1994-05
RESOLUTION NO. OE 94-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE
OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO ALLOW
A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK
TO BE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN DWELLING IN THE R-15 ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 234 THIRD STREET
(CASE NUMBER 94-209 V)
WHEREAS, a request for Variance was filed to allow a
garage located within the 20 ft. rear yard setback, located 5 ft
from the rear and side property line, to be attached to the main
dwelling, for the property located at 234 Third Street, legally
described as:
Lot 5 in Block 26 of Town of Encinitas, in the County of San
Diego, according to the Map thereof No. 148, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 12,
1883.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
November 17, 1994, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board;
and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The November l7, 1994, staff report. to the Community
Advisory Board with attachments;
2. Application and project plans (consisting of site plan
and floor plan) dated received October 28, 1994;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board made the following
findings pursuant to Chapters 30.74 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 94-209 V subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
SR94209.0E (11-8-94) 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Harden, Pearce
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Comeau, Wells
ABSTAIN: None
( (\ -
1)11 .\~~
. . \.Mk. 'J ' -
Adam Birnbaum
Chairman of the
Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
SR94209.0E (11-S-94) 6
~ -- ~
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE 94-05
Case No. 94-209V
Applicant: Smyer / Jones
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 residential development standards contained
within Municipal Code section 30.16.010E-3 permit detached
accessory buildings (i.e. garages) to be located within a rear
yard setback to within 5 ft. of a rear property line, provided
that the accessory building is separated from the main
building by a minimum of 6 ft. The variance application
proposes a 2-car garage, located 5 ft. from the rear property
line, to be attached to the main building via two stairway
structures. One of the stairway structures connects the
second level of the dwelling to the garage roof-deck. The
other stairway is located on the east side of the garage and
encroaches into the 6 ft. structural separation required
between such buildings. The site slopes from the north to the
south (north property line elevation is approximately 42 ft.
in elevation whereas the elevation near the south property
line in the vicinity of the garage is approximately 34 ft.)
The variance is to permit an as-built condition established by
the applicant based upon a misunderstanding of Zoning Code
requirements.
Discussion: The garage, if not attached with the stairway
structures, would be permitted by right in the rear yard. The
placement of the garage is not an issue. The issue before the
Board is whether the stairs which technically connect the two
structures are of such magnitude as to warrant denial of the
variance. If the stairs to the roof deck over the garage from
the second story of the house were to be removed, the
applicant could construct an outdoor balcony off of the second
floor. That balcony and the floor of the roof deck over the
garage would not connect and would be separated by an airspace
SR94209.0E (11-8-94) 7
of 6 feet. The stairs on the east side of the garage could be
demolished and the residents of the house would walk through
the side yard, onto the patio area and into the house. The
proposed plan, with approval of the variance, would permit the
residents to go up the east stairs and cross over the bridge
into the house. Neither the bridge nor the east stairs will
present a significant view impact into or through the site.
The existing topography on the site places the garage building
at a lower elevation than the house and provides a natural
transition from the second level of the dwelling to the garage
deck. This stairway structure provides access to the rear
yard area.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the technical
connection between the single family dwelling and the garage
is of a minor nature. The garage could be constructed by
right within the rear yard setback. Due to the terrain of the
site and the limited outdoor area, the variance is warranted.
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: Standard-sized garages, per Zoning Code allowances,
are commonly located within rear yard setback, to within 5 ft.
of the property line based upon recent standards, and
frequently are found to be located at the rear property line,
based upon older standards.
Discussion: The application is to construct a standard
garage which will be techniciilly attached to the residence
with two sets of stairs.
Conclusion: The variance approval will not constitute a
grant of special privilege since the garage portion of the
structure would be permitted by right. The variance is
necessary solely due to the stairs connecting the two
structures.
C. In reference to Municipal Code section 30.7S.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-15 Zone is a residential zone permitting
typical residential uses.
SR94209.0E (11-S-94) S
Conclusion: The Board determines that the proposed residential
use would be consistent with subject 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:
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 applicant's designer had exercised due diligence
in designing the structure. Several meetings between the
designer and staff had taken place to arrive at the final
design. Staff, when authorizing the building permit, had
understood that the structural elements connecting the garage
to the single family dwelling would be at or near grade (thus
qualifying as "detached"). This assumption was a result of
the discussions cited above. The approved plans do not
indicate that the stairs are at grade. The applicant has
stated to staff that an alternate plan would have been
considered if he was aware that a variance was needed for the
plan which is presently under construction. The stairs are
not a nuisance since they are not easily seen from the public
right of way and are not of sufficient size, bulk and mass to
constitute a rezone or amendment to the zoning code.
Discussion: Based upon the evidence in the administrative
record, the applicant did not seek to conceal the stairway
construction and acted in good faith in designing and building
the structures on the site. Staff was of the understanding
that the stairs would be at grade and, as such, would not
constitute an element which would result in the connection of
the garage and single family dwelling. The applicant has
chosen to process a variance application as opposed to
removing the stairs and redesigning elements of the site.
Conclusion: The grant of the variance could have been
avoided by an alternate development plan; however, it has been
demonstrated that the applicant and staff concluded at the
SR94209.0E (ll-8-94) 9
design stage that the stairs were permitted and would not
result in an above grade connection of the buildings. The
variance is granted since the connection is not of sufficient
size, bulk and mass to. constitute a significant impact to the
site or neighboring properties.
The project is found to be exempt from Environmental Review,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303 since the project
consists of an addition to an existing structure.
SR94209.0E (11-S-94) 10
ATTACHMENT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. OE 94-05
Case No. 94-209 V
Applicant: Smyer / Jones
A. This approval will expire in two years on November 17,
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 is approved as evidenced by the application
and proj ect plans (consisting of site plan and floor
plan) dated received October 28, 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.
SR94209.0E (11-8-94) II
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 Cable TV 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 publ ic util i ties, as required.
SR94209.0E (11-8-94) 12