Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1989-14103 Revised 5/19/89 RESOLUTION NO. 14103 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ZAV-89-31 TO ALLOW FOR A 6-FOOT HIGH WALL TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA AT 9 L STREET - W. H. BARTON The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on July 6, 1988, Walter H. Barton, owner and resident of 9 L Street, wrote to City Council requesting an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to allow 6-foot high walls in front setback areas for homes fronting on thoroughfare roads, and WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 12, 1988, Council referred the matter to staff, directing staff to discuss the matter with Mr. Barton and report back on the same, and WHEREAS, on December 6, 1988, Council considered the report, and referred the matter back to staff requesting that a draft ordinance be prepared with an explanation of the criteria to be considered by the City, and WHEREAS, on April 4, 1989, Council reviewed staff's draft ordinance and explanation of the criteria to be considered by the City. At that time, Council referred the ordinance back to staff for further study and directed staff to consider a variance for Mr. Barton's specific property. WHEREAS, the project is exempt from environmental review. WHEREAS, on April 26 1989, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that Council approve the request for a variance in accordance with Resolution ZAV-89-31. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve ZAV-89-31 to allow for a 6-foot high wall to be located in the front setback area at 9 L Street in accordance with the following 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. -1- The property is located on a high volume, noisy collector street within close proximity to a major intersection resulting in a noise reading which far exceeds acceptable City standards. 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. A wall is needed to preserve an acceptable living environment. Other properties in this area have not indicated similar noise issues. 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 proposed wall design, setback and landscaping will enhance the design and thus add the improvement of area which is not landscaped or maintained. 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 variance applies to one lot and, therefore, will have not an adverse affect on the General Plan of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. A wall not to exceed six feet shall be constructed. The wall need not necessarily cover the full width of the lot, but shall be constructed as a decorative wall (i.e., split face Dlock, stucco facing, brick). 2. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect. 3. A maintenance agreement shall be filed with the City and recorded on the deed stipulating that the owner and successors of interest agree to maintain the landscaping and the wall in accordance with City standards and plans on file with the City. Failure to perform said maintenance to the satisfaction of the City will authorize the City to enter the property and -2- perform said maintenance upon written notice to the owner ten days prior to any action. All costs incurred by the City shall be charged to the owner and a lien placed on the property. Presented by Appro~Lto form by Geg~"'Kre~emp or of / J.~ ron, Cxty Attorney 5683a -3- ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF C, ,dLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 16 doy of May 19 89 , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmembers Moore, Nader, Cox NAYES: Cound ] members McCandliss, Malcolm ABSTAIN; Cound]members ~o~e A~ENT: Cound ]membe~s ~o~e .... "MO e C~y o o Vista ATTEST~ ~ ~ S, . E OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is o full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 14103 ,and that the some has not been amended or repealed DATED City Clerk CC-660