Loading...
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.