Covenant Regarding Real Property 1993-0129959
. .'
RECORDING REQUEST BY:
CITY OF POWAY
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF POWAY
P.O. BOX 789
POWAY, CA 92074
No Transfer Tax Due
'2183
D~~ " 1993-0129959
02-MAR-1993 09=46 AM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE
ANNETTE EVANS, COUNTY RECORDER
RF: 7.00 FEES: 17.00
AF: 9.00
MF: 1.00
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
~ ! ,
) ,\
)
(This SDace for Recorder's Use)
COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY
Frank L. Johnson and Gloria j, Johnson, husband and wife, as joint tenants ("OWNER" hereinafter) is the
owner of real property described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and which is
commonly known as Assessor's Parcel Number 323-383-10 ("PROPERTY" hereinafter), In consideration of the
approval of Variance 92-18 by the City of Poway ("CITY' hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for
the benefit of the CITY, to abide by conditions of the attached resolution (Exhibit B).
This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the future owners,
encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees and assigns of the respective parties,
In the event that Variance 92-18 expires or is rescinded by City Council at the request of the OWNER,
CITY shall expunge this Covenant from the record title of the PROPERTY.
If either party is required to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this Covenant, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, inCluding reasonable attorneys' fees, from the other party,
The CITY may assign to persons impacted by the performance of this Covenant the right to enforce this Covenant
against OWNER.
Dated: 4e;k
Dated: ~h.:s
Dated: C:;~bl1l
CITY OF POWAY
By ~~r~?/-~
(No need to Notari )
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOS. ACKNOWLEDGM.NT
'2184
State of Gu.4..o...1 ~ ,-....,
countyof&-n ~L 0.<)
~
-}
On/)),J..;;,,&, 14113 beforeme,----=PH'r'LLIS (!lilloL rnPrN~Ui.
DATE' NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC'
personally appeared F'l!!.fIlV/< L -S olflllSoiV 1 &-t..OI!JII ::J ;:rt:JIM'S l]/V'
~ NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
o personally known to me . OR . roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) i
subscribed to the within instrum and ac-
knowledged to me that he/sh e ecuted
the same in his/her/ authorized
capacity(ies), and tnat by his/he
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument
@"'OFFICIALNOTARYSEAL
. PHYLLIS CAROL MANFUL
; .... 'Notary Public - California
. , . SAN DIEGO COUNTY
My Comm, Expires OEC OS,1995
",-
my hand and official seal.
~'
THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO
THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
Though the data requested here is not required by law,
it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE'
No. 5193
- OPTIONAL SECTION -
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
Though statute does not require the Notary to
fill in the data below, doing so may prove
invaluable to persons relying on the document.
jg1'NDIVIDUAL
o CORPORATE OFFICER(S)
TITLE(S)
o PARTNER(S) 0 LIMITED
o GENERAL
o ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
o TRUSTEE(S)
o GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
D OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
@1992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION. 8236 Remmel Ave., P.O. Box 7184. Canoga Park, CA 91309-71
. '
.
12185
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 77 OF POWAY OAKS UNIT NO.2, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
7015, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, AUGUST 4,1971.
,
.-
~2186
RESOLUTION NO. P- 93-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING VARIANCE 92-18
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 323-383-10
WHEREAS, Variance 92-18, submitted by Frank L. Johnson, appl icant, requests
approval of a variance for a 4 foot 8 inch retaining wall with five foot fence
built above at 12947 Standish Drive where a six foot total height is the maximum
permitted in the RS-7 zone; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 1993, the City Council held a duly adverti sed
public hearing to solicit comments from the public both pro and con, relative to
this application.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinos:
This project is categorically exempt under the prOV1S1ons of CEQA (Class
5) because it is a minor alteration in land use limitations.
Section 2: Findinos:
1. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan; in that it
is an accessory structure for a single-family home in an area
designated for single-family residential use.
2. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings), or the intended use of
the property, and because of this, the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the Vicinity under identical zoning
classifications.
The unusual circumstances include the four to five foot grade
differential between the building pad and adjoining lot to the
south. If a retaining wall were not used, there would be only
minimal usable area around the perimeter of the house on the subject
property.
3. Granting the variance, or its modification, is necessary for the
preservat i on and enjoyment of a substantial property ri ght possessed
by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the
property for which the variance is sought in that the retaining wall
and fence are necessary to provide a usabl e side yard area and
privacy for the adjacent lot similar to that enjoyed by other
properties in the area.
4. Granting the variance, or its modification, will not be materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to
the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
12187
Reso 1 ut i on No. P- 93-04
Page 2
property is located, because the fence and wall adjoin an interior
side yard and the overheight portion of the fence will be noticeable
mainly from the subject lot. The adjacent property owner will see a
standard five foot fence which is the minimum which most property
owners desire to maintain privacy.
5. The granting of this variance does not constitute a special
pri vil ege i ncons i stent with the 1 imi tat ions upon other propert i es in
the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated, in that
other lots in the subdivision have similar retaining wall/fence
combinations along side lines and the variance will secure this
right for the subject lot.
6. The granting of this variance does not allow a use or activity which
is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regul ation
governing the property because side and rear property line fencing
is required by the Zoning Ordinance for smaller single-family lots.
Section 3: Citv Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Variance 92-18 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing
that all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and
(2) the property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
2. The strip of land at the base of the retaining wall and sidewalk
will be planted with drought tolerant shrubs (such as escallonia
pittosporum, oleanders, or xylosma) or vines to minimize the visual
impact of the over height wall as viewed from the street.
3. The fence height shall step down to three feet or less within the
front yard setback.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 26th day of January 1993.
~~~.~-~
ATTEST:
I hereby certify, under the penalty
of perjury. thai the above and
foregoing is a true ~ corr::!,
copy of Resolution No. - '/3-0,
es adopted by the City Council of
Powey, California on the .;llrik
claYOf~19~.
MAlu&.E K. WAHL fEN, CITY CLERK
w.~ ~/i.,-, f ~f"1