1992-22
RESOLUTION NO. OE92-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FT REAR YARD SETBACK TO
ENABLE THE ENCLOSURE OF TWO PATIO COVERS ON ADJOINING LOTS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
745 AND 749 SUNFLOWER STREET
(CASE NUMBER 92-181 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. William Mendenhall representing Ms. Margaret Gordon and Ms.
Yvette King to allow an 8 ft encroachment into the required 20 ft
rear yard setback of the R-11 zone to enable the enclosure of
existing patio covers per Chapters 30.16 and 30.78 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at
745 and 749 Sunflower Street, legally described as:
A 50% interest in Lot 55 of Map 6490, Pacific Serena Unit No. 1 of
Encinitas, recorded in the office of the San Diego County Recorder,
San Diego County, California.
For 745 Sunflower Street; and
A 50% interest in Lot 56 of Map 6490, Pacific Serena Unit No. 1 of
Encinitas, recorded in the office of the San Diego County Recorder,
San Diego County, California.
For 749 Sunflower Street.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
October 22, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated October 14, 1992;
2. The application, site plan and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant dated received October 2, 1992;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-181 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 22nd day of October 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Steyaert, Cartwright, Comeau
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Lewis, Birnbaum
ABSTAIN: None al;\~
~
.lrg.ln.la wr.lg,
Chairperson of
the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
~TEST~
~~~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 6
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE92-22
Case No. 92-181 V
Applicant: Mendenhall Construction
Margaret Gordon
Yvette King
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 for two adjacent property owners of
attached single family homes to encroach 8 ft into the
required 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-11 zone with patio
enclosures. The 200 sq ft patio covers already exist within
the rear yard setback. Section 30.16.010 A10 requires that
all primary residential structures maintain the 20 ft rear
yard setback. The lot dimensions of these two duplex lots are
approximately 90 ft wide by 85 ft deep. Many of the other
lots in the neighborhood are deeper, up to 128 ft depth.
Discussion: Special circumstances are applicable to this
property due to the minimal depth of the lot which denies the
applicant the ability to enclose existing patio covers without
the benefit of a variance. Since many of the surrounding lots
in the neighborhood are much greater in depth, other property
owners have a larger building envelope and, therefore, can
construct a room addition off the back of the house without
the need for a variance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project due to the minimal
depth of the lot which denies the applicant the ability to
enclose existing patio covers 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
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone in which property is situated.
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 7
Facts: The proposal is for two adjacent property owners of
attached single family homes to encroach 8 ft into the
required 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-11 zone with patio
enclosures. The 200 sq ft patio covers already exist within
the rear yard ,setback. Section 30.16.010 A10 requires that
all primary residential structures maintain the 20 ft rear
yard setback. The lot dimensions of these two duplex lots are
approximately 90 ft wide by 85 ft deep. The applicant has
identified four other properties in the immediate vicinity
which also have constructed room additions off the back of
their homes. Three of these additions have been constructed
within the rear yard setback.
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 have
constructed similar structures off the back of their homes,
both within the rear yard setback on the 80-85 ft deep lots,
and outside of the 20 ft rear yard setback on the deeper lots.
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 two adjacent property owners of
attached single family homes to encroach 8 ft into the
required 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-11 zone with patio
enclosures. The patio enclosures will not change the
residential use or character of the single family attached
units.
Discussion: The grant of this variance does not authorize a
use or activity which is not expressly permitted in the R-11
zone.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of this
variance will not change the residential use or character of
the attached single family homes.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to en joy the
privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification:
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 8
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 for two adjacent property owners of
attached single family homes to encroach 8 ft into the
required 20 ft rear yard setback of the R-11 zone with patio
enclosures. The 200 sq ft patio covers already exist within
the rear yard setback. Section 30.16.010 A10 requires that
all primary residential structures maintain the 20 ft rear
yard setback. The lot dimensions of these two duplex lots are
approximately 90 ft wide by 85 ft deep. The attached single
family homes are set back 25 ft from the front property line,
5 ft from the side property lines and 25 ft from the rear
property line with the existing patio covers extending an
additional 13 ft (8 ft into the setback).
Discussion: Based on a site analysis which includes building
location on the site and location of required setbacks, there
is no alternate development plan available which would allow
an addition more than 5 ft in width without the benefit of a
variance. In addition, the project is not self-induced since
the need for the variance is due to the small floor area of
the single family residences and the minimal depth of the
lots. 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 minimal depth of
only a small percentage of the lots within the subdivision.
Finally, there is no evidence that the grant of this variance
with 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.
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 9
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. OE92-22
Case No. 92-181 V
. Applicant: Mendenhall Construction
Conditions:
1. Buildinq 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 from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the Fire District Standards.
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 two years, on October 22,
1994 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
Ordina~ces in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance
unless specifically waived here.
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.
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 10
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 October 2,1992, and signed by a City
Official as approved by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board on October 22, 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 1.12 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
Mitigation 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.
MN\92181V.SR (10-14-92) 11