Loading...
1993-09 RESOLUTION NO. OE 93-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE/POOL HOUSE WHICH CURRENTLY ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS OF THE R-5 ZONE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 726 ARDEN DRIVE (CASE NUMBER 93-215 V) WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed by Mr. William Sommer to encroach fully into the required 10 ft side yard setback and 20 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback of the R-5 zone for an addition to an existing single family home to be attached to a detached garage/pool house (which exists in the setbacks) in accordance with Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 726 Arden Drive, legally described as: The North one-half of Lot 9 in Block "H" of Encinitas Highlands, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2141, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County December 4, 1928. WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on November 18, 1993, by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, the Board considered: 1. The November 18, 1993 staff report to the Community Advisory Board with attachments; 2. Application and project plans dated received October 21, 1993; 3. Correspondence from the public consisting of 16 letters in support; 4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing; 5. 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 "B") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby approves application 93-215 V subject to the following conditions: (SEE ATTACHMENT "C") BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Advisory board, in their independent judgement, found the project exempt from cd/MN/SR93215V.OEI (12-14-93) 5 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 18th day of November, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Birnbaum, Comeau, McGrath, Wells NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Q~-~è1~,~. ---. Adam Birnb. m, Chairman of the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board ~~~ Tom Cu rlden, Associate Planner cd/MN/SR93215V.OE1 (12-14-93) 6 ATTACHMENT "A" Resolution No. OE 93-09 Case No. 93-215 V Applicant: William Sommer 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 zoning classification. Facts: The proposal is to encroach 20 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback and fully into the required 10 ft side yard setback of the R-5 zone as the result of an attachment of the main residence to a detached garage/pool house within the setbacks for an addition with interior access from the garage to an existing single family home. No expansion of the garage/pool house within the setbacks is proposed with this application. The proposed addition will not encroach into the setbacks, however, the attachment creates one large building that encroaches into the setbacks. Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this property since the existing legal non-conforming garage/pool house structure encroaches into the rear and side yard setbacks and will not be expanded further within those setbacks as a result of the proposed addition. In addition, there is no feasible location on the lot where an attached garage could be constructed without the benefit of a variance. Finally, the attached garage will provide the residents a level of security which other property owners currently enjoy. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special circumstances are applicable to the project since the existing garage/pool house will not be expanded within the setbacks and that there is no ability for the applicant to construct an attached garage without benefit of a variance. 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 cd/MN/SR93215V.OE1 (12-14-93) 7 limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which property is situated. Fac'ts: The proposal is to encroach 20 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback and fully into the required 10 ft side yard setback of the R-5 zone as the result of an attachment of the main residence to a detached garage/pool house within the setbacks for an addition with interior access from the garage to an existing single family home. No expansion of the garage/pool house within the setbacks is proposed with this application. The proposed addition will not encroach into the setbacks, however, the attachment creates one large building that encroaches into the setbacks. There are other property owners in the neighborhood with attached garages. Discussion: The grant of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties since other property owners enjoy the convenience and security of an attached garage without the need for a variance. 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 to encroach 20 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback and fully into the required 10 ft side yard setback of the R-5 zone as the result of an attachment of the main residence to a detached garage/pool house within the setbacks for an addition with interior access from the garage to an existing single family home. No expansion of the garage/pool house within the setbacks is proposed with this application. No change in the primary single family use is propose in conjunction with this variance. Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the R-5 zone. Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this variance will not change the residential use or character of the residential unit. cd/MN/SR93215V.OE1 (12-14-93) 8 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 20 ft into the required 25 ft rear yard setback and fully into the required 10 ft side yard setback of the R-5 zone as the result of an attachment of the main residence to a detached garage/pool house within the setbacks for an addition with interior access from the garage to an existing single family home. No expansion of the garage/pool house within the setbacks is proposed with this application. The proposed addition will not encroach into the setbacks, however, the attachment creates one large building that encroaches into the setbacks. Discussion: Based on a site analysis which includes main building and parking location on the site and the location of existing garage/pool house within the setbacks, there is no feasible alternate development plan available which would allow the construction of an attached garage without the benefit of a variance. In addition, the project is not self- induced since the need for the variance is due to the original location of the garage/pool house (built in the 1940's) and main residence (built in 1956). Additionally, the grant of this variance will not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the Municipal Code since the need of the variance is due to the special characteristics of the subject lot. Finally, there is no evidence that the grant of this variance with authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance since the request has been supported by a majority of immediate neighbors. 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/SR93215V.OE1 (12-14-93) 9 CONDITIONS Project description . : SOMMER, WILLIAM & JILL Project number. . . : 93-215 Project type. . . . : MAJOR VARIANCE Application date . . : 10/21/93 CASE NO: 93-215 v RESOLUTION NO: OE93-09 APPLICANT: SOMMER LOCATION: 726 ARDEN DR VARIANCE TO ENCROACH FULLY INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK AND 20 FT INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. ENCROACHMENT IS THE RESULT OF ATTACHING THE EXISTING RESIDENCE TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE. ADDITION WILL NOT ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to occupancy of the residential building addition (ora later date to be determined by the Director), electrical permits for the pool house shall be obtained from the City to bring the electrical system into compliance with current codes. 2. The project is approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board on November 18, 1993 in accordance with the plans dated received October 21, 1993, and shall not be altered without Community Development Department review and approval. 3. Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is specifically described in this permit. 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. The applicant shall obtain permits from the California Coastal Commission and all other applicable regulatory agencies. 6. 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. 7. This approval may be appealed to the Authorized Agency within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval. 8. Upon a showing of compelling public necessity demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the City of Encinitas, acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or delete conditions and regulations contained in this permit. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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: 12. 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. 13. RECORDATION: Prior to granting final recordation or development approval, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Deparment a letter from the Fire District stating that all fees including plan check reviews and/or cost recovery fees have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire District. 14. SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be inspected by the Fire Department.