1995-06
RESOLUTION NO. OE 94-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION
TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IN THE R-3 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
344 SUNSET DRIVE
(CASE NUMBER 95-069 V)
WHEREAS, a request for Variance was filed to allow an addition
to a single family residence in the R-3 Zone to encroach 5 feet
into the front yard setback for a garage addition and 8 feet into
the front yard setback for an open-air, entry feature addition, in
accordance with Chapter 30.78 of the city of Encinitas Municipal
Code, for the property located at 344 Sunset Drive, legally
described as:
Lots 24 and the Southeasterly 6.0 feet of Lot 25, Block V, of
SEASIDE GARDENS ANNEX, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to map thereof No. 1801, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 6,
1924.
The Northwesterly line of said southeasterly 6 feet of
said Lot 25 being parallel with and distant 6 feet at
right angles Northwesterly from the Southeasterly line of
said Lot 25.
EXCEPTING FROM said Lots 24 and 25 the Southwesterly 150
feet thereof.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
April 20, 1995, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The April 20, 1995 staff reports to the Community
Advisory Board with attachments;
2. Application dated received March 27, 1995;
3. Plans consisting of five sheets, dated received by the
City March 27, 1995.
4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Any written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following
findings pursuant to Chapters 30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal
Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves
application 95-069 V subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Davis, Harden
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
( ( /\
~l(}oJ'->'-- \:~/)L' ~'--
Adam Birnbaum
Chairman of the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
.~,
T~ Curnden ~
Associate Planner
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 5
ATTACHMENT nAn
Resolution No. OE 95-
Case No. 95-069 V
Applicant: Maqy
Findinqs: (Code Section, Factual circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion)
section 30.78 provides findings applicable to Variances:
This approval is based upon the following findinqs pursuant to
section 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code:
A. In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.030 (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 subject property is occupied with an existing
single family residence having a total living area of 2360 sq.
ft. There is also an attached single car garage and carport of
approximately 400 sq. ft. located 12 feet from the front
property line. The applicant proposes to add 600 sq. ft. of
living area to the single family dwelling, for a total area of
2960 sq. ft. A variance is being sought in order to permit
the construction of a two car garage (replacing the existing
garage and carport) 20 feet from the property line. The
project also consists of an entry feature addition or pergola
that is proposed to encroach 8 feet into the front yard
setback.
Discussion: The applicant's statement of justification
indicates the subject property is sloping 20% away from the
street which has resulted in the main living level being 3-4
feet below the street level. Applying the standard setbacks
for the R-3 zone would push proposed development downhill
resulting in steeper grades to overcome when designing
automobile access. The existing garage and carport encroaches
13 feet into the front yard setback. As proposed, the overall
encroachment of the parking structures will be reduced to 5
feet. The neighborhood in which the subj ect property is
located includes many older, nonconforming structures which
are situated 5-8 feet from the front property line. The
addition of the pergola serves to identify and emphasize the
entry to the home and is an open sided structure that will
maintain the setback of the existing residence.
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 6
Conclusion: Thus, the Board finds that the variance is
warranted to allow the applicant to enjoy a similar
development privilege to that enjoyed by others in the same
vicinity and zone.
B. In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.024 (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 subject property is occupied with an existing
single family residence having a total living area of 2360 sq.
ft. There is also an attached single car garage and carport of
approximately 400 sq. ft. located 12 feet from the front
property line. The applicant proposes to add 600 sq. ft. of
living area to the single family dwelling, for a total area of
2960 sq. ft. A variance is being sought in order to permit
the construction of a two car garage (replacing the existing
garage and carport) 20 feet from the property line. The
project also consists of an entry feature addition or pergola
that is proposed to encroach 8 feet into the front yard
setback.
Discussion: Because the applicant has documented that there
are a significant number of older, nonconforming structures in
the area with greater setback encroachments, approval of the
variance would not be a grant of special privilege beyond that
already enjoyed by a substantial number of others in the same
vicinity and zone.
Conclusion: Thus, the Board finds that the variance
approval will not constitute a grant of special privilege.
C. In reference to Municipal Code section 30.78.024 (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.
Facts: The R-3 Zone is a residential zone permitting
detached single-family dwellings.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the proposed residential
use would be consistent with the zone.
D. In reference to Municipal Code Section 30.78.024 (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:
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 7
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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
Facts: The subject property is occupied with an existing
single family residence having a total living area of 2360 sq.
ft. There is also an attached single car garage and carport of
approximately 400 sq. ft. located 12 feet from the front
property line. The applicant proposes to add 600 sq. ft. of
living area to the single family dwelling, for a total area of
2960 sq. ft. A variance is being sought in order to permit
the construction of a two car garage (replacing the existing
garage and carport) 20 feet from the property line. The
project also consists of an entry feature addition or pergola
that is proposed to encroach 8 feet into the front yard
setback.
Discussion: The applicant could demolish and rebuild the
existing structures in their present location. Instead, the
applicant has chosen to pull the structure back thereby
reducing the encroachment significantly while increasing the
enclosed parking in the neighborhood. The inability to enjoy
the privileges enjoyed by others referenced in Finding "A"
above, the subj ect of the variance, is due to the older,
nonconforming nature of the structure on the site and many
others in the neighborhood, not the result of an action taken
by the applicant or the applicant's predecessor. The variance
applies to only one property and would not be of a scale as to
constitute a rezoning, and no evidence has been identified to
suggest that approval of the variance would authorize
maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the variance could not be
avoided by an alternate development plan of less or equal
impact to the site and to adjoining properties, that the need
for the variance is not self-induced by an action of the
applicant or the applicant's predecessor, that grant of the
variance will not constitute a rezoning, and that approval of
the variance will not authorize the maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 8
ATTACHMENT nBn
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. OE 95
Case No. 95-069 V
Applicant: Maqy
A. This approval will expire in two years on April 20,1997,
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. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Municipal Code and all other
applicable City Ordinances.
D. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
California Coastal Commission.
E. The Variance Permit is approved as evidenced by the
application and project plans (consisting of five sheets
including site plan, floor plans and elevations) dated
received March 27,1995, and shall not be altered without
Community Development Department, or Community Advisory
Board review and approval, as appropriate.
F. The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
regarding real property which sets forth this grant of
approval. The covenant shall bear the notarized
signature of the property owner and be in form and
content satisfactory to the Director of Community
Development.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
UTILITIES
A. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and des ign 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 other applicable
authorities.
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 9
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
A. Prior to granting final development approval, the
applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
letter from the Fire District stating that all fees
including plan check reviews and/or cost recovery fees
have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire
district.
SR95069V.OE (4-20-95) 10