HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 13-2000, CUP-2000-13, Z-2000-4RESOLUTION NO. 13-2000
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA,
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS TO EXPAND A MOTEL
FROM 39 TO 50 ROOMS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED SWIMMING POOL
AT 1125 E. PLAZA BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: TSAN-TANG HUNG.
CASE FILE NOS. CUP-2000-13, Z-2000-4.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City, California considered
conditional use permit and variance applications to expand a motel from 39 to 50 rooms without the
required swimming pool at 1125 E. Plaza Boulevard at the public hearing held on June 19, 2000, at
which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearings the Planning Commission considered the staff reports
contained in Case File Nos. CUP-2000-13 and Z-2000-4, which are maintained by the City, and
incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State and City
law; and,
WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public
health, safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Planning Commission of the City of
National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the
public hearing held on June 19, 2000 fail to support the following findings, required by the Municipal
Code for granting any conditional use permit and variance: that the proposed use is deemed essential
and desirable to the public convenience or welfare and that because of special circumstances applicable
to the property, including size, location and surroundings, the strict application of Title 18 of the
Municipal Code (Zoning) deprives the properly of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under the identical zone classification, and that the required variance is subject to conditions which
will assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Planning Commission of the City of National City,
California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing
held on June 19, 2000, support the following findings:
1. That the proposed use is not deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare,
since there already exists an abundance of motel units in the City as well as CT (Tourist
Commercial) zoning in place to encourage hotel/motel development in other areas; and since this
project is located in an area approximately one-half mile removed from the nearest freeway and
is thus not as accessible as other motel sites; and since the project will not provide a swimming
pool, a desirable amenity.
2. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, location and
surroundings, because of which strict application of Title 18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning)
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the
identical zone classification, since the proposed lot is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the required swimming pool.
That the required variance is not subject to conditions which will assure that the adjustment
authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use
Permit application no. CUP-2000-13 and Variance application no. Z-2000-4.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the
applicant and to the City Council; and,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day
following the City Council meeting where the Planning Commission resolution is set for review, unless
an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of that City Council
meeting. The City Council may, at that meeting, appeal the decision of the Planning Commission and
set the matter for public hearing. The time within which judicial review of this decision may be sought
is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6.
CERTIFICATION:
This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 19,
2000 by the following vote:
AYES: MARTINELLI, BACA, DETZER
NAYS:
ABSENT: UNGAB, VALDERRAMA, GODSHALK
ABSTAIN: PARRA
fi444V-O-�
CHAIRMAN