1989-20
. .
.
- RESOLUTION NO. L-89-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE LEUCADIA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD TO DENY A VARIANCE TO
. PERMIT A SPECIAL PARKING PLAN IN LIEU OF FIVE REQUIRED SPACES
AND TO DENY A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 5 1/2 FOOT WALL
IN A FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 4 FEET IS PERMITTED
FOR A PROPERTY AT 996 NORTH HIGHWAY 101
(CASE NO. SS-099-V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance to allow
a special parking plan in lieu of the five parking spaces required
and for consideration of a Variance to allow a 5 1/2 foot glass
wall in the front yard setback where a maximum of 4 feet is
permitted was filed by Shiree Rose, as per Chapter 30.78 of the
City of Encinitas Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located
at 996 North Highway 101, legally described as:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, South Coast Park, Map No. 1859.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application,
April 14, 1988, January 26, 1989, March 30, 1989 and October 5,
1989 and all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include
without limitation:
1. The staff reports dated April 11, 1988, January 19,1989,
March 24, 1989 and September 29, 1989;
. 2. The proposed General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning
Code and maps;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing;
5. Documentation and site plans submitted by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the Leucadia Community Advisory Board was unable to
make the required findings pursuant to Section 30.78 of the Zoning
Code:
SEE ATTACHMENTS A and B
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Leucadia Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance
Applications are hereby disapproved.
8
(CCjeconres2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 1 OF 7
-
"
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
8 AYES: Harwood, Kaden, Shur
~ None
None
~ Locko, Eldon
~Sfi"'J1 Harwood, Chairperson
Leucadia
ity Advisory Board
ATTEST:
Llnda Niles
Associate Plan er
.
8
(CC/econres2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 2 OF 7
-
.'
ATTACHMENT A
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
8 RESOLUTION NO. L-89-20
Findings for a Variance
(Section 30.78.030 Municipal Code)
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 to Consider:
The applicant has stated that other parcels in the
vicinity have been developed and modified without
supplying sufficient parking. The applicant feels,
therefore, that a hardship is being imposed on his site
by enforcing the current zoning standards that make it
considerably more difficult to develop the parcel than
if these constraints didn't exist.
. The City, however, adopted these more stringent standards
to avoid exacerbating the already difficult parking
situation found in several parts of the City including
the area of the applicant's business. In conclusion,
special circumstances do not exist which would justify
the granting of the variance.
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.
Evidence to Consider:
The granting of the variance would grant a special
privilege and would set a precedence which could be used
to justify the expansion of other businesses without the
addition of badly needed parking.
8
(CC/ econres2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 3 OF 7
-
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
8 shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Evidence to Consider:
The use of the property is proposed to be commercial
which is expressly allowed in the General Commercial
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 to Consider:
1. There is not sufficient available room on the site
to develop the five additional parking spaces
needed. Staff has worked with the applicant to
develop a formal legal agreement authorizing a
special parking plan with an adjaent property in
lieu of five additional required parking spaces.
This plan would have enabled the applicant to use
five spaces after 5:00 PM and weekends, an off-peak
time for the office use but a peak time for the
restaurant. This effort however, failed. The
alternative exists of closing off the patio area
for dining and thereby, reducing floor area
sufficiently to eliminate the need for additional
parking spaces. This addition was made relatively
recently and, therefore, is not essential to the
operation of the business.
2. The need for the variance was self-induced, because
the kitchen area was expanded by the owner without
meeting City parking requirements.
8
(CCjeconres2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 4 OF 7
-
3. The granting of the variance would not constitute
a rezoning because the use which is permitted in the
zone would not change.
8 4. The granting of the variance would not authorize or
legalize the maintenence of any private or public
nuisance except for the fact that parking congestion
would be exacerbated.
.
8
(CCjeconreS2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 5 OF 7
-
.
ATTACHMENT B
LEUCADIA COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
8 RESOLUTION NO. L-89-20
Findings for a Variance
(Section 30.78.030 Municipal Code)
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 to Consider:
There appear to be no special circumstances which would
justify the granting of the variance.
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.
. Evidence to Consider:
The granting of the variance would potentially establish
a precedence that could be used by other property owners
to justify over height walls in the front yard setback.
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 to Consider:
The commercial/restaurant use is expressly permitted in
the General Commercial zone and the granting of a
variance would not authorize any other use.
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
8
(CCj econres 2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 6 OF 7
-
, 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 to Consider:
1. The outdoor seating area will not be used and,
therefore, is not essential to the operation of the
restaurant. The removal of this area or reduction
of the height of the wall to 4 feet is, therefore,
feasible.
2. The need for the variance is self-induced because
it was built recently and did not comply with the
height requirements in effect at the time of
construction.
3. The granting of the variance would not constitute
such a degree of variation as to constitute a
rezoning since the use would remain the same and is
permitted in the zone.
. 4. The granting of the variance might legalize the
maintenance of a nuisance since the outdoor seating
area and wall do partially obstruct pedestrian
traffic.
8
(CCjeconreS2) CASE NO. 88-099-V
PAGE 7 OF 7