1988-53
RESOLUTION NO. OE-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD,
CITY OF ENCINITAS, DENYING A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 227 LA MESA AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 88-347 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a variance was filed
by Michael Fredricks to allow construction of a two car garage for
a single family residence which would encroach into the side and
rear yard setbacks as per Chapter 4810 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal Code, for the property located at 227 La Mesa Avenue,
legally described as;
Lot 13, Block "I" of Seaside Gardens, according to the Map
thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
December 8, 1988, and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board
considered:
1. The staff report dated November 30, 1988;
2. The application and plans submitted by the applicant;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
TC/04/CRO5-199wp (12-13-88-1) 1
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that Variance Application
88-347 V is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
(1) This project was found to be exempt from environmental
review, Section 15270(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December, 1988, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Tobias, Couglar, Steyaert
NAYS: Kauflin
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
hGV~~ ~~
Harry Cougl r, Cha rman
of the Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
ATTEST:
....:::0> . ;;;?' .
/--.. ~
-- .;"cO ~------ <---------.
Tom Curriden
Assistant Planner
TC/O4/CRO5-199wp (12-13-88-1) 2
ATTACHMENT nAil
OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. OE-53
Findings for a Use Permit
(Section 30.78.030, of 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 Board members determined that having a two car garage does
not constitute a privilege enjoyed by other property in the
same vicinity and zone since many similar homes in the
vicinity do not have two car garages.
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 Board members determined that such an adj ustment would
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
setback limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, and
that no such condition could be attached to make it not a
grant of special privilege.
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 proposed use is expressly allowed under present zoning
regulations.
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;
TC/04/CRO5-199wp (12-13-88-1) 3
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:
The Board members determined that an alternative development
plan was available, such as one incorporating a one car garage
and one open parking space. The Board also found that the
inability to enjoy a two car garage is self-induced in that
the property owners constructed a two story addition to the
subject home approximately two years ago which made necessary
a variance to ever construct a regulation size 2 car garage,
a circumstance which should have been foreseen by the
applicant.
CONCLUSION:
The Board is unable to make required findings for a Variance A, B,
D(l), and D(2) under Section 30.78.030 of the Encinitas Municipal
Code.
TC/04/CRO5-199wp (12-13-88-1) 4