Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1992-16809 RESOLUTION NO. 16809 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DENYING THE APPEAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK AT 671 CRESCENT DRIVE WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance, ZAV-92-12, was filed with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista on March 30, 1992, by Corazon C. Van Hecke; and, WHEREAS, said application requested permission to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet in order to legalize an existing sunroom at 671 Crescent Drive in the R-l-P4 zone ("Proposed Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 8, 1992 and denied said application for a variance; and, WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council set the time and place for a hearing on said appeal and notice of said hearing together with its purpose was given by it 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 ten days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m. on September 15, 1992, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 3 exemption authorized by Section 15303 of the California Public Resources Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL finds as follows: SECTION 1. CEQA Compliance. The Proposed Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under the authority of Section 15303 as a Class 3 exemption. SECTION 2. Required Findings. With regard to the findings that an issuing authority (e.g., Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council) is required to make, as set forth in Section 19.14.190, each of which are repeated hereinbelow in bold, the City Council finds, on independent, denovo review of the facts, as set forth below said required finding: Resolution No. 16809 Page 2 1. First Required Finding--Hardship pecluliar to property. 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 Council finds that the property is essentially rectangular and level, and there is nothing unique about its relationship to surrounding properties. The approved dwelling contains 2,963 sq. ft. and an open patio cover may be added. It is not a hardship that the property is less than 6,000 sq. ft. since neighboring parcels have comparable areas. Any financial burden suffered by an "innocent" party in complying with the City's zoning ordinance does not meet the definition of a hardship justifying a variance. 2. Second Required Finding--Variance Necessary to Enjoy Property in Manner Similar to Similarly Zoned Parcels. 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 Council finds that there is nothing inherent in the property which deprives this parcel of the property rights enjoyed by others in the same zone and vicinity. The encroachment would constitute a special privilege of the recipient, not enjoyed by her neighbors. 3. Third Required Finding--No Injury to Neighboring Parcels and Public Interest. 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. Resolution No. Z6809 Page 3 The Council finds that the setbacks serve to provide visual relief, as well as meeting health and safety requirements. A structure which extends so close to property lines reduced on- site open space and presents a crowded appearance, to the detriment of adjacent properties and in conflict with the purposes of this chapter and the public interest. 4. Fourth Required Finding--No Adverse Impact to General Plan. 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 Council finds that the authorizing or denial of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. SECTION 3. Ruling on Appeal. The City Council hereby denies applicant's appeal. Presented by ro~s~, f~~ Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaar~ Director of Planning City Attorney Resol uti on No. 16809 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 15th day of September, lgg2, by the following vote: YES: Councilmembers: Hotton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, Nader NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Tim Nie~r/,/'Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VIST~ ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16809 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 15th day of September, 1992. Executed this 15th day of September, 1992. Beverly A~ Authelet, City Clerk