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