1990-01
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD DENYING A
VARIANCE REQUEST
TO ALLOW 22 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
TO ENCROACH TO WITHIN THE FRONT AND EXTERIOR SIDE YARD
LOCATED AT 319 LA VETA IN OLD ENCINITAS
(CASE NUMBER 89-249V)
SETBACKS
WHEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by Pacific Scene, Inc. to allow 22 proposed single family homes to
encroach 10 ft. within the 20 ft.required front yard setback of the
RS11 zone along Melrose, 5 ft. within that front yard setback along
La Veta, and 5 ft. within the required 10 ft. exterior side yard
setback for the 3 of hose homes on corner lots per Sect.30.16.010
and Chapter 30.78 of the City of Encinitas Municipal Code, for the
property located on the site of the existing st. John's Church,
rectory, and school located at 319 La Veta in Old Encinitas, more
particularly described as:
Lots 3 through 18 in Block N and Lots 1 through 6 in Block 0 of
Seaside Gardens, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to the Map thereof No.1800, filed
in the Office of the County Recorder august 6, 1924; and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on the application on
January 11, 1990, and;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1. The staff report dated January 11, 1990
2. The application, site plan and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant;
3. Oral evidence submitted at the hearing;
4. Written evidence submitted at the hearing, including a
petition and letters received from citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Old Encinitas Community Advisory Board made the
following findings pursuant to Chapter 30.78 of the Encini tas
Municipal Code:
(SEE ATTACHMENT "A")
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community
Advisory Board of the City of Encinitas that application 88-249V
is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the city of Encinitas that:
This project was found to be exempt from environmental review under
Section 15305 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of January,
following vote, to wit:
1990,
by the
AYES: Birnbaum, Kauflin, Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1/.?~4. f)~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of
the Old Encini tas Community
Advisory Board
ATTEST:~
~ '
Tom Cur lden
Associate Planner
ATTACBHENT "A"
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
CASE' a9-249V
Findings: What follows are the findings of fact the Board
must make to approve the variance request pursuant to
Zoning Ordinance Sect. 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 aerial photos provided by the applicant indicate the
degree and frequency of setback encroachments in the
areas surrounding the site, blocks bounded by EI Portal
to the north, Florita to the south, Melrose to the east,
and La Mesa to the west. Those photos indicate that many
of the developed properties in the area (approximately
60%) do encroach to a similar degree to that proposed
within the front yard setbacks. A similar proportion
appear to encroach within the street side yard setbacks.
However, many of those encroaching homes do not fully
occupy the remaining building envelope and it is thus not
clear that an inability to encroach as proposed would
deprive the applicant of a use of their property similar
to that enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone.
with respect to lot coverage, the two homes which would
exceed the allowed 40% lot coverage are the two model '3'
homes located on ei ther side of the intersection of
Marcheta and Melrose. Although those two lots are among
the largest in the project, dedications along both front
and street side property lines reduce the net area to a
point where the two homes slightly exceed (41% and 44%)
the allowable lot coverage. However, the floor plan
selected for these lots is the third largest in terms of
site coverage and no evidence is presented which would
indicate that placement of homes of slightly less
coverage consistent with the regulations would deny the
applicant a use of their property on a par with that of
others in the area.
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.
Evidence:
In light of the discussion under finding 'A' above, it
is not the case that compliance with present setback and
lot coverage regulations would prevent the applicants
from enjoying a use of their property similar to others
in the same vicinity and zone. Therefore, granting a
variance from those regulations would be 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 single family
homes is expressly allowed within the RS11 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:
1. 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.
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
consti tute a rezoning or other amendment to the
zoning code;
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of
any public or private nuisance.
Evidence:
Since many of the homes for which the front yard variance
is requested are not built to the rear yard setback line,
an alternative strategy which would significantly lessen
any need for a variance is clearly available even with
the floor plans proposed. Simply moving most of the homes
rearward would bring them close enough to compliance to
where relatively minor adjustments would be necessary to
the homes.
The need for a variance can be seen as self-induced to
the extent that many of the homes do not fully occupy the
remaining building envelope and it has not been
demonstrated that conforming to the required setbacks
would preclude construction of homes similar in size to
others in the area.
Allowing a blanket variance for 22 homes in this area
could be seen as a de facto amendment to the zoning code
in that such setbacks could be cited by future applicants
for similar variances as "a privilege enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone".
No public or private nuisance is at issue with this
application.