1990-23
.
8
8
RESOLUTION NO. OL 90-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLIVENHAIN
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CHAPTER 30.78 VARIANCES, AND SECTION 30.16.010
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PROPERTY BEING LOCATED AT 2436 LONE JACK ROAD
WHEREAS, James Kahlert, applied for a Variance from Chapter
30.78 Variances, and Section 30.16.010 Residential Zones of the
City of Encini tas Zening Ordinance to allow an existing fence
height to exceed the allowed 4' height limit in the exterior side
yard setback by 2' for a total of 6' in height, located at 2436
Lene Jack Road; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application
90-168-V on September 4, 1990 by the Olivenhain Community Advisory
Board, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard;
and,
WHEREAS,
evidence
was
submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
a.
b.
site plan submitted by the applicant dated July 5,1990;
Written information submitted with the application;
Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing;
CAB staff report (90-168-V) dated August 29, 1990 which
is en file in the Department of Planning and Community
Development; and
Additional written documentation.
c.
d.
e.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Olivenhain Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that:
A.
A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall
be granted only when, because of the special
circumstances applicable te the property, including size,
shape, topography, lecation or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning ordinance deprives such
LN/CAB22/240wp (10-15-90)
8
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Evidence to Consider:
The .50 acre lot is standard for the area. Due to the
location of the house on the site, and the location
directly adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway, the
noise and visual effects on the residence are greater
than they might be on a standard .5 acre let elsewhere
in the same zone. The request for an additional two feet
of fence height is to help mitigate the visual, afford
some privacy, and soften the noise levels to some degree.
A neise study has net been submitted, and an adequate
noise attenuation wall is net being proposed. He does
feel, however, that there will be some noticeable
difference, and staff agrees.
It appears that the proposed design is not detrimental
to the surrounding area and does not interfere with sight
distances along the roadway. No comments have been
received from the neighboring property owners in
opposition to the fence. Staff would recommend that the
CAB discuss whether there is a need for additional
planting outside of the fence.
8
In conclusion, because of the location of the site
adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway, staff feels that
there are special circumstances which do deprive the
subject site of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical zoning classification
that may not be located on a major roadways, and would
provide a buffer from the visual effects and the noise
of the traffic te a greater degree.
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.
Evidence to Consider:
The granting of this variance would not constitute the
granting of special privileges inconsistent with
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
zone in which the property is located because a
substantial body of evidence has been submitted showing
that there are a considerable number of 6' high or taller
fences and walls located in this area along Rancho Santa
8
LN/CAB22/240wp (10-15-90)
8
C.
D.
.
Fe Road, E street, and Lone Jack Road.
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 provisions of this section
shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Evidence to Consider:
The granting of this variance would not authorize a use
or activity not expressly authorized by the zoning
regulations governing this property since the use is a
single family dwelling which is consistent with the zone.
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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code; or
4.
Would authorize .or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence to Consider:
2.
1.
The fence is needed in its present location along
the exterior side of the property. In order to
locate the fence outside the setback so as not to
need a variance, it would put the fence considerable
closer to the dwelling, and would require removal
of dense existing landscaping inside the property.
The fence in its present location allows more
fexibility in the yard area and serves the purposes
mentioned above.
The need for the variance is not self-induced since
the roadway has existed in its present location as
a heavily traveled east/west connection, and the lot
was created prior to the applicant's purchase of the
lot.
8
LN/CAB22/240wp (10-15-90)
8
.
8
3.
The granting of the variance would only permit a
single family home as currently allowed and would
not, therefore, constitute a rezoning.
4.
There are currently no private or public nuisances
on the site which the zoning would legalize or
authorize.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED THAT the application for Variance for 90-
168-V is hereby APPROVED with the following conditions:
1.
Fire Department: Prior to approval of the variance the
applicant shall submit a letter from the fire district
stating that all project review fees have been paid.
2.
The fence shall not be located within three feet of any
existing fire hydrant.
3.
The location of the fence shall not block the view .of a
vehicle exiting E street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of September, 1990, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Beardmembers Duvivier, Trujillo, Perkins, and Johnson
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Boardmember Wiegand
ABSTAIN:
"
Nene
CHUCK DU VIVIER, Chairman of the
Olivenhain Community Advisory Board
LN/CAB22/240wp (10-15-90)