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)