1994-03
RESOLUTION NO. OE 94-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE
OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR AN
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
TO ENCROACH 7 FT. INTO THE 25 FT.
REAR YARD SETBACK IN THE R-3 ZONE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
316 VIA JULITA
(CASE NUMBER 94-075 V)
WHEREAS, a request for Variance was filed to allow an
addition to an existing single family dwelling to encroach into the
25 ft. rear yard setback for a total setback of 18 ft., for the
property located at 316 Via Julita, legally described as:
The Southerly 61.4 feet of that portion of Lot 8 in Block "X"
of Seaside Gardens Annex, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the Map thereof No. 1801, filed in
the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August
6, 1924, lying Westerly of the Northerly prolongation of the
Easterly line of Lot "L" of Seaside Garden Heights, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map
thereof No. 2100, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, March 20, 1928, together with that
portion of the Northerly 53.96 feet of said Lot "L" of Seaside
Gardens Heights, lying Easterly of the Westerly 73.00 feet
thereof.
Excepting that portion of Lot 8, Block "X" which lies within
the following described parcel of land:
Beginning at the corner common to Lots 8 & 9, both of Block
II X" of Seaside Gardens Annex, according to Map 1801, said
corner being located on the Southerly boundary line of Ocean
View Avenue, and distant 182.16 feet Southwesterly along said
Southerly boundary line from the Northerly end of a curve
described by said Map 1801 as having a central angle of 85 25'
and a center line radius of 150.00 feet; thence Northeasterly
along the arc of said curve and on the Southeasterly boundary
line of said Ocean View Avenue, 182.16 feet to the Northerly
end of said curve; thence continuing on the Southeasterly
boundary line of Ocean View Avenue, North 29 05' East, 36.90
feet; thence South 89 30' 30" East 133.10 feet; thence South
0 29' 30" West 121. 04 feet to an intersection with the
boundary line between Lots 8 and 9 of Block "X" of said Map
No. 1801, being also the Northerly line of Seaside Gardens
Heights, Map No. 2100, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of the County of San Diego, March 20, 1928; thence
along said boundary line between said Lots 8 & 9 North 89 30'
30" West 299.99 feet to the Point of Beginning.
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 5
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
June 23, 1994, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The June 23, 1994, staff report to the Community Advisory
Board with attachments;
2. Application and project plans (consisting of site plan
and floor plan) dated received May 20, 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 94-075 V subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of June, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Comeau, Wells
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Harden, Pearce
ABSTAIN: None
\
1 \
,.'"^,",,
Adam Birnbaum
Chairman of the
Old Encinitas
community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
O/þv~
J~ ennedy
Junior Plann
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 6
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE 94-03
Case No. 94-075V
Applicant: Scott & Deborah Mickleson
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 standards for the R-3 Zone specify a technical
minimum lot size of 14,500 sq. ft. and a lot depth of 100 sq.
ft. The subject parcel is approximately 9,856 sq. ft. and is
approximately 85 ft. in depth.
Discussion: The subject parcel is substandard in size and
depth in comparison to the R-3 Zone standards, and in
comparison to the average lot size and shape of other
properties in the area. Because the lot is of a rectangular
shape, with the long-axis parallel to the street, the building
envelope is relatively shallow compared with the majority of
other properties in the surrounding area under the R-3 zoning
classification, leaving an relatively restrictive rear yard
area.
Additionally, the applicant has provided information (photo-
documentation) demonstrating that numerous other properties in
the vicinity have completed similar additions into the rear
yard setback.
Conclusion: The Board determines that there are special
circumstances which deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the same
zoning classification.
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
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 7
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
Facts: The average property in the surrounding area is
larger in size and has greater depth. This results in a
larger usable rear yard for the average property in the area.
Additionally, the applicant has provided information
demonstrating that several surrounding properties enjoy
similar encroachments into the rear yard area.
Discussion: The rear yard area of the property is
relatively restrictive. similar additions of living space
which encroach into the rear yard exist in the area.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the addition of
living space into the rear yard setback would not constitute
a grant of special privileges since the project site is
substandard in size and since numerous other properties in the
surrounding area enjoy similar additions of living space.
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 subject site is zoned Residential-3, and the
proposed use is residential.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the proposed addition
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
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 8
1. Facts: Despite the fact that the existing house, of
moderate size, is situated up to (and beyond) the current
front yard setback, there remains only 5 feet between the rear
of the house and the rear-yard setback line.
Discussion: Only 5 feet of "building envelope" remains in
the rear yard area in which to construct an addition.
Conclusion: The Board determines that there is no
reasonable alternate development plan with which to pursue
even a modest addition of living area to the existing home.
2. Facts: The development area consists of an unusually narrow
rear yard area, with a buildable envelope only 5 ft. in width.
Discussion: The site consists of the inherent condition of
a restrictive rear yard area.
Conclusion: The Board determines that the variance request
is not self-induced, due to the inherent site conditions which
create the limitation of an uncharacteristically small rear
yard area.
3. Conclusion: The Board finds that the subject residential
zoning will not be affected by the approval of this variance.
4. Conclusion: The Board finds that the addition would not
constitute and public nuisance.
5. The project is found to be exempt from Environmental Review,
per CEQA Section 15301(e) since the project consists of an
addition to an existing structure.
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 9
ATTACHMENT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution No. OE 94-03
Case No. 94-075 V
Applicant: Scott & Deborah Mickleson
A. This approval will expire in two years on June 23, 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 project plans (consisting of site plan and floor
plan) dated received May 20, 1994, and shall not be
altered without Community Development Department, or
Community Advisory Board review and approval, as
appropriate.
F. In the event that any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied, the Community Development Department
may cause a noticed hearing to be set by the authorized
agency to determine why the City of Encinitas should not
revoke this permit.
G. 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. In order to maintain the validity of this
Use Permit, said covenant shall be recorded within 30
days from the date of this approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
H. Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the 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
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 10
intersects the main roadway. Address numbers shall be
affixed to this marker.
1. Prior to granting development approval, the applicant
shall submit to the community Development Department a
letter from the Fire District stating that all fees
including plan check reviews and cost recovery fees have
been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the District.
J. Smoke detectors shall be inspected by the Fire
Department.
JK/94075V.SR (6-15-94) 11