Encinitas Planning Commission denies three variances for proposed Neptune Avenue expansion

On May 1 the Encinitas Planning Commission denied three variances requested by homeowners Brian and Christy Kirk for a project at 1467 Neptune Avenue in the Leucadia community. The project would have demolished an existing detached deck and garage, added a first- and second-floor addition to a single-family home, converted part of the existing house to a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), and built a new detached two-car garage; the applicants also sought a coastal development permit.

Staff presented the proposal and recommended approval. Associate Planner Takuma Eastland summarized the requests and findings and told the commission, “Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the draft resolution of approval and approve the project.” The three variance requests were: reduce the street-side yard setback from 10 feet to 4 feet; permit roof eaves to encroach up to 2 feet into that reduced setback; and allow the proposed detached garage to encroach 9 feet into the required street-side setback to satisfy the enclosed parking requirement of the Encinitas Municipal Code.

Neighbors and nearby residents strongly opposed the variances at the public hearing. Lee Andolan, representing several neighbors, urged the commission to reject the variance requests, saying they would grant “special privileges” and argued the easement and resulting narrow building envelope were effectively self-imposed by earlier property owners. Several neighbors said the proposed two-story mass would harm privacy and block ocean views. Brad Hanson, whose property sits near the project, told commissioners the plan “has a drastic effect on my privacy and my quiet enjoyment of my property” and said neighborhood suggestions for privacy screening had not been incorporated. Additional neighbors described concerns about view loss, home values and the size of the proposed house relative to nearby buildings.

The applicants and their design team replied that the lot is unusually narrow once the 20-foot access easement is measured into the setback, that lot-coverage and stormwater requirements constrained placement, and that the proposed garage orientation reduces impervious area compared with other feasible layouts. Architect Brandon Lichtman and zoning consultant Chris Miller explained technical points about how setbacks are measured from a private right-of-way and that the project’s floor area, garage location and pervious paver driveway were intended to meet engineering and stormwater requirements.

Commission discussion focused on three issues: whether the property’s size and the existence of the private access easement created a legally cognizable hardship to justify variances; whether granting the variances would set an unacceptable precedent; and the project’s scale relative to surrounding homes (staff noted the existing house footprint is legal nonconforming). Commissioners pressed staff and the applicants for consistent square-footage and lot-coverage figures and asked about the project’s floor-area-ratio (FAR), the JADU exclusion from certain FAR calculations, and inconsistencies staff said might be typographical in the plans.

After deliberation a motion to deny all three variances was made and seconded; the chair announced the motion passed (majority vote). The commission directed staff to return with a resolution denying the three variances for the Kirk residence. Staff also noted the denial will be memorialized in a formal resolution returned to the commission and placed on a future consent calendar for formal action. The coastal development permit and the project as proposed therefore do not have approval as a result of the variance denial.

Why it matters: The commission’s decision denies the applicants’ requested setback relief and related design changes that would have produced a larger two-story home and a rear garage encroaching into the reduced street-side setback. Commissioners cited concerns about precedent for other narrow Leucadia lots and neighborhood impacts; neighbors cited privacy, view loss and property-value concerns. The matter will return to staff for a formal denial resolution; the applicants retain the option to revise plans, pursue alternate designs, or pursue other administrative remedies available under city procedures.

Ending: Staff will prepare the formal denial resolution and place it on a forthcoming meeting consent calendar. The applicants indicated during the hearing that they could rework designs if they choose to return to the commission; staff reminded the public that the project would also require a coastal development permit if resubmitted.