1991-12
. RESOLUTION NO. NE-91-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE NEW ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ENCROACH
10 FEET 3 INCHES INTO THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR A ONE-STORY ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 1644 TRAVELED WAY
(CASE NO.: 91-101V)
WHEREAS, John and Mary Jane Greenland applied to the New
Encinitas Community Advisory Board for consideration of a variance
to Section 30.16.010 A10 of the Municipal Code to permit a proposed
one-story addition to encroach ten feet three inches into the
required 25 foot rear yard setback per Chapter 30. 78 (Variances) of
the Municipal Code of the City of Encinitas;
WHEREAS, the property is located at 1644 Traveled Way and
legally described as:
. Lot 96 VILLANITAS, UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 7280, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 17,1972.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the variance
application on August 5, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered without
limitation;
1. The staff report dated July 31, 1991;
2. The adopted General Plan, Zoning Code and associated Land Use
Maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Development plans consisting of one page showing the site plan
and the proposed addition in elevation and plan view submitted
by the applicant and dated received by the City on June 12,
. 1991; and
GreenReso Page 1 of 5
. WHEREAS, the New Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
findings for denial without prejudice to resubmit a revised
application of the variance request pursuant to Section 30.78.030
of the City of Encinitas Zoning Ordinance as follows:
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
classification.
Evidence: The New Encinitas Community Advisory Board finds
that no special circumstances apply to the subject property,
. structure, or adjoining properties or structures that would
deprive the applicant of any privilege enjoyed by owners of
other property in the vicinity. The Board finds that the
existing structure may be remodeled to provide adequate
privacy, access, light and ventilation to the existing master
bedroom by utilizing an alternate development plan which would
extend the bedroom only 8 ft. 9 in. and, thereby, conform to
the required rear yard setback; or otherwise redesign to have
a less significant impact upon the subject property and
surrounding property than the plan submitted to the Board.
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
GreenReso Page 2 of 5
. which such property is situated.
Evidence: The Board finds that granting approval of the
requested variance would unnecessarily constitute a grant of
special privilege to the applicant in that other property
owners in the vicinity would need to comply to current rear
yard setback restraints if they proposed to remodel their
residences. However, the Board acknowledged that existing
residences in the neighborhood tend to have living areas less
than current square footage required for today's more modern
homes and the smaller lot sizes may warrant consideration of
a redesigned project with a lesser degree of variance.
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.
Evidence: The Board finds that the residential use of the
property conforms to the allowed uses within the R-8 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 then 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 of the Zoning Code; or
GreenReso Page 3 of 5
. 4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any
private or public nuisance.
Evidence: The Board finds that an alternate development plan
could be utilized which would provide the needed privacy,
access, light and ventilation to the master bedroom without
having to encroach into the required 25 foot rear yard setback
to the extent proposed by the plans submitted by the applicant
and reviewed by the Board. An alternate plan could propose a
smaller encroachment, or could extend 8 ft. 9 in. beyond the
existing northerly exterior wall to conform to the 25 foot
setback. Such an extension would allow sufficient area to
place a sliding glass door along the west wall and to provide
area for a window along the east wall. The requested variance
. is seen as self-induced since the applicant's design tends to
unnecessarily encroach into the required rear yard setback.
To approve the variance could set a precedent for other
property owners in the vicinity to request reduced rear yard
setbacks to the extent proposed by the applicant for future
remodels within the neighborhood.
.
GreenReso Page 4 of 5
. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1991 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Patton, Beck, Weaver, Grajek
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Felker
ABSTAIN: None
Greg G
New En
Board
AT~ ~ , u-9~
Craig R. Olson, Assistant Planner
.
.
GreenReso Page 5 of 5