1989-11
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
CITY OF ENCINITAS, DENYING
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 5 FT. ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
REAR YARD SETBACKS OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
LOCATED AT 221 NEPTUNE AVENUE
(CASE NUMBER 89-086V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by BFA Architects to allow a variance to allow a S ft. encroachment
into the rear yard setbacks of two single family homes located at
221 Neptune Avenue as per Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas
Municipal/Zoning Codes, for the property located at 221 Neptune,
legally described as;
Lots 29 and 30 in Block "G" of Seaside Gardens, according to
the map thereof No. 1800, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
May 18, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1.
The staff report dated May 11, 1989:
2.
The application, site plan, and plat of development in
the same vicinity submitted by the applicant;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
tc/o4/cro6-299wpS (S-23-89)
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78:
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that the Variance is hereby
denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encini tas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
( 1)
This project was found to be exempt from environmental
Review, section 15305(a).
PASSED AND ADOPTED
this
18th
day
of May,
1989,
by
the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Steyaert, Birnbaum, Tobias
NAYS: Rotsheck, Kauflin
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
------ ~ ~'
----- --------~ ~
./" ~ é~c::::::--
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
tc/o7/cro6-299wp5 (5-23-89)
B.
c.
ATTACHMENT "A"
OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-11
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:
Strict application of the required 20 ft. setback will not
deprive the applicant of a privilege enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone because those
properties do not have main building area in the rear yard
setback and the applicant may develop with an equal amount of
floor area as all other properties in the same vicinity and
zone given the lot coverage regulations of Section 30.16.010
of the Zoning Ordinance.
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:
Since the applicant is entitled to the same privileges enjoyed
on others in the vicinity, to approve the variance would be
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties.
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:
tc/o4/cro6-299WpS (S-23-89)
Use of the subject property for single family residences is
D.
expressly allowed under the city's zoning regulations.
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.
2.
3.
4.
Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the
property owner or the owner's predecessor;
Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute
a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
Would authorize or legalize
private or public nuisance.
maintenance
the
of
any
Evidence to Consider:
(2)
(3 )
(4)
(1)
The inability to enjoy the "privilege" enjoyed by others
in the vicinity could be avoided by developing the
subject site in a similar manner to that of those other
properties, e.g., taking access from the alley to the
rear and having a detached garage in the rear yard.
Regardless of where access is taken, however, the same
amount of floor area is available under the city lot
coverage and floor area ratio regulations.
since the applicant has selected a design which, although
other alternatives are available, makes the variance
necessary, the inability to enjoy the "privilege" of
other properties in the same vicinity and zone is self-
induced.
Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
tc/o7/cro6-299wpS (S-23-89)