Covenant Regarding Real Property 1991-0320658
1395
~ -i~ ~ i '99 ~L-O
-. r "7: it _~ C.:iC"j
".J L - _+; !--l :"_ ..' -,," f .:...
, - .. I
\ ~ ~'=._'-',
'd'....i."'-..=,
~,..~ ._. _'0
".,..... -.'
'.,e'_.' __
!:~:: f-:
RECORDING REQUEST BY:
CITY OF POWAY
~', -
~.. .,
"",-'.
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
!r:-,
CITY CLERK
CITY OF POWAY
P.O. BOX 789
POWAY, CA 92064
No Transfer Tax Due
(This space for Recorder's Use)
COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY
,I
Jerry D. Douglas and June T. Douglas, husband and wife as
j oint tenants, ( "OWNER" hereinafter) are the owners 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 314-411-06 ("PROPERTY" hereinafter). In consideration of
the approval of Variance 91-03 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In the event that Variance 91-03 expires or is rescinded by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:
~1 'J..<€ I Ie, ,,\
L_ I .3R'J J 'i'1 /
(l
9~AU / r, /99/
Dated:
Dated:
By ~ {J~-t/~J
(NO need to otarize)
1396
LOT 55 of "MIDLAND ESTATES UNIT NO.2", in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof NO.~90 ,filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of said San Diego County, on March 31, 1971
GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
. * * .. * * * * *~ * * *.* * * )
. ~ ::::y':, l..,t~ . l ss.
*
1397
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On this the~ay of ~./Ad
AJ .u1(1~ N, ).jw. {ell
the ude signed Notary Public, personnally appeared
19 '[L, before me, *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
to *
to *
*
*
*
*
*
*
<<.-,,1 .::T'U1-<- T /},~/d (-
*
*
*
*
*
PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* State of
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On this the ____day of 19 , before me, *
)
) SS.
*
*
* County of
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[] proved to me on the basis of
to be the person(s) who executed
on behalf of the partnership and
the partnership executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
satisfactory evidence
the within instrument
acknowledged to me that
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
the udersigned Notary Public, personnally appeared
[] personally known to me
*
*
*
* Notary's Signature *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
~,
*
*
CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
* State of
*
* County of
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
)
) 55.
On this the ____day of
19
before me,
*
the udersigned Notary Public, personnally appeared
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to *
be the person(s) who executed the within instrument as *
or on behalf of the corporation *
therein named, and acknowledged to me that the corporation*
executed it. *
* WITNESS my hand and official seal. *
* *
* *
* Notary's Signature *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[] personally known to me
*
*
*
*
*
F
l
- 1398
RESOLUTION NO. P- 91-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING VARIANCE 91-03
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 314-411-06
WHEREAS, Variance 91-03, submitted by Jerry D. Douglas,
applicant, requests approval of a variance for a 6.5 foot retaining
wall and five foot fence to be located one foot behind the wall at
13435 Mary Earl Lane where a six foot total height is the maximum
permitted in the RS-7 zone and a five foot offset is required
between wall and fence; and
WHEREAS, on June 18,1991, the City Council held a duly
advertised 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 Findings:
This project is categorically exempt under the provisions of
CEQA (Class 5) because it is a minor alteration in land use
limitations.
Section 2: Findings:
1. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing
general plan given the minimal nature of the request and
there is a reasonable probability that the project will
be consistent with the proposed general plan.
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 six to seven foot
grade differential between the building pad and adj oining
street. If a retaining wall were not used, there would
not be adequate usable area around the perimeter of the
house on the subject property such as is enjoyed by other
properties in the area.
3. Granting the variance, or its modification, is necessary
for the preservation and enj oyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone and denied to the property for which
F
4.
l
1399
Resolution No. p- 91-39
Page 2
the variance is sought in that the retaining wall and
fence are necessary to provide a usable side yard area.
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 property is located,
because the fence and wall adjoin a street rather than
adj oining other building sites, and existing houses
across the street from the wall/fence are oriented away
from the proposed fencing. In addition, the design of
the wall, its stucco finish and brick trim, is compatible
with adjacent development and conditions of approval will
require planting in front of the wall to minimize its
height.
5.
The granting of this variance does not constitute a
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such
property is situated, in that other lots in the
subdivision have six foot high privacy fencing along side
and rear property 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 regulation governing the property because side
and rear property line fencing is required by the Zoning
Ordinance for smaller single-family lots.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
.
The City Council hereby approves Variance 91-03 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 five foot strip of land between the retaining wall
and sidewalk will be planted with drought tolerant shrubs
(such as escallonia pittosporum, oleanders, or xylosma)
planted five feet on center, and provided with a
permanent low flow irrigation system.
1400
[-
l~
Resolution No. P-91-39
Page 3
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway,
state of California, this 18th day of June 1991.
,~
\
\
\
ATTEST:
Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
l
I, Marjorie K. wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of poway, do
hereby certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing
Resolution, No. P-91-39 ,was duly adopted bi the City Council
at a meeting of said City Council held on the 8th day of ____
June ,1991, and that it was so adopted by the following
vote:
AYES:
EMERY, HIGGINSON, MCINTYRE, SNESKO, GOLDSMITH
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Yh
K1'UaAJ,~
K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
oway
REPORT\VARI9103.RES