Loading...
1991-05 . RESOLUTION NO. NE 91-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A VARIANCE FROM CHAPTER 30.78 VARIANCES, AND SECTION 30.16.010 RESIDENTIAL ZONES, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY BEING LOT 15 OF VILLANITAS UNIT NO. 1, MAP NO. 7280, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CITY OF ENCINITAS, (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 217 RODNEY AVENUE, ENCINITAS) q \ - 00 b" WHEREAS, Jack W. Lampl, applied for a Variance from Chapter 30.78 Variances, and section 30.16.010 Residential Zones of the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance to allow the required parking for a single family residence to be located in the existing driveway which is within the required 25' front yard setback, for an encroachment of between 17' and 20', for property located at 217 . Rodney Avenue, Encinitas; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application 91-006-V on March 4, 1991, by the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and, WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation: a. site plan submitted by the applicant dated January 8, 1991; b. written information submitted with the application; c. Oral testimony from staff, applicant, and public made a part of the record at said public hearing; d. CAB staff report (91-006 V) dated February 26,1991 which is on file in the Department of Planning and Community . Development; and e. Additional written documentation. I . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board that the variance is hereby DENIED in accordance with the following findings: A. A variance from the terms of the zoning ordinances 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. Evidence: Although it may be that other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning are using their required parking garages for uses other than parking, it is not the strict application of the zoning ordinance that is depriving this property owner from using his garage as something other than parking, since the zoning code requirement for 2 spaces of parking is applied to all residential properties. Parking could be accomplished in the garage and a separate addition could have been constructed on . another portion of the house to accommodate a sound proof room. The existing situation whereby the applicant is using the required parking spaces (the garage) for a sound proof room is the easiest option for the property owner, however, other options exist that would not eliminate the existing required parking and would not require the varlance. Since there is other buildable area available on the site to accomplish the construction of a sound proof room without removing the existing required parking, the site does not have special circumstances which would deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. B. An/ 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. Evidence: . The granting of this variance would constitute the granting of special privileges inconsistent with . limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located since the zoning code requirement for 2 spaces of parking is applied to all residential properties in this zone. It is the case that the other properties that have blocked off their garages for whatever use, unless the required two parking spaces are provided elsewhere on the site in conformance with the City of Encinitas parking standards, are in violation of Chapter 30.54 of the Zoning Code. To grant the variance for this property owner to park in the front yard setback which is not allowed in residential zones, may be precedent setting by encouraging other property OW.lers to seek a variance for similar situations rather than having to comply with the existing parking standards. 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. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits. Evidence: The granting of this variance would not authorize a use or activity not expressly authorized by the zoning . regulations governing this property since the use will be parking for a single family dwelling which is consistent with the zone. 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. Evidence: The existing garage conversion into a sound proof room . could have been avoided by constructing a sound proof room as an addition to the existing dwelling elsewhere . on the site. The elimination of the required parking was self-induced; and to allow parking in the front yard setback would essentially constitute an amendment to the zo"ling code since parking is specifically prohibited in the front yard setback as per Off-street Parking Design Manual, Section 1, B, Zoning Code Chapter 30.54. There may be a public nuisance created since guests would be forced to park in the street rather than in the driveway adding to possible street congestion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Variance is denied with the following condition: 1. That the garage be reconverted to a garage use, in order to provide the required two parking spaces for the existing single family dwelling unit by March 4, 1992. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Beck, Weaver, Grajek, Felker, Patton NAYS: Nc7",e . ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None C~ON' ~~f the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board ATTEST: . LN/CAB28-293wp (2/26/91) 10