Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1996-18357 RESOLUTION NO. 18357 (Became Resolution No. 18437) Not Approved RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL OF COIN MART FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEREBY DENYING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROOF- MOUNTED SIGN TO 42 FT. ABOVE GRADE FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 396 E STREET WITHIN THE C-T THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL ZONE 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 a roof-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 WHEREAS, after hearing public testimony and considering the project, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the request in accordance with Resolution ZAV-96-12; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 1996 the applicant filed an appeal from the Planning Commission decision with the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the City Council hearing on said appeal 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 17, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 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: Resolution 18357 Page 2 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 its individual merits. No hardship peculiar to the property exists since 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. 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; 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. 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 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. II. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Loiter Ann Y. Moore Director of Planning Acting City Attorney Resolution 18357 Page 3 NOT PASSED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 9th day of July, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18357 was NOT APPROVED by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 9th day of July, 1996. NOTE: Resolution came back to Council on September 17, 1996 as Resolution 18437.