1989-29
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, CITY OF ENCINTIAS,
APPROVING A VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT
TO ALLOW FENCING TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OF
LOCATED AT 231 LA VETA
(CASE NUMBER 89-133V)
CODE
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Design
Review Permit filed by Donald Sutton and Treva Sudhalter to allow
fencing to exceed the height limitations of code as per Chapter
30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the
property located at 231 La Veta, legally described as;
Lot 13, Block 'B' of North Encinitas, according to the Map
thereof No. 1845, filed in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
November 30, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1.
The staff report dated September 5, 1989;
2.
The application,
plans,
and photos submitted by the
applicant;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4.
written evidence and additional photographs submitted by
neighbors of the project adjacent to the south of the
subject property and across La Veta; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following
findings
pursuant
to
Chapter
30.78
of
the
zoning
Ordinance.
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
TC/03/CRO4-427wp51(12-05-89)
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that Variance and Design
Review Application
89-133V
is hereby approved
subj ect to the
following conditions:
SEE ATTACHMENT "B"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review,
section 15305.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of November, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Birnbaum, Kauflin, Rotsheck, steyaert, Tobias
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
~~ 12¿'
Peter Tobias, Chairman
of the Old Encinitas CAB
ATTEST:
~ (;L¿
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
TC/03/CRO4-427wp52(12-05-89)
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-29
Attachment "A"
(Case #89-133V)
Findings for a Variance.
Findings: What follows is a recital of the findings that the
community Advisory Board must make to grant a variance
pursuant to section 30.78.030, as well as a discussion of this
proposal relative to them.
A.
A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinances 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.
Evidence: The "privilege enjoyed by other property" in the
same vicinity and zone is having fences higher than the code
allowance for reasons of privacy. To that end, the applicants
have submitted the photographs contained in the attached
folder to document other fences in the neighborhood and the
Seaside Gardens area in general of fences higher than the code
limitation.
The "special circumstances" of the site which make them unable
to enjoy that privilege include (1) their unusually narrow 38
ft. width of their lot, (2) the presence of several accessory
structures on adjoining lots near the property line, and (3)
an unusually large population in neighboring duplexes
properties to the rear contributing to noise and litter
problems.
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:
The evidence submitted by the applicants and a visual survey
of the surrounding areas does indicate the presence of
numerous rear fences or walls and some side yard fences
exceeding the 6 ft. code limitation as well as some front yard
fences exceeding the 4 ft. code limitation. Thus, allowing
such a fence would not be a grant of special privilege in this
instance.
TC/03/CRO4-427wp53(12-05-89)
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 provisions of this section
shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Evidence: The current use of the property is for single
family residential and proposal will not change the use or
current activity. Single family residential use is expressly
permitted in the RS-11 zoning Distinct.
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 alternative development plan
which would be of less significant impact to the
site and adjacent site and adjacent properties than
the project requiring a variance;
2.
Is self-induced as a result of 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:
1.
No alternative development plan has been identified which
would achieve the obj ecti ves identif ied by the applicant,
i.e., privacy.
2.
The need for the higher fencing is the result of external
factors which heighten the need for privacy and the
narrowness of the lot, which are not "self-induced" on
the part of the applicant.
3.
The variation does not create a need to rezone or amend
the zoning code.
4.
No public or private nuisance is at issue with this
variance requires.
TC/03/CRO4-427wp54(12-05-89)
2.
Design Review Findings:
23.08.072 Regulatorv Conclusions - Generally
A.
The project design is inconsistent with the General Plan,
a specific Plan or the provisions of this code.
Evidence to consider:
Based upon concurrent approval of the associated
variance, the proposed fencing is consistent with the
zoning Ordinance and the Policies of the General Plan.
There is no applicable Specific Plan.
B.
The project design is substantially inconsistent with the
Design Review Guidelines.
Evidence to consider
The Design Review Guidelines applicable to fencing are
3.8 and 3.10, calling for architectural compatibility
with the buildings of the project. Any fencing above the
4 ft. height limitation of code in the front yard or
above 6 ft. in the side yards shall be subject to design
review to insure such conformity (see Condition I. Band
C of attachment 'B').
C.
The project would adversely affect the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
Evidence to Consider:
The Board and staff have identified no aspects of the
request variance which could adversely affect the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community.
D.
The project would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence to Consider:
Staff has identified no aspect(s) of the proposal which
would cause material depreciation to the appearance or
value of the neighborhood.
TC/03/CRO4-427wp55(12-05-89)
Applicant:
Case No.:
Subject:
Location:
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-29
STANDARD CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT "B"
sutton, Sudhalter
89-133V
Fence Variance and Design Review
231 La Veta
I.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A.
The variance and design review permits for the
existing rear yard fencing are approved as proposed.
B.
A variance for side yard fencing to exceed the 6 ft.
limitation of code and be up to 8 ft. are approved,
based upon a condition that the applicant shall
remove existing temporary fencing and obtain a
design review permit through the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board for any permanent fencing
between 6 ft. and 8 ft. in height.
C.
The applicant shall also obtain Community Advisory
Board design review approval for any portion of the
front yard fencing exceeding 4 ft. in height (said
fencing may be up to 6 ft. under code provided that
at least 50% of the portion exceeding 4 ft. is open.)
II.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.
A.
B.
C.
This approval will expire in two years, on November 30,
1991, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met
or an extension has been approved by the Authorized
Agency.
This approval may be appealed to the authorized agency
within 15 calendar days from the date of this approval.
In the event that any of the conditions of this permit
are not satisfied, the Planning and Community Development
Department shall cause a noticed hearing to be set before
the authorized agency to determine why the city of
Encinitas should not revoke this permit.
TC/03/CRO4-427wp56(12-05-89)
D.
E.
Upon a showing of compelling public necessity
demonstrated at a noticed hearing, the city of Encinitas,
acting through the authorized agency, may add, amend, or
delete conditions and regulations contained in this
permit.
Nothing in this permit shall authorize the applicant to
intensify the authorized activity beyond that which is
specifically described in this permit.
F.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Development Code and all other
applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of
Building Permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
G.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
a.
Coastal Commission
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
Any change to the natural drainage or concentration of
drainage shall be adequately handled and shall not impact
adjacent properties.
TC/03/CRO4-427wp57(12-05-89)