Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1989-08 i i RESOLUTION N0. ZAV-89-8 j RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE i, WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 23, 1988, by Henry N. Kleis, and 4dHEREAS, said application requested to legitimize two studio apartment units at 675/681 Sea Vale Street with regard to minimum floor area and rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said conditional use permit 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 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m., November 30, 1988, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, tP~e project is exempt from environmental review as a Class 5(a) exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT TI1E PLANNING COMMISSION finds as fol l ovas: 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 its individual merits. The property is rectangular and level, and there is .nothing unique about its relationship to surrounding properties. It is not a hardship that the property was developed in the 195U's at a density below the maximum allowed in the R-3 zone. The standards would not prohibit the owner from achieving a yield commensurate with higher density R-3 projects should he choose to redevelop the property. Any financial burden to an "innocent" party in complying with the City's zoning standards is also not a hardship justifying a variance. 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. i There is nothing inherent to the property which deprives this parrel of the property rights enjoyed by other parcels in the ~ same zone and vicinity. It suffers no disadvantage in relation to other R-3 properties which develop at densities below that authorized by the underlying R-3 zone. It would be a special privilege to allow this property to maintain substandard units in order to achieve densities similar to properties which must I fully comply with City zoning standards. 3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. It is not consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance nor in the public interest to maintain unusually small, irregularly-shaped dwelling units which can only offer a marginal living environment for their occupants. 4. That the authorizing of such variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The Flousing Element calls for the provision of good, sound housing for a71 economic groups, and states that low and moderate income households are entitled to the same residential and environmental amenities as those which are standard to other families. Approval of tYie variance is not consistent with this policy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TNAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the variance. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 30th day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Shipe, Grasser, Carson and Tugenberg NOES: Commissioner Cannon ABSENT: None _rr-`rLz~-r,-al c `--~~,c-~-a~LJ nne E. Carson, Chairman ATTEST: Ruth M. Smit Secretary WPC 5768P