1991-13
RESOLUTION NO. OE 91-13
. -
. A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN 11 FT. ENCROACHMENT
INTO A 25FT. REAR YARD FOR AN ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Dura-Bilt Construction to allow an 11 ft. encroachment in the
25 ft. rear yard setback for a 670 sq. ft. aqdition to an existing
single family home of 1726 sq. ft. for the property located at 645
Requeza Street, legally described as:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8376, filed in the Office of the San
Diego County Recorder.
WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on the application on
May 16, 1991;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated May 4, 1991;
2. The application, site plan, elevations, floor plan and
Statement of Justification;
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78, of the Encinitas
. Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 91-061V
is hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of May, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Cartwright, Steyaert
NAYS: Cowen, Lewis
ABSENT: Birnbaum
ABSTAIN: None
. ATTEST:
~~~
Tom Currlden
Associate Planner
"...u ",., ,...."...~ "7_"'c::"c::"t::..~c::" r'c::" n ,,~ .."
ATTACHMENT "A"
. -
RESOLUTION NO. OE91-13
. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE 91-061 FOR AN 11 FT. ENCROACHMENT
INTO A 25 FT. REAR YARD IN THE R-3 ZONE.
Findings: (Code Section, Factual circumstances, Reasoning,
Conclusion)
What follows are the findings of fact the Board must make to
deny 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.
Evidence: The applicant's statement of justification contends
that the unusual shape of the property results in a
deprivation of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity since those other properties have "a more usable
building envelope". However, the CAB determines that
sufficient, building envelope remains (outside the setbacks)
. in order to achieve substantial additions.
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 applicant states that the variance
request would not constitute a grant of special privileges
since its approval would "only allow an adjustment in the
building envelope to make it more usable...". The CAB,
however, determines that the subject lot of approximately 1/2
acre has a sufficiently large building envelope to permit a
substantial addition to the single family residence.
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 existing single family residence and
proposed addition would be consistent with the R-3 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:
",'u"""",..nK~"" ....r"""--._r- ""'r-",,~ ....,
. -
1. Could b~ avoided by an alternate development plan;
which would be of less significant impact to the site and
. adjacent properties than the project requiring a
varlance.
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 applicant contends that the proposed
project would have less impact on the surrounding area than
an alternate development plan since the two story addition is
proposed to be located in the rear and more "secluded" part
of the property. The applicant also contends that the
variance is not self-induced since its necessity results not
from actions taken by a property owner but a "poorly planned
subdivision approved by the city".
The CAB, however, determines that alternate development plans
are possible since the property has sufficient area to expand
into adjacent yards without reliance on a variance.
.
.
M1\T In'7 ""1\11'1 "'_"~~c.T,'~~ ('I/~_('I_n.. .."