HomeMy WebLinkAboutZAV 1989-05 RESOLUTION N0. ZAV-89-5
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance was filed with
the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on September 6, 1988, by
Jose Isabal, and
WHEREAS, said application requested permission to establish a
substandard parking area to serve a four unit apartment project under
construction at 579 Casselman Street in the R-3 zone, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing
nn 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., October 12, 1988, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed,
and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION finds as
follows:
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 project was reviewed and approved on the basis of plans
submitted to the City which incorrectly showed the lot as 50' x
150' rather than the actual lot size of 50' x 136'. Thus the
hardship, if any, was specifically created by an act of the
owner and/or his agents, and is not peculiar to the property
itself. Further, financial considerations or loss of
prospective profits are not hardships 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
Other properties in the same zone and vicinity are subject to
the same parking standards which apply to the property in
question. The granting of the variance would therefore
represent a special privilege not enjoyed by neighboring
properties which choose to develop/redevelop under current City
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.
The granting of the variance would likely increase the amount of
on-street parking to the detriment of adjacent properties in an
area which is already overburdened with on-street parking.
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 granting of the variance is inconsistent with City policy
and regulations designed to ensure adequate and convenient
on-site parking to serve all new developments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION hereby denies the
variance.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA,
this 12th day of October, 1988, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Commissioners Casillas, Fuller, Carson and Tugenberg
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Shipe and Cannon (with notification)
ABSTENTIONS: Commmissioner Grasser
t_~, ti,,,,,.,.z.- ~ ~~~a~..,/
nne E. Carson, airman
ATTEST:
Rut f+l. Smith, Secretary
WPC 5607P/0386P