1994-08
.
.
.
RBSOLUTION NO. OL-94-08
A RESOLUTION OP THB
OLIVBIÐIAIN COHKOBITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCB RBQUBST TO ALLOW
A PORTION OP A PROPOSED GARAGB TO BNCROACB TO
WITHIN 5 PEET OP THE SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE
POR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2542 PIPTH STREET
(CASE NUMBER 94-173V; APN: 259-221-53)
nERDS ,
an application for consideration of a Variance
request was filed by Charles Dederich / Ken Ringer, Architect to
allow for the construction of an attached two-car garage; a portion
of which will encroach into the interior side yard setback to
within 5 feet of the side yard property line for property located
at 2542 Fifth Street, and legally described as;
PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 5827, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAID MAP BEING FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON APRIL 21,
1977.
nERDS, a public hearing was conducted by the Olivenhain
Community Advisory Board on November 8,1994 and all those desiring
to speak, did speak; and
nERDS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board considered,
without limitation:
1.
The Agenda Report for the November 8, 1994 meeting;
2.
The General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing by staff, by the
applicant and by the public;
written evidence submitted with the application and at
the public hearing; and
4.
5.
The application, plans and supporting material dated
received by the City on September 28, 1994. Said plans
consisting of 2 sheets of which the first sheet includes
the site Plans with Front and Rear Building Elevations;
and the second sheet includes the Building Floor Plans.
cdIcroIa:9/1194173 .011 (11-02-94)
WBBRBAS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board made the
.
following findings pursuant to Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas
Municipal (Zoning) Code:
(SEE EXHIBIT "A")
BOW, TBBREPORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 94-173 V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
A.
.
5.
.
COJIJIUBITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: The developer shall contact
the Community Development Department regarding compliance with
the following conditions:
1.
The project is approved as submitted and evidenced by
plans dated received by the City on September 28, 1994
and shall not be altered without City approval or as
conditioned herein.
2.
This approval may be appealed to the Planning Commission
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval in
accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code.
3.
This Variance approval shall be valid for two years from
the effective date of the permit (to November 8, 1996),
during which time construction of the approved structure
shall be pursued in conformance with the Uniform Building
Code to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development; or as the effective period may be extended
pursuant to the Municipal Code.
Prior to foundation inspection approval and the pouring
of the foundation, the developer shall contact the
Community Development Department for a Site Inspection to
verify that the garage structure is no closer than five
(5) feet to the interior side yard lot line.
4.
For new residential dwelling unit(s), the applicant shall
pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but shall not be limited to: Permit and
Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer Service
Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees and Park Fees.
Arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the
appropriate department or agency to pay the impact fees
prior to Building Permit issuance or Final Occupancy
approval.
e41croIa:9/1194173 .011(11-02-94)
.
.
.
B.
~IRB PRBVBNTION DISTRICT: The developer shall contact the
Fire Prevention District regarding compliance to the following
cqndition:
1.
FEES: Prior to Final Occupancy, the applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department a letter
from the Fire Prevention District stating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees
have been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Fire
District.
C.
BUILDING DIVISION: The developer shall contact the Building
Division regarding compliance to the following condition:
A Building permi t is required for this proj ect. The
developer shall submit plans and specifications to the
Building Division for a complete plancheck review.
Contact the Building Division if there are any questions
concerning the plancheck submittal.
BB IT ~URTHBR RBSOLVBD by the Olivenhain Community Advisory
1.
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project is found to be categorically exempt from
Environmental Review pursuant to Section 15303 (a) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PASSBD AND ADOPTBD this 8th day of November, 1994, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Jordan, Bode, McGregor, Tutoli
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Van Slyke
ABSTAIN:
None
Scott M. Jorda , Vice-Chairman
of the Olivenha n Community
Advisory Board,
City of Encinitas
ATTEST:
~E-~
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
cdlcrofa:9/ar94173 .011(11-02-94)
BXHIBIT """
Resolution OL-94-08
.
~indings Pursuant to section 30.78.030
of the Xunicipal (Zoning) Code
Related to Variances
A. A Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance 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 ordinance
deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
~acts: The application requests a Variance to encroach into
the interior side Yard Setback to within five feet of the side
yard property line for a portion of the proposed two-car
garage. .
Discussion: The applicant requests the Variance due to the
site constraints imposed on the lot by a 40 foot access
easement located along the western edge of the property which
reduces the usable portion of the lot by approximately 24%.
The subject residence and three neighboring homes were
constructed at the same time with view corridors in mind and
the existing residence was not sited squarely on the lot in
order to accommodate the view corridor of the neighboring
property to the east.
.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Community Advisory
Board finds that the site constraints imposed on the lot by
the access easement on the westerly portion of the lot
precludes the privilege to develop the property as enjoyed by
other property owners in the vicinity and under the same Rural
Residential or Rural Residential-2 Zoning Designations and
that the Variance to the Side Yard Setback standard is
warranted.
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 vicinity and zone in which
such property is situated.
~act8: The Variance allows for a portion of a proposed 2-car
garage to encroach into the interior Side Yard Setback to
within five feet of the interior side yard property line.
.
Discussion: If the site was not impacted by the constraints
associated with the access easement on the western portion of
the lot, adequate area would be available to provide for the
attached garage.. Since the RR and RR-2 Zoning Districts
permit single family residential use with accessory garage
structures, no conditions are necessary to assure that the
Variance adjustment would constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is
situated.
cdlcroIa:9/1194173 .011 (11-02-94)
.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Board finds that the
Variance is warranted since the Variance approval does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which the property is situated.
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 regulation governing the parcel of
property.
Pacts: The Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Residential-2
(RR-2) Zoning Districts permit single family residential
development as a right.
Discussion: The project proposes the development of an
accessory structure which is typically associated with single
family residential structures.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Board finds that the
Variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation
governing the parcel of property.
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; or
4.
Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
.
Pacts: The project conforms in all aspects with the
development standards of the RR and RR-2 Zoning Districts and
all other applicable standards required by the Municipal Code
except for the encroachment into the interior side Yard
Setback as approved by this Resolution.
Discussion: An alternative design that would not require
Variance approval is not practical for this property and would
be of greater adverse impact to surrounding residents. For
example, if the proposed garage were to be located in front of
the existing garage, the neighboring view corridor to the east
would be adversely impacted and the design would not appear to
be an integral part of the existing structure. If the garage
were to be located to the rear of the residence and accessed
by the 40-foot easement; drainage swales, mature landscaping
c:dIcrola:9/u94173 .011 (11.(12-94)
.
.
.
and an existing pool would be impacted. In addition, at the
location to the rear of the residence the garage could not
have direct access to a bedroom due to Building and Fire Code
restrictions and the interior floor plan of the existing
residence would need to be remodeled.
The garage could be designed as a "detached structure" if it
were to be located six feet away from the main residence. The
Zoning Code allows for detached structures to encroach to
within five feet of an interior side yard property line
regardless of the residential zoning designation. Such a
design would have a greater impact on the resident to.the east
since the entire 30 foot length of the garage would be setback
only five feet from the interior side yard property line
instead of only a small portion of the proposed garage.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Board finds that the
project does not impose any significant adverse impacts to the
site and adjacent properties and that the Variance is not
self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property
owner or the owner's predecessor. The project does not allow
such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or
other amendment to the Zoning Code nor has any evidence been
submitted to indicate that the project would authorize or
legalize the maintenance of a private or public nuisance.
cdIcroIa:9/8I94173.oIl (11-02-94)