HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1996-13 RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-13
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXCESS LOT
COVERAGE AND ENCROACHMENT INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS
FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1341 PARK DRIVE, I
WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula Vista
Planning Department on April 18 1996 by Eugenia Hammond, and;
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to exceed allowable lot coverage and
encroach into required side and rear yard setbacks for a shade cloth structure at the single family
home located at 1341 Park Drive, within the R-1 zone; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposal
is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said
application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500
feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely September
11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning
Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows:
The above-described application for a variance is hereby denied based upon the following
findings and determinations:
I. Findings.
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property
for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context,
personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never
have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits.
No hardship peculiar to the residential use of the property exists; the subject site is not unique
by virtue of its size, configuration, topography, or any other identifiable aspect. The request
would simply allow the applicant to shelter the current volume and types of planting existing on
the property.
i
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same
vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the
recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The approval of this variance would not serve to preserve property rights for this owner enjoyed
by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity. Other properties in the
same zoning district and in the same vicinity are not permitted the lot coverage and
encroachments that are requested; this variance, if granted, would thus constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by neighbors.
3. That the authorizing of this variance would be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property, and would materially impair the public interest.
The approval of this variance would not in itself represent a substantial detriment to adjacent
properly, although if approved it could be cited as a precedent for other requests which could
substantially impact the light, air, privacy, and livability of other properties.
4. That the granting of this variance would adversely affect the general plan of
the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
i
The granting or denial of this variance would not affect the General Plan or the adopted plan of
any governmental agency.
II. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 11th day of September, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Tarantino, Thomas, Willett
NOES: Commissioners Davis, Salas
ABSENT: Commissioners Ray, Tuchscher
\
~t ~ _4
Fra ~antino, Chair
~
~U, ~1, ~ ~ t.e~.
- Nancy Ri ley, Se retar