1991-20
RESOLUTION NO. OE91-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD
SETBACK OF THE R-15 ZONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
DUPLEX STRUCTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
212 THIRD STREET
(CASE NUMBER 91-162 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Mr. Dexter Winn to allow an 8 ft. encroachment into the required
20 ft. rear yard for the construction of a duplex per Chapter 30.78
of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the property located
at 212 Third Street, legally described as:
Lot 2 in Block 26 of the ENCINITAS Map in the City of Encinitas,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof
No. 148, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, California. .
WHEREAS, public hearing was conducted on the application on
October 30, 1991;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated October 23, 1991;
2. The application and proposed development plans submitted by
the applicant received September 11, 1991;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
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 91-104 V
is hereby denied.
jk\91162v.res (10-22-91)
1
I 1߀>
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of October, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: None
NAYS: Birnbaum, Cartwright, Cowen, Lewis
ABSENT: Steyaert
ABSTAIN: None
~~
V' ginia Cartwright,
airperson of
he Old Encinitas
Community Advisory Board
~~~
T~m C lden
Associate Planner
2
lß1o
ATTACHMENT "A"
Resolution No. 'OE91-20
Case No. 91-162 V
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 Board finds that special circumstances do
not apply to this site since the subject property of
5,096 has no special topographical or other site
constraints which negatively impact what is considered by
the Board to be a normal and adequate building envelope.
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.
The subject property is not denied view privileges
since the properties to the south are not
encroaching so as to impair those views.
Evidence: The Board finds that the variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges since the other
properties on the block have not been permitted such
encroachments.
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
regulations governing the parcel of property. The
provisions of this section shall not apply to use
permits.
Evidence: Residential, uses are permitted in the R-15
zone and no additional uses are proposed in conjunction
with this project.
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 ~i~e and adpacent properties than the project
requlrlng a varlance;
1 p"=J I
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;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance. of
any public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(1) The Board finds that the variance could be avoided
by the use of an alternate development plan since the
subject parcel has an adequate building envelope, and
since the proposed site plan shows that the site's
Dotential building envelope is not fully utilized with
this proposal, with space on the east side of the
envelope proposed to remain unutilized.
(2) The Board finds that this variance is self-induced
since the project would start with a vacant parcel which
has an unrestrained and adequate building envelope.
(3) The Board finds that this variance would not
constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning
code since the continuation of a residential use would be
consistent with the zoning code.
(4) The Board finds that this variance would not
legalize maintenance of any public or private nuisance.
jk\91162v.ata 4
168