1991-22RESOLUTION NO. PC91-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCEv FOR
BOTH UNITS OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX TO BE REMODELED AND EXPANDED TO
INCLUDE: A i FT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD, A 2 FT
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD, TO EXCEED THE STANDARD 26 FT
HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUMFLOOR AREA RATIOAND LOT
COVERAGE, AND TO WAIVE THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 30.76.120
OF THE ENCINITAS MUNICIPAL CODE (AFFORDABILITY AND INTENSITY)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 734 AND 736 DEWITT STREET
(CASE NUMBER 90-278 DR/V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance, Design Review,
and authority to exceed the standard height envelope was filed by Mr.
Paul Basten for both units of an existing duplex to be remodeled and
expanded which include: A 1 ft encroachment into the south 5 ft required
side yard; a 2 ft encroachment to the 20 ft required front yard; to
exceed the 26 ft standard height envelope to a maximum 29'8" above the
lower of existing or proposed grade; to exceed the maximum Floor Area
Ratio and lot coverage; and to waive the regulations of Section
30.76.120 of the Encinitas Municipal Code which requires that a second
unit of a nonconforming duplex which is expanded be provided for low and
very low income households, and that an increase in the number of
bedrooms shall be considered an increase in intensity of the
nonconformity per Chapters 30.16, 30.76, 30.78, and 23.08 of the City of
Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at 734 and 736 Dewitt
street, legally described as:
Lot 5, Block "A" East Block 7 of Sturges and Rattan's Subdivision in
Encinitas, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to
the Map thereof No. 33, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County on March 19, 1887.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application by the
Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board on February 14, 1991, March 28,
1991, and approved 3-0 with Board Member Cartwright abstaining on April
11, 1991;
WHEREAS, an Administrative Hearing was conducted on the application
by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1991, and those persons
submitting a request to speak as required by Chapter 1.12 Appeals, of
the Municipal Code were heard;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered:
1. The staff reports dated February 8, 1991, March 20, 1991,
April 5, 1991, April 16, 1991, May 7, 1991 and June 6, 1991;
2. The application, site plan~ elevations, and sight line study
dated received December 17, 1990, and revisions dated received
April 2, 1991 submitted by the applicant;
3. Original Statement of Justification, additional letter dated
90278DRV.REl~6-6-91 1
January 9, 1991, letter dated received March 21, 1991, letter dated
received April 4, 1991, letter dated May 9, 1991, and final letter
dated received June 5, 1991 submitted by the applicant;
4. Resolution No. OE91-06;
Chronology of events for Case No. 90-278 DR/V
$. Appeal dated April 26, 1991
7. Oral evidence submitted at the hearings;
8. Written evidence submitted at the hearings; and
9. Letter from neighbor Rick Kleinsasser dated received January 17,
1991 regarding possible precedents an approval may have on the
neighborhood;
10. Letter from neighbor Madeline Foster dated received
March 28, 1991 regarding possible view impacts;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings
pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Encinitas that application 90-278 DR/V is hereby
denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Bagg, Dean, Stumpf
NAYS: Rotsheck, Lanham
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
this 13th day of June, 1991, by the
Lester Bagg, Chairman of
the City of Encinitas
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Patrick S. Murphy
Director of Community Development
90278DRV.REl~6-6-91 2
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. PC91-22
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
Findings: (Code Section, Factual Circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion)
What follows are the findings of fact the Commission 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: The Commission finds that no special
circumstances are applicable to this lot which warrant a
waiver from the affordable unit regulations of Chapter
30.76.120 of the Municipal Code which would require the
applicant to provide one unit for low and very low income
households if it were to be remodeled and expanded. The
Commission finds that the variance findings of high land
costs and lack of other affordable units in the
neighborhood are not unique to the site and cannot be
justified since they could be made throughout the Coastal
Zone.
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 Commission finds that special privileges
will be granted the applicant with the approval of this
variance since other property owners with nonconforming
uses under the same zoning classification are not
permitted to expand.
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.
MN/90-278DR/V 3
Evidence: Duplex residential uses are permitted in the
R-ii zone, however, the expansion of both units of a
nonconforming use is not permitted.
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
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 Commission finds that an alternate
development plan which will not expand the second unit of
the nonconforming duplex is possible and it will be less
impacting to the site. The Commission also finds that
the project is self induced since the second unit could
be remodeled without expansion. In addition, the
expansion of the nonconforming duplex would constitute a
rezone or amendment to the Zoning Code since all other
property owners are permitted only a single family home
on a lot smaller than 7,900 sq ft in the R-11 zone.
MN/90-278DR/V 4