1995-05
RESOLUTION NO. OL-95-05
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE
OLIVENHAIN COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A MINOR USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE 12 FOOT
HEIGHT STANDARD TO 22 FEET AND TO EXCEED THE
STANDARD AREA OF 1,003 SQUARE FEET TO 1,738 SQUARE FEET
AND APPRO V AL OF A V ARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 50% COVERAGE OF THE
REAR YARD SETBACK AREA TO 58% AND TO ENCROACH TO
WITHIN 2 FEET 4 INCHES OF THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE
FOR A ONE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 566 COLE RANCH ROAD
(CASE NUMBER 95-112 MINtV; APN: 265-021-53)
WHEREAS, an application for consideration of a Minor Use Permit and a Variance request was
filed by Stephen Pringle t Frank Astorga (Designer) to allow a 1,210 square foot, 2-story addition to
an existing detached garage. The Minor Use Permit to allow the addition to the detached garage to
exceed the 12 foot height standard to 22 feet and to exceed the 1,003 square foot size standard (i.e.:
50% of the living area of the principal residence) to 1,738 square feet was denied. However, Variance
approval allows the addition to exceed the 50% Rear Yard Coverage standard to 58% and to encroach
2 feet 4 inches into the 5-foot Rear Yard Setback for the detached, one-story structure which will be
located seven feet from the northerly side yard property line; and
WHEREAS, the property is located within the RR-2 Zoning District at 566 Cole Ranch Road,
. and is legally described as;
LOTS 92 AND 93, BLOCK 42 COLONY OLIVENHAIN, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF
NO. 287, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, AUGUST 21, 1885.
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 May 17,
1995. Said plans consisting of two sheets of which the first sheet is the Site Plan and the
Building Floor Plans of the Detached Garage and Addition, and the second sheet is the
Exterior Elevation and Roof Plans.
.
cdJcro/a: l1/sI'95-112.01l/(6-6-95)
.
.
.
WHEREAS, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board made the following findings pursuant
to Sections 30.74.070 (Use Permits) and 30.78.030 (Variances) of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE EXHIBIT nAn)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board of
the City of Encinitas that application 95-112 MIN is hereby denied and 95-112 V is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions:
A.
COMMUNITY DEVEWPMENT DEPARTMENT: The property owner/developer shall
contact the Community Development Department regarding compliance with the following
conditions:
1.
The first story portion of the project is approved as submitted and evidenced by plans
dated received by the City on May 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 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 foundation inspection approval and the pouring of concrete for the addition's
footings, the property owner/developer shall contact the Community Development
Department for a Site Inspection to verify that the addition is no closer than two feet
eight inches (2' 8 ") to the rear 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.
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. The Covenant shall be in
form and content satisfactory to the Director of Community Development. The use of
the detached Accessory Structure is limited to those uses appurtenant to the single family
dwelling in that the addition shall not be provided with cooking facilities and shall not
be rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling.
cd/croll: 11/8r95-112.011/(6-6-95)
.
.
.
B.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT: The property owner/developer shall contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau regarding compliance to the following conditions:
1.
ACCESS ROADWAYS: Fire apparatus access roadways shall have an unobstructed
paved width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less
than 13 feet 6 inches. Access to one single family residence shall not be less than 16 feet
in paved width.
2.
FUEL MODIFICATION: The property owner/developer shall submit a letter from the
Encinitas Fire District stating that required fire/fuel breaks have been provided to the
satisfaction of the District.
3.
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: The addition shall be protected by an
automatic fire sprinkler system installed to the satisfaction of the Fire District if, at any
time, the addition is used as a dwelling unit.
4.
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.
5.
SMOKE DETECTORS: Smoke detectors shall be installed in the dwelling units and
shall be inspected by the Fire District prior to Final Occupancy.
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.
cd/era/a: 11111'95-112.011/(6-6-95)
.
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Jordan, Bode, McGregor, Robertson, and Tutoli
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
S ott . Jordan, Chair
Olivenhain Community
City of Encinitas
A TrEST:
C#tl. IL . Q
Craig R. Olson
Assistant Planner
cdlcrola: 1118r9S-112.oIlI(~9S)
EXHffiIT IIAII
Resolution OL-9S-0S
.
Findings Pursuant to
Chapter 30.74.070 (Use Pennits)
of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed project will be
compatible with and will not adversely affect and will not be detrimental to adjacent uses, residences,
buildings, structures or natural resources, with consideration given to, but not limited to:
a.
The adequacy of public facilities, services and utilities to serve the proposed project;
b.
The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is
proposed; and
c.
The harmful effect, if any, upon environmental quality and natural resources of the City.
Facts: The application is a request for Minor Use Permit approval to exceed the 12 foot height
standard to 22 feet and to exceed the 1,003 square foot size standard (i.e.: 50% of the living
area of the principal residence) to 1,738 square feet for a proposed addition to an existing
detached garage.
.
Discussion: All required public facilities and utilities are available, or can reasonably be
extended to the site. All roadway improvements, water service, sewer service and landscaping
can be accommodated in conjunction with the proposed development. The proposed addition
would result in a Lot Coverage of 34.92% (2,934 s.f. -:- 8,400 s.f. = 34.92%). The RR-2
Zone permits a maximum Lot Coverage of 35 %. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards are not
applicable to the RR-2 Zoning District. Although the detached structure was originally
constructed in conformance with legal County setbacks and those setbacks have since changed,
the second story portion of the addition in this location would impact adjacent property owners
and the usability of the yard areas of their properties. The height of the second story would
create an adverse visual impact to the future residents across the alley in that the structure would
be located only 2 ft. 8 in. from the 20 foot wide alley. The request is categorically exempt from
environmental Review pursuant to Section 15303(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
Conclusion: The Olivenhain Community Advisory Board finds that adequate public facilities,
services and utilities are available to the site to provide for the type of development proposed.
However, the intensity of the 2-story portion of the structure is found to be incompatible with
the site and adjacent properties due to its location and the potential for the second story portion
to afford views into adjoining properties yard areas and the massiveness of the structure so close
to a narrow alley. Therefore, the Minor Use Permit is denied by the Board.
2. The impacts of the proposed project will not adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas
General Plan or the provisions of the Municipal Code; and
.
3. The project complies with all other regulations, conditions or policies imposed by the
Municipal Code.
cdIcrofa: Ilfs~S-112.ollf(6-6-9S)
.
.
.
Facts: Detached Accessory Structures are permitted by right in association with single family
detached structures. The Municipal Code limits such structures to a 12 foot standard height
standard and a 1,003 square foot size standard (i.e.: 50% of the livable area of the principal
residence) unless approved by issuance of a Minor Use Permit to exceed those standards.
Discussion: Evidence was submitted during the planning review process Public Hearing to
indicate that approval of the Minor Use Permit to allow the requested height and size of the
Detached Accessory Structure would adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan
or the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board finds that approval of the
Minor Use Permit would adversely affect the policies of the Encinitas General Plan and the
provisions of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the Minor Use Permit is de~ied.
cdIcrola:ll/sr95-112.o11/(6-6-95)
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.
&m: The application requests Variance to encroach 2 feet 4 inches into the 5-foot Rear Yard
Setback for Detached Accessory Structures and to exceed the 50 % coverage standard of the rear
yard setback area to 58 % . The current detached structure was constructed pursuant to County
development standards and is located 2 feet 8 inches from the rear yard property line.
Discussion: The applicant contends that the Variance is warranted due to several conditions.
For example, the small size of the lot (8,900 square feet) in comparison to the current lot size
requirement of the RR-2 Zone (21,500 square feet). If the lot were a size comparable to other
RR-2 lots, enough area would exist to provide a three-car garage and storage/recreation area
without benefit of a Variance. Without adequate garage and storage area, off-street parking and
storage would be outside and visible to other properties in the area. Adherence to the five foot
setback would also require additional retaining walls and fill since the pad for the garage is
approximately three feet higher than the pad for the residence. Extending the garage into the
southerly side yard would impact the view corridor of the property to the west, across the alley.
.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Olivenhain Community Advisory Board finds that the site
constraints imposed on the lot and the fact that the existing structure was constructed pursuant
to former County development standards which allowed the current rear yard setback precludes
the privilege to remodel the structure in any other area on the lot and that the Variance to the
current 5-foot Rear Yard Setback standard for Detached Structures and exceeding the 50%
coverage standard to 58 % is warranted for the one-story portion of the structure.
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 the Detached Structure to encroach 2 feet 4 inches
into the 5-foot Rear Yard Setback in-line with the existing structure that was constructed in
accordance with County standards. The Variance also allows the 50% coverage standard to be
exceeded to 58 %.
.
Discussion: If the site was not impacted by the constraints on the lot related to lot size,
topography, and the current location of existing structures, the additional garage, storage and
recreation area could be located elsewhere. Since the detached structure was originally
constructed in conformance with legal County setbacks and those setbacks have since changed,
the extension of the structure at its current location is logical. No conditions are necessary to
assure that the Variance approval does not authorize or constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such
cdlcro/a: Il/sr95-112.011/(6-6-95)
property is situated since Detached Accessory Structures are customarily associated with single
family residences.
.
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 for the one-story portion of the structure
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 Detached Accessory
Structures (limited to 12 feet in height and 50% of the living area of the principal residence) are
customarily associated with single family residences.
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.
~: The Rural Residential-2 (RR-2) Zoning District permits Detached Accessory Structures
(limited to 12 feet in height and 50% of the living area of the principal residence) in association
with single family residential development as a right. The Detached Accessory Structure was
originally constructed pursuant to County standards.
Discussion: The applicant desires to expand an existing Detached Accessory Structure and the
only practical way to achieve this is to extend the structure at its current location.
.
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 one-story portion of 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 Rear Yard Setback and exceeding the 50%
coverage of the rear yard to 58 % as approved by this Resolution.
.
Discussion: The proposed addition would result in a Lot Coverage of 34.92 % (2,934 s.f. +
8,400 s.f. = 34.92 %). 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
cd/croll: 11/81'95-112.011/(6-6-95)
.
.
.
rights enjoyed by other property owners in the neighborhood due to the constraints on the lot
related to lot size, topography, and the current location of existing structures. Since the one-
story detached 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. 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 one-story portion of 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.
cdlcrola: 1118195-112.011/(6-6-95)