HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1996-12 RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-12
i
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING I
COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AROOF-MOUNTED SIGN TO 42 FT.
ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING
LOCATED AT 396 E STREET WITHIN THE C-T
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE
i
WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula
Vista Planning Department on April 12, 1996 by Valley Neon Sign Company, and;
WHEREAS, said application requests approval to construct aroof-mounted sign to
42 ft. above grade for the commercial building at 396 E Street within the C-T Thoroughfare
Commercial zone, and;
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this
proposal is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 11 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 June
12, 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.
L No 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. ~rther, a previous variance can never have set a
precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits.
Rooftop signage within the height permitted by the code would be visible to traffic in the
area, although proportional requirements could limit sign area. Additionally, the code
would allow alternatives to this sign proposal; these include the possibility of a freestanding
sign elsewhere on the property, and wall-mounted signage on the building parapet.
Therefore, a hardship does not exist relative to this property and the proposed signage.
2. No variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial i
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 I,
recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 'i
The approval of this variance would not serve to preserve property rights for this owner j
enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity; as other
properties in the immediate vicinity currently utilize freestanding signage which complies
with code requirements or is actually less than that allowed. If granted, the proposed
variance would therefore constitute a special privilege of the recipient.
3. 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 be detrimental to adjacent property in that it would
provide this property with a sign of excessive height and visibility and an advantage with
respect to business identification in comparison to other surrounding 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.
The approval of this variance would not be consistent with City policies and the General
Plan for the reasons outlined above. I
IL A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA,
CALIFORNIA, this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Chair Tuchscher, Commissioners Ray, Tarantino, Willett
NOES: Commissioners Davis, Thomas
ABSENT: Commissioner Salas
William C. Tuchscher II, Chair
N?~t~~,.< ~t r~
ancy Ri ley, Sec~et