and unobstructed paved
width of a fire access roadway shall not be less
than sixteen (16') for a roadway providing access
. to a single family residence.
B. COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS: Prior to the delivery of
combustible materials on site, water and sewer
systems shall satisfactorily pass all required
tests and be connected to the public water and
sewer systems. In addition, the first lift of
asphal t paving shall be in place to provide a
permanent all weather access for emergency
vehicles. Said access shall be maintained to the
satisfaction of the Fire District.
C. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be clearly
visible from the street fronting the structure.
The height of numbers shall conform to 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 roadway. Permanent numbers
shall be affixed to this marker.
D. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: Structure(s)
shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler
system. Sprinkler systems shall be installed to
the satisfaction of the Fire District.
. CDj03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2) CASE NUMBER 92-014 V
E. RECORDATION: Prior to building permit issuance,
. the applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department 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 Fire District.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
5. UTILITIES
A. 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.
B. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the
respective utility agencies regarding services to
the project.
C. The developer shall be responsible for coordination
with S.D.G.& E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV
authorities.
. D. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities
unless exempt by the Municipal Code.
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2) CASE NUMBER 92-014 V
RESOLUTION NO. L 92-02
. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .
ATTACHMENT "B"
Applicant: Christensen
Case No: 92-014 V
Subject: Variance to encroach 14.5 feet into the required 25
foot rear yard setback for a proposed addition to a
single family residence in the R-8 Zone.
Location: 1550 Surf Road
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. The single family addition may encroach 14.5 ft. into the
rear yard for a setback of 10.5 feet from the east
property line.
B. No future additions to the principal structure shall be
allowed to encroach into the side yard area abutting the
southerly property line; the principal structure shall
maintain a 21' setback from the south property line as
. depicted on the approved site plan dated received by the .
City of Encinitas on February 6, 1992. This area is to
serve as the functional rear yard of the property. Prior
to building permit issuance, a covenant shall be recorded
by the property owner agreeing to this obligation.
II. STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. This approval will expire in one year, on March 5,
1993, 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 Planning
Commission within 15 calendar days from the date of
this approval.
C. 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.
. CD/03/CRO10-893wp51 (3-16-91-2) CASE NUMBER 92-014 V .