Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1996-08 RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-08 i I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING ~ COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE TO 5.5 FT. HIGH WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 21 F STREET IN THE R-1 ZONE I i WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on March 14, 1996 by Nicholas and Jayne Gistaro, and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to construct a fence to 5.5 ft. high within the front yard setback at 21 F Street in the R-1 Single Family Residential 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; j WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 24, 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: 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. The subject property appears to be more susceptible to security problems than the average residence because of its size, historic designation, and double frontage, and fencing options are uniquely restricted by mature landscaping which has been cited as a historic aspect of the property. Therefore, a hardship peculiar to this property and not created by any act of the owner exists. 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 granting of this variance will allow the owner to secure his property to a reasonable extent, a property right possessed by other properties in the same zone. This variance would not constitute a special privilege considering the unique nature of the property as a large, double frontage, historic site with mature, historically significant vegetation. 3. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The authorizing of this variance and the ensuing fence construction will not be substantially detrimental to adjacent property because of the open and quality design of the fence as viewed in relation to width and depth of the property and the extensive landscaping planting. 4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of this permit is consistent with City policies and the General Plan based on totality of findings cited above. II. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants approval of this request subject to the following conditions whereby: A. This variance is approved only for fencing of an open design as depicted in plans accompanying this application. The fence shall consist of wrought iron with columns spaced no closer than 10 ft. on center. No portion of the fence or columns shall exceed 5.5 ft. in height. B. If the subject property is subdivided in the future, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. C. If the subject historic residence should lose its designation or be removed from the site, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. D. If the mature front yard landscape planting is removed or modified in any substantial way, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. i E. If an encroachment permit is not obtained to locate the fence in the public right-of--way, this variance shall become null and void. III. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant. A. Post-Approval Conditions. This approval shall be subject to any and all I new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the grantee and after the City has given to the grantee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Grantee of a substantial revenue source which the Grantee can not, in the normal operation of the approval granted, be expected to economically recover. B. Time to Commence Use. This approval shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof. C. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property of applicant, Irnown as 21 F Street; proof of said recording to be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be grounds for revocation or modification of the variance. IV. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF. CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Vice Chair Ray, Commissioners Salas, Tarantino, and Thomas NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Willett ABSENT: Commissioners Davis and Tuchscher 'w-_-_C', , l~ John y, Vice Chair l~ ~~~~~a Nancy Ri ley, Se retary