Loading...
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)