1990-10
SETBACK TO
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE OLD ENCINITAS
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD APPROVING A
VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR A REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD
PERMIT A SECOND STORY ADDITION INTO THE FRONT
SETBACK AREA LOCATED AT 223 THIRD STREET
(CASE NUMBER 90-061V)
YARD
WhEREAS, a request for consideration of a Variance was filed
by ~om and Edna Beam to allow a room addition extending 4 ft. 3
inches ìnto the 20 ft. front yard setback area for a property in
th~ R-15 Zone per Section 30.16.010 and Chapter 30.78 of the City
of Encinìtas Municipal Code, which is located at 223 Third Street
legally described as:
Lot 14 of Encinitas, in the County of San Diego,
f"ò.lifornia, according to Map thereof No. 148.
State
of
WHEREAS¡ a public hearing was conducted on the application on
May 17, 1990, and;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Board considered:
1-
2.
3,
4.
The staff report dated May 3, 1990;
The application, site plan and Statement of Justification
submitted by the applicant;
Oral evid~nce submitted at the hearing;
written evidence submitted at the hearing; and
~~EREAS, 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 90-061V
is hereby approved subject to the following conditions~
(1)
(2)
The project as submitted is approved and ~h3ll ilot be
altered \lithout City approval.
Prior to final inspection of a building ~:;,¡ermit, ;:he
applica~t shall submit a let~er from the Fíre District
stating that ò.ll developme:_'1t impact, ..?lan check::\ndjor
cost recovery fees have been paid or s:a~urgj t;J the
satisfò.ction of the Di~~rict.
JK/dcjCAB16-1782wp5 (5-10-90j2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Any new dwelling
sprinklers.
unit
fire
protected
by
shall
be
Drainage Conditions:
Concentrated flows across driveways and/or sidewalks
shall not be permitted.
street Conditions:
Developer shall execute and record a covenant with the
County Recorder agreeing not to oppose the formation of
an assessment district to fund the installation of right-
of-way improvements.
utilities:
The owner shall comply with all the rules, regulations
and design requirements of the respective utility
agencies regarding services to the project.
The owner shall be responsible for coordination with
S.D.G.&E., Pacific Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
This permit shall expire and become null and void after
two (2) years of the effective date if building permits
have not been issued for the approved project in
accordance with section 30.78.030 of the Municipal Code.
A proponent of protestant of record may appeal a final
decision of the hearing body by filing the appeal within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the hearing body's decision
pursuant to Chapter 1. 12 of the Encini tas Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Old Encinitas Community Advisory
Board of the City of Encinitas that:
This project was found exempt from Environmental Review,
section 15301(e) and 15303(b) of CEQA.
JK/dc/CAB16-1782wp5 (5-10-90/2)
PASSED AND ADOPTED
following vote, to wit:
this
17th day
of
by
the
May,
1990,
AYES: Birnbaum, Rotsheck, Steyaert, Tobias,Townsend
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
Tom Curriden
Associate Planner
JK/dc/CAB16-1782wp5 (5-10-90/2)
~~~
Peter Tobias, Chairman of the
Old Encini tas Community Advisory
Board
ATTACHMENT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. OE90-~
FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
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:
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 apply
to this site since the existing structure is located in such
a way that the application of the 20 ft. setback would be
overly restrictive. The Board finds that the finding is made
since the proposed addition would extend no further into the
front yard setback than the existing building.
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: The grant of the variance does not constitute a
grant of special privilege since other properties in the area
are allowed additions.
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: The subject property is zoned Residential-15, which
allows residential uses, such as residential additions.
Zoning Code Section 30.09.96 permits duplex developments on
5,000 sq. ft. lots in the R-15 District for lots that existed
prior to code adoption (March 29, 1989).
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:
JK/04/CAB16-1782wp510(5-30-90/4)
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.
Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property
owner or the owner's predecessor;
2.
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: The Board finds that an alternate development plan
would not be practical since the inability to match the
existing building wall in the front yard setback area would
create serious structural and internal circulation problems.
The variance request is not self-induced since it is
necessi tated by structural and circulational requirements.
The approval of the variance would not constitute a rezoning
since duplex residential uses are allowable in the R-15 zone,
nor would the grant of the variance authorize the maintenance
of a nuisance since the project site is in a good state of
repair. An al ternati ve development plan is feasible but would
not be of less impact to the site and adjoining properties.
JKj04/CAB16-1782wp511(5-30-90/4)