2005-41
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A VARIANCE AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-
STORY RESIDENCE THAT WOULD ENCROACH FIVE (5) FEET INTO THE
REQUIRED 25-FOOT FRONT-YARD SETBACK, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 129 CAMINO DE LAS FLORES
(CASE NO. 05-110 V/CDP; APN: 259-420-05)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance and Coastal Development Permit
was filed by Steven D. Weber, Architect on behalf of Noah and Mary Wieder to allow an addition
to the second story of an existing two-story residence that would encroach five (5) feet into the
required 25-foot front-yard setback, in accordance with Chapters 30.78 and 30.80 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code, for the property located in the Residential 8 (R-8) zone and within the Coastal
Zone, legally described as:
LOT 33 OF ENCINITAS ESTATES UNIT NO. I IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF NO 7662,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 13,
1973.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on the
application on October 20, 2005, at which time all those desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered, without limitation:
I. The October 20, 2005 agenda report to the Planning Commission with attachments;
2. The General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Municipal Code, and associated Land
Use Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Project plans consisting of Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, all dated received
by the City of Encinitas on June 20, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings pursuant to Chapter
30.78 of the Encinitas Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT nAn)
PBD/KK/g:\Resolutionslrpc05-110.2005-41.doc - 1 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Encinitas hereby denies application 05-110 V/CDP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, in its independent
judgment, finds that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to
Section 15061 (b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 2005, by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Avis, Bagg, Chapo, McCabe
NAYS: Snow
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
e hapo, Chair of the
Planning Commission of the
City of Encinitas
ATTEST:
---:::1/ (' " ^ / .
_-r-"':>I () u..J<...e_e' d.~~ r:-
Patrick Murphy
Secretary
NOTE: This action is subject to Chapter 1.04 of the Municipal Code, which specifies time limits
for legal challenges.
PBD/KK/g:\Resolutionslrpc05-110.2005-41.doc - 2 -
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. PC 2005-41
Case No. 05-110 V/CDP
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
STANDARD: Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal Code provides that a variance
may be granted only when, based upon the information presented in the application and
during the Public Hearing, all of the following fmdings of fact can be made:
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 identical zoning
classification.
Facts: The applicant proposes to construct a 164 square foot addition to the second story of
the existing two-story residence. The addition consists of enclosing the existing deck above
the garage door and would encroach 5 feet into the 25-foot front-yard setback currently
required by the subject Residential 8 (R-8) zone, resulting in a setback of 20 feet from the
front property line. The new second-story area would be aligned vertically with the existing
garage.
Discussion: The subject property is consistent in area with many of the properties within the
immediate neighborhood and within the R-8 Zone. Similar to the subject residence, most
residences in the immediate area were constructed under a different setback standard than
currently exists. Additions to any of the residences in the applicant's exhibit would be
required to comply with current setback standards. There is ample area on the subject
property within the building setbacks that could be utilized for additional residential living
area. No special circumstance is applicable to the property that could be construed as
depriving the applicant from constructing an addition to the existing residence in compliance
with all setback requirements, as could be enjoyed by nearby properties. Because the
property owners have the ability to construct and enjoy an addition in a manner that
conforms to the development standards, no special circumstances apply to the property such
that strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property owners of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that there are no special circumstances
applicable to the property and that the strict application of the zoning regulations does not
deprive the property of any privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification.
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.
PBD/KKlg:\Resolutionslrpc05-110.2005-41.doc - 3 -
Facts: The applicant proposes a second-story addition to an existing two-story residence.
The addition would encroach five (5) feet into the required 25-foot front-yard setback.
There is vacant area on the subject property within the setback area that could support an
addition without requesting a variance.
Discussion: Approval of the Variance request to allow the second-story addition to project
into the front yard beyond the standard setback limits when ample area is available to
construct an addition in compliance with all setbacks could be construed as the granting of a
special privilege not enjoyed by other properties within the same vicinity and zone.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that granting of the requested variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, and that no conditions could
be applied to the project such that granting of the variance would not constitute grant of a
special privilege.
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.
Facts/Discussion: The property currently enjoys the use of a single-family home and
appurtenant structures and the proposed project is an addition to the main dwelling, all of
which are permitted uses within the R-8 Zone when constructed in accordance with
Municipal Code standards.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that granting of the variance would not
authorize a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations
governing the parcel of property.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to eJ:\ioy the privilege eJ:\ioyed 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 applicant proposes a second-story addition to an existing two-story residence.
The addition would encroach five (5) feet into the required 25-foot front-yard setback.
There is vacant area on the subject property within the setback area that could support an'
addition without requesting a variance.
PBD/KK/g:\Resolutionslrpc05-l10.2005-4I.doc - 4-
Discussion: There are feasible alternative development plans that would allow the applicant
to enjoy the privilege of an addition to the existing single-family residence in compliance
with all development standards. The existing layout and siting of the residence are the result
of actions taken by a previous owner and therefore cannot be used as the basis for granting a
variance. Granting the request for a variance would allow such a degree of variation as to
constitute a rezoning or amendment to the zoning code, but would not authorize or legalize
any nUisance.
Conclusion: The Plarming Commission finds that the inability to enjoy the privilege
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification could be
avoided by an alternative development plan and is self-induced as a result of actions of a
previous property owner, and finds that granting the variance request would allow such a
degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code.
PBD/KK/g:\Resolutionslrpc05-ll0.2005-4I.doc - 5 -