1993-11
RESOLUTION NO. L 93-11
8 A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH 6 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 25 FT
REAR YARD SETBACK AND 5 FT INTO THE REQUIRED 10 FT SIDE YARD
SETBACK AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW SUBJECT ACCESSORY UNIT TO EXCEED
540 SQ. FT. SIZE LIMITATION TO 675 SQ. FT. WITHIN THE R-3 ZONE
FOR AN ACCESSORY LIVING UNIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 458 E. GLAUCUS STREET
(CASE NUMBER 93-117 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Carrol J. Hurd to encroach 6 ft. into the required 25 ft rear
yard setback and 5 ft into the required 10 ft side yard setback,
and variance to allow subject accessory unit to exceed the 540 sq.
ft. size limitation size limitation to 675 sq. ft. of the R-3 zone
for an accessory unit in accordance with Section 30.48.040 (W) of
the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located at
458 E. Glaucus Street, legally described as:
That portion of Lot 2 in Block "L" of SOUTH COAST PARK ANNEX,
in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to
the Map thereof No. 1778, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, March 29, 1924, described as
follows:
Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said Lot; thence
8 Easterly along the Southerly line thereof, 97.00 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said
Southerly line, 103.00 feet; thence Northerly at right angles
I to said Southerly line to a point in the Northerly line of the
Southerly 110.00 feet of said Lot, said Southerly 110.00 feet
being measured along the Westerly line of said Lot; thence
Westerly parallel with said Southerly line to a point distant
thereon 105.00 feet Easterly from the Westerly line of said
Lot 4; thence Southerly in a straight line to the TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
August 5, 1993, by the Leucadia Community Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered:
1. The July 28, 1993 staff report to the Community Advisory
Board with attachments;
2. Application and proj ect plans dated received June 29,
1993;
3. Correspondence from the public consisting of 2 letters
4. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
8
JK/93117V.SR (7-29-93)
-
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board made the
8 following findings pursuant to Chapters 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "B")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas hereby denies application
93-117 V.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1993, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Board Memebers Buck, Burkhart, Eldon, Hughes
NAYS: Fahlberg
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
~~
Marilyn Buck
Chairperson of the Leucadia
Encinitas Community
8 Advisory Board
ATTEST:
8
JK/93117V. SR (7-29-93)
-
ATTACHMENT "B"
8 Resolution No. L 93-11
Case No. 93-117 V
Applicant: Carrol J. Hurd
Findings: (Code Section, Factual Circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion
What follows are the findings of fact the Board must make to
approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section
30.78.030:
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 the same zoning
classification.
Facts: The subj ect lot is of regular size and shape and meets
standards for lot depth and width. The project site is flat.
Discussion: The site topography and surrounding area do not
impose any unique constraints on the property. The project
site is approximately equal in size with other properties in
8 the surrounding area.
Conclusion: The Board finds that special circumstances
no
exist in relation to the project site which warrant the
approval of the variance request.
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.
Facts: There is no evidence that there are other properties
in the surrounding area which similarly have living units
located legally in the rear or side yard setback areas, or
which have been approved to exceed the size limitations since
the adoption of the revised accessory unit regulation.
Discussion: Given the facts involving the applicant's request
to encroach into the setbacks and to exceed the standard size
limitations with an accessory unit, approval of the variance
request would constitute a grant of special privileges.
Conclusion: The Board finds that the grant of this variance
would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other property owners in the
8 neighborhood.
JK/93117V.SR (7-29-93)