Loading...
1995-04 RESOLUTION NO. OL-95-04 . A RESOLUTION OF THE OLIVENHAIN COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH 14 FEET INTO THE 30-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ENCWSE A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SECOND STORY DECK TO ADD ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA TO AN ACCESSORY UNIT FOR PROPERTY WCA TED AT 1147 LARKSONG LANE (CASE NUMBER 95-093V; APN: 264-143-28) WHEREAS, an application for consideration of a Variance request was filed by Craig Colton / Robert Seehase (Designer) to allow the enclosure of approximately 172 square feet of an existing 800 square foot second story deck which encroaches 15 feet into the 3D-foot Front Yard Setback. Said enclosure adds additional living area to an existing attached Accessory Unit to a single family residence; and WHEREAS, the property is located within the RR-2 Zoning District at 1147 Larksong Lane, and is legally described as; PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5867, 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 28, 1977 AS RECORDER'S FILE NO. 77-159715 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. . WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board on June 6, 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 June 6, 1995 meeting; 2. The General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program 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 April 21, 1995. Said plans consisting of three sheets of which the first sheet is the Site Plan, the second sheet is the Building Floor Plans, and the third sheet is the Exterior Elevation Plans. 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") cd/crols: 1118195-093.011/(6-6-95) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 95-093 V is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: . A. . B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: The property owner/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 April 21, 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 June 6, 1997), 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. 4. Prior to framing inspection approval for the enclosure of the second story deck, the property owner/developer shall contact the Community Development Department for a Site Inspection to verify that the enclosed second story deck is no closer than fifteen (15) feet to the front lot line. 5. The property owner/developer shall pay development fees (as applicable) 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. 6. The carport structure located to the west of the Accessory Unit which is supported by the block wall in excess of 6 feet in height shall be removed prior to Final Occupancy approval. 7. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the property owner shall cause to be recorded with the Office of the Recorder of San Diego County a Covenant regarding real property which sets forth this grant of approval and the conditions herein. Said Covenant shall also satisfy the provisions setforth in Municipal Code section 30.48.040W 9 related to Accessory Units. The Covenant shall be in form and content satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: The property owner/developer shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau regarding compliance to the following conditions: 1. . ADDRESS NUMBERS: Address numbers shall be placed in a location that will allow them to be clearly visible from the street fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall conform to Fire District standards. cd/cro/a: 11/81'95-093 .011/(6-6-95) 2. FEES: Prior to Final Inspection approval, the property owner/developer 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 property owner/developer shall contact the Building Division regarding compliance to the following conditions: 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. 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 6th day of June, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Bode, Robertson, McGregor NAYS: Tutoli, Jordan . ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Scott M. Jordan, Chairm Olivenhain Community A visory Board, City of Encinitas ATTEST: rj(b(6~,D- Craig R. Olson Assistant Planner . ed/erola: 11/8195-093.011/(6-6-95) EXHmIT "A" Resolution OL-95-04 . 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. Eam: The application requests Variance to enclose a portion of an existing second story deck to add an area measuring 11 feet 9 inches by 14 feet 8 inches (approximately 172 square feet) to an existing attached Accessory Unit. The required Front Yard Setback in the Rural Residential-2 Zoning District is 30-feet. A comer of the existing garage and second story (with the deck) currently encroach 15 feet into this 30-foot setback. The structure was constructed pursuant to County development standards. . Discussion: The applicant contends that the Variance is warranted due to the location of the lot on the cul-de-sac and the unusual triangular shape of the lot which creates a longer linear frontage than other lots within the neighborhood. In addition, the existing footprint of the structure would not be expanded and the structure has a Lot Coverage of 20% while the RR-2 Zone permits a maximum Lot Coverage of 35 % . Therefore, the applicant contends that denial of the Variance request would deprive him of development rights enjoyed by other property owners in the neighborhood. Conclusion: The Olivenhain Community Advisory Board finds that the site constraints imposed on the lot by its location on the cul-de-sac and the fact that the existing structure was constructed pursuant to former County development standards which allow the current front yard setback precludes the privilege to remodel the structure in an area to expand the second story living area of the Accessory Apartment as would be enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under the same Rural Residential-2 Zoning Designations and that the Variance to the current 30- foot 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 second story addition to enclose a portion of an existing deck and to encroach 15 feet into the 30-foot Front Yard Setback to within fifteen feet of the front yard property line. Discussion: If the site was not impacted by the constraints associated with the location of the property on the cul-de-sac and if the existing structure had been constructed in accordance with current setback standards instead of previous County standards, the Variance would not be required. . cdlcrola: 11/81'95-093.011/(6-6-95) . 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. No conditions are required 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 since the Variance only allows for the enclosure of a portion of an existing second story deck. 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 District permits single family residential development and Accessory Units as a right. Discussion: The applicant desires to expand an existing second story bedroom of an existing Accessory Unit to a single family residence and the only practical way to achieve this is to enclose a portion of the existing second story deck. 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 regulations 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 Districts 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 alternate development plan is not practical since expansion into other areas would reduce the area currently enjoyed as open yards and would impact existing mature landscaping. The applicant desires to expand an existing second story bedroom of an attached Accessory Unit and the only practical way to achieve this is to enclose a portion of the existing second story deck. Since the structure was originally constructed in conformance with legal County setbacks and those setbacks have since changed, the applicant contends that the Variance is not self-induced nor is it a result of some Code conflicting action taken by the owner's predecessor. The Variance does not constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code since single family residences and Accessory Units are permitted by right within the RR-2 cdlcrola: Il1sI'95-093.011/(6-6-95) . . . Zoning District. No evidence has been received during the planning review process to indicate that the Variance approval would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance. 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. cdIcrola: 111.~5-093 .011/(6-6-95)