1990-04
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUEST
TO ALLOW A PROPOSED 6 FT. HIGH WALL
TO ENCROACH TO WITHIN THE STREET SIDE YARD
LOCATED AT 1004 NARDO RD.
(CASE NUMBER 90-023V)
SETBACK
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Design
Review permit was filed by Michael Anderson to allow a proposed 6
ft. high stucco wall to be placed within the street side yard
setback to a point flush with the north property line per Chapters
30.78 and 23.08 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located at 1004 Nardo Rd., legally described as:
The north half of Lot 11 in Block "k" of Avacado Acres #5, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to the Map
thereof No. 2130, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
September 19, 1928.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
March 29, 1990, and;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated March 20,1990;
2. The application, site plan dated received by the City Feb.
8,1990, and Statement of Justification submitted by the
applicant;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A II )
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas tha~plication 90-023V
is hereby approved subject 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 under
Section 15305 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
following vote, to wit:
29th day of March,
1990,
by the
AYES: Birnbaum, Rotsheck, Tobias, Townsend
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Steyaert
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
~~~~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
jJ~---(:;; (. /6 ¿~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encini tas Community
Advisory Board
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. OE90- 04
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the Board must
make to approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Sect. 30.78.030:
A. A variance from the terms of the zoning regulations
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 regulations deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity and under the same zoning classification.
Evidence: The location and surroundings of the property
( i. e. being on a corner across the street from San
Dieguito High School) exposes the applicant to abnormally
high levels of pedestrian and vehicular activity. This
activity has compromised the privacy and security of his
property as well as resulted in exposure to headlight
glare at night and noise levels greater than would be
typical in the surrounding residential areas. The Board
concluded that (1) a lower fence height in the street
side yard would compromise privacy and security in
allowing visual surveillance of the property, (2)
headlight glare, although it would be substantially
reduced by even a 4 ft. fence, would probably still be
at a higher level than would be experienced by other
homes in the area not on the corner, and (3) noise from
vehicles and pedestrians would be greater, especially
during peak hours such as when school begins and lets
out.
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 same vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated.
Evidence: The atypical location and surroundings of the
subject property (i.e. its location on a corner across
from the high school) is the justification for the
variance and thus the requested variance would not be
applicable to most other properties and would not
represent a grant of special privilege.
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 regulations
governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this
section shall not apply to use permits.
Evidence: Use of the subject site for a single family
residence is expressly allowed in the R3 zone and no
other use will be authorized through this permit.
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;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(1) The only alternative strategy which would avoid a
variance and still provide the kind of privacy and
security sought by the applicant through this application
would be to move the wall at least 10 ft. inward toward
the house. However, such a strategy would deny the
applicant any usable yard area on the south side of the
house.
(2) The need for the variance is a result of the
property's location and surroundings, not the result of
any action taken by the applicant or the applicant's
predecessors.
(3) The variance would not be of such a degree of
variation as to constitute a rezoning or zone code
amendment.
(4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any
public or private nuisance.
Findings for Design Review
The following findings must be made by the authorized
agency to warrant approval of the design review permit
in accordance with Sect. 23.08.072 of the Municipal Code:
A. The project design is consistent with the General
Plan, a Specific Plan, or the provisions of this code.
Evidence: Subject to concurrent approval of the
associated variance to in effect allow the top 2 ft. of
the wall to be of a solid construction, this proposal
will be in conformance with the Municipal Code and
General Plan. No Specific Plan is applicable.
B. The design is substantially consistent with the Design
Review Guidelines.
Evidence: The guidelines applicable to walls and fences
are guidelines 3.10 and 3.11, calling for design
compatibility with the buildings on site and for avoiding
monotony in appearance. The stucco wall and existing wood
fencing will be compatible with the wood and stucco
exterior of the home, provided that the stucco is of a
matching color to the home (see Specific Condition IC.).
In addition the applicant will use landscaping to soften
the appearance of the wall, such as Bougainvillea or
other climbing species satisfactory to the Board (see
recommended Specific Condition ID.).
C. The project would not adversely affect the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community.
Evidence: The project is minor in nature and no aspect
has been identified which would adversely affect the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community.
D. The proj ect would tend to cause the surrounding
neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or
value.
Evidence: The project represents an improvement to the
property and thus would cause no depreciation to the
appearance or value of the neighborhood.
Applicant:
Case No:
Subject:
Location:
1.
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-04
STANDARD CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT liB"
Anderson
90-023V/DR
variance and Design Review for 6 ft. wall in street
side yard setback
1004 Nardo Road
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A.
The existing 6 ft. wood fence along the south
property line shall be relocated from the public
right-of-way to the property line at a point flush
with the approved 6 ft. stucco wall.
B.
Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall
demonstrate qualification for waiver of the
applicable IOD requirement along Melba and Nardo
Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department and shall receive such a waiver.
C.
Bougainvillea shrubs of a minimum 5 gallon size
shall be installed at a maximum 5 ft. on center
along the face of the approved wall, fronting Melba.
Building plans shall indicate such landscaping, as
well as a permanent irrigation system, to be found
satisfactory by the Community Development Department
prior to permit issuance.
D.
Building plans shall indicate addition of a brick
or tile cap running along the top of the approved
wall, to be found satisfactory by the Community
Development Department prior to permit issuance.
E.
Building plans shall indicate relocation of the
existing wooden fence along the north property line
inward to a point at the property line flush with
the approved stucco wall, or obtain an encroachment
permit for the same from the Public Works
Department, to be verified by the Community
Development Department prior to permit issuance.
TC/04/CRO6-499WP5
(4-2-90/2)
CASE NUMBER: 90-023V
Page 1 of 3
II.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
E.
F.
G.
1.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A.
This approval will expire in two years, on March 29,
1992, at 5:00 p.m. unless the conditions have been
met or an extension has been approved by the
Authorized Agency.
B.
This approval may be appealed to the authorized
agency within 15 calendar days from the date of this
approval.
C.
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.
D.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance
wi th 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.
permi ts from other agencies will be required as
follows:
California Coastal Commission
Project is approved as submitted/modified as
evidenced by the plot plan dated received by the
City of Encinitas on February 8, 1990 (date) and
signed by a City Official as approved by the Old
Encinitas Community Advisory Board on March 29, 1990
and shall not be altered without Planning and
Community Development Department review and
approval.
Any change to the natural drainage or concentration
of drainage shall be adequately handled and shall
not impact adjacent properties.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
TC/04/CRO6-499WP5
(4-2-90/2)
CASE NUMBER: 90-023V
Page 2 of 3
2.
FIRE
A.
Prior to final recordation, the applicant shall
submit a letter from the Fire District stating that
all development impact, plan check and/or cost
recovery fees have been paid or secured to the
satisfaction of the District.
TC/04/CRO6-499WP5
(4-2-90/2)
CASE NUMBER: 90-023V
Page 3 of 3