1995-01
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. OL-95-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE
0 UVENHAIN COMMUNITY AD VISOR Y DO ARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW
A PORTION OF A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL TO ENCROACH TO
WITHIN 18 FEET OF THE FRONT YARD PROPERTY LINE
FOR PROPERTY WCATED AT 2502 ROSEMARY COURT
(CASE NUMBER 95-037 V; APN: 265-026-17)
WHEREAS, an application for consideration of a Variance request was filed by Bruce Wiegand
I Bumann Ridge Partners to allow for the construction of a swimming pool; a portion of which will
encroach into the 30-foot Front Yard Setback approximately 12 feet (to within 18 feet of the front yard
property line along the Private Road Easement for Rosemary Court) for property located at 2502
Rosemary Court, and legally described as;
LOT 1 OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS TRACT NO. 90-073, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF
NO. 12886, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, NOVEMBER 5, 1991.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board on
March 7, 1995 and all those desiring to speak, did speak; and
WHEREAS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board considered,
without limitation:
1.
The Agenda Report for the March 7, 1995 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;
4.
Written evidence submitted with the application and at the public hearing; and
5.
The application, plans and supporting material dated received by the City on February
17, 1995. Said plans consisting of2 sheets of which the first sheet includes the Site Plan
and the second sheet includes the "As Built" Grading Plan.
WHEREAS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant
to Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal (Zoning) Code:
(SEE EXHIBIT" A ")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board of
the City of Encinitas that application 95-037 V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
~croI.: 1 0I1r95037 .01(3-7-95)
.
.
.
A.
COMMUNITY 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 February 17, 1995 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 March 7, 1997), during which time construction of the approved swimming pool shall
be pursued in conformance with the Uniform Building Code to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director; or as the effective period may be extended pursuant
to the Municipal Code.
4.
Prior to inspection approval and the pouring of the swimming pool plaster, the developer
shall contact the Community Development Department for a Site Inspection to verify that
the swimming pool structure is no closer than eighteen (18) feet to the Front Yard Lot
Line from the Private Road Easement for Rosemary Court.
5.
For new structures, 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,
Water and Sewer Service Fees (if Applicable), and Drainage 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 Building Permit inspection approval.
B.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: The developer shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau
regarding compliance to the following condition:
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 Permit is required for this project. 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.
cdlcrola: lO/srJSOO7 .01(3-7-95)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board of the City of
Encinitas that:
.
This project is found to be categorically exempt from Environmental Review pursuant to Section
15303(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: McGregor, Tutoli, Jordan
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Bode
ABSTAIN: Van Slyke
.
¿:~.Q
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
.
cdlcrola: 1 O/sr95037 .01(3-7-95)
EXHffiIT "A"
Resolution 01...-95-01
.
Findings Pursuant to Section 30.78.030
of the Municipal (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.
~: The application requests a Variance to encroach a maximum of 12 feet into the 30-foot
Front Yard Setback to within eighteen feet of the front yard property line for a portion of a
proposed swimming pool.
Discussion: The applicant requests the Variance due to the site constraints imposed on the lot
by the location of the existing residential structure, the limitation of the size of rear yard area
prohibiting the placement of a swimming pool in the rear yard, and the location of the driveway
along the east side of the property which limits the useable portion of the lot. The subject
residence and neighboring homes were constructed with view corridors in mind and the existing
residence was not sited squarely on the building pad of the lot.
.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board finds that the site
constraints imposed on the lot by the location of the existing structure, the location of the
driveway and the slopes of the pad area precludes the privilege to construct a swimming pool
on another location on the lot as might be enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and
under the same Rural Residential-2 Zoning Designation and that the Variance to the Front 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.
Facts: The Variance allows for a portion of a proposed swimming pool to encroach into the 30-
foot Front Yard Setback to within eighteen feet of the front yard property line from the Private
Road Easement.
Discussion: If the site was not impacted by the constraints associated with the padding of the
lot and the location of the existing structure, adequate area would be available to provide for the
swimming pool in the rear portion of the lot. Since the RR-2 Zoning Districts permit swimming
pools as accessory structures to single family residences, 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 the property is situated.
.
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.
cdlcroIa: 10/.195037 .01(3-7-95)
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.
.
Facts: The Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Zoning Districts permit single family residential
development and accessory swimming pools as a right.
Discussion: The project proposes the development of an accessory structure (i.e.: a swimming
pool) 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.
Facts: The project conforms in all aspects with the development standards of the RR-2 Zoning
District and all other applicable standards required by the Municipal Code except for the
encroachment into the Front Yard Setback as approved by this Resolution.
Discussion: An alternative design that would not require Variance approval is not practical for
this property due to the sloped areas of the building pad, the location of the existing residence
and the location of the driveway along the easterly side of the lot restricting the useable area of
the lot for the location of a swimming pool. The proposed swimming pool is to be located
within the front yard setback but the property is located on a comer lot and the pad elevation
is nine feet above the street. Therefore, nearby residents are not anticipated to be adversely
impacted by the location of the swimming pool. Therefore, the location of the swimming pool
would not impact any surrounding views.
.
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 due to
the fact that the existing structure could have been located to within 25 feet of the rear yard
property line which would have allowed the pool to be located in the front yard without
encroaching into the Front Yard Setback and existing physical constraints on the site warrant the
Variance approval. 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
cdlcroIa: 10/ar95037 .01(3-7-95)
.
.
.
indicate that the project would authorize or legalize the maintenance of a private or public
nuisance.
cdlcrola; 101.195037.01(3-7-95)