1995-01
RESOLUTION NO. NE-9S-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE
. NEW ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A V ARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW
A PORTION OF A PROPOSED 609 SQUARE FOOT
ACCESSORY UNIT TO ENCROACH TO
WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE
AND TO EXCEED BY APPROXIMATELY 180 SQUARE FEET THE 30%
OF THE LIVABLE AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE STANDARD
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 146 FIVE CROWNS WAY
(CASE NUMBER 95-035 V; APN: 259-520-38)
WHEREAS, an application for consideration of a Variance request was filed by
Alphonso Hernandez to allow for the construction of a 609 square foot attached Accessory Unit;
a portion of which will encroach five feet into the 25-foot Rear Yard Setback (Municipal Code
Section 30.16.01OA 10) and will exceed the 30% of the principal residence square footage
standard (Municipal Code Section 30.48.040W 3) by approximately 180 square feet for property
located at 146 Five Crowns Way, and legally described as;
LOT 609 OF VILLAGE PARK UNIT NO. 13, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 7833, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ON DECEMBER 27, 1973.
. WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the New Encinitas Community Advisory
Board on March 21, 1995 and all those desiring to speak, did speak; and
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board considered, without
limitation:
1. The Agenda Report for the March 21, 1995 meeting;
2. The General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing by staff, by the applicant and by the
public;
4. Written evidence submitted with the application and at the public hearing; and
5. The application, plans and supporting material dated received by the City on
February 15, 1995. Said plans consisting of 1 sheet of the Site Plan, the Floor
Plan and the Elevation Plan; and a second sheet showing the site plan in relation
to surrounding property.
.
cdlcrola: 101rs9S03S.nel(3-21-95)
WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the following findings
for denial of the Variance application request without prejudice to redesign pursuant to Section
. 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal (Zoning) Code:
Findings Pursuant to Section 30.78.030
of the Municipal (Zoning) Code
Related to Variances
A. A Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance 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 ordinance deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Facts: The application requests a Variance to encroach 5 feet into the 25-foot Rear Yard
Setback and to exceed the 30 % of the size of the principal residence standard by 180
square feet for a 609 square foot Accessory Unit to an existing single family residence.
Discussion: Although the applicant contends that special circumstances exist on the
property to warrant Variance approval (Le.: the additions to the neighboring homes
which encroach to within approximately 10 and 15 feet of the common rear yard lot line,
that the principal structure dictates the location of the Accessory Unit, and that a
breezeway separation between the principal residence and the Accessory Unit is
necessary due to the Floor Plan of the principal residence), the Board found that the
property's size exceeds the 5,400 square foot standard for the R-8 Zoning District, no
. constraints are present related to shape or topography on the property that would exclude
an alternate design which would not require Variance approval, and that the applicant
could redesign the project to conform to development standards of the R-8 Zone and
could enjoy the benefits of an addition to the existing residence as do other property
owners in the neighborhood and under the identical zoning classification. The Board
found that exceeding the 30 % square footage standard of the principal residence by 180
square feet equates to 42 % of the principal residence and would provide the applicant
with a significant benefit over other property owners in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification who would design similar project to conform with Municipal
(Zoning) Code Development Standards.
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board finds that no
special circumstances are applicable to the property which would warrant Variance
approval or exclude the property owner from redesigning the project in conformance with
applicable development standards of the R-8 Zoning district.
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 vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
Facts: Variance approval would allow for a portion of a proposed Accessory Unit to
encroach 5 feet into the 25-foot Rear Yard Setback (to within twenty feet of the rear yard
. property line) and for the size of the Accessory Unit to exceed the 30% of the living area
cdIcrola: 1 OIrs95O35 .Del (3-21-95)
I
of the principal residence by approximately 180 square feet. Accessory Units are
permitted by right on parcels zoned for residential single family dwellings.
. Discussion: The property is located within the R-8 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District. Since the R-8 Zoning District permits Accessory Units as accessory structures
to single family residences, no conditions would be necessary to assure that the Variance
would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated.
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Encinitas Board fmds that no special conditions would
be necessary to assure that the adjustment would not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in which such property is situated since Accessory Units are a permitted use in the R-8
District. However, the Board did find that no special circumstances exist on or
surrounding the property to grant the Rear Yard Setback encroachment or an Accessory
Unit that exceeds the square foot limitation established by the Municipal Code.
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 regulation governing the parcel of
property.
Facts: The requested Variance would have allowed for a portion of a proposed
Accessory Unit to encroach 5 feet into the 25-foot Rear Yard Setback (to within twenty
feet of the rear yard property line) and for the size of the Accessory Unit to exceed the
30% of the living area of the principal residence by approximately 180 square feet.
. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 30.48.040W, Accessory Units are permitted by right
on parcels zoned for residential single family dwellings.
Discussion: The project proposes the development of an Accessory Unit which is
permitted by right on parcels zoned for single family residential use.
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Encinitas Board finds that the requested Variance
would not have authorized a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property.
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; or
. 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
cdIcrola: 1 0/rs95O35 .nel(3-21-95)
Facts: The project conforms in all aspects with the development standards of the R-8
Zoning District and all other applicable standards required by the Municipal Code except
for the five foot encroachment into the 25-foot Rear Yard Setback and the 180 square
. foot increase over the 1130% of the livable area of the principal residence II standard of
the Municipal Code.
Discussion: An alternative design that would not require Variance approval is practical
for this property since no special circumstances are evident on the property that would
prohibit the owner from redesigning the project to conform to (or lessen) the extent of
the Variance requested. If the 25-footRear Yard Setback were to be maintained, the size
of the Accessory Unit could be reduced by approximately 155 square feet which would
still exceed the 1'30% of the livable area of the principal residence standardll. This
excessive amount of Variance to the Municipal Code standard was found by the Board
to be unwarranted based upon the information received in the application request and
during the public hearing.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Board finds that an alternative development plan would be
practical and is warranted since no specicial circumstances exsist to warrant Variance
approval and the Variance could be avoided by an alternate development plan that would
not pose any impacts on adjacent neighbors. The Variance is found to be self-induced
due to the fact that no special circumstances exist on the lot or on surrounding property
to warrant the Variance request.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Variance request (Case No. 95-035) is
hereby denied based upon the preceding findings and that the Board does not prejudice the re-
. design of the project and consideration of potential Variances which may be associated with such
are-design.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Beck, Weinstein, Van Reusen, Edde, Felker
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None t£.~
New Encinitas Community Advisory Board,
City of Encinitas
ATTEST: /\
. ~~e.~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
cdIcrola: 101rs95O35 .nel(3-21-95)