1992-13
RESOLUTION NO. C-92-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CARDIFF COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN "AS-BUILT" LIVING ROOH TO
ENCROACH 10'4" INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FT REAR YARD SETBACK, TO
ALLOW AN nAS-BUILT" 1-CAR GARAGE TO ENCROACH 3' 9" INTO THE
REQUIRED 25 FT FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW ONE OF THE
REQUIRED TWO PARKING SPACES TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK OF THE R-8 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 960 EMMA DRIVE
(CASE NUMBER 92-139 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Louis Peeters to allow an "as-built" living room to encroach
into the required 25 ft rear yard setback, to allow an "as-built"
1-car garage to encroach into the required 25ft front yard
setback, and to allow one of the required two parking spaces to be
located in the front yard setback of the R-8 zone per Chapters
30.16 and 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code and section
1 of the City Off-Street Parking Design Manual, for the property
located at 960 Emma Drive, legally described as:
Lot 11 of Playa Riviera unit No.1, according to Map thereof
No. 4946, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County April 11, 1962.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
August 24, 1992;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated August 18, 1992;
2. The application, site plan, floor plan, elevations and
Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant dated
received July 28, 1992;
3. site plan with location of retaining wall and slopes
indicated dated received August 20, 1992:
4. Petition from 12 neighbors in support of the variance
request dated August 18, 1992:
5. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a
part of the record at said public hearing:
6. written testimony submitted at said public hearing:
WHEREAS, the Cardiff Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cardiff Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 92-139 V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Cardiff 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 24th day of August 1992,
following vote, to wit:
by the
AYES:
Crimmins, Fullwood, Grossman, Hall, Mac Fall
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Q~ A. dJ
Bruce N. Hall, Chairman
of the Cardiff
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
7
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. C-92-
Case No. 92-139 V
Applicant: Louis Peeters
Findings:
Conclusion)
(Code
section,
Factual
Circumstances,
Reasoning,
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.
In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.87. 030A, 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.
Facts: The proposal is a variance to allow an "as-built"
living room to encroach into the required 25 ft rear yard
setback, to allow an "as-built" 1-car garage to encroach into
the required 25 ft front yard setback, and to allow one of the
required two parking spaces to be located within the front
yard setback of the R-8 zone per section 30.16.010 A7 and 10
of the Municipal Code. The length of the 1-car garage
encroachment is 16 ft and it is in line with the converted
garage. The length of the rear yard encroachment is 22'11"
and the distance of the living room addition from the rear
property line varies from a minimum 14'8" at it's west side to
a maximum 19'6" at it's east side. The dimensions of a
standard parking space is 9' x 18' per section 1 of the Off-
Street Parking Design Manual, and the parking space is
proposed on the existing driveway in front of the converted
garage. The lot size is 8,535 sq ft and is generally
rectangular in shape except that it fronts on the curve of
Emma drive with dimensions of 78-100' x 80-100' which is small
for lots in this neighborhood. The lot has a level building
pad that is significantly graded with a minimum 10 ft high 2:1
planted slope with retaining wall in each of the side yards.
In addition, the front portion of the property slopes from
east to west following the grade of Emma Drive.
Discussion: special circumstances are applicable to this
property due to the size, shape and topography of the lot, and
location of the existing building on the lot. Although the
one-car garage addition is in line with the converted garage,
it encroaches into the front yard setback because it is
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
8
fronting on the curve of Emma Drive. In addition, both
required parking spaces cannot be provided within a larger
garage addition since it's minimum width would be at least
18' 6" (30 II wider than existing) which would el iminate any
ability to walk around the garage without the construction of
a high retaining wall due to the steep slope on the east side
of the property. Finally, due to the orientation of the house
on the lot, there is no large area on the lot which would
enable the construction of a living room addition without the
benefit of a variance which may be a privilege enjoyed by
others in the neighborhood with deeper lots.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that special
circumstances are applicable to the project due to the size,
shape, and topography of the lot, and location of the existing
building on the lot.
B.
In reference to the Municipal Code Section 30.78.030B, 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.
Facts: The proposal is a variance to allow an "as-built"
living room to encroach into the required 25 ft rear yard
setback, to allow an "as-built" 1-car garage to encroach into
the required 25 ft front yard setback, and to allow one of the
required two parking spaces to be located within the front
yard setback of the R-8 zone per Section 30.16.010 A7 and 10
of the Municipal Code. The lot size is 8,535 sq ft and is
generally rectangular in shape except that it fronts on the
curve of Emma drive with dimensions of 78-100' x 80-100' which
is small for lots in this neighborhood. Numerous other lots
in the neighborhood are at least 100 ft deep and rectangular
in shape.
Discussion: other lots in the neighborhood are generally
ei ther deeper, wider or have a rectangular shape and the
building is squarely oriented on the site. Therefore, other
property owners in the neighborhood generally have a larger or
deeper building pad to construct the type of addition that the
applicant is requesting to legalize without the need for a
variance.
Conclusion: The Board finds that a grant of this variance
does not constitute a grant of special privileges since, in
general, other property owners may construct the type of
garage and living room addition that the applicant is
requesting to legalize without the need for a variance.
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
9
C.
In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030C 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.
Facts: The proposal is a variance to allow an "as-built"
living room to encroach into the required 25 ft rear yard
setback, to allow an "as-built" 1-car garage to encroach into
the required 25 ft front yard setback, and to allow one of the
required two parking spaces to be located within the front
yard setback of the R-8 zone per section 30.16.010 A7 and 10
of the Municipal Code. The use on the property is a single
family residence and no changes in use are proposed in
conjunction with this variance request.
Discussion: Single family residential uses are expressly
permitted in the R-8 zone per Section 30.09 of the Municipal
Code and no changes is use are proposed in conjunction with
this variance request.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that the grant of the
variance will not authorize a use or activity that is not
expressly permitted in the R-8 zone.
D.
In reference to the Municipal Code section 30.78.030D, 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.
Facts: The proposal is a variance to allow an "as-built"
living room to encroach into the required 25 ft rear yard
setback, to allow an "as-built" 1-car garage to encroach into
the required 25 ft front yard setback, and to allow one of the
required two parking spaces to be located within the front
yard setback of the R-8 zone per section 30.16.010 A7 and 10
of the Municipal Code. The previous owner converted the 2-car
garage into a kitchen/dining room, constructed the 1-car
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
10
garage and the living room addition without benefit of a
variance or Building Permit. The lot has a level building pad
that is significantly graded with a minimum 10 ft high 2:1
planted slope with retaining wall in each of the side yards.
In addition, the front portion of the property slopes from
east to west following the grade of Emma Drive.
Discussion: There are no feasible alternate development plans
which would provide a similarly sized room and garage addition
and would be less impacting to the si te and neighboring
properties than that which exists. Although the single car
garage addition could have been constructed at least 30" wider
in order to accommodate 2 cars and eliminate the need for the
variance for 1 parking space in the front yard setback, this
would require a high retaining wall on the east side of the
site to provide area for the wider garage and access path
around the building. This 18'6" wide garage design option is
more impacting to the site due to the resulting visual impact
from a tall retaining wall. In addition, there is sufficient
space in the driveway for the required parking space.
Finally, there is no feasible alternate development plan which
would enable the construction of a room addition anywhere else
on the lot since the existing building is constructed to the
front and rear yard setback line, and the are steep slopes in
both side yards.
with regard to Findings D2, D3 and D4, the variance request is
not self-induced because the need for the variance is the
resul t of lot size, shape, topography and building
orientation. In addition, the variance request does not
constitute a rezoning since the need for the variance is a
result of building constraints on the site. Finally, the
grant of this variance does not legalize the maintenance of a
private or public nuisance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that no alternate
development plan is feasible which would be less impacting to
the site and adjacent properties, that the variance request is
not self induced, and that the approval of this variance will
not result in a new front or rear yard setback standard or
legalize the maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
11
ATTACHMENT "B"
Resolution No. C-92-
Case No. 92-139 V
Applicant: Louis Peeters
Conditions:
2.
D.
II.
1.
Buildinq DeDartment: Plans shall be submitted to the Building
Department for plan check approval. A complete plan check
will be done when plans are submitted to the Building
Department.
Fire DeDartment: Prior to building permit issuance, applicant
shall submit a statement from the Fire District to the
Community Development Department indicating that all
development impact, plan check and/or cost recovery fees have
been paid.
Address numbers shall be clearly visible from the street
fronting the structure. The height of the numbers shall
conform to the Fire District Standards.
3.
Enqineerinq:
a.
Developer shall execute and record a covenant with the
County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of
an assessment district to fund the installation of right-
of-way improvements.
community DeveloDment
I.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
1. 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.
2. The applicant shall obtain Building Permits for the garage
conversion, garage addition and living room addition within 6
months of the date of this approval, prior to February 24,
1993, or obtain an extension from the Director of Community
Development.
STANDARD CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. This approval will expire in one year, on August 24, 1993
at 5: 00 p.m. unless the conditions have been met or an
extension has been approved by the Authorized Agency.
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
12
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with
any sections of the Zoning Code and all other applicable City
Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance
unless specifically waived here.
3. 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.
4.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
state Coastal Commission
5. Project is approved as submitted/modified as evidenced by
the site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated received by
the City of Encinitas on July 28, 1992, and signed by a City
Official as approved by the Cardiff community Advisory Board
on August 24,1992, and shall not be altered without Community
Development Department review and approval.
6. A proponent or 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.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
7. 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, Fire
Mitigation Fees, and Park Fees. Arrangements to pay these
fees shall be paid prior to Building Permit issuance or as
deemed necessary by the appropriate agency.
MN\92139V.SR (8-18-92)
13