Loading...
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