HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Reso 1996-1508 RESOLUTION 1508
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING VARIANCES TO
ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK
AND AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
HEIGHT IN THE M-52 ZONE FOR A WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 863/865 STELLA STREET
WHEREAS, a duly verified application for a variance (ZAV-96-16) was filed with the City of
Chula Vista Planning Department on May 7, 1996 by Pacific Bell Mobile Services (Applicant); and
WHEREAS, said application requests reduction of the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet
and to increase the height from 35 feet to 37 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the wireless
communications facility requested pursuant to SUPS-96-04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 12, 1996 and voted
6 to 0 recommending that the Redevelopment Agency approve ZAV-96-16; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency set the time and place for a hearing on said
variance 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 ten (10) days prior to the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely July 16,
1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Redevelopment
Agency and said hearing was thereafter closed; and
WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review as Class 3(e) and Class
5(a) exemptions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
hereby finds, orders and determines as follows:
1. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the Applicant
exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing for the needs
of the Applicant 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.
Due to the configuratiou of the parcels, building and streets, as set forth in the
staff report, both the reduction in the setback and the increase in height are
justified in that applying the standard M-52 criteria would pose a hardship and
render the project more visually impactive than desirable.
Resolution 1508
Page 2
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.
These variances are necessary to allow the Applicant the opportunity to provide
customers with a wireless communications facility of at least the same quality as
other similar facilities in the vicinity. It therefore does not constitute a special
privilege.
3. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and will not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance or public interest.
The approval of ZAV-96-16 will not be detrimental to adjacent property in that
the variance is minor in nature and is justified because of the combination of
parcel sizes, building location and parking area all require that the facility be
placed in the proposed location.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any government agency.
The approval of the variance requests is consistent with City policies and the
policies and elements of the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan for the
Southwest Redevelopment Area, and as such, will not adversely affect same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hereby
grants the requested variances set forth in ZAV-96-16, subject to the conditions contained in
SUPS-96-04, and subject to the condition that said variances shall only apply to this request and
the nature and extent of the encroachments shown on the plans submitted with the application..
This request for variances shall become void and ineffective if same is not utilized within
one year from the date of this resolution in accordance with Section 19.14.260 of the Municipal
Code.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone Ann Moore
Community Development Director Interim City Attorney
Resolution No. 1508
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA this 16th day of July 1996 by the following vote:
AYES: Members Moot, Horton, Rindone
NOES: None
ABSENT: Members Alevy and Padilla
ABSTENTIONS: None
Shirley HOg(on
Chairman
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss:
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista, California DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of Resolution No. 1508 and that the same has not been amended or repealed.
Dated: July 17, 1996 __ ~ ,~ -~ ~
Chris Salomone
Executive Secretary