Loading...
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.. .."