HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-704 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 88-704
A RESOLUTION OF 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF MINOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 87-71 LOCATED AT 10807 JERSEY
· BOULEVARD'IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals. -'
(i) Commercial Carriers, Inc. has~ filed an application for the
approval of Minor Development Review No. 87-71 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in"thi§ Resolution, the subject Development
Re'view requegt is referred to as "the application".
(ii) 'On July 7,'1988,' the City Planner of~ the' City of Rancho
Cucamonga approved the application,.'b9 letter, subjett ;to specified
conditions.
(iii) The City Planner's'decision. was timely appealed to the
'Planning Commission on July 18, 1988.
(iv) On the 14th of September, 1988, and continued to October 26,
1988, the Planning Commission of'the City of Rancho Cucambnga conducted a
meeting on the application and"concluded said meeting on that-date adopting
Resolution 88-224 approv'in9 the application.with modified conditions.
'(v). The-Plannisg'Commi'ssion's decision was timely appealed to'the
City Council on November 4, 1988.
(vi) On the 7th of December, 1988 and continued to J~nuary 4 and
1'8, 1989~ ah~ February 1, 1989, the City 'Council' of' the'-City of Rancho
Cucamo'nga'conducted a'meeting on-the 'application and concluded said meeting on
that date.
'(vii) All legal prerequisites to'th~ ~doption ~f this ResOlution
have occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Counciq~bf'the' C~ty of Rancho Cucamonga does
hereby resolve as follow~: ·
· 1.. .This Council hereby speCifically, finds that'all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals., Part A, of thi§ Resolution are-true, and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council.during
the above-referenced meeting on February 1, 1989, including written and oral
staff reports, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
Resolution No. 88-704
Page 2
(a) The application applies to property located at 10807
Jersey Boulevard with a street frontage of 814 feet and an average lot depth
of 6'/3 feet and is presently improved with an office, warehouse, and parking
lot; and
(b) The property to the north' of the subject site is a multi-
tenant industrial park, the property to the south of that site consists of a
warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is
a warehouse.
(c) The application applies to a site that ~is current)y
improved with an office building, warehouse building and parking lot and is
considered a legal non-conforming lot; and
(d)' Municipal Code'S~ction 17.06.020.B authorizes the City
Planner to impose reasonable conditions upon a Minor Development Review permit
approval, including requirements for landscaping, street improvements,
regulation of vehicular ingress, egress and traffic circulation, establishment
of development schedules or time limits~ for performance or completion.
(e) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020.A states that ~he purpose
and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process is to assure that
such limited projects comply with all applicabqe City Standards and
Ordinances.
(f) ' The site plan submitted in conjunction with the
application, does not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standard of a 35-foot
average landscape set~ack and ~inimum~25-foot parking setback, as measured
from the ultimate face of curb. Further, the site plan and existing chain
link fence improvements do not meet the Indu·strial Specific Plan standards for
screening outdoor storage of vehicles within' I20 feet' of a street frontage
with masonry, concrete or other similar materials.
(g) The site currently is improved with four driveways within
820 feet of' street frontage. The City's access policy for arterial streets
specifies that driveways on the same side of a street be spaced 300 feet
apart. Therefore, only two driveways would be allowed on this site. Further,
driveways sh6uld align with driveways on the opposite side of th~ street or by
off-setting a safe distance to avoid conflicting left-turn mQvements. The
City's access policy also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet
from intersections.
(h) The applicant has not filed any application for variance
from the Industrial Specific Plan Standards and requirements.
3. Based upon. the substantial evidence presented to this Council
during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes
as follows:
Resolution No. 88-704
Page 3
(a) That the proposed project is not consistent with the
objectives of the General Plan; and
(b) Tiqat the proposed use is not in accord with the objective
of the Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located; and
(c) Tiqat the proposed use is not in compliance with each of
the applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan; and
(d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal.
5. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 1st day of February, 1989.
AYES: Alexander, Brown, Buquet, Stout, Wright
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Dennis L. Stout, Mayor
ATTEST:
Beverly A./Authelet, City Clerk
I, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CITY CLERK of 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 1st day of
February, 1989.
Executed this 2nd day of February, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Beverly~A. Authelet, City Clerk