1989-26
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, DENYING
A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF UP TO 5 FEET WITHIN
THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL ZONE FOR A PROPOSED CAR WASH, FOOD MART
AND GAS PUMP ISLANDS LOCATED AT 510 SANTA FE
(CASE NUMBER 89-227 V)
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Shell oil to allow an encroachment of up to 5 feet within the
required 10 foot side yard setback in the General Commercial Zone
for a proposed car wash, food mart and gas pump islands as per
Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal/Zoning Codes, for
the property located at 510 Santa Fe Drive legally described as;
A portion of lots 9 and 10 in Block "I" of Avocado Acres,
according to the Map thereof No. 2130, filed in the Office of
the San Diego County Recorder on September 19, 1928.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
November 16, 1989, and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1.
The staff report dated November 1, 1989;
2.
The application,
statement of justification,
and site
plan submitted by the applicant;
3.
Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4.
Written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
TC/03/CRO5-407wp5 (11-20-89-1)
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Zoning Ordinance:
SEE ATTACHMENT "A"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that Variance Application
89-227 V is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of Encinitas that:
(1)
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review,
section 15305(a)¡
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November, 1989, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Birnbaum, Kauflin, Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
/Ý;;;?;. (2 e..., ,
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:
~.~
To~den
Associate Planner
TCj03jCRO5-407wp5 (11-20-89-1)
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. OE89-26
CASE # 89-227V
Findings for a variance pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encinitas
Municipal Code:
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the board
must make to approve the variance request pursuant to Zoning
Ordinance Section 30.78.030, as well as a brief discussion of
evidence to consider relative to each:
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 applicants maintain in the attached statement
of justification that the fact that (1) the site is surrounded
by a commercial center and (2) that, if the property were
located in a specific plan area the setbacks could be modified
through the design review process together work to deny the
applicant of a privilege enjoyed by other properties under
similar circumstances.
It is not the opinion of staff or the Board that this
rationale warrants making this finding. Specific plans areas
(e.g., Downtown Encinitas and Leucadia) are established in
order to preserve a character already established in these
areas which may involve such things as setback modifications.
This is because the pattern of development in those areas has
historically been to different setbacks and such modifications
may be necessary to preserve that character. Being located
near (or abutting) a shopping center is a relatively common
circumstance in the General Commercial zone and no
justification has been provided as to why this fact should
make the setback prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance
unnecessary.
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 such property is
situated.
TCj03jCRO5-407wp5 (11-20-89-1)
Evidence: Since the site is under similar circumstances to
many others in the General Commercial zone, to approve the
requested variance would be a grant of special privilege and
staff cannot identify any conditions which would prevent such
an approval from being 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 regulations governing
the parcel of property. The provisions of this section
shall not apply to use permits.
Evidence: Use of the subject site for the proposed car wash,
convenience store, and pump stations is the subject of the
development proposal 89-228MUP and will not be authorized
through this application.
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy
the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification:
Could be avoided by an alternate development plan which
would be of less significant impact to the site and
adjacent properties than the project requiring a
variance.
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;
Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
Evidence:
(2)
(1)
The applicants state in the attached statement of
justification that the variance is necessary for them to
build on the site a complex which will "meet current
marketing plans". There are alternative development
plans available which would be of less impact to the site
and adjoining properties, although those alternatives may
involve scaling back the project (e.g., deleting the car
wash, food store, or pump island(s».
It is the opinion of staff and the ¡,Board that the need
for the variance is self induced in that the applicant
is using the variance to accommodate on site more than
might otherwise be accommodated. The site is of a
regular shape and the applicant has identified no aspects
TCj03jCRO5-407wp5 (11-20-89-1)
(3)
(4)
of the site which would preclude a reasonable use of the
property.
The variance would not be of such a degree of variation
as to constitute a rezoning or zone code amendment.
The variance would not legalize maintenance of any public
or private nuisance.
TCj03jCRO5-407wp5 (11-20-89-1)