Loading...
1993-03 RESOLUTION NO. OE 93-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FT REAR YARD SETBACK OF THE R-15 ZONE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 40% LOT COVERAGE FOR A 108 SQ FT ADDITION TO 2 EXISTING ILLEGAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ENABLING THEIR LEGALIZATION THROUGH THE CITY'S ILLEGAL UNIT POLICY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 852 THIRD STREET (CASE NUMBER 93-093 V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed by Mr. Donald Clark for a 108 sq ft addition to 2 existing illegal units to encroach into the 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone and to exceed maximum lot coverage in accordance with Chapters 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located in the R-15 zone at 852 Third Street, legally described as: Lot 7 in Block 32 of Encinitas, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to 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 July 22, 1993, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the Board considered: 1. The June 17, 1993 staff report to the Community Advisory Board with attachments (continued to July 22, 1993 for lack of a quorum) 2. Application and project plans dated received May 20, 1993; 3. Illegal Unit Policy authorization letter from the Director of Community Development dated September 3, 1991; 4. Correspondence from the public consisting of 9 letters in support of the project; 5. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; 6. 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 Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 93-093 V subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "B") cd/MN/SR93093.0El (6-10-93) 5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Advisory board, in their independent judgement, found the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e) since the project is an addition of less than 2,500 sq ft in an area with existing facilities and not environmentally sensitive. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Birnbaum, Elliott, Comeau, McGrath, Wells NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None elL.. ~ Adam Birnbaum, Chairman of the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board ATTEST: ~/".~, Associate Planner cd/MN/SR93093.0E1 (6-10-93) 6 I ATTACHMENT "A" Resolution No. OE-93-03 Case No. 93-093 V Applicant: Donald Clark Findings: (Code Section, Factual Circumstances, Reasoning, Conclusion What follows are the findings of fact the Board must make to approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 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 zonlng classification. Facts: The proposal is to encroach 17 I 6" into the required 20 ft rear yard setback and to exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage to 40.86% for a 108 sq ft, 6' x 18' addition to 2 existing illegal units in the R-15 zone. The approximate 55 sq ft addition to the front (south) side of each unit is requested to enable their legalization through the city's illegal unit policy which allows existing units constructed prior to October 1986 to be legalized provided that they meet zoning standards to the extent practical and comply with the current Building and Fire Codes. The existing structure, a 480 sq ft garage converted into 2 units sometime in 1959, encroaches 17'6" into the rear yard setback and 2'6" into the 5' north side yard setback. An additional 55 sq ft per unit is required to meet the minimum 220 sq ft floor area (excluding bathroom, kitchen and closet). Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this property since the existing structure already encroaches 17' 6 II into the rear yard setback and no feasible addition to the 2 units is possible without a variance to encroach into the rear yard setback, exceed lot coverage, or both (as is requested). In addition, the 6 ft expansion will not encroach any further into the setback than the existing building and the proposal will only exceed the permitted lot coverage by 60 sq ft. Finally, the applicant has identified 10 other properties within 300 ft of the subject site with encroachments and 4 other properties with 3 or more units on an identical 5,000 sq ft lot (Chapter 30.09, Use No. 102 provides for only 2 units on a 5,000 sq ft lot in the R-5 zone). cd/MN/SR93093.0E1 (6-10-93) 7 I Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special circumstances are applicable to the project due to the inability to legalize both units through the city's illegal unit policy without benefit of a variance and since there are other properties within the neighborhood with similar rear yard encroachments, multiple units and lot coverage which exceeds the standards. 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 proposal is to encroach 17'6" into the required 20 ft rear yard setback and to exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage to 40.86% for a 108 sq ft, 6' x 18' addition to 2 existing illegal units in the R-15 zone. The applicant has identified 10 other properties within 300 ft of the subject site with encroachments and 4 other properties with 3 or more units on an identical 5,000 sq ft lot. The applicant received a preliminary approval from the city to proceed with legalization of the 2 units through the city's illegal dwelling unit policy. Discussion: The grant of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties since there are other properties in the neighborhood which enjoy building encroachments into the rear yard and multiple units on a 5,000 sq ft lot. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other property owners in the neighborhood. 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to use permits. Facts: The proposal is for a variance to encroach 17'6" into the 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone and to exceed the 40% lot coverage to 40.86% for a 108 sq ft addition to 2 illegal units, enabling their legalization through the city's illegal unit policy. The addition will not change the residential use or character of the neighborhood since the 2 units have existed (illegally) since 1959. cd/MN/SR93093.0E1 (6-10-93) 8 Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the R-15 zone or through the illegal unit policy. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this variance will not change the residential use or character of the subject parcel. 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 proposal is to encroach 17'6" into the required 20 ft rear yard setback and to exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage to 40.86% for a 108 sq ft, 6' x 18' addition to 2 existing illegal units in the R-15 zone. The approximate 55 sq ft addition to the front (south) side of each unit is requested to enable their legalization through the city's illegal unit policy. The existing structure, a 480 sq ft garage converted into 2 units sometime in 1959, encroaches 17'6" into the rear yard setback and 2'6" into the 5' north side yard setback. An additional 55 sq ft per unit is required to meet the minimum 220 sq ft floor area (excluding bathroom, kitchen and closet). The primary duplex is located 10 ft east of, and at a lower elevation than the converted garage. There are 2 parking spaces located approximately 7 ft south of the converted garage. Discussion: Based on a site analysis which includes building size and location on the site, there is no alternate development plan available which would allow the legalization of both illegal units through the city's illegal unit policy without benefit of a variance. Although an addition to these units could be constructed to the east of the converted garage and outside of the 20 ft rear yard setback, this option would result in elimination of natural light to the main duplex unit and would "attach" the converted garage to the main structure. In addition, this option would still require a variance to exceed lot coverage since the existing coverage is already cd/MN/SR93093.0E1 (6-10-93) 9 1,954 sq ft and a 108 sq ft addition is required to meet the minimum Uniform Building Code standards. Secondly, a 2nd story addition to the converted garage would also require a rear yard setback variance. The need for the addition is not self-induced since the request for the variance is due to the unit size requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code and the illegal unit policy provides for their legalization since they existed prior to October 1986. Addi tionally, the grant of this variance wLII not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the Municipal Code since this is processed under the illegal unit policy. Finally, there is no evidence that the grant of this variance would authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that there are no alternate development plans available which would be of less impact to the site, the variance is not self-induced, it will not constitute a rezoning or amendment to the Municipal Code, and it will not authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance. cd/MN/SR93093.0E1 (6-10-93) 10 ATTACHMENT "c" Project description. : CLARK, DON Project number. . . : 93-93 Project type. . . . . MAJOR VARIANCE . Application date . 05/18/93 . . . Variance to encroach into the required 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-15 zone and to exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage for a 108 sq ft addition to 2 existing illegal residential units (to be legalized). Applicant: Donald Clark Case No.: 93-093 V Location: 852 Third street Environmental status: Exempt per Section 15301 (e) of CEQA specific Conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions contained within the illegal unit policy in effect at the time of approval including making the units available to low or very low income households, unless otherwise waived by the city. General Conditions: 1. The project is approved in accordance with the plans dated received May 20, 1993 and shall not be altered without Community Development Department review and approval 2. The applicant shall obtain permits from the California Coastal Commission and all other applicable regulatory agencies. 3. This approval may be appealed to the Authorized Agency within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Municipal Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived here. 5. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within 2 years from the date of project approval. If the applicant is not able to obtain building permits due to a growth management program within the 2 year period, this approval may be extended by the Community Development Director to allow for the issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall execute and record a covenant setting forth the terms and conditions of this approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. For new residential dwelling unites), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, Traffic Mitigation Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be made prior to Final Map approval (where applicable) or building permit agency to the satisfaction of the respective agencles. 8. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 9. A Building permit is required for this project. Submit plans and specifications to the Building Division for a complete plancheck and review. Please contact the Building Division if you have specific questions about your plan submittal. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PREVENTION DISTRICT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 10. ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform to Fire District Standards. NOTE: Where structures are located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent numbers shall be affixed to this marker. 11. SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be inspected by the Fire Department. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The applicant shall pave the alley to city standards.