1994-07
RESOLUTION NO. OE 94-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATION
FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING THREE UNIT PROPERTY
IN THE RS-11 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
211 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 94-190 DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for Design Review and Variance Permit was
filed to allow an addition to a detached residence on a site with
three existing units in the RS-11 Zone, in accordance with Chapters
23.08 and 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 211 Neptune Avenue, legally described as:
Lots 27 and 28, Block G, of SEASIDE GARDENS, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof
no. l800, filed in the office of the recorder of said San
Diego County, August 6, 1924.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
November l7, and December 22, 1994, by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The November l7, and December 22,1994, staff reports to
the Community Advisory Board with attachments;
2. Application dated received October 11, 1994;
3. Plans consisting of two sheets, dated received by the
City October 11, 1994.
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")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves
application 94-190 DR/V subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of December, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Comeau, Harden
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Pearce, Wells
ABSTAIN: None
c{):~-
Adam Birnba m
Chairman of the Old Encini tas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
--'---:> ~~-¿:-;' . ~-'
/ =-~ ~ . {;~-_.-
, .---.. ..i6 ~-
Tom Cu . en
Associate Planner
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE 94-07
Case No. 94-190DR/V
Applicant: Satterthwaite
Findings: (Code Section, Factual circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion)
section 30.78 provides findings applicable to Variances:
This approval is based upon the following findings 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
duplex building having a total area of 1180 sq. ft., and a
single family home of 593 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to
add 824 sq. ft. of living space to the single family dwelling,
for a total area of 1417 sq. ft. A variance is being sought
in order to permit the addition to attach the existing single
family dwelling to the existing garage and shed structures.
The garage/shed structures encroach into the 20 ft. rear yard
setback by 10 ft. Additionally, the applicant proposes to
modify the roof-line of the garage/shed to be consistent with
the roof pitch of the home. Attaching the single family home
to the garage would technically cause the structure to become
nonconforming since it will cause the entire new unified
(attached) structure to encroach into the rear yard.
Discussion: As evidenced by photos submitted and testimony
received, the neighborhood in which the subject property is
situated includes many older, nonconforming structures which
are one-story and enjoy a larger lot coverage than is
presently allowed in the RS-ll zone, in many cases due to or
involving setback encroachments. In addition, many homes in
the area have encroaching accessory structures which are not
separated by 6 ft. or more from the primary unit(s). The
ability to maintain the subject unit at one-story while
enjoying a similar lot coverage while maintaining the
technical attachment of the accessory garage is the privilege
enj~yed by others the applicant seeks to also enjoy via the
varlance.
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
I
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
consti tute 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
duplex building having a total area of 1180 sq. ft., and a
single family home of 593 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to
add 824 sq. ft. of living space to the single family dwelling,
for a total area of 1417 sq. ft. A variance is being sought
in order to permit the addition to attach the existing single
family dwelling to the existing garage and shed structures.
The garage/shed structures encroach into the 20 ft. rear yard
setback by 10 ft. Additionally, the applicant proposes to
modify the roof-line of the garage/shed to be consistent with
the roof pitch of the home. Attaching the single family home
to the garage would technically cause the structure to become
nonconforming since it will cause the entire new unified
(attached) structure to encroach into the rear yard.
Discussion: Because the applicant has documented (and the
Board has observed) that there are a significant number of
older, nonconforming structures in the area wi th similar
setback encroachments and attachments to encroaching accessory
buildings, grant 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 RS-11 Zone is a residential zone permitting
detached single-family dwellings. However, the existing units
are legal nonconforming by virtue of having been built legally
prior to RS-11 zoning regulations, and are thus allowed to
remain as such.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the proposed residential
use would be consistent with subject zone.
CD/tC/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
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:
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 subject property is occupied with an existing
duplex building having a total area of l180 sq. ft., and a
single family home of 593 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to
add 824 sq. ft. of living space to the single family dwelling,
for a total area of 1417 sq. ft. A variance is being sought
in order to permit the addition to attach the existing single
family dwelling to the existing garage and shed structures.
The garage/shed structures encroach into th~ 20 ft. rear yard
setback by 10 ft. Additionally, the applicant proposes to
modify the roof-line of the garage/shed to be consistent with
the roof pitch of the home. Attaching the single family home
to the garage would technically cause the structure to become
nonconforming since it will cause the entire new unified
(attached) structure to encroach into the rear yard.
Discussion: The alternative is available to the applicant
to demolish existing structures on site and build anew,
conforming structure on the property. However, such a
structure could by right be two stories and up to 4,800 sq ft.
in area (based upon the allowed .6 FAR of the zone), which
would be of more impact to the nearby properties in terms of
light, air, privacy, and visual considerations. The inability
to enjoy the privileges enjoyed by others referenced in
Finding "A" above, the subject 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.
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
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.
Design Review Findings:
a. The project design is consistent with the General Plan, a
specific Plan, and the provisions of this Code.
Facts: Although allowed new development in the RS-11
zone is limited to detached single-family dwellings in
the General Plan and Municipal Code, the existing units
on site were constructed legally prior to institution of
the Rs-11 zone, they are considered legal nonconforming
pursuant to Chapter 30.76 of the Municipal Code. As an
addition to a multifamily project, Design review for this
type of development is required under Chapter 23.08 of
the Municipal Code. with the concurrent approval of the
associated variance request to allow the addition to
attach a garage encroaching into the rear yard setback,
the project will comply with all of the other technical
development standards set forth in Chapter 30.l0 of the
Municipal Code. There is no applicable Specific Plan.
Conclusion: with approval of the associated variance
request, this project is thus in full compliance with all
Municipal Code and General Plan provisions.
b. The project design is substantially consistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
Discussion: In terms of site design (Municipal Code
Section 23.08.074), the project involves addition to an
existing single-family dwelling with negligible or no
changes to the existing topography of the site. The
proj ect takes access from an alley to the rear, thus
largely separating vehicular and pedestrian movements.
Being located east of Neptune, there are no views
available through the subject property at issue.
In terms of building design (Municipal Code Section
23.08.076), the buildings on site are modest in scale,
being one story and (with the proposed addition) covering
approximately 35% of the 8,000 sq. ft. site. The
proposed addition will mimic the appearance of the home
to which it will be attached, with similar wood siding,
hipped roof, and colors.
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
I
with regard to landscape design (23.08.077) site
landscaping will remain as is presently, with the
addition covering only a small area of insignificant
landscaping from points of public view.
Conclusion: It is the opinion of the Board that the
proposal is in substantial compliance with the City's
adopted design criteria.
c. The project would not advers.ely affect the health,
safety,. or general welfare of the community.
Discussion: No aspect of the use has been identified
which would have any significant adverse affect on the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community.
Conclusion: The Commission finds that this project will
not adversely affect the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community.
d. The project would not cause the surrounding neighborhood
to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
Conclusion: The Commission finds that the proposed
development will be in character with the existing
development on the property and thus will cause no
material depreciation to the appearance or value of the
surrounding neighborhood.
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
I
ATTACHMENT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. OE 94-07
Case No. 94-190 DR/V
Applicant: Satterthwaite
A. This approval will expire in two years on December 22,
1996, 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 and Design Review Permit is approved as
evidenced by the application and project plans
(consisting of two sheets including site plan, floor
plans and elevations) dated received October 11, 1994,
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:
DRAINAGE
A. A drainage system capable of handling and disposing of
all surface water and foundation and footing drainage
originating within the property, and all surface waters
that may flow onto the subdivision from adjacent lands,
shall be required. Said drainage system shall include
any easements and structures as required by the City
Engineer to properly handle drainage to the Cottonwood
Creek.
CD/tc/10/94190DRV.RE2 (1-3-95)
B. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
STREET CONDITIONS
- Prior to work being performed in the public right-of-way,
a right-of-way construction permit shall be obtained from
the City Engineer's Office and appropriate fees shall be
paid, in addition to any other permits required.
UTILITIES
A. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design 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.
C. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground, including existing utilities,
unless exempt by the Municipal Code.
D. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation and
undergrounding of existing public utilities, as required.
CD/tc/10/94l90DRV.RE2 (l-3-95)
I