Loading...
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)