Loading...
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