1992-12
RESOLUTION NO. OE92- 12
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 4'
INTO THE REQUIRED 20' REAR YARD SETBACK AND TO EXCEED THE
REQUIRED LOT COVERAGE STANDARD OF 40% TO 46% (252 SQUARE FEET)
OF THE RS-l1 ZONE FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 362 LA VETA AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 92-053 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. James Cravens to permit a 4' encroachment into the required
20' rear yard setback of the RS-11 zone for a garage and second
story addition and a variance from the required lot coverage
standard of 40% to 46% (252 square feet) per Chapters 30.16 and
30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property
located at 362 La Veta Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 9 in Block "J" of Seaside Gardens, according to Map
thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, August 6, 1924.
,
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
May 11, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated May 4, 1992;
2. The application, site plan, floor plan, elevations and
Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant dated
received April 20, 1992;
3. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
4. Additional written documentation.
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
AdvisDry Board of the city of Encinitas that application 92-053 V
is he:eeby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
Mmb\92..053V . RES (3/11/92)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encini tas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 1530l (e) of the state CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 1992, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Cartwright, Cowen, Lewis, Steyaert
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
vi inia C
Ch irperson of
t e Old E~cinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST: ~
......,...._--/<./_? ...~
" ~ ~~¿;
Tom CurrJ. en
Associate Planner
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)
ATTAClDŒNT "A"
Resolution No. OE92- 12
Case No. 92-053 V
Applicant: James Cravens
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. In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.87.030A, 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 4' into the required 20'
rear yard setback with a garage and second story addition
above and a variance from the required lot coverage standard
of 40% to 46% (252 square feet). The length of the
encroachment is 22'6" ft. The lot size is 4,000 sq ft with
dimensions of 100' x 40" which is typical for lots on La Veta
Avenue.
Discussion: Due to the location of the existing older
residence that currently does not have a garage structure on
the property, this is a special circumstance which makes
having the privilege enjoyed by others, that is two off-street
parking spaces, impossible. Further, the applicant has
submitted a plat map with his statement of justification
depicting 8 other residences in the area that have similar or
greater encroachments. To adhere to the required 20' rear
yard setback and the 40% lot coverage limitation, the garage
would need to be a maximum of 218 square feet and 17'6" in
depth, which is well below the standard garage clear space
requirement, or the applicant would need to significantly
alter the existing residential structure.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project due to the
location of the existing residence on the property which makes
the rear yard the most logical location for the garage
addition. Further, a garage of 218 square feet would not be
adequate in size to park two cars and allowing a larger garage
requires a variance from the lot coverage requirement.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)
B. In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030B, 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.
Faots: The applicant states in his statement of justification
that other properties in the vicinity have garages and the
structures are situated within 20' of their rear property
lines. The site plan submitted April 20, 1992 indicates that
many of the properties are, in fact, closer than 20' to the
property line.
Discussion: The proposal for adding onto the back of the
residence is consistent with other structures in the area, and
it is not a special privilege to allow the construction of a
garage and addition onto a single family residence on an RS-11
lot. Further, the proposal for construction of a garage will
allow the applicant to park in the garage and not on the
street which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity. "
Conclusions: The Board finds that the allowed use of the RS-
11 property is single family residential. It is not a special
privilege to allow ~he construction of a garage addition onto
the single family residence on the RS-ll lot. The Board finds
that the special circumstance which apply to the subject lot
and existing structure constitute adequate reason for the
variance approval and no special conditions are necessary
since the variance does not authorize a grant of special
privilege. Further, the proposal for construction of a garage
will allow the applicant to park in the garage and not on the
street which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
vicini ty , and therefore, does not constitute a grant of
special privileges.
C. In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030CA 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.
Faots: The proposal is to encroach 4' into the 2~' rear yard
setback with an attached garage and addition above.
Discussion: The attached garage is a accessory to the primary
residential use on the lot which is permitted in the RS-11
zone.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)
Conclusions: Approval of the garage encroachment will not
result in any change in residential use on the property.
D. In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030D, no
variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
l. 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 4' into the required 20'
rear yard setback with an attached garage and addition above.
The rear yard is the only location on the property large
enough to build a garage without substantial alteration to the
existing home, and a 218 square foot garage is not an adequate
size to park two cars if the 40% lot coverage was met.
Discussion: In his statement of justification, the applicant
states that the existing residence was built about 1929, on a
lot that was established on August 6, 1924 such that the need
for the variance is not the result of an action of the
applicant. Any alternate development plan would require a
variance without demolition of a portion of the existing
structure even if the applicant were to place the garage in
the front yard (currently the existing house is set back 20'
from the property line) because of the placement of the older
existing home or build a garage per the required standards.
Conclusions: Therefore, the Board finds that no alternate
development plan is possible which would be less impacting to
the site and adjacent properties, that the garage encroachment
is not self induced, and that the approval of this variance
will not result in a new front yard setback standard or
legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)
i
I
ATTACHKENT liB"
Resolution No. OE92- 12
Case No. 92-053 V
Applicant: James Cravens
Conditions:
1. Buildina Department: Plans shall be submitted to the Building
Department for plan check approval. A complete plan check
will be done when plans are submitted to the Building
Department.
2. Fire Department: Prior to building permit issuance, applicant
shall submit a statement from the Fire District to the
Community Development Department indicating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have
been paid.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible (rom the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the 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 intersects
the main road. Permanent numbers shall be affixed to this
monument.
3. Enaineerina:
a. The developer shall obtain a grading permit,. if
applicable, prior to the commencement of any clearing or
grading of the site.
b. The grading for this project is defined in Chapter 23.24
of the Encini tas Municipal Code. Grading shall be
performed under the observation of a civil engineer whose
responsibility it shall be to coordinate site inspection
and testing to ensure compliance of the work with the
approved grading plan, submi t required reports to the
City Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 23.24 of
the Encinitas Municipal Code.
c. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the Project
unless a letter of permission is obtained from the owners
of the affected properties.
d. A soils/geological/hydraulic report (as applicable) shall
be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the state
of California to perform such work prior to building
permit issuance; or at first submittal of a grading plan.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/l1/92)
e. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any
proposed construction site within this project, the
developer shall submit to and receive approval from the
City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer
shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling
operation.
f. Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
g. Developer shall execute and record a covenant with the
County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of
an assessment district to fund the installation of right-
of-way improvements.
h. The developer shall comply with all the rules,
regulations and design requirements of the respective
utility agencies regarding services to the project.
i. The developer shall be responsible for cQordination with
S.D.G. & E., Pacific Telephone and other applicable
authorities.
j. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground including existing utilities unless
exempt by the Municipal Code.
4. If substantial construction has not been completed in reliance
upon a granted variance within one year of the grant, then
upon notice to the property owner, and an opportunity to
present information to the Community Development Director, the
Director may declare the variance to have expired with the
privileges granted thereby canceled.
5. In the event that one or more of the conditions imposed on the
variance is violated, the Director, upon notice and an
opportunity to present information, may revoke the variance or
impose additional conditions.
6. The approved project shall conform to plans reviewed and
approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board and
shall not be increased in height, extend beyond the
limitations of the approved variance, or otherwise modified
beyond the approved plans and limitations of this variance
without prior approval by the City.
7. Permits or findings of exemption shall be obtained from the
state Coastal Commission and any other applicable Government
Agencies.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)
8. The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant regarding
real property which sets forth this grant of approval. The
Covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the
Director of Planning and Community Development.
9. Prior to foundation and/or pad preparation for the proposed
remodel, the property shall be staked and lined to indicate
all property lines to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development. An inspection shall be made 0 f the
site prior to Building Department inspection of the
foundations for the portion of the structure requiring the
variance.
10. A proponent or protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
11. All new decking within the permitted 3' side yard setbacks
shall be 30" or less in height.
12. The two new trees indicated on the approved ~ite plan dated
received April 20, 1992 shall be indicated on building plans
and installed at a minimum 24 inch box size, to be verified
and found satisfactory by the Community Development Dept.
prior to final occupancy.
Mmb\92-053V.RES (3/11/92)