Loading...
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 .