The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-049 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 01-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING VARIANCE 00-09 A REQUEST TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET IN HEIGHT WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 4 FEET IS ALLOWED,AND SLOPE GRADIENTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.5:1 WHERE A MAXIMUM GRADIENT OF 2:1 IS ALLOWED FOR 20 PROPOSED HOMES ON 21 EXISTING LOTS WITHIN APPROVED TRACT 10035 ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO PREDERA, SOUTH OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE — APN: 207-641-01 THROUGH 10 AND 207-631-01 THROUGH 11 A. Recitals. 1. Concordia Homes filed an application forthe approval of Variance Oa09, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the January 10 and continued to January 24, 2001, to allow time for analysis of tract Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearing on Variance 00-09. 3. On the 24th day of January 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a timely manner to this Council. 5. On the March 7, and continued to March 21, 2001, to provide staff time to prepare a revised resolution to address view impacts, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearings on March 7, 2001, and March 21, 2001 including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: Resolution No. 01-049 Page 2 of 4 a. The application applies to property located along the south side of Camino Redera with a street frontage of 3,300 feet and lot depth of 260 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single- family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and abandoned rail corridor(future regional multi-purpose trail), the property to the east is developed with singlefamily homes, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with condominiums; and C. Absolute compliance with the maximum slope gradients and letaining wall heights per the Hillside Development Regulations would cause a physical hardship for the property owner due to the steepness and topography of the site, as well as the size and shape of the existing lots of record; and d. There are exceptional circumstances, such as shape and size of lots which limit development alternatives given the extreme 30 percent existing natural slope and a grade difference of over 110 feet, applicable to the subject property that do not apply to a majority of other prolarties in the Low Residential District which have much lesser slopes and less drastic topography; and e. Strict interpretation of the maximum slope gradient and retaining wall height would deprive the property owner of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District which are able to take full development potential with normal and reasonable grading and construction practices; and f. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, as it accommodates reasonable and provident use of the land with homes of reasonable size in conformance with the density provisions of the district; and g. Specialized and sophisticated grading and construction methods as well as intensified landscaping will prevent any detrimental affects to the public health, safety, or welfare. h. Retaining walls are necessary to lower house pad grades to minimize impact upon view shed of existing homes to the north. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearings on March 7, 2001, and March 21, 2001, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, and togetherwith public testimony,this Council hereby specifically finds as follows with reference to points raised by the appellant and by the project developer: a. The increase in retaining wall height and slope gradient are necessary in order to locate a majority of the proposed homes below, very near, or nominally above the curb line for Camino Predera, thus maximizing view preservation for a majority of the existing neighborhood including future homes on the north side of Camino Predera; and b. The appellant did not present any information that would refute any of the findings established by the Planning Commission in their decision to grant approval of the subject Variance application; and Resolution No. 01-049 Page 3 of 4 C. The developer, Concordia Homes, has presented a revised development scheme whereby the homes on Lots 4 and 5 can be substantially lowered relative to Camino Predera and the existing surrounding homes to address view impact concerns raised by the appellants. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearings on March 7, and March 21, 2001, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not consfitote a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health,safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal, upholds the action of the Planning Commission, and approves the application subject to all Conditions of Approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-10, attached hereto. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to John Snell and Lynn and Renee Massey that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought in governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a)certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and(b)forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Snell of Concordia Homes and Lynn and Renee Massey, at the addresses identified in City records. Resolution No. 01-049 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of March, 2001. AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None "Al7exdef'Maydr ATTEST: 06bra J. Ada , CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J.ADAMS,CITY CLERKof the City of Rancho Cucamonga,California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of March, 2001. Executed this 22nd day of March, 2001, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Ada MC, City Clerk