1992-18
RESOLUTION NO. OE92-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 19'
10" INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FT REAR YARD SETBACK, 6 I'T INTO THE
REQUIRED 10 FT N. EL PORTAL EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND TO
EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE 40% LOT COVERAGE TO 46% OF THB RS-11 ZONE
FOR A GARAGE WITH ROOI' DECKS ABOVE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
465 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE HUMBER 92-087 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Casey Nelson to permit a 19'10" encroachment into the
required 20' rear yard setback, a 6 ft encroachment into the
required 10 ft N. EI Portal exterior side yard setback, and to
exceed the allowable 40% lot coverage to 46% of the RS-ll zone for
a garage with roof decks above addition to an existing single
family residence per Chapters 30.16 and 30.78 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 465 Neptune
Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 14 in Block "E" of Seaside Gardens, in the County of San
Diego, state of California, according to Map thereof No. l800,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, August 6, 1924.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
July 9, 1992 and August 20, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff reports dated July 1, 1992 and August 10, 1992;
2. The application, Statement of Justification and revised
site plan, floor plan and elevations submitted by the
applicant dated received July 29, 1992;
3. Letters from several neighbors submitted prior to the
July 9, 1992 CAB meeting;
4. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
5. written information submitted at the public hearing;
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-087 V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15301 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Steyaert, Lewis
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Cartwright
ABSTAIN: None ~~~
V1rg1n1a Car wr1g ,
Chairperson of
the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~ - c-.~,'~
Tom Curr1den
Associate Planner
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 5
ATTACHKENT "A"
Resolution No. OE92-18
Case No. 92-087 V
Applicant: Casey Nelson
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 request is for a variance to encroach 19'10" into
the required 20 ft rear yard setback, to encroach 6 ft into
the required 10 ft N. EI Portal street side yard setback, and
to exceed the allowable 40% lot coverage to 46% for a garage
with roof-decks addition to an existing single family home in
the RS-ll zone. The irregularly shaped lot is bounded by 3
streets: Neptune Avenue on the west side, N. El Portal street
on the south side, and an alley on the east side. The
residence currently has no garage because the original 2-car
garage was legally converted in the 1960' s. CUrrently, 2
parking spaces are provided on the south portion of the site
in the rear and exterior side yard in the general area where
the 2 one-car garages with roof decks are proposed. Since the
existing residence is constructed to the front, side and rear
yard setback lines, and the lot coverage is 37%, the
construction of a garage on the property is not possible
without the benefit of a variance unless a portion of the
existing structure is removed.
Discussion: The applicant has provided the attached statement
of Justification and supplementary documentation which provide
evidence that special circumstances are applicable to the site
since the property fronts on three public streets, is
irregularly shaped and there is no other feasible location
where are garage could be constructed without the benefit of
a variance. In addition, other property owners have 2-car
garages and 2nd story decks within the rear yard setback and
exceed the allowable 40% lot coverage. The proposed location
of the 2 one-car garages are designed to minimize the
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 6
encroachment into the street side yard setback and their bulk
and mass. Finally, the applicant has reduced the 2nd story
deck encroachment to reduce view impacts from the property to
the east and the easterly 2nd story deck is requested to
provide a private outside space for the residents.
Conclusion: The Board finds that special circumstances are
applicable to this property since there is no other feasible
location available on the site where a garage could be
constructed without the benefit of a setback and lot coverage
variance. In addition, the 2nd story decks provide an outside
pr~vate space which other property owners in the neighborhood
enJoy.
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 request is for a variance to encroach 19'1O" into
the required 20 ft rear yard setback, to encroach 6 ft into
the required 10 ft N. EI Portal street side yard setback, and
to exceed the allowable 40% lot coverage to 46% for a garage
with roof-decks addition to an existing single family home in
the RS-11 zone. The irregularly shaped lot is bounded by 3
streets: Neptune Avenue on the west side, N. EI Portal street
on the south side, and an alley on the east side. The
applicant has provided evidence that other property owners in
the neighborhood enj oy rear yard setback encroachments, exceed
the allowable lot coverage and have 2nd story decks which
encroach into setbacks.
Discussion: In his statement of Justification the applicant
has provided evidence that other property owners have garages
which encroach into the rear yard setback. In addition, the
applicant has provided evidence that many other property
owners have 2nd story decks which encroach into setbacks. The
applicant has provided evidence that many other properties in
the neighborhood exceed the allowable lot coverage of the
RS-ll zone.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
does not constitute a grant of special privileges since there
are other properties in the neighborhood that enjoy rear and
side yard encroachments with garages and 2nd story decks. In
addition, other properties in the neighborhood exceed
allowable lot coverage. Finally, the Board finds that since
the 2nd story deck is removed from the street side yard
setback and the garage roof was reduced in height from the
that which was originally proposed, the original view impact
issues have been mitigated.
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 7
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 the remodel and addition of an
existing duplex into a single family residence. In addition,
a variance is requested to encroach into the rear and street
side yard setbacks, and to exceed allowable lot coverage to
enable the construction of 2 one-car garages with. roof decks
above.
Discussion: The grant of this variance will not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly authorized in the RS-11
zone since the use will be converted back into a single family
residence.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
will not authorize a use or activity which is not authorized
in the RS-¡l.
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:
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 request is for a variance to encroach 19'10" into
the required 20 ft rear yard setback, to encroach 6 ft into
the required 10 ft N. EI Portal street side yard setback, and
to exceed the allowable 40% lot coverage to 46% for a garage
with roof-decks addition to an existing single family home in
the RS-11 zone. The irregularly shaped lot is bounded by 3
streets: Neptune Avenue on the west side, N. EI Portal street
on the south side, and an alley on the east side. The
residence currently has no garage because the original 2-car
garage was legally converted in the 1960's. Currently, 2
parking spaces are provided on the south portion of the site
in the rear and exterior side yard in the general area where
the 2 one-car garages with roof decks are proposed. Since the
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 8
existing residence is constructed to the front, side and rear
yard setback lines, and the lot coverage is 37%, the
construction of a garage on the property is not possible
without the benefit of a variance unless a portion of the
existing structure is removed.
Discussion: The applicant contends that no alternate
development plan for the garage exists which would be less
impacting to the site than that which is under consideration.
The plans have been revised to address the back~out safety
problems found with the original proposal, to reduce the bulk,
mass and view impact issues discussed by the CAB, and to
replace private outdoor patio space eliminated with the new
garage design. In addition, the applicant states that the
need for a 2-car garage is not self-induced since it is the
result of a poor design decision made 34 years (regarding the
location of the original 2-car garage) and that the garage was
legally converted 20 years ago. Finally, the applicant
contends that the approval of this variance would not result
in a new setback or lot coverage standard, or create a private
or public nuisance.
Conclusion: The Board finds that no alternate development
plan fQr a 2-car garage with roof decks that is less impacting
to the site is feasible. The design solution will enable the
residents of 465 Neptune Avenue to have two enclosed parking
spaces with a tandem parking space in front of the easterly
garage and to have private outdoor space with minimal view
impacts from the property to the east. In addition, the
visual impact of the II ft high garage and roof-deck railing
along the alley is mitigated with Bougainvillea or other vines
to be planted next to lattice attached to the wall. The Board
also finds that the variance is not self-induced since the
need for the variance is the result of the original building
design. Additionally, the Board finds that the grant of this
variance will not result in a new zoning setback standard
since this property is irregularly shaped and is bounding by
three streets which is not common in the neighborhood.
Finally, the Board finds that the grant of this variance will
not legalize any public or private nuisance, rather will
upgrade the property and improve access and visibility along
the alley.
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 9
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. OE92-18
Case No. 92-087 V
Applicant: Casey Nelson
Conditions:
1. Buildina De~artment: 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 from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the Fire District standards.
3. Encrineerinq:
a. 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.
D. Community Development
I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. 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 Community Development.
II. STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. This approval will expire in one year, on August 20, 1993
at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance
unless specifically waived here.
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 10
3. 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 unless specifically waived here.
4. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
state Coastal Commission
5. Project is approved as submitted/modified as evidenced by
the site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated received by
the City of Encinitas on July 29, 1992, and signed by a City
Official as approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board on August 20, 1992, and shall not be altered without
Community Development Department review and approval.
6. 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 l.l2 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
7. 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 Fees, Drainage Fees, Fire
Mi tigation Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these
fees shall be paid prior to Building Permit issuance or as
deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
8. Driveways shall meet the standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, Public works Standards, and the Offstreet Parking
Design Manual.
C:\MATT\92087V.SR2 (8-10-92) 11
I