1990-15
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
VARIANCE REQUEST
TO PERMIT AN EXISTING SIX FOOT WALL TO BE
MAINTAINED AND ALLOW A NEW 6 FOOT GATE TO BE
PLACED WITHIN THE 15 FOOT SETBACK AREA FROM SAN DIEGUITO
DRIVE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
673 SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE
(CASE NUMBER 90-100V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Virginia L. Cartwright to allow portions of an existing wall to
exceed the 4 foot height standard to six feet and the construction
of a six foot gate within the 15 foot setback from San Dieguito
Drive for a property in the R-5
Zoning District per section
30.16.010F1 and Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal
Code,
which is located at 673 San Dieguito Drive and legally
described as:
Lot 16 of Encinitas, Highlands, Block I, in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof
No. 2141.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
July 26, 1990, and;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1.
2.
The staff report dated July 16, 1990;
The application, site plan and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant;
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
3.
4.
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
JK/03/CRO 7-627wp5 1(8-07-90-1)
(SEE ATTACHMENT II A ")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 90-100V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
The project as submitted is approved and shall not be
altered without City approval.
Prior to final inspection of a building permit, 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.
This permit allows for a maximum wall and gate height of
six (6) feet for only those portions of the wall
indicated to exceed the four (4) foot standard on the
plans submi tted to, and approved by, the Community
Advisory Board. No additional material may be placed
upon the wall or gate unless specifically approved by the
City under a separate variance request or as provided by
Municipal Code.
Applicant shall plant and maintain a minimum of three 15-
gallon trees and five 5-gallon shrubs along the Requeza
Street frontage to minimize the 6 foot wall's impact.
The applicant shall cause to be recorded a covenant
regarding real property which sets forth this grant of
approval. The covenant shall be in form and content
satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community
Development.
This permit shall expire and become null and void after
two (2) years of the effective date if the wall and gate
have not been constructed in accordance with the approved
project per Section 30.78.030 of the Municipal Code.
A proponent of protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1.12 of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
JK/03/CRO 7-627wp5 2(8-07-90-1)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the city of Encinitas that:
This proj ect was
found exempt from Environmental Review,
section 15301(e) of CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
26th day of
July,
1990,
by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Birnbaum, Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias, Townsend
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
( ",=-- ~-
I
/ ~ . uIN-------
Pètér Tobias, Chairman of the
Old Encini tas Community Advisory
Board
ATTEST:
-------:; ij . ~
~~ ~...,....- c'~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
JK/03/CRO 7-627wp5 3(8-07-90-1)
C.
D.
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-15
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the Board has made
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 Board finds that special circumstances apply
to this site since the existing structure is located at the
intersection of a heavily traveled street with a four way
stop. Traffic at the intersection must slow to a stop and
accelerate from the stop causing noise impacts which will be
buffered by the subject wall and gate.
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 grant of the variance does not constitute a
grant of special privilege since the Board finds that special
circumstances apply to the property's location as described
in the finding above which do not apply to other properties
in the same vicinity and similar Zoning District.
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: The subject property is zoned Residential - 5,
which allows residential uses.
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
JK/03/CRO 7-627wp5 4(8-07-90-1)
adjacent properties
variance.
than
the
project
requiring
a
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: The Board finds that an alternate development plan
would not permit the existing structure on the lot to be
buffered from visual and noise impacts of the intersection and
the structure will not pose a significant impact to other
properties since the portions of the wall and gate exceeding
4 feet are located closer to the intersection than to
adjoining properties to the north. The Board finds that sight
distance impacts will not be significant since the
intersection is controlled by a 4-way stop. The variance is
not self-induced since it is necessitated by the property's
location at a heavily traveled intersection. The variance
does not constitute a rezoning since single family use is
permitted in the R-5 District. No evidence has been submitted
to indicate that any public or private nuisance exists at the
subject location.
JK/03/CRO 7-627wp5 5(8-07-90-1)