1990-19
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ADDITION TO ENCROACH 5 FT INTO
THE REQUIRED 10 FT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BY APPROXIMATELY 45 SQ FT FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1034 SAN ANDRADE
(CASE NUMBER 90-170 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Richard Monroe and Mr. Joe Cordova to allow an addition to
a single family home to encroach 5 ft into the required 10 ft side
yard setback and to exceed the maximum lot coverage by
approximately 45 sq ft, per Chapters 30.16 and 30.78 of the City
of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 1034 San
Andrade, legally described as:
Lot 20 of Oak Knolls Subdivision, in the County of San Diego, State
of California, according to the Map thereof No. 4246, filed in the
Office of the San Diego County Recorder on July 2, 1959.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
September 13, 1990, and;
WHEREAS, the community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated September 5,1990;
2. The application, site plan, elevations, 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 Chapters 30.16 and 30.78 of the
Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 90-170 V
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 15301 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September,
following vote, to wit:
1990, by the
AYES: Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Birnbaum, Townsend
ABSTAIN: None
fk2ti:v c;: f~ æ ~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encini tas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST: ~
~-====' . ~
.........~- ~
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. OE90-19
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the Board
must make to approve the variance request pursuant to zoning
Ordinance section 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: Special circumstances apply to this site since
the existing structure is already 5 ft from the side
property line and a 10 ft interior side yard setback
would be overly restrictive. In addition, the typical
lot size in the neighborhood is approximately 2,600 sq
ft smaller than a standard lot in the R-5 zoning
district, so a strict application of the 35% maximum lot
coverage is unusually restrictive. Instead, the lot size
in the neighborhood is more typical to those within the
R-8 zoning District which allows a minimum lot size of
5,400 and a maximum lot coverage of 40%
The Board has determined that a finding to allow a 5 ft
side yard setback could be made since many other homes
in the neighborhood share a similar 5 ft or 6 ft side
yard setback and the addition would extend no further
into the setback than the existing structure. In
addition, the Board determined that a finding to exceed
the maximum lot coverage can be made since most of the
lots within the neighborhood are substandard in area.
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 property is situated.
Evidence: The grant of the variance would not constitute
a grant of special privileges since the proposed addition
will project no further into the side yard than the
existing structure and most of the others in the vicinity
are built 5 ft from the interior side property line.
other homeowners in the neighborhood have already
completed similar building additions, including his
neighbor directly west of the subj ect property. In
addi tion, some homes in the neighborhood appear to
already exceed the maximum lot coverage (although the
applicant did not survey the neighborhood to determine
actual building sizes) and this addition would be in
scale with the surrounding homes.
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: Residential uses are permitted in the R-5 zone
and no changes in use are proposed.
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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(1) An alternate development plan could be developed but
it would not be an acceptable or equitable alternative
due to the resultant interior dimension of the master
bedroom. In addition, the proposed remodel is designed
to match the existing exterior side elevation and to
minimize any visual impact to the site and to the
property to the west. The addition could also be
designed to meet the maximum lot coverage, but this would
result in a master bathroom of only 45 sq ft in area.
The Board determined that this finding can be made since
no feasible and equitable alternative is apparent.
(2) The variance request is not self-induced since the
existing house was built to Code with 5 ft side yard
setbacks and with a master bedroom/bath which is not
adequately dimensioned by today's standards.
(3) The variance does not constitute a rezoning or other
amendment to the zoning code since most of the
surrounding structures were built with 5 ft side yard
setbacks.
(4) The variance would not legalize maintenance of any
public or private nuisance.
Applicant:
Case No:
subject:
Location:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT B
Richard Monroe/Joe Cordova
90-170V
variance to allow a 5 foot encroachment into the
required 10 foot interior side yard setback with a
one story addition to an existing single family
home. Also a variance request to exceed the maximum
allowable lot coverage by 45 sq ft.
1034 San Andrade
1.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.
A.
This approval will expire in two years, on September
13, 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.
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.
D.
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted
Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes
and ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance unless specifically waived here.
E.
Permits from other agencies will be required as
follows:
Coastal Commission
F.
Project is approved as submitted as evidenced by the
plot plan dated July 10, 1990, received by the City
of Encinitas on July 10, 1990, (date) and signed by
MN/jm/PC4-294wp5 (09/21/90/1)
CASE NUMBER: 90-170V
Page 1 of 2
G.
a City Official as approved by the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board on September 13, 1990, and
shall not be altered without Planning and Community
Development Department review and approval.
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 Community
Development.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
A.
B.
Site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plans which are dated and signed as
approved on September 13, 1990, by community
Advisory Board and which are on file in the Planning
and Community Development Department and the
conditions contained herein.
For new residential development, the applicant shall
pay development fees at the established rate. Such
fees may include, but not be limited to: Permit and
Plan Checking Fees, School Fees, Water and Sewer
Service Fees, Traffic Fees, Drainage Fees, and Park
Fees. Arrangements to pay these fees shall be paid
prior to:
Building permit issuance
as deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENCINITAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
3.
FIRE
A.
Numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. Where structures are
located off a roadway on long driveways, a monument
shall be placed at the entrance where the driveway
intersects the main roadway. Address numbers shall
be displayed on this monument.
B.
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.
MN/jm/PC4-294wp5 (09/21/90/1)
CASE NUMBER: 90-170V
Page 2 of 2