Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/10/27 - Agenda Packet - Planning Commission • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA lb at, COMMISSION ' AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA OCTOBER 27, 2010 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Munoz_ Vice Chairman Howdyshell • • Fletcher Wimberly _ Oaxaca _ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES I October 13, 2010 Regular Meeting Minutes IIV: PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. VARIANCE DRC2009-00863- PETE BABCOCK-A request to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches in order to allow an existing 140 square foot storage structure that was built without a permit and is located within the Very Low Residential (VL) District at 5753 Indigo Avenue-APN: 1043-121-10. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt • 1 of 4 ;1st PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • OCTOBER 27, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The project consists of reducing the required side yard setback by 5 feet and will not result in any changes in land use, density or create a new lot. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259-K HOVNANIAN-The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 79 single-family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor, APN: 1087-101-01 thru -55, 1087-111-01 thru-02, 1087-111-14 thru 1087-111- 19, 1087-111-21, and 1087-111-27 thru 1087-111-36. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. • V. NEW BUSINESS C. DRC2010-00724 - CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY RESOLUTION REGARDING SINGLE-STORY HOMES IN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. • 2 of 4 • „- y" PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA L� OCTOBER 27, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 21, 2010, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. • ® If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION . The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position,you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate,a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. • Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. • 3 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA kir] OCTOBER 27, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,124 for maps and$2,231 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us • • 4 of 4 Vicinity Map • Planning Commission Meeting October 27 , 2010 ,T$1 C ,, rj c t d H o �_a E CO U Y I ID I) I. i . O.■ Witei r L I. Base Line r' •C Base Line rt l• Church t ! 4____ A Church Foothill ; Foothill R re i Arrow _a n '^ a Arrow c d c 1 > a Jersey -c 3 Ii 8th -- E {� o R. d / W Wi CD 0 6th _ ^ c f 6th• G.t e > Y 0 RI 41t1 Q = _ E` 4th A 9 • * =Meeting Location: Item C: Applies Citywide City Hall (for single-family residential development) 10500 Civic Center Drive STAFF REPORT • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT L RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: October 27, 2010 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE DRC2009-00863 - PETE BABCOCK - A request to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 6 inches in order to allow an existing 140 square foot storage structure that was built without a permit and is located within the Very Low Residential (VL) District at 5753 Indigo Avenue; APN: 1043-121-10. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The project consists of reducing the required side yard setback by 5 feet and will not result in any changes in land use, density, or create a new lot. SITE DESCRIPTION: • A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Site - Very Low (VL) Residential — Single-Family Residence North - Very Low (VL) Residential — Single-Family Residences South - Very Low (VL) Residential — Single-Family Residences' East - Very Low (VL) Residential — Single-Family Residences West - Very Low (VL) Residential — Single-Family Residences B. General Plan Designations: • Project Site— Very Low (VL) Residential — .1 — 2 dwelling units per acre North - Very Low (VL) Residential — .1 — 2 dwelling units per acre South - Very Low (VL) Residential — .1 —2 dwelling units per acre East - Very Low (VL) Residential — .1 —2 dwelling units per acre West - Very Low (VL) Residential — .1 —2 dwelling units per acre BACKGROUND: The applicant constructed a 140 square foot storage shed at the northeast corner of his property without a building permit. The Building Department requires a building permit for all structures over 120 square feet. The shed is setback 6 inches from the side property line (north) and 20 feet from the rear property line (east). The shed directly abuts a 20-foot wide equestrian trail easement that is part of the applicant's property, with one eave of the shed overhanging the easement. On April 1, 2009, a building inspector for the City met with the applicant and informed him that the shed requires a building permit; and, if one could not be obtained, the shed would need to be removed. The applicant has since requested and received multiple extensions from the Building • Item A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2009-00863— PETE BABCOCK October 27, 2010 Page 2 • Department. The applicant also met with Planning Department staff to discuss permitting the shed. He was informed that the shed did not meet the required.side setback for his property and that his only option was to move the shed. On November 16, 2009, the applicant submitted a Variance request with the Planning Department. The applicant was subsequently informed that staff could not support the Variance because they were unable to make the required findings necessary to approve the request. . The Variance request was placed on hold while the applicant decided whether he wanted to go to the Planning Commission without staff support. The applicant has since met with staff and it was decided that the Variance request would be scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing without a staff recommendation in order to give the applicant the opportunity to discuss with the Planning Commissioners why he feels the Variance should be supported. ANALYSIS: The applicant's home is located in the Very Low (VL) Residential Development District, The Development Code requires that storage sheds with a floor area over 120 square feet in size meet the setback requirements of the development district in which they are located (Section 17.08.060 Al). In this case, the setback for structures built in the rear yard setback is 5 feet from the side and rear property lines. With a setback of 6 inches from the side property line, the structure is 4 feet and 6 inches deficient from meeting this requirement. Additionally, the eave of the shed is not permitted to overhang onto the equestrian trail easement. The shed is constructed of masonry.block with a wood framed roof. The method of construction makes it nearly impossible to move the shed without causing structural damage. The applicant provided the following reasons why he feels the Variance should be supported: 1. The shed was built in the same location of a shed existing on the site when the applicant • purchased the property. That original shed was destroyed by high.winds. 2. There are vegetable and flower gardens on the site that would need to be moved if the shed were required to meet the minimum 5 foot setback. The gardens were created over 20 years ago. 3. There are many other accessory buildings in the neighborhood with similar setbacks. 4. They were unaware of the setback requirement and have spent a great deal of money building a shed that matched the architecture of the main house. They would be financially unable to build a new shed if the existing shed were required to be removed. ENTITLEMENT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the required side setback in the rear yard from 5 feet to 6 inches. VARIANCE GUIDELINES: Variances give the City flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances exist pertaining to a property such as size, shape, topography or location, which deprives the property owner from privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Prior to granting a Variance, the Planning Commission must make five findings which substantiate that the Variance meets the intent and limitations set forth in the Development Code (see Exhibit D). • A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2009-00863—PETE BABCOCK • October 27, 2010 Page 3 CONCLUSION: The applicant is requesting a Variance for a 4-foot and 6-inch reduction in the required side setback in the rear yard setback. Staff wishes for the Planning Commission to make a policy decision on whether they feel that the applicant's request meets the purpose and intent of the guidelines for approving a Variance. Staff is concerned that approving the applicant's request will set a precedent that other residents will point to in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request and direct staff to come back to a future Planning Commission meeting either making findings supporting or denying the applicant's request. Respectfully submitted, S' mes R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JT:TV\ds Attachments: Exhibit A — Site Plan • Exhibit B — Photographs of Site Exhibit C —Variance Justification by Applicant Exhibit D —Variance Guidelines (Development Code Section 17.04.040) • A-3 — r 0 , I ■ cti CTw ] +� ' . • -. r.,; f f'T 1(7 ;, i, .. ,. . .1 'fit.. .,, -- 7A ; ....t...:., S , }}� .. ..r: , 4. .f. t.'/iL't•F k5.r .ar...t - i =' ., ,, _ 4; • 0Ei§25 120,0 9 • i k,. I _.t tY .Ate` 1 .• /`rtel i 1`^. ,1 :Lz I .1-PLn!'�,^eza" �'. ^.•∎ -+"r' Vic' -®' �® y ---.4'4 " ) 11111 NEM '. ®I t;:" I \7PPvk' D 'x :;DRI; 5/2UCjLi + • 1 A-7 1 --e:4 4- l' III'-i. k `. j 0 Q A Y� '�'f{� !It fl I f YI M$ 1�1 1>V •.1�,. I. 3 is - y 1 � i s- it %-"' 5Y 1' L r PI I I" II I fl t l 1 ` f f._ N4r5..;.irlk - ff tifa F fff: I Mi ,...I ,,- DB/25/2009 , • s e 1R YY v - ;i F ! "«+ r ' v• c 115 • °- _ ' r w a ., 1`"14 I o-�. "x I, -,-S 111.4 .y 4. '+xv#,d�6,�°� • s l`�v�-rr∎;y`. _r+^_. •- .r. 1 .,. �/ ,P It rid v{ ... . .. .., .P14 _77[-.1., r, ∎ M{t ,� 6c , s ,�` Sr `� 1 i _ fief e !-, 4-fir.Y. o':. + . t ` y. .f , : 1,+"�' ra� "Y�' v`�i�t, V 'n 9Ff 1> �i4'V,+ IINy tt;kl"�qS 5YY'7 1 rb4-. 1 r i Ib r V ti ! 7 y, Lr r� '� Ili ,h lr k vrnwM€" '� a�f� �I l' i. . fyf IP ■r i K Y I 'lY r h.,, f'A , " L x k ,,,,,..,,,,,, '4,1* ,�w,1 1 Uu�t � �ln4hl a, r r :G�/0�7 �p F ryrf it. r1�ty f J. r ,f�r,.'Jp� r 14A f�57 {�,- lY,Ldq ppr� f�1 �' 4 ,�`' J +�l�r .L,tly+, 4 Q � +�-�yYry"7n In.C1�r .�t ,l,.: ., ' r5(�' r, ,yr IV1Y� f Cn< �' 0�1 Jl !fb1j .1�'�,1M 4' r mAilll'yJ{4 y,l/., 'it'`4- $I-tk.), !'rIJ�JM, �",.., ,'I ..,x • r :� .r, 14 , : 1 'm)a1 .id .x^+u rV ',7.p,-r`I W:144i'r'.L'1,,u:)..tix�Fd''V •'+.,A: J�.w..,,%,.jr.t$1;,,��y.. L,�•�-. A-8 .+•r x. M1'" r..f 4 2rar� +sL . r °. . � /` x IY • ..,..- t r f* . • 7:111'::" li ,''1 {{ ii ,1 •• l s .t T ‘, ,� .rw �:.'''rrr'''��i ttt1 0 ,;. mot.• 1�' 1 J 'T, w "+t4'; 7 Y.1;1 .,4 .y. .x.{ k.;>,'e,,A Jy ✓y a I '1 -,.:' ,.I ;g■ �:. ' s, .1, M. 1� -w mfiJf ,ty9Gr-. c i,rar C ! r i l t o.a - �a'Xd#°'fir ,-4 .+ �1 .L•10 Q: "F4�'1s.'r 1;1,. -- t J':--•,t '..` ! ; +... '" �.i3+ r <rr ''�s-'a ',. !' t+ +Z'1 r c f0•` " w+a +y m i. g1., s T F,,• „...,.7 art t.r u !,. ,r:} :.' d"h W' +� �,/� .AU'{ x l._.�13L" .t�JMS met u•41 , 'Y de 1 �t ... .+tai w .'.• St t z.� yrnat @ ++ hn. h �i�I T � F ,F" ,.bi r t Y "� � Y i3 '�* f. 'ni k:'-444674-••.t umy � n ry it 1t l y,r n 1 Y �j( lQ4 J r k' ,;, ',„„,:!f.,', -x + ti z + ',"I. ' ,4 i. :•4 P te ..pal kN 4l[ix y nq1I &t � 4rd i ',F :F S'" k ?'za d' d N+1 4,:0,4,1,7,r y s .. " t Y7.r 7.13341 M7A� '. - 3 ytr� t.0V1+ 0 nris Q dt.g.i } + 6 r "' 1 r r + ^ P .kh. m+ 4 war r,. Rr fi , . ' •. .„.,,,,...,,,,,..,,......„,...•�. t: ,. .,.'.,.�µ J , t1 E, .. '; , .+ :26.a..•,,.w•.• .'J. . • A-9 • VARIANCE REQUEST Background: The applicant purchased the subject property in 1989. The home was 4 years old at the time ofhis purchase. The original property owner constructed raised vegetable planters out of masonry block in the Northeast corner of the property. He also planted 4 types of grapes along the North and West property fence and fruit trees consisting of apple,peach,plum, apricot and walnuts throughout the backyard along the property perimeter. To house the tools and equipment to service this agriculture the previous owner built a wood shed against the North property line, consistent with the setbacks on the parcel map for the property parcel map for the lot I purchased which actually attached to the masonry site wall separating the subject property from the adjacent neighbor. The previously established property grades and previously planted (25 years ago)agriculture established the storage shed location. There is no other location on the property for a storage shed. The applicant has maintained and nurtured the agriculture for 21 years. Some 4-5 years ago the existing shed was damaged by high winds. The applicant rebuilt the garden shed,sparing little expense, to make the new shed not just functional but aesthetically pleasing. The new shed was built in the same location as the original shed. Approximately 2 years later, the City Building Department provided the applicant with a correction notice stating that the new shed required a building permit. • The applicant has been cooperative since first meeting with the Building Inspector,Mr.Pete Rouch, and then through constant communication with Mr. Phil Guerrero. Mr. Guerrero provided direction and assistance in educating the applicant in the process required to correct the situation. The applicant then met with Mr. Larry. Henderson and Mr. Daniel Correa, Planning Department. Here the City officials reviewed the conditions and strongly recommended that the . applicant apply for a variance. Mr. Henderson said that the Planning Department would support the variance request to the Planning Commission. In fact, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Correa both expressed that the shed was visually appropriate. The applicant prepared the suggested and described components of the variance process. With the variance application and all other required paperwork the applicant submitted a property site plan depicting the property layout, and the site plan clearly shows that the shed is located in the only possible location on the subject property. With the submittal the applicant included a written narrative justifying the variance request and photographs to represent the property logistics and architectural theme of the house, property and shed. The variance package was submitted to Mr. Daniel Correa in November 2009. Mr. Correa reviewed the package, which included carefully prepared presentation boards as well as a detailed booklet. Mr. Correa told the applicant that everything looked great and that there should not be any problems. Mr. Correa told the applicant that he would be notified when further action was required. In March 2010, the applicant was notified by the Planning Department that additional information was required to process the variance. This report represents that additional information • EXHIBIT _ C Pagel of A-10 • VARIANCE REQUEST PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristic: The parcel is a corner lot bound by an equestrian trail to the east, driveway access to the west, and a chain linked fence frontage along the south. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Very Low residential with Equestrian overlay C. General Plan Designations: Very Low Residential ANALYSIS: • A. Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a 6" property line set back in lieu of the standard 5' set back requirement in order to permit the existing garden shed that was rebuilt due to wind damage located in the Northeast corner of the property used for maintaining • existing landscape the equestrian trail. FACTS'FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a' Variance is to provide approval for the • reconstruction of the previous shed located on this site. The development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district. In order to grant a request for a Variance,the Planning Commission must make a series of findings. Generally, these findings focus on unique.or special circumstances applicable to a specific • property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: 1. Fact: The parcel map provided to me when I purchased my property did not show a • setback requirement along the north property line.•The only setback line was shown along the public frontage. This is the same information provided to all other home owners in my tract, of which there are 12 other similar structures constructed in similar locations. Without the requested reduction in the set back requirement the applicant would be required to demolish the existing structure for only a 2' of building area that would exempt the structure from the building permit. This would create an unnecessary physical and financial hardship on the applicant as there are other existing structures located at property line along the equestrian trails similar to my structure. The applicant has specifically stated that given the economic times that he is financially unable to construct a new storage shed, let alone tear the existing shed down, and would be forced to store his garden tools and lawn mower outside, exposed to view as I have a chain link fence along the south end of my property parallel to the public street. The existing structure is of high quality design and provides for an architecturally integrated amenity to the yard. • Page 2 of 4 A-11 • • VARIANCE REQUEST Finding: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical and financial hardship inconsistent with the objective of the code. 2. Fact: The property is set up such that there are small front and side yards. The bulk ofthe property lays behind the house in the backyard. The backyard includes flower beds, lawn, fruit trees, vegetable gardens, blackberries and grapes. All of this agriculture requires a significant amount of work and various tools to perform that work, including lawn mower, trimmer, chain saw, rakes, shovels, etc., not to mention irrigation parts. These tools and supplies are currently housed in the garden shed immediately adjacent to the vegetable gardens and in direct view and access to the fruit trees, grapes and blackberries. Due to existing grades and structures the garden shed is located in the only spot on the property,it is also the most logical and accessible spot on the property. There is no other: location on the property that could accommodate the shed and provide ease of access for the established agriculture. Any other location would degrade the property value and use, and would create a hardship to the property user to have access to the tools and equipment • required to maintain the area of the gardens and orchard. The demolition of this structure is for only 20 sf over the allowable area exempt from building permit requirement, which is 2'. Finding: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. Fact: The applicant purchased the property in 1989. The previous owner had planted fruit trees and grapes in the backyard some 25 years ago. The previous owner also built raised planters for a vegetable garden. The applicantadded blackberries while also maintaining the orchard and gardens. The agriculture that has been in place for 25 years necessitates constant care. The garden shed was located in closeproximity to the gardens and trees. The garden shed is located in the only available spot in the Northeast corner of the property, 6" away from the North property line. The general layout of the property, in particular the previously established gardens would prohibit access to the area behind the shed if a 5' set back were enforced. The set back would create a 5' dead space between the shed and the masonry site wall. The 5'between the shed and the site wall would have created a wasted unusable space. Technically there is only 20sf over the allowance, which is 2' of the garden shed of concern by the code: Since this space would not be accessible it would become a harbor for rodents. Mice, rats and rabbits would nest in this dead space. This usable space would also collect trash and debris and become a fire hazard. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation • would deprive the applicant of privileges enforced by the Owners of other properties in the Page 3 of 4 A-12 VARIANCE REQUEST same zone. 4. Fact: There are thousands of out buildings built on the property lines throughout Rancho Cucamonga. In fact, when the applicant purchased the property in 1989 a 5' x 10' shed existed in this exact location. The old shed was built and secured to the masonry site wall on the North property line. The new garden shed replaced a shed built some 25 years ago . blown down in a wind storm four years ago. Many residence in the applicants neighborhood, as well as throughout all of Rancho Cucamonga, enjoy the benefits of having a storage shed built on their respective property lines, without a 5'set back. The very property line shared by the applicant and his neighbor to the North also has two sheds of equal square footage on the same property line,owned by the applicant=s neighbor. The applicant knows of no immediate neighbor who objects to the shed. Many are willing to sign a document acknowledging their acceptance of the garden shed. Finding: The finding of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. 5. Fact: The new garden shed was constructed over 2 years ago with concrete block against • the property line. The remaining structure is wood with proper hold downs, anchor bolts and shear paneling. The applicant understands that the Building Department must review and approve the construction prior to permit approval. However,the structure is sound and poses no safety risk to the public or otherwise. Aesthetically the building is architecturally pleasing. The exterior finishes mirror the applicant=s house and for an out building the architecture should meet or exceed the Planning Departments requirements. Within the applicants neighborhood there are barns, metal buildings, sheds and other construction,much of which is unsightly. The applicant has spent a lot of money generating an aesthetically pleasing structure that fits well on the property and reflects well in the community. • Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, • welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. • Page 4 of 4 A-13 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.04.040 B. Public Hearing. The City Planner shall hold a public hearing on each application for a Non- Construction Conditional Use Permit. The hearing and notice shall be set and notice shall be • given as prescribed in Section 17.02.110 Public Hearings. C. Revisions/Modifications. Revisions or modifications of Non-Construction Conditional Use Permits can be requested by the applicant and approved or denied by the City Planner. Further, the City Planner may periodically review, modify, or revoke a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the procedures of Sections 17.04.030.G. Section 17.04.040 - Variances A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same district, (consistent with the objectives of the Development Code). Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which such property is situated. B. Authority. 1. The Planning Commission is authorized to grant Variances to achieve these purposes as prescribed in accordance with the procedure in this Section, with respect to development standards such as but not limited to fences, walls, hedges, screening, and landscaping; site area, width, and depth; front, rear, and side yards; coverage; height of structures; landscaping; usable open space; performance standards; and on- street and off-street parking and loading facilities and impose reasonable conditions. • Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, • open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodical review by the Planning Commission; and such other conditions as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses; to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare; and to enable the Commission to make the findings required by Section 17.04.040-E. 2. The power to grant Variances does not extend to use regulations. Flexibility to the use regulations is provided pursuant to Section 17.04.030 (Conditional Use Permit) and Section 17.02.040 (Use Determination). C. Application. An application for a Variance shall be filed with the Planning Division in a form prescribed by the City Planner. D. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on each application for a Variance. The hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed in Section 17.02.110 (Public Hearings). E. Findinos. 1. Before granting a Variance, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings, that the circumstances prescribed below do apply: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. • 17.04-4 6/99 EXHIBIT - D A-14 Rancho Cucamon i a Development Code Section 17.04.050 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 zone. 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 zone. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. 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. 2. Parking. The Planning Commission may grant a variance in order that some or all of the required parking spaces be located off-site, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in-lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met: a. The Variance will be an incentive to, and a benefit for, the nonresidential development. • b. The Variance will facilitate access to nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilities, particularly guideway facilities. F: New Applications Following Denial. Following the denial or revocation of a Variance application, no application for the same or substantially the same Variance on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year of the date of denial or revocation. • Section 17.04.050 - Minor Exception A. Purpose and Intent. In order to provide flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the • Development Code, selected site development regulations and applicable off-street parking requirements are subject to Administrative review and adjustment in those circumstances, where such adjustment will be compatible with adjoining uses.and consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and intent of this Code. • B. Authority. 1. To achieve these purposes, the City Planner is authorized to grant a Minor Exception for the following reasons in accordance with the procedures•in this Section and to impose reasonable conditions. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodical review by the City • Planner; and such other conditions as the City Planner may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and to enable the City Planner to make the findings required by Section 17.04.050-E. a. Fence Height. In any district, the maximum height of any fence, wall, hedge or equivalent screening may be increased by a maximum 2 feet, where the topography of sloping sites or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants such increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain effectiveness of screening, as generally provided by such fence, wall, hedge, or • screening in similar circumstances. 17.04-5 6/99 A-15 0-1ayjGICL/ (?e cord Co7°5 October 25„ 2010 To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Re:Variance DRC2009-00863-Pete Babcock October 27, 2010 Planning Meeting From: Pam Ryan—neighbor to north of property in question This structure was built by my next door neighbor to the south, Pete Babcock, without any consultation with me. I am his only adjoining neighbor,and I am the original owner of this property at 5739 Indigo Ave. In 1985,the original owner of Pete's property chose not to share the expense of a brick wall with me, having built a chain link fence instead. Subsequently, Pete has removed the chain link fence, but has built this storage structure right up against my brick wall—not 6" as noted in the letter dated October 6, 2010., see the enclosed photos.To the best of my knowledge,this structure is encroaching on my property,aside from the roof that is hanging over my brick wall and the bridle trail. Mr. Babcock approached me the week of October 10, 2010 and informed me that he has spent $6,000.00 in consultant fees to fight this issue and have the structure remain as is. He also asked me to sign a letter stating that I had no objection to the exemption he felt he was sure to be granted. I informed him that I felt that he was actually on part of my property and that he needed to have someone officially measure his land to determine if that was so. My impression was that he would look into it.This is the only conversation we have had to date regarding this issue. Based on the above facts, as direct neighbor of Mr. Babcock's, I am requesting that he be required to adhere to the law as written and not be granted an exemption for this structure. t,COCIIGA Regards, CO` WC 0Cj25200 OG J RE A , * ! ‘ t... . Iv. .i. . ' ,. t. t. . ,. .. ' ' , 1,1 k L . \ . -, v • - iiiikt i .••• 0 I. ...;,,..,,..I. . , •I . .., .„. , .. ... , II •-„. . , t 11.. ' . . . ...t.,..4,2,,.• , `^- j , . 1 -/". c 0 • `.111foft ., 4" --t— . --. . , 0 5 (5' . E- ..._. -) t. , a , .•,.. = ,i0 0) , v j-- .1, %-: : - • ' C.. .. -C. 4 ., b . •,, . .. . N I if ,4 • : ..• .„.;. .......... / - ....._ .,...„.. ; I .•• .. .," - • .N.. • 4 ... ,''''..,...Y/, ..:■''' .1 I... . '... -',....-..,....;;.'.' _ •' r6 .......,.. ..,,..., . ' • i- .i ' ' .-.. - ' S„.3 ,... •,' . . .'.., N.,.. . . ., . . - . '• . . ''..31.. •••••- ,.., I, , 1 "'i'. • 4 r: ....... •. • . 3 . • 7'. -,.- •• ••::- •151-: . 1 •;.... .... :...,. .. ..."-- . . ..._.--- , *!' ... '• . ... . • ' .. .. .4 -- •'.-. •. ... ...'• ..-;:;'....1 , ' .. ...,.;.. ., - ..-.. - . ..... ...-..: . .... •.- • . , „...• 2 .•:....,..F ' _ At . . . , 'I: -..• ••., -I': ' ........ .. . .. •..., r • • • ••• .0. , . . . . ....L.......- . . . r . .• .... . - -_. . , •-.-, .. . - . . " • '; . ;:ei .0. ' ,.. ... , . ,... . ,. ,.. / - ,.• .., . , ...e .._. .." ... .107'.- • • — / - 7. . _ ... . . .. .....___, ..• _ __,.. , . •.,... ...- . ..,, :...: i ...: . - ,t ,4 _ . . . _.. . • •.- ,... , _ ../ ..........,...::r L . ., .• _ _ . ... ,....„ - .. .. . . . . . ...„ . r.._: . ...,,,,._ . ./ • .....,., ... ..... ...._ .. . ....... ,, / "e r a --.........d.''' .,■• •, a' / ' MIR —— . •• -Ir .,,.. .,... . . . ... .., ,. , . s .,...„. .. i. ..______...,„ J., . .: , -- . -. . y LI, . ...r....,...gm,..„...orrr,„,59.r.:..1„c"rw.i.r...,.....,,,:. i . i .iiiiibotos.,. 40 . ...: ..... ._ .• _ -. 1 1 ......,..... 1 , ; • • i, , „....„ f 1 41‘. ,) i , , 1 . .. , ..... . .4.• ..' F ._ 11 `:.. ., [ r N.' '''' r , , J , ., ..t 1 ',-; _ ' ! - . MR __._ ' ''.•.. :. ,..... , ± ., ..,,, 1 . IOWA • • .. . # Indigo Avenue Resident Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9170 October 25, 2010 Planning Department Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Planning Commission: We are long-time residents of our city, and we are writing to express our concern about the proposed granting of said Variance DRC2009-00863, 5753 Indigo Avenue APN: 1043-121-10. As required by the planning department notification process, we are within the 660 foot radius buffer from said property in question responding to this notice of public hearing. We understand that this variance would grant said property owner(Pete Babcock) a variance of less than 1 foot (0.5 ft.) of a structure that was built without City of Rancho Cucamonga permits or agreements with surrounding property owners. Also, this structure required a building permit for detached structures of 120 square feet or greater(Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 17.02.140) with . utilities. Due to the fact that the mentioned violations occurred by said property owner towards his neighbors and neighborhood, we request a denial of this variance of said structure on these counts. • The structure on said property is encroaching on the adjacent north parcel—APN: 1043-121-11. • The roof structure of said property roof is overhanging into the Eastern easement/fire access by 2 feet. • The structure's eastern wall is on or within said property boundary. •• The failure to acquire building permits at set time for construction and underground utilities(electrical). • Failure to acquire necessary variance approval and neighborhood approval at the onset of permitting and construction. Our concerns are with said violations and discussion of any other similar violations in the general area are irrelevant for this public hearing. We consider this a blatant disregard towards City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal Codes and civil responsibility to the community by said property owner. It is our recommendation that said structure either be moved in accordance with the 5 foot setback or the removal of the structure. Sincerely, VL Property Owner—Indigo Avenue /e (0/t'' L 4o,2y BABCOCK RESIDENCE 5753 INDIGO AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701 = -.F;1---.2--.:- -1,-..;--- 1 • ft -WV . ! r - y;.' • -a A 3 . -, .• J I `J U SIMILAR CONDITIONS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXAMPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST fri) �n 5753 Indigo Avenue, Alta Loma, CA 91701 a (909)481-4734 July 27, 2010 Hand Delivered Charles Joseph Associates 10681 Foothill Blvd., #395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: 5753 Indigo Avenue Subject: Neighborhood Examples in Support of Variance Request Dear Charlie, This letter is to submit my findings from my neighborhood walk. Please find enclosed a compilation of out buildings or sheds that are 120 square feet or greater. In each case the structure has been built at or within 5 feet of the property line. There were no real architectural features or efforts to make these structures aesthetically pleasing. Some, at best, can be considered to blend with their adjacent structures, but most are cheap structures provided without much thought. This is in contrast to my shed which was built to match the house and blend with the surrounding finishes. This process proved to be more difficult than expected. Access was very limited and in many cases was impossible. The building sizes are my best approximation. There are several other examples within my immediate neighborhood, but access was impossible. There are almost as many examples of sheds that are built on the property line as there are houses,except that the size of the shed is less than 120 square feet. In either category many more examples are available if needed. While my opinion is bias, after reviewing what has been built and accepted by others, having to tear down my shed will be a violation of my rights. To be fair, the City must allow my shed, or they need to have all sheds removed. I found no sheds that were comparable to my structure in character, cost or aesthetic value. I hope that the enclosed examples help. Please let me know if you need more examples or other information. Sincerely, 451 Pete S. Babcock cc: File Copy EXAMPLE #01 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5717 Peridot Avenue The building is approximately 160+ square feet. There are no defining architectural features or aesthetic value. The structure is built tight against the North property line wall and tight against the bridle trail wall. ,4 •3, .,,,,, • a a.,,t \..„, ,,b4.. oi• , lk. .t sk 4, ' ' . 4., ,P --.. -110,4,,..44,, - 4i -.P .44_4 4. ■ 1 71' ' ' L. , %fr , ,, ,,, ..... .---$.. , . 1 .- - .. „t„ / .. ,.. , N, ' re 'f . , • N • tik -- _...., . --. ,r ' , . . 41111i ,•• fr.414.:, ? ■,1. .,II 11,• -.1.- ii, ' Ni ' 4' 0 .1. ■t e■ ‘' *V' 15 , .4. elv — ...-1 .• , __, 4' ' . •P ' ' ..4,_ ., . .. '0. • • A.( ,k • "`1"tr:._ 1. si" ir - 'IP stwittio4-, .' . ,• . ../... .. • .4i •-.1,g t ' ,— '. •.•. 1 4 } ‘ L.. . 4--t k IA .av_, :•-• - qv 7441111ri ,..ii,or 1 tfrk ., . ‘‘Pg '''r-4,1-4 -n•-•• a 1 4'. V • .11111-4 • V _,.. ,00. -e .e '..... 4 4r0.k **It fit ' ) •Itki; t :.. "." • i .*f - ..: • . N • ' ' .7 . r • „„isblanagss"- .. ' .N b ., ..., .. IL# * 4 e ,4 . b,,pt • , .,.... if,.,., f. , , • — ‘ ... .t...,x ..k, •It 'v. 7-+.4 2r ,4 4 , • . eg.,4 • ' S. 014 . lj ylpre ' •-, i . ilr it ; e. Flec, '4. 4 ■ I ......,..,—...___ CD . = 1 = CL) 15,2410Loe 1)24110 WA(-1J - ...... I OVOEilrla 116:3r3 -t!C Nogiu tii,•64. rykts- Pc: i (--.7.--kverre, (1) I 1,,,, ... ,. l, Ili tk, Ail Ir . a , \ , ,. 1 4 # , . 4. r---- ,-. t-- if) 1 . : . IRA , 1 ,..f. 4k , ..., , - , 0. - • . -4 •VI ...e, k Illl ti Illik\p, N.. ih's f. 1F A a •, weft ' •. . . * 1 . illI .-.... , iii• le Ilk \ ‘1, • It- ViAl-l- '116. 07/22,/2010 18 : 33 •• , ti . ". i 4 t .t .. - - _, -. . . . . • , ............. ._, . ,,,__ ._ ._.... _ l+ . •,.,,. 3r I'S "--.;4't.. 40,7`/42.3, 2001100 T7:05 •i G' lY '.• •t■r• • i% Tj l '' i' ,N f• .r,. ,. ',... r d � : r•• 04 - . , . t *:I : �X.4 ,41 P �44 rt .I N� }'.�� � r . 1 • y -I No Y i �41'_ ( - - - � . ':4".• iv - .-r*-.■. ' 1.!' -.?`--- .:-- •-_it.'.It. .' irt k7-:-- , d1 if. • ► ■ • - "k .� 1'','-?+ rte, • tr. t,t' , ¢r -! } i faiil;;.,,.-,,••. .Ti ' ' 017/,2f3: 20:1'0 1 55 ■ 07/23/2010 17 55 © 1 , , I ,. ,11 \ a . y ,ice \ . + - �.1. t i • \� ` 5\ >d 1 • , . Y . . . : , 1.; Z M1Y 231 t y t'IBS, fog . 07/23/2010 17 : 55 • EXAMPLE #02 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5727 Peridot Avenue The building is more than 180 square feet. The back of the building faces the street. The tenant sides of the building includes a stone wainscot. The structure is built approximately 2 feet from the South property line wall. 1 1 1 ' •••••— 1•01111110011, —111110111110.1■ 11r141111.011.11.1111WAlle------ r -.4., . - Z r ; nig2212010 • "11: '1 . R, MN. - 0 �a 4 IN--- ---- -'-------- �`+ ;+ V ./.. 4111. Y 'J � .4 yy=:..1 '.,�, ), __• �. • .V.....•..,,..fir 4" I It" - -. - 0... ` • Eil22P2010 ..16 ,49 �r aF�° r .v.A 'r1, . �'` i.: J.:.-.,...4i-! . ' 1. ...'R..7".ACS � .... ♦ �t� F . i•�}L^ .. .. _. _..•�.�� __ __ . . • • 1 - .•fr • . . st . . • •... 0 ,.... .. ••-■•,..-.,... tt...r 1 ' ' 4 , si -.4 ... .. , . ,... - , le,,, P . - r k t ... 11....1 S . %.'.'l'-'. , wit.4• . • r y- 1•4. I ••.,... . ■ , ' II ,••■ •0/0,%MP'..- -•••• `•- . .:.' % t,../. ...' ' rar.,T . •an., . ■-)1.. .., . • . , :.. • 1 . !r... .. ,, 4.441e ,-...?., -..... . ._. . . .... ..... , _....... _ . _ _ ._____ ____ ..,. •-■ .I.' 'A-. • ... 1 •;":fr' - 1 ., _----— — — ilk •J... MEW UM MallINIMMI4.. • -——--—— , - •.. '.4 •. k. . 0., . ...,.....' - .,:. ,...". , .: -,--,:;,■1 •...,, . , .,,,•. .s. . •..1._„,..,4;,,,v.,. ''• : '...4...- -, ,:,. .7 ii• :, . •` •,,....,.. . '•,... - Mkt+ '. ',4, %Vie' ‘. -.`-‘' , -..,,•••l',..4.00,',4 1". , • _, -A. •4., • • '. • 4• ■ "r`0"•.0 -t ''•r• • ,f... •1...0;,..4..•",,:..- ' ?.,,•; ',-4 't—,'.! '.'''' •40. - g. 1 — '• ' • ...'-fg't . ?-4,',:.•••-•;,••, ,•••',I't- -.. • . ,.- • .,7> . t• •• • - ' f.---i A •4•., ...- . • - . - . ' '..• . ..* . • ..d.''' - • ...,...r,..,1,1',...•,' .:‘, '. -)-• ,. " ' t ' - • = .7..4-;;;;;.. ,4116.P.,, . .,4, .-..„.. if ...,,...„,... 4....12„..0,, .,.04,,, . . = _ ___„ z..e•,. .. 07/ 23d 2 0 1 Cri 7 : 5-1 , ,.--4.:4,.::...!.....: , „t!,. :i.41/..,,,.,,:.l`t •..''r,.-1.• ' . _ .._ ,_, . *4,,*• , - %,_ .., .1%' I' A 4r, ! V'. .4- . -`r. -' p. ;Act , • - 1 . .: ,:',. 'tt ” •, ' .•. ' — . .I -"- T.. •" 44- r .4 • .1 X• r'f.'ez -.AMA% , _ ' i....0 II • © "CZ • • • . ),N4 .' t 11 , i . • . Cii „:-...,.. . • . r----- ..i .,. .4 • V .. . 7 .r •\ ' lif) Mil II ..• , . --...„., i • — . t ....„,lisoordigya _......... ".d...0 .... yailf _ _ ... .. . - jsoore.0-'et 40... ii ‘t,...., IP.111 1141!Ate .." 0. —. __ _ _ — --------- • ...... ,,., . . ._ _ •- ' . • __ 1 ' 0 1 . . BMW MIR'11111.-ZA11111111=1,4..., .JIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIP' "1"01141114101411111W 2 / .' ' rt 1.1.1'.40 71- "041.• ' ....is.. • 0. . . • • '''' .. ..-_ ,.... • • , - r . - .•r-."' ',•.rr 0-.... ",::.-,:"..• -• -•;.: r .,, ..:•" ... ...... 071,2allg0 all 1 7:51 ".. . ....-0.44_ . ..,..,.., . s EXAMPLE #03 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 7969 Jennet Street The building is approximately 160 square feet. The structure is approximately 2 feet from the East property line and 2 feet from the bridle trail wall. . ,•1. , — .. . . ' • 1,:„. A 1 . 10 ' .,-.1, fe i .. -- C, .?:: ■ i - .. . .. . . .. . • 111011111' . :-■ . r - • • ,--- ..,i \':'.4. . 1.... ."..:t. •,-,..; :. . . /..7,„..../..,....04.5 - • , . . • . •• • ... . i. ,. .. , . , • , .- .... -.., 1.•"*,...8, " . . . . . . . . o'.., . ! ; / __----- ,.': - . • -•-,. N..'•40,.: • ... _ ____ ______ * • ,.-. ..; •••• , . . __... .—•- -7_ ; II-e-,.... ,--,..,.... _.• - . !:, .'-''' I'''' .' !It- ' • .7 •- e li •., , .. . . _ . •PA ..,, i t 0 , .... . 0 I_ I . . . . . ' . - . • , I .. . . . 1 - 1 . , Vilikir - .' 14. - • ",i■ C.1) .1. iml i . f , I it, ., 07/22/5010 117:97 -4-, cr ± -.4 ... z • ,. .. , - J, ..; -.. • ' .- ,37- , i --• 1 .. ... , • c, • \.4: .• . . ..• - -• .• . ) .. . . . .. . .• ,.. . i . i. i- v .... ' .-, - ■ ,:i...f. , . . , . ViiiIIA * . . • . . .. .. , .. . Immmo , . ... Oli ' • . , , • • , • • ' . ... r- •Ir _ . _ . __ N .. ._ " , . .,.... ."7.4w.. * 'It. _ :-"'""j :;' , . .. _ - .1 ,- ite 14/1114 . . . if, .1 dlik:-.1 44"allia . di ,-. ,..- : . ' 1 • ,...111,10 - • -,... -- -.. . _ .__. •• 4 . , , _,„.., ,... ......... 4,,, .. ..-: , DLL, writ, tuku., ,t47,02,2/2010 17 - 38 . ,..,.. , _, ...„...._,,,,r,... ...„,...:__ ..........1,-.,.•••„:.,,,./.. ., • . ... _ . . . _ . . _ _ .. .• 1 EXAMPLE #04 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5736 Sapphire Street The building is more than 120 square feet. There are no defining architectural features or aesthetic value. The structure is approximately 2 feet from the North property line and 2 feet from the bridle trail wall. • . - • • ' 7 ".'C.:11;... •••-• .--.1 •F'.'■•. ,. .kis,, -, : fl4-,'.,,:..•..,... . ..•:' .. ,.., - .. , .. -, • , ,:0 -- '4. ..--./.... i • •0 • , . • * ,...- - '''•4114-ii.;;.' -••.:....-..':4 ',:'.,, . ' 1 - - i • t ) , . ,. . •- ..• . 1 - . ravqopmemildiomm.1 ' 4, '.f • - , itk . 1.1' ••v\t - ' . . • I■ •.'• ,. .1. • .., .. ,1r 1 • • .. • ,/ : ILI•••••■•6/1•••••••••• ' .,.. ' - , ....• . • -i•. . ' 1 •1 ..... - . .1- . '.' '1 . • t ' . 1 . ■4. . _• - $ . . . lipo; v . _._................___,.......„,______, . '... • -' •,. ,. ' . .... . . . . . . • . . - . . . ■ . . I 11\. I ...,. ..,. . . 0.. • •. '-,-t..-:',..-': -'....-•• , r—""‘""wiL.--.--' ' . .. .._ ... i . . . !.1. . . • — 'i 460.11.. .....rernommow.11101101101111M • ., — — i' ' • ..• -4=0 • CI)• CI.)• r ;r•r1 I • 1 .r 07 12:2/201 CI cu ;•., •,—, _ ..: _ . . . . . _ • = • CI . riWt •■• . -,.. .-• ....4 . -..•• . . . ."•'..) -:,:k. I. , S • • . .1•! ,. , -,T ck , ‘' ..t.'4.,-••-N:.. ,.,-„,., ...:,...A . 4111 -:- # •1•7-- %. '' •41. .. •' S:.:# ' '-• ,..•4*1-i.g,, 17.-.C...• . . • .41 . .',:-..:.'...' .' ''.''''.,,1.,'•-• .,. ... en . . _ . .._ .. •:;,.. . •. If) • . , 4*!.. r 4F'r.. -. - . . . . . . •. • . or 4 • -- • _. ...„,.. . .• _ I .....-• "- — -. ....1 '. • *". '. __. ---- . .:..1 O.S mi . . . .. . . . ' "• - • . . . . . . .._,......,re .... - . • {..........2 -.,..7 .. . ,. ... . . • . . .. .. . • 1._._'I_ -,.."..._ 1 I I —2. 7 i M 1 MI 111.,,,,m6 givaa,A,K.. .- :.-,..4...4I 44 c.::I.–...,■1-I•:•1 I:.I14-mI I mI a..s I I aI,1-1--:7;— Ir 1 I I I 1 r I I i I le I I og IL ffl I i I g I ir, ,1 I .1r.._i._t _ ___ Mdm u..,-f . • L _ __ i 1 'r ,... .... •1 I I 1. IMIIININIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIII .07/2.-211-0110—li b_ka 61 ., .1.. I – 1 ---- - 5 , ,.,. • r.' : • • :...,‘..._........ `at .- • I 4 .004..1 " 1 I r. ',......".. .-.:. I e‘., -, -- __.., -- • All*bio.. i • s `4 - f' , , fair --- i `` r~ • • IL ,.. ,45 , .L _. , ._ ______________ . . . .4114 to"' ii. ________ - •... - �,. - - f• , f1 ligitu- 4) 4)�:, •± __.. '- `` � 7 l 2-j3/2010 X17 � 5r3 ' � • = A 14 CLe Co • - i c �; : ,, .:a' _ � I . � . et• IP1 off , 00 0 . le 1110[ I , 4'0.1 . :• , . „. . . ..... i , „Ii. iip*,_. ti,. , . , . i , # 4- r I 4 . ../0,„r ...... .%,..\,.. .,. : °' 1 f :.V ~- NJ . ----. • t . le $ � • f , � • 'ti 1 TAir, 1%6;1 .,,, ‘ ,,,. ,-i.... i , I---ip p''' t' t , . _._,! .,10. +0�7j1 2 31Z0 10 17 .• i l ,, . . ' .. •- •------ • 004:70--- • , . '• A . S., .. . ,,A ;.. . *.st .... . . ...-..,., . •1.• •- • - „_. Ncr. r • o' I. ...• _. , , ...... 'f• L 1:2,;310116,. .. * s ' -0.%7 , •. ' •' -,,, . * ''''-.,„.- ..1,4. .." , ' \ . . . . . • _- ,_. , •• . . . •• . , . . / ,..,' .; , ■ . : -.1 .., - :0 -- • ../ - , _ A •• 'N ) , .. ,•,• • ' :•• --.,,. 1 1 , .e . . , •_. , . .. • ._ . . ••■ . - --.1,:-'-. . [1,1 :.,.. • ..„ -. '''',,.415:74.;',,•". . • .....6 • J., ' c, ; -•:. '-'' . '-' '''..... - ■111" ' htl ''t . . . . , ,..,. • ip., '. . .- 1,'; 'i !: '4 III,'i !1,. i 1 , .. _ ._.- ; AAMIL4 Alkitilio. VI • _ i.., ;;Kitrililiti, ,I li Irlaffall, .,• . . . . • • _ 1 vs A* --3 1,..., ...._.,,........„„...„.„... ''1--.:-.. .•; • i '.... .- . .., • i :Ai,:m1100: If tr"-YliC"' IIIP -......... 0 .., •110. .Mil .,.,. , •■•• • --- . . . ... . A . . . - , . .• . ••■ -F.) I . _ ... . • 1::I• i . . • - -,.: . , A .410 ,. -. • - -..1 •, 07/22/ 010 16 ..•J7 cr - - •___ • • . . . . . • - ,• • - , - . . .- -..- •1...t , __ . - • F.: ra4 , 1 CPE 4 C'S ? ' \ r .,..... ,,. '', ' '".. • .4' .r. en / • I `.. s.::• N ‘;;....,. -..' . '''''' . . •,,,-,., ' \,. ...ed`' 1.1-) . ..- _• . . • . , \ , • . . .... .... . .. - • , • .,.. .- . . __., . ,-; ... . 1 . , P-,.1,„ t , . . .....: •.„,,,.r...e.----47.--- . . . . .. . r --.f. -.'-- A-e•---'--"''''-. . „- -,,,t.,.- • .. : i --- I _------ _____,--,------ _ 1 -'• , •, , - „ . -- „___---------- - ------- ____ —_- ;%.•ArionlAtalli.02.11#&0... '. ....,, ----- ------.. • , ..; .z:71. :••:,. f •-.... . -.......„. . .. _._.... ---" "..---4.......„..... . . • ....-,• -__, I •t! .•• - - ' '-----•4.....,..„ !,-... -4-:: --' • 4. . ; '4.: ' • ';': '!!4if 40 '-•Isf-'..--",.. . -. ---, . . . . • ,... -..4,, ,4..,. ^---..,, ' . 071124-2112,0110 116:37 ... .• , ... .%-..-. ...: A7 '.•,=. . '-'•- ■' : . _... _ EXAMPLE #05 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5737 Peridot Avenue The building is more than 120 square feet and is built tight (approximately 6 inches) from the South property line. The structure is approximately mid distance on the property from front to back. • I- 1 , . I, , , • . - '1. • . , • i'S.0 ,■• t. • 4 ., ..- ,..` 4 . . .. 4 ,A ' . , . . . . . . • . ..,,,,xim.,.. .. • . •.,,, k...' 'i• : 4 if*. ... • , . * tei . 4 g .:,.. • ...• . f . ..,.... A.. , '1'• . • . . e ael • - . . .,.. . . . - ;...:.t. . .11e . . '1%11....1.... • ''• ..0" - , ... • •- • x, ; 7".1,14 ''.. , , ,, , . , ..). . 4 ,,, 4 . .•Pk - •.. 4.. .-- . 'QS - , -, '1... . • . ; ' MI 041144.1•••• t ' ...---....----------•-- . • .., - . . ,, ' .-7.4.: , ..„lip 1,.' ---- ja ;iii. ,. ..,' . , '4 ,• ..., • • /I .7 to:""(.; r • ... ,, . ... .---7.7:_.— - .- ' • -_ - - - ---.---• -.....r.; , ip:P,t,,,-,.. .;• . .5 • . r ... I if . - ... . , •:..41 y - ... - . • , • m,,-(4-.....t,••. : , ..., . -•••----......-..---.......... . • • ' - t..., ...81P .1.• • • , . .i. i. - ......-- • .........-----.............-....-.....-...--_, ... • ‘• wai• II. "a .. • . . , -..--,-------•. ---- . , ,- . • . .e,• . . 1 •....;::4 . . . ,. • , • vic..... • , . . ...ve ...Tor.:,•••• ..• •■■"4/4i4 4, ••., .01/4 ..ditit * a • di N 11 . -• _ Sit •• . . ..A. v.* CI) , All• = 4• • 1111111.11r. =-• Coi) 07/23/2010 17 : 59 ...' © I:3 i! a) ,, • . • • t---- .1. • ';',VAL•,A s.,'4' '''- -s r ' , If)• i -. ti. „ . 4*. • itt"a.e,'i74.•to; .., 4/ ,'... .A 1 ....... . ; . ii• 7. %II U! ir.0.,• .5 , ••• : . .•-•------- •.....--..-----..--......--........-......,- ....., fl `,4' t • _S. 1,4 -- ---- - -- : L ---- --. '. -- --___.,....-- —- .._ ,.._-: __....- ...,--:-_-_...= ___-_,„,--------.• . • .• IA -...111111.4.1.■•••••••••10•1111•••• OS. 4 •:• •;4. ',./"••.'". . _ _ a Illiollmilftilmmic .... - ______ - . . K....,__ a .....• ,...___--.---....--..--------..„,......,....— --', . . • V I : /I • ."411 . - .- ___. — 9 11 to... 0114 --114 •, 4;. POW • It WIN.- I. .. 1 ,.. ./ I i . . . . • 1 i - ...,,,_. . . ... ... ,.. . A e - I - _ id w•-‘,ft / 7--0.7-423/2010 1800 • 1111111%k . . . • k Sy 1 5 K. • I E 1 ...rI O. j4 •+ , ' 4 alp .. e { !� A yjt,1 fir j' - - 1 s .. i J till . ,,,,,_ top.7. -. J - „.... , , 'y”."'', : , ,, /�� 14 „Aloft r a. W! ' \ 0 7i/*2--3=/'2 orro- '8 0 0'0 - _-- A - 111111ftt ` - o ae P.( N M N EXAMPLE #06 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 8051 Beechwood Drive There are multiple structures built together towards the front of the property. Visible from the street are two metal buildings, each approximately 120 square feet. Also visible is a larger metal structure with an open end. The combined structures are at best unsightly,with the junk, also in view from the street, the area is ugly. The two metal buildings are built tight against the South property line. • . ... . ,. .... • • . , -0-* - % . ... • . .--i. -- • .i.." 4. • ..• •- s.•. • -4,• •s ik -• ,, , • - • ' „ ••• . • - - - , 4 .... ' . • "*• 44, - • 4 II. jr 4 -- . .-: ''' .: -• . . ••...---.4. • ' *14:V:-•• -- - • '' * ..• '.7..”-- ' . ' ' .•In_% •„,/s. •• • -c't • . ..f.t.i.-' • ',S. .---' — 411.•. _■&11•110104111•0•••• S.... - V, 4,.gr;-...• _..7 — .-....... ......_.-................-............... --...i..............-...... • , • " •' .i •._. .5.it--k c • . .• • C-it ,i ; . , • . / 47-41-ANG-2.11(111111NrIALIPAIIE - n ■ . . VINETIltrirly-...'is.a...•..r NON . . __11,-,. -_, . .... aortal AEI 411E.M.ra...•••••■••■■••10..1,....■■•ON we . - ._z-.• .:-,. --4 - _ . ....... , . , pi . lel ,• 4 411114, '4! a •-.•II, _- _ ..'.Otaii‘i*''''2..-. • . , . 't'"...;:.,. ) Ah..Vbs•- -... Nt , •7'le" 4 5.. • _ '•1't*' ' , • "4 11,••• . „.-,t.i.•Yilfrip.j...fire , . • t • CI? t 111•11111mmi ---... .\ .,.., ,..•• , ki• - •P* ..... ..1.• ;=1 -- •V. ”..04- ,.. .'„, -4: .'''''' 1 1 ' e•-' - '''"„ ii"' di. , .-• . ' = yr.A11164, © 822112011 0 11:a 1:$ 1 _- „., : CJ . . 1 , 1:4 ..- a . .. . , - , .1 • isl,r1.., . . ' . . a ..., r4:1, • . - •,,, - 1 1.-.ati.. , A. • 0 •a , • s•• ' -0. ' . .• . ' GIC • •• . . A ..t. . • . 'all" " . 4.. . .. • • • .. .,. . . . • , 1 1,•4—• • . ,,,,..:. --.....2_,_ ....:. . .. ••. . . . . .t. , .. ... to '•-7 e -.. -.1 ' . '-....i, ., . t .. • . 4441 '' :',....1 tr,.. .„,-.4.7 ... .q... .„ . ,.. . . . . — .. ,--- _ l'-'Y';..,-••V , .., .4. •r-,,,,, • * .1.4."?'-1'••• ; ..--• \ L . :,., 7 ...a . II t ' •-. rti'i• il-‘ .•-• : -..--..:.-• . • ., , _ .„ \,,, ,•„Ir.,.: • ... . . ,.4.-- ,,,,,,,-_,,„4.4,1■111,--1.‘„,t,....:: •'''_ • , ■ , .• , .-^ , • 4.-':... • . • .le _ pirili, 1 •t fc-:•'., I • '.- ' '- ,. - •-,..... At .. . , It ' OWIR21120110 117:(3§ -•#• - •*'-•'''''•;' . :A.•.: ' • .t ' - .. . - . _ ._ ,. ,• r . •#ifs - , s , •r' ,., t b'. 3, Iv N.• ... --------NatO ' •1 i_ .._ . 1 ioei 1 1 W w,•..t S. j 4, 0f02a1120ll0 lin:11 0 cu 00 1 .F r '�. 1 Y s • 14. � � Y r .:..1"..'4,4-_, 1. 1 .,,p`.#y y •1 • 0 *K.— - _.-i= —L'' -..',1,ist' f • 4 ., , . . , , ..._ .,.., r . .. . .... , .. ,,,. , w.,.... ,. . • ■ ' ©7112811201n 1J13:20 • EXAMPLE #07 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5728 Indigo Avenue The building is more than 120 square feet. There are no defining architectural features or aesthetic value. The structure is less than 5 feet from the West property line (estimated to be 4 feet). ...., ••oioa 0 0 m m i II 0 m in 0 i i m a a I m....... kt '. vii l'o.... 4., . , . ._ . . , .. ... -*),...,I;■ . ', t. 1 . , • . t . , .t • ' t1;,. ..4. 1111 ---r ------:-:-.-- -: =-__-- :--_----a-- -- =-F-_-5,--7,-----...-a--,- .... — ..; r '. .4. .. ' . •. ••• ---. .4.'. . .' 1 ' ' - ...;•.fb. - • -----.=_--7--.--.7-_:,.-=-:. - • - , . 1 .- • - .. r _ ••• ... k'' '7, : .... k■ '• 4.' 11 ---.Z- -..--_-_-L-._:-.€.;_--, ..---,-- ' ■. ••■ - .. s . , .., _ .... -, , ... • ,'- ..".1.7,.. _ ' - . .... - - -.. -- ... 49.. 11.• - r V•r. it. . . • , . •' . •1' ''- 'I 1,..1" t".. . .. •''' . • • • Pa .. '' • VP.• . ...• 1 / \N I - . •- C. If . s •., 17.. I • . 4 '..Z 74. Ar ill• . - .), 0 '• . . ••• .. t, t l• '.... ..t. • N. , I PI •. , ' • • .. . ,..:0.I- %, r., a• ....,1 • . '" - • t'- 4‘ 4. 1• . = • e; "• ,„." • .- '. 1.N. • _• .. -- p . -Pr - = i • • • I. .'" ttftiN r.1* .• C.1.) -07,/j2-2/20110 6:5 116 .41 it' •• , . • • ''t , ,•• • , I, A I til •Intl Z III .• (..,1 r--- lir) -.. .. _ .. ■ ■ ..--.:. ' 4i 411 ‘•••' ' . ---.--_=.= — A • 7 .? *I'k AIE . 1 4,....I1q, * •: . • , . ' ... ' . . 1111P1111111."- -4-4' I , • f •016` / ,• ,--: :. .. . -:: --,. • , ... , .. 87112RYg010 16 ' 59 . •Itte .-...-,:,', ..,..,-4Pr. _ 'Nil. 0 •_ .. ,f if. •• - '_...-.L._7....,-•:---."..".....-_,....".." •ch...... 1,L,,-z- ., ick 4i \‘'' - •• . ,... - __-__:_s_ ,.....‘ .."-- ' 4 ' ....k. * .r,.., '• ...- ,.. 11 10-, _ .\\'‘'• - -- ' - 111 ' ... .0,'A,• •.,- • . 7 t vs . •--.. •F* - a, . ,., , Wi' ' J- .- ' ' _ '• -.‘ , ' -:.''' ••.../\ . i.. ..---"I'r't---.4.- _i_ _ - •?..:;' ; , 4ittA , .,_ . . t• . . .■-•. .?.., , Oi ' -7'•-•., ..•‘,." , '. . .•• ' ''•:. 4.• • . - ..• _ .. ••. .. pvta.s*,.*1- ,„ , .- - , 1'4..., . - _, ' "34 411111111- r . A ' - :AP -,. '.:....•argAL., - -.••••_, loglik ? " war,. 4'"'A . " '- -A*_- . . ', IF. l' .`A' 'V' 0 .., -A 1. 1V/S,TV l' ' 031. ..' o• . . i ' : N.- . . I , .. .-t-',;-.- , .• ', 4-- • . - I "' , ., , , • : - .„--. _ . 1 I , . .._ ....„ otIti ... _ .., . . . . ottl.... , , . =. . ...., ....., , ..... o7112,2,u2on 110:56 . . . . -... '--SU.....-.. '-AMIlik.74i61115neler-''.'%': 0 CIA ••••( IIIIPIPPIr- 0 ..-i (4 V") ...-; .....'-z-, ----r _----_-.. Y .,.., ., .-,- ...., . . i ....„-, , , , 7, ' 44 ■ I .. 1 0 I . , '' . '• ' ! ' f'1 14 N• ., .°,. , :t , , :' . .- ,,-. —.,E. - I'' - .-,.i.il-,-.',' --.- , ... . ' --'t.; ' ,--s..;;; .1.i'.-. ; ... ,t2. 4' ' -.. 0 •I(ie , A • •. „.. „, it - ' ..... -' .I': -: ...-,... ; " r••.1,-fi 11111rige.t:i-Ail ' '''. - '. •4, ',..4- ' .• 1-.‘ `.. ., •:-‘.- • "•,,s'br_'.:.-.''''.4';,.4t,i4,,,iritg%',MIXEN—"-U4°.' • . .'- -' % - S. , 1/4 -••- • vir4VIV"Iriallt-'14gir'.4.''"l' .- ......,44.:,:,Y_14-t _. . •P it' - 7- ' • .: - , ,.. ". ‘t •• , . . . .. • irr ..T',., . • . . • '1 F I r:';77.-'•' A •-, , . . • , • , . • ,, '-; • . 'I— -1:"T .'.. - -.. - -. , . - - . '• - ''',AIIVIle. • , '-1:,. 'i•:. -.-- -- . . - • , . - '''' • ""- 711 -CI- 02gORGIC IIS:57 . ,. _ EXAMPLE #08 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 8185 Beechwood Drive The building is approximately 120 square feet. The structure is built within 6 inches of the East property line and approximately 2 feet from the bridle trail wall. • • Y 'lir- elf r'.1. I I lit .k..•••;' . . \ .f. j +h II • 41i. .t c • . , 'I' 'F - r ',14:4+14 a . . - ,. iplitg--:-. - ' - .. . ' i '14111V:1:1 cl..) 1• • � I•. -i. .K� •r•I �f __ f l'..''''' . .-p7,c1'22/20'10. 16 ;44 " < Q - 1 -'-S n ' V II 1 . W air oc) W dIIIIIIIII%IPIIIIalntv.:vVq.,k". . J 1 7' • ,.�^="0■ MOM w rim - It..,.„ ' ii " •Y. i fillt fit' .-/ 1 l� T' • / a 1 y kilt _ (.. • , ..s :, ye, ., . ., 1 001/122/1209 0 117/: 4 - ir 3 ` , f A • 4.. ,,:. ... .... .., . ,-.. .._ _._. ...,,,, . .,,....„4,.r.',... ..-.--..-'I" •: I .» .4.4,44:0011r.3 1 rK,.,,40,' y,tea;eft} `i •••• kyy q rii r ,O, . , 4Jst - 'fr t.. - - w -t. -,-.. 4 rg� r' ' �, 'r •.. 4. , •,:t‹,,..14.(.....- • .. ; , ....::, ...._ -6 i --. ---•• 78g21-2.01'0.„' 416-zille .-:.i, 4,�' r ' 7,,-,;:-4,- S*fis Ri.' '+• t" 1*‘-:. : i ,. .ti. r.4�►_� IV "' dbc, „7 ti' + t t 'rtei6.4:=I R_t -- -- J ,x.,'il - y} Cr Q .� <� / V • { y o0 4. s'il • I U. d . tSY � ki r, • •--•T _ ,r—,r'=^.--•r•' ••-4','' 'fwd + _ - ' F i r • �� . .$ •t* --ft a r f F, L - - :0 : l � `07"12(2 I2 01 1 1.4 1 1• J r v � • ---- --___• • 11411111p . ,��_ o f„� K �'..".' • au k 14. ' : ; • s . Cle • . Li 0i0 1 8717 = A ' „� CO) C/6) Q 00 00 EXAMPLE #09 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5716 Peridot Avenue The building is an undeterminable size, estimated to be in excess of 120 square feet. The North corner of the structure is estimated to be less than five feet from the North property line. The structure provides a side towards the street. The building face is undeterminable. • .. 1 . a ••,c. . , y - , '� - n.• ik ■.` , '' ` ter. ,�. olook -. .; , illoi 1. ,. _ .� ;I• _•• ; aa l lw € � , a / e .I7 : 1,"1 ,2_2., . •Ila 0,- . - .., .-„e * -4!),1„ • , i'.. ...41411 - la y t 'I • \ \ / + �. i it Whit. p.,• in gif. 0...... •:-. f r II, ■ .fir A 1� •.'••c �. .. �u+lid,- I a r •___________ ______ .____.__ IP el' . 6 4" i •414*0 YL 'emu •41.-!`. J41. .. .'�I ,,I�/ r�►' _ L ,�i. ti., a i , .- ') �_ f - ;071122/- 0110' �1�7 =�112 .- 1 �l . . Ii. ,, k i A . --..[.. , . N fit\ �, _ �i ____ ..1.1............i• y .11.11111ftft. -.:r ____ .........„. __ _. _ _ _ •-31 , •-......_,..... 26. t I � —L.... ...—.. !,:} j. rt. - .,�. R--- - .I - h ' J W B7'22)82010 W1°.g0 ,i, 44.. ' ' 1.1 '' •■;;`, ;..1 I. I a� P*1� ' k 111 illiN • ; ., . '` J A _�—. 131111111111 IIIIIM. .1. ' `__.--iii a � - _- \'‘,T �` ' 4 `• —.d ,u • -.1. 41-4' ';•. . , — ___ ..,_ . W 0 6. . •41011p...:-.., * rx-- � ; • EXAMPLE #10 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 5680 Vinmar Avenue The building is an undeterminable size, estimated to be approximately 120 square feet. The structure is approximately 2 feet from the West property line. Irrimri • 11 •1 i . . .. •• ,• ' '1 . X • .• . • • . .. . i . ,• . .. .. . . . 1 - . . - • ..!:...1.• . - . . . . . . ...... ,_ - t . . • ■•••....... :'-'4.. r.rN, 1.1 ir ; Al , •■40' ' ... Ir.. .-- -•, .1.„ ..•1.-.4• ; 'WE' .40e. . . • . I I e"' CsIll , .14 = • . .....--..- ' . 07/22/2010 17 : 43 cup 1 . Ct . . . '' i ! T • •11.11: • • 1 a■-:I, 0 . i © . . 0. ■SD . . ....r 4 4' it. . . 1 • . .. • . 1.• ihR 1 Ilikvt. • ., •• 1 AL - • . . . • :...' ,. im lilii ............................... Nor INkil, . •.I. ., , , ."".C.t?,-- -7." -. ' , . • '''-..1...,......?.:,'.....114 ,'It'..-1: ...Ilk..., -- : . ........-..-..-...... - .- . --- . - ■ - .. - O... ... . I . -.Mg ..„.. ...-.. ••••-• 07§23§2B18 18 : 15 . . ..... . .. . ... • . . .. • . s _.. ,.. EXAMPLE #11 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST 8071 Beechwood Drive The building is at best rustic. It shows its side towards the street. It is in excess of 120 square feet. The structure is built approximately 6 inches from the North property line. , • t ' . • . N • . it a< A • des /114 a - , - I . 7,.4„.i• cr,•, .,. ', ..• • i"•." J• .. tN . .140.4. ................."1". " • I-,.....")I. ..,- _. 4 •-• 4 * P.'■'. ••• 'IC •S 114 V.# k 5 ..,......ay ...........-4.4.•■■•*"...... -......r 14■.......-• 1!. . 4 • 41 t • 4- 4("4 ..■,..•.... ............-••••-,...gt............--......../•••••••■■,....,•...... .... ...**gig," 4 r, --------......o JW•41••••-A.........—a■•doell.•••••..•.•••••r■•••-•....... 4. ',":1 i,:' ' ' -.a.:. 44 ...gra..malwaNiNNIP.a...,•=44......//a...........SOW....=.......4.... .-* As. lam 4. 44.0..... ....••■■.a 6404r. ......4.4••••■•••••■■■•■41. mgr..... — . • ..• mmliMgmf. Iftwasosimma...s ■••• •4141 1 4 '..1 g• ''.■i I 1 -R% • 1 7 I,IWO 4 I ' AA. ,flib••••ji. •••• 1 j a ° ..■'4;,4 4" I I 1 •071. r Alt4014 .444g, • ....c Cdol■ MIMIngmes i . L.g ...v. • c ,—ilk, ©71122112011e 117:411 . © 1 1.,,,„,: ‘ 1. 1 / ... . ,..= c...) <1..) .a.) ,..,i • c:4 k itiii i •' 1..■ ,1 1 Vr th 3 • — S 1 •0:* Im' •I 1 .,- t b GC 1 ; & . AI r ■ ..4 t . .,.■ 44 P.7. ... • • ..,/ PI 4 ' ...G • ,..... Wf1M0•10MIP=Z41= .*4• I 4''" •• • ......e. 4 sr . • ..... t 4 ~2EANIIrlimrell;olomielmoul5E47.• 040 L k. • -F.- 1 : .1 4,7,.9-35QThiffiM-Mlle""W,'-+'' ..... , A tr.... ...Q. I 0. - ".-- .`Lk ' 1 A _ .,.. air s I, d Ar.A t It-• i rAi'‘ N ?' '' 4 , •t '411:." .. e-4. • ,1 t ifssoosii, i i , i ,f Si4 i , ye / vill 1 ••• 4 1 Tr i It V4111.1... f,„* ■ . i,-... , . ■ 07112,2112,0118 117:65 - 1111111212~ '.• ‘. 1 _ • . ,,, ........ • ' ..• " • .:. ,'..',.-- , N.. ... . ,,, ,-,, ,,A.. • 1, • • . r •?....-, ..-.75i,. .., • . f, if,/ ,'..',;.'•,■'W. , V.'.• „../io, •, • , . ,, • - , ... .., . .,,f . .. . ' i '4.40 41.- 4,.. • •_.••••,.47.10...../1.1 y, ,Ii,': i,11 e , .• ,...;.,t.--s•Av'e....-' . • ' • 1 0: •'r" - •',.--, •-•• -7:-..:, • ••• • • "A'.4:. '.:..t.•-■.- • , •.■,. . 'i ''.,•49/6T1.*"'' ' ..;'-."-:- "7,/,J,.•• ' '..•...• ,,•lg.: ..`•-• ••\°‘. ' ---i ‘;14(1 •.. ''''`' ;•. .0. :::' L'. S• '.. , .I •. N. lis..... ' • •' , ',.1,; . . • ...._...........__ 1. .. • I....Ss' 'I, -, r • '1'.' -I.-- -' ..,..-.- ' . .4;., ,t•‘‘ Li , ...• .. • .. --." . ....._' • 'a 1- ',Alm: .._ . ._. .._ :,...... ,, -'1;.. 4,1 .-ii 1-•:. .11', , .004111111: li: i,...;,'„ ' .', ', '-.:•.:. ' ..,...-, -:,• ,• , , /...,• :2,1,, . • . — --4,....• . :1 -A.• .. ....,.. tc.r„,.. : a,1 1 ..,......, •. . . . ._ . .....t , . • ..., , .„..... ,......, • 07 ,.. 291120110 110:20 -zz ... ...... _..... , © . • ..4 c,...) 1.11 cu, =1 ,--1 t-- oc, g • STAFF REPORT ' • PLANNING DEPARTMENT L4_ DATE: October 27, 2010 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259 - K HOVNANIAN - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 79 single-family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor - APN: 1087-101-01 thru -55, 1087-111-01 thru -02, 1087-111-14 thru 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, and 1087-111-27 thru 1087-111-36. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. Staff has found the project to be within the. scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915 and No. 98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: • A. Project Density: 2.3 Dwelling Units per acre B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant Land - North Etiwanda Preserve— Etiwanda North Specific Plan South - Single-Family Residential - Etiwanda North Specific Plan East - Single-Family Residential - Etiwanda North Specific Plan West - Southern California Edison Corridor - Etiwanda North Specific Plan C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North - North Etiwanda Preserve South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Utility Corridor\Flood Control D. Site Characteristics: The project is situated at the base of the alluvial fan, which is located at the base of the Eastern San Gabriel Mountain foothills. This site was originally a portion of the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development (previously the University Planned Development). The site is bordered by vacant land to the north and west and by single-family homes to the south and east. f ANALYSIS: General: On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Development Review • DRC2006-00382 for the development of 97 homes on a 34.1-acre site within the 632-unit Master Planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. Because of a shifting demand in the housing Item B • • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 Page 2 • market, the applicant, K. Hovnanian Homes, is requesting modifications of their previously approved Development Review. This request is for the remaining 79 homes which will complete this development. The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific architectural styles. A Development Agreement was approved in 2001 , which required the Low Residential standards for all lots within this tract. The property was rough graded in June of 2004 and infrastructure was installed. The master developer has installed the main access of the gated community, as well as the slope landscaping and decorative perimeter walls. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood that has its own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP. The ENSP requires that a mix of the following primary architectural styles be used for at least two-thirds of the units: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Up to one-third of the units may use these styles: Country, Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. The proposed house product is consistent with the required architectural styles and includes downsized floor,plans that range from 2,737 square feet to 3,392 square feet. The original plans ranged from 3,050 to 4,000 square feet and contained no single-story homes. The proposed product provides larger yard areas to meet the demand of the current housing market. A total of 26 (33 percent) of the proposed house product will be single-story. The two-story plans have been • designed with three floor plans, and all the plans have four architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are San Juan, Santa Barbara Revival, Country, and Ranch. The San Juan elevation incorporates wrought iron details, recessed windows, decorative shutters, and arched patio/entryway. The Santa Barbara Revival incorporates built-up eaves, louvered shutters, and recessed windows. The Country style incorporates brick veneer elements, flat tile roof, and balconies. The Ranch style incorporates louvered shutters, recessed windows, and stone veneer. • All four sides of all homes have articulation and incorporate decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries that range in size dependent upon the style. A. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberley, Burnett) reviewed the elevations on August 17, 2010. At that time, the Committee felt that the project was deficient in meeting the 360 degree architectural requirement. The applicant was asked to make changes to the design and bring the project back to the Design Review Committee for review. The applicant addressed the concerns that were detailed in the Design Review Comments and brought the project back to Design Review Committee on October 5, 2010. The Committee reviewed the resubmitted plans and recommended approval to the Planning Commision. B. Technical Review and Grading Committees: The Technical Review and Grading Committees reviewed the project on August 17, 2010, and recommended approval. C. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") • and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors B-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 • Page 3 certified an Environmental Impact Report in June 1991, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in October 1999, and an Initial Study Addendum was certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in connection with the approval of Tentative Tract Map 16227. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has evaluated the development review application and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred, which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The proposed development does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report for the tract map. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different • mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. The project was developed with a Development Agreement for the 632- lot subdivision. The site plan, building elevations, and development conditions for the • proposed project are included in the development agreement and are generally consistent with the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the development review application. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was 'advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2010-00259 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Jam s R. Troyer, AICP • Planning Director JRT:SF/ge • • B-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 Page 4 • Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Elevation Exhibit C - Floor Plans Exhibit D - Design Review Committee Action Comments Dated August 17, 2010 Exhibit E - Design Review Committee Action Comments Dated October 5, 2010 Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2010-00259 • • B-4 0 4 SITE UTILIZATION MAP / / TR. 16226-2 \ 1 1 LOIN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ' \ I I .\ / / w" 16226 i \ / )- W LOWjDENSITY # < I ' O • ' / �ALa�. z w ;A:tc,:..1 stini.i. ....*, ../-\\ , . ..,;,: - , ., __ , , 1Pto- - r. 8'8 Plt, 11091 irifrAryi, 444\ . - //,‘ i uz. tf, ' Ems ' Eilik 1‘,... aces 48 <Qt / ill-' . . . ti) lia \ Y p� LOWSDEN5ITY RESIDE`TIAL !!%i ceC A m ` � �r ._� fir. / i j,,, d PROJECT SITE TR. 16226-1/ fg LOIN/DENSIT()ESIDENTIA . / // X Y, 'PREPARED BY: • TRACT 16226-1 ,, -9OI SENDERO DEL GHARRO " ," DRG2010-00254 , • RIVERSIDE, GA 42504 rN !�r TEL. (151) 180-5404 -9� . It EXHIBITA FAX (451) 346-3441 N . B-5 • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Steve Fowler August 17, 2010 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259 - K Hovnanian - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 79 single-family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-101-01 thru -55, 1087-111-01 thru -02, 1087-111-14 thru 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21 , and 1087-111-27 thru 1087-111-36. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Background: On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2006-00382 for the development of 97 homes on a 34.1-acre site within the 632-unit Master Planned Community of Rancho Etiwanda Estates. Because of a shifting demand in the housing market, the applicant, K. Hovnanian Homes, is requesting modifications of their previously approved Development Review. This request is incorporating a single-story plan into the remaining 79 homes that are left to build in this development, which will complete the build. The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), incorporating the .architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific architectural styles. A Development Agreement with the annexation into the City was approved in 2001 that required the Low - Residential standards for all lots within this tract. The property was rough graded in June of 2004. The area was mass graded and infrastructure was installed. The master developer has installed the main access of the gated community, as well as the slope landscaping and decorative perimeter walls. These walls are consistent throughout the entire master-planned community. The site is bordered by vacant land to the west; by single-family homes to the north, by Day Creek Boulevard to the south; and by a portion of Tract 16227, built by K. Hovnanian, to the east. Design Parameters: The project site is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood, which has its • own unique architectural design guidelines per the ENSP. The ENSP requires that a mix of the following primary architectural styles be used for at least two-thirds of the units: Bungalow, Ranch, Monterey, or San Juan. Up to one-third of the units may use these styles: Country, Victorian, or Santa Barbara Revival. The proposed modifications are consistent with the required architectural styles and include downsized floor plans that range from a 2,737 square foot plan to a 3,392 square foot plan. The original plans ranged from 3,050 to 4,000 square feet and contained no single-story homes. These new plans provide a large yard area to meet the demand of the current housing market. A total of 26 (33 percent) of the proposed house product will be single-story. The two-story plans have been designed with 3 floor plans and all the plans have four architectural styles. The proposed architectural styles are San Juan, Santa Barbara Revival, Country, and Ranch. The San Juan elevation incorporates wrought iron details, •recessed windows, decorative shutters, and arched patio/entryway. The Santa Barbara Revival incorporates built-up eaves, louvered shutters, and recessed windows. The Country style incorporates • EXHIBIT D B-36 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00259 - K. HOVNANIAN • August 17, 2010 Page 2 brick veneer elements, flat tile roof, and balconies. The Ranch style incorporates louvered shutters, recessed windows, and stone veneer. , All four sides of all homes have articulation and incorporate decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries that range in size dependent upon the style. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff. Together with the Development Agreement and discussions with staff, there are no major issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff. Together with the Development Agreement and discussions with staff, there are no secondary issues. • Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard Landscape Plan, per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval. 2. Driveways shall be colored and scored in a diagonal pattern for additional entryway detail. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above revisions. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee members reviewed the project and brought up several deficiencies in the design of the project. The Committee did not feel that Plan 4, the hybrid one-story, met the intent of a true one-story and, therefore, did not meet the 25 percent one-story product requirement. The Committee requested the applicant revise the plan to establish a true one-story plan. Also, the applicant needs to increase the percentage of side-on or recessed garages to meet the 30 percent minimum requirement. The Committee felt that the architectural design and plotting did not meet the Etiwanda North Specific Plan requirements. Specifically, the homes as plotted were not staggered enough to create a variety of frontages as indicated in the Design Guidelines. Additionally, the architectural elements of each style • were understated, especially in the Ranch and Monterey styles. They felt that the elements that were used were very similar and did not demonstrate a true representation of the architectural style that was B-37 • DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2010-00259 - K. HOVNANIAN •August 17, 2010 Page 3 • being conveyed. The Committee also felt that the architectural style was sparse as it moved from the front elevations to the sides and rear. They felt the elements that were used on the front elevations should be utilized more on the side and rear elevations. The Committee asked that the applicant work with staff on the issues and return to Design Review Committee at a later date. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Burnett Staff Planner Steve Fowler • • B-38 • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Fowler October 5, 2010 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259 - K HOVNANIAN - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 79 single-family lots on 34.1 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Day Creek Boulevard, west of the Southern California Edison Corridor. APN: 1087-101-01 thru -55, 1087-111-01 thru -02, 1087-111-14 thru 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, and 1087-111-27 thru 1087-111-36. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-1. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #88082915 and #98121091 certified by the City Council on August 1, 2001) and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report. Background: At the Design Review Committee meeting on August 17, 2010, the Committee brought up several deficiencies in the design of the project. The applicant was asked to make changes and bring the project back to the Design Review Committee for review. The applicant is required to develop within substantial compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), incorporating the architecture and design details of the Etiwanda area. Requirements include side-on garages, recessed garages, exterior siding, and specific architectural styles. The project also has to conform to the Development Agreement that was approved in 2001, which requires the Low Residential standards for all lots within this tract. • Design Changes: One of the items that the Committee requested be revised was that a true one-story floor plan be designed for the project, as the previous submittal did not have one. The applicant has designed a one-story floor plan that is 2,605 square feet. It contains a two-car side-on garage as part of the design. The Santa Barbara Revival architectural style was utilized for this plan and replaced the Monterey style. There are 24 one-story houses plotted for the project and that is 30 percent of the project housing mix. The other 70 percent contains recessed garages to exceed the 30 percent minimum side-on or recessed garage percentage. The applicant has also increased the architectural elements on all the elevations by adding pop-outs on the second stories on all two-story plans. The applicant has also increased the stone veneer on the architectural styles that have incorporated stone as an element. The Monterey style has incorporated wood siding as an element. The applicant has staggered the plotting of the homes to create a variety of frontages as indicated in the design guidelines. The applicant will provide a rendering of a street view illustrating the variety. Design Parameters: The proposed modifications are consistent with the required architectural styles and include downsized floor plans that range from a 2,605 square foot plan to a 3,392 square foot plan. The original plans ranged from 3,050 to 4,000 square feet. The proposed architectural styles are still San Juan, Country, Ranch, and Monterey with Santa Barbara Revival as a substitution for the Monterey single-story style. The San Juan elevation incorporates wrought iron details, recessed windows, decorative shutters, concrete "s" tile roofing and arched patio/entryway. The Monterey incorporates louvered shutters, wood balconies, flat roof tile, brick veneer, and horizontal siding to accent the second story. The Ranch style incorporates stone veneer accents, flat tile roof, vertical siding at gable ends and • balconies. The Country style incorporates stone veneer accents, 6:12 roof pitch with flat tile roofing, window shutters, and balconies. The Santa Barbara Revival utilizes both hip and gable roof with concrete "s" tile, metal grill accents over a recess, shutters, and arched front entry. EXHIBIT vE B-39 • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2010-00259 - K HOVNANIAN • October 5, 2010 Page 2 All four sides of all homes have articulation and incorporate decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home. Each of the four plans feature covered porch entries that range in size dependent upon the style. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff and has made several enhancements that have improved the overall product quality; however, there are some key areas that remain deficient in providing a design that meets the 360 degree architectural requirement. Plan 1: Provide wood siding at the gable ends of the Ranch style elevations at the California room and conservatory room options for consistency. Plan 2: For the Country style homes, on the right elevation, provide arch with eyebrow at the balcony to match front and left elevations. Plan 2: Provide wood siding on the gable ends of the Ranch style elevations of the California room • and conservatory room options for consistency. Plan'3: Provide stone veneer on the courtyard wall of the Country elevations. Plan 4: Provide decorative metal detail gable ends of the San Juan style elevations for consistency. Plan 4: Continue the stone veneer with plaster cap along the left side elevation to the pop-out of the Ranch style. Plan 4: Continue the plaster foam trim along the left side elevation to the pop-out of the Country elevation. Plan 4: On the Country elevation, extend the stone veneer to the eaves on the pop-out on the rear elevation to provide a consistent look with the front entry that contains a gable roof element. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The applicant has worked diligently with staff. Together with the Development Agreement and discussions with staff, there are no secondary issues. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: B40 • DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2010-00259 - K HOVNANIAN October 5, 2010 Page 3 1. Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard Landscape Plan, per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval. 2. The driveways shall be colored and scored in a diagonal pattern for additional entryway detail. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the above described revisions. Design Review Committee Action: The project was approved as presented. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Granger • Staff Planner: Steve Fowler • • B41 RESOLUTION NO. 10-48 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2010-00259, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT 79 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 34.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, EAST OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CORRIDOR IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 1087-101-01 THRU -55, 1087-111-01 THRU -02, 1087-111-14 THRU 1087-111-19, 1087-111-21, AND 1087-111-27 THRU 1087-111-36. A. Recitals. 1. K. Hovnanian Homes filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2010-00259, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of October 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission 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 Commission during the above-referenced meeting on October 27, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located north of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the North Etiwanda Preserve and east of the Southern California Edison Corridor, and is presently improved with rough grading and curb, gutter, and utilities; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant land of the North Etiwanda Preserve, the property to the south consists of single-family residential, the property to the east is single-family residential , and the property to the west is a 240-foot wide Southern California Edison (SCE) utility corridor; and c. The project consists of a Development Review of 79 lots, master planned by BCA Development; and d. The sewer, storm drain, detention basin, and curb and gutter improvements are installed; and • e. The project conforms to the basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan with required architectural elevations, slope requirements, and overall project density. B-42 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-48 DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 • Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all the written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: • a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified an Environmental Impact Report in June 1991, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in October 1999, and an Initial Study Addendum was certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in connection with the approval of Tentative Tract Map 16226. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i)substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed the indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or(iv)additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the Development Review application, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred, which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The proposed Development Review contemplates the construction of 79 single-family homes, which was evaluated and within the scope of the prior EIR, SEIR and Initial Study Addendum. The proposed development does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report for the tract map. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation • measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. The proposed Development Review application does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report for the tract map. • B-43 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-48 DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN • October 27, 2010 Page 3 c. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of Development Review DRC2010-00259. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the development of 79 single-family homes within tract 16226-1. 2) All driveways shall have a maximum grade of 10 percent. If necessary, driveways shall be lengthened and the garage setbacks increased in order to achieve a 10 percent grade. 3) Boulders from the project site shall be utilized and integrated as part of the front yard landscape plan, per the Master Plan Resolution of Approval. • 4) The driveways shall be scored in a horizontal pattern for additional entryway detail. Engineering Department 1) Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 16226 apply. 2) Pay a $2,635 Traffic Circulation Improvement Fee prior to building permit issuance for each residence, per developer-to-developer reimbursement agreement SRA-41. Note that a fee has already been collected for Lot 20. 3) Install street trees per Drawing 2021, Sheet 2, Revision 6. a) Add a note to the private landscape plan stating "street trees shall be installed per the public improvement plans." 4) If any drive approaches will be relocated, or curb cores added, process a revision to Drawing 2021. 5) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and • demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is • provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department when the first building permit application is 8-44 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-48 DRC2010-00259 — K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 Page 4 • submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. 6) Street trees shown on the Conceptual Landscape Plan do not match Drawing 2021. The correct legend is attached for the third time. Environmental Mitigation 1) The project shall implement all pertinent mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in June 1999, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the • County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in October 1999, and the Initial Study Addendum that was certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in August 2001. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman • ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R.Troyer,AICP,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October 2010, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • 8-45 46414% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ate_ ,,, DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2010-00259 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF 79 LOTS APPLICANT: K. HOVNANIAN HOMES LOCATION: NORTH OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: iiGeneral Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its / /_ agents,officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 10-48, Standard _/ /_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and • are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The / / project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved / /_ use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • SC-12-08 1 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2010 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2010-0259StdCond 10-27.doc B A6 -. Project No. DRC2010-00259 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include I / • site plans, architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the Master Plan. 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/ /_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/ /_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/ /_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances.such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/ /_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. • 7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / / • including proper illumination. 8. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property /_/_ owner, homeowners'association,or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all / /_ lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 10. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall / /_ condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's • perimeter. • 11. Construct block walls between homes(i.e.,along interior side and rear property lines), rather than / /_ wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 12. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood _/_/_ gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 13. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. / /_ 2 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2010 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2010-0259StdCond 10-27.doc B47 • _ Project No. DRC2010-00259 Completion Date 14. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to _/_/_ maintain an open feeling and enhance views. • 15. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The _/_/_ 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a standard two-car width at street. / /_ E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in / /_ the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 /_/ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater / /_ • slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq.ft.of slope area,and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. . 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously _/ /_ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development / / Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls, landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in _/_/_ the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the _/_/_ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. • 3 . . . I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2010 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2010-0259StdCond 10-27.doc B-48 • Project No. DRC2010-00259 - Completion Date F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/_/• of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. • APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) G. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / /_ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; • c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans(2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics,underground diagrams,water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and • g. Planning Department Project Number(DRC2010-00259)clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. / /_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet"signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to _/ /_ the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. / /_ 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the / /_ Building and Safety Department. H. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/ /_ marked with the project file number(DRC2010-00259). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes,ordinances,and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition,the applicant / / shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees,Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School • 4 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2010 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2010-0259StdCond 10-27.doc B49 Project No.DRC2010-00259 _ Completion Date Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit issuance. • 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map / / recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday /_/_ through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances / /_ considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. _/_/_ 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. _/_/_ J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading _/_/_ Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /_ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the _/_/_ time of application for grading plan check. . • 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, /_/_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for _/_/_ existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • • 5 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2010 Res & Stf Rpt\DRC2010-0259StdCond 10-27.doc • B-50 /t° o,,, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District a _ ) • Fire Construction Services FIRE .,:/". STANDARD CONDITIONS July 13, 2010 K Hovnanian Tract 16226-1 SFR in the VHFHSZ DRC2010-00259 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. The landscaping plans to be submitted to the planning commission must be design in accordance with the Final Fire Protection Plan. Obtain approval of the Final Fire Protection Plan. FSC-1 Public Water Supply • For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area, the fire hydrant design & installation shall be in accordance to RCFPD Policies & Standard 5-10. • FSC-2 Fire Flow • 1. The required fire flow for this project will be determined in gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix B, as adopted by the Fire District.Ordinances. 2. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-4 Requirement for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Fire sprinklers must be installed in accordance with the approved Final Fire Protection Plan for this development FSC-7 Hazardous Fire Area This project is located within the "State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga "Hillside District", and/or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as High Probability-Hiqh Consequence for Fire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. The Hazardous Fire Area is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The applicant shall prepare the architectural plans for the construction of the buildings in accordance with the approved "Final Fire Protection Plan". • • B-51 .Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS — Please complete the following prior to the • issuance of any building permits: 1. Fire protection plans: Must be approved and implemented. 2. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 3. Fire Department access and water supply inspection must be performed and approved. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The building construction and fuel modification must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services policies. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION — Please complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Public Fire Hydrants: Must be deemed acceptable by the water and fire districts. • 3. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways. 5. Address:. Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 6. Fire protection plan: Must be implemented and recorded against each property. A copy of the recorded documented must be presented to each owner. • 2 B-52 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-48 DRC2010-00259— K. HOVNANIAN October 27, 2010 Page 4 submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. Environmental Mitigation 1) The project shall implement all pertinent mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report that was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in June 1999, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in October 1999, and the Initial Study Addendum that was certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in August 2001. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October 2010, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ge_ STAFF REPORT $74 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: October 27, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DRC2010-00724-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — CONSIDERATION OF A POLICY RESOLUTION REGARDING SINGLE-STORY HOMES IN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. BACKGROUND: The City's current informal design review practice is to require at least 20 percent of new single-family detached units within the Residential Development Districts to be single-story units. The 20 percent set-aside applies only to single-family detached residences and does not apply to multiple-family projects. On September 22, 2010, the Planning Commission held a discussion on whether to formalize the City's current practice. The Planning Commission tentatively determined that 20 percent was an acceptable figure and directed staff to conduct a survey of neighboring cities to see if any have a formalized requirement for single-story homes. Staff conducted a survey of seven cities and found that five require a single-story set-aside. Of • those five cities, three regulate the single-story set-aside through the Development Code and two cities regulate the single-story set-aside through separate policy documents such as Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission is now asked to determine whether the 20 percent set-aside should be adopted as a standing policy or an amendment to the Development Code. In either case, the 20 percent set aside would, consistent with current practice, apply only to the development of 10 or more single-family detached housing unit types, and would allow for reductions on a case-by-case basis based on the circumstances of the project; such as location, lot size, and topography. If the Planning Commission determines that a Development Code amendment is needed, staff recommends that the requirement be incorporated into the Design Guidelines of the Development Code; specifically, Section 17.08.90.C.16 (Single-Family Development). For this to occur, the Planning Commission would need to initiate a Development Code Amendment. Specific language would then be drafted and brought back to the Commission for. review before final action by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: 1. If the Planning Commission determines that a standing policy is appropriate, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, which would establish a standing policy to require 20 percent of new single-family detached homes in residential developments of 10 units or more to be set-aside for single-story homes. • Item C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2010-00724 October 27, 2010 Page 2 • 2. If the Planning Commission determines that an amendment to the Development Code is appropriate, staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a Development Code Amendment to codify the set-aside requirement. Respectfully submitted, Jam: '. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:CB/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - September 22, 2010 Planning Commission Report Exhibit B - Single-Story Regulations Matrix Draft Resolution of Approval for DRC2010-00724 • • • C-2 STAFF REPORT • Planning Department tit DATE: September 22, 2010 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DRC2010-00724-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-REPORT AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PERCENTAGE OF SINGLE-STORY HOMES REQUIRED IN NEW HOME DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND: The City currently has an informal practice to require at least 20% of the homes in new single-family development proposals to be single story units. At a recent Design Review Committee meeting, the Committee requested this practice be formalized. The Committee also discussed whether the 20% requirement was appropriate and whether the single-story unit requirement should be incorporated into the Design Guidelines (Section 17.08.090.C. Site Plan Design) of the Development Code. This matter has been referred to the Planning Commission for discussion regarding: (1) whether the 20% single-story home requirement should be formalized, and if so how; and (2) to direct • staff to study whether the single-story set-aside should remain at 20%. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine if the informal practice of requiring 20% single-story units should be formalized and, if so direct staff to take one of the following actions: 1. Prepare a resolution for adoption by the Planning Commission that would establish a standing policy of requiring a percentage of new single-family residential developments be set aside for single-story homes. 2. Initiate a Development District Amendment to codify the requirement. 3. If the Commission decides that the single-story set-aside requirement should be formalized, staff also recommends that the Commission direct staff to study whether the single-story set-aside should remain at 20%. Respectfully submitted, /Di itt.)4 /1-/ Jame,9'R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director • JRT/CB/ls EXHIBIT A C-3 ./ • • rn r 0 N 0) N 0) V CD co ✓ co N- N - V __iY, (D CO - N N C N _ -`,� th v E 4 (o o 4 s O in m e (D co ") o m dI,.0 0) V Y CO r - CO a �kO = t..,�' to o o u) R) al.3 0) rn D) 0) rn 4,'Y: ?C.!•." co CO CO T -04-.4I In "7 co 0) N O M 7 rn Q CD co tlO�,�E` O I� 0 (D 1:117,1•11 co r:r.,',.' O '6 N O 1 O -0 O N 'n S _o O _, O O = w Px%iRt,'.. o N N E Q C.0 O N C tea) r,„ ,� m'y COI O . • r)S21 o c 0 o -o "(n c E o o a O •N o •N o N .� O iF'.',....i' CP c _ 'C O - U) O C C .0 O C .- .00 C O .%�:)i:. 3k a C to . N O • L — > O L O O C O .y O N O O O) m 3 O o a) '2 • N 1 t,, C O CO C O Z, C C -O z 0 C L- Y O 5 (i _o o a" J o C cb G ,.."'.:I' O O W R> W N �O O -O t O U .R a) C a) .- )- Q N C d O 'O O a) =N.,;;' co "E aro) a 2 N , a E ° a o .8 o c g > .a (Nn d c a oE) . . m a., o c o X m a) a> aa)) m to rn U 0 ro m e E N cr C N c o m E o O ° E > a N co L • _ o m o m ~ io _ o o-° `o a) E — _C o a) °o ._. a) E '0 0 0 0 a') o C '2 Z $ 0 0 m •c w a) m a c .�' y S o s ro T o ct:' m CD a a c a w N o 0 0 o mn 0 a) •o. o al -D U Uo d _ Um -En m ro � c C (o o y Co C r0; , (() O '6 o a a) O a) O co (E y'c' C .- N Co rn E E O C E O C (n :C. 9 'O C N a a N C a 0 C - O O O O O O' t0' C O m O O ' -- '3 O (0 • -a,.c O cn 'O > > U) > T Id..�.. 0 C� p a C O n:',w• > y �;;;• Z • } } >- >- >- z '_i C) oy1r �,� >. .1,C. 6 N Ti > a) '-'0 as °,). , ro d c�• m E o o c s O O y 0 C C > L L O J O • • EXHIBIT B C-4 • RESOLUTION NO. 10-49 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING DRC2010-00724, A POLICY OF REQUIRING A 20 PERCENT SINGLE-STORY HOME SET- ASIDE FOR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS OF 10 UNITS OR MORE. A. Recitals. 1. At the public meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on October 27, 2010, the Planning Commission considered the adoption of a policy requiring a percentage of new homes in new residential developments be set aside for single-story homes. 2. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows: 1. All facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Commission hereby adopts the following policy: At least 20 percent of all single-family units in any single-family detached • residential development in a Residential Development District consisting of 10 or more units should be single-story units. The number of single-story units may be reduced on a case-by-case basis when needed to serve the purposes of the Development Code and when justified by such considerations as location, lot size, and topography. 3. The Secretary to this Commission, or his or her designee, shall implement the policy stated in the preceding Section 2 and shall from time to time recommend to the Commission any changes that he or she believes are necessary. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman • ATTEST: James R. Troyer, Secretary C-5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-49 DRC2010-00724 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 27, 2010 • Page 2 I, James R. Troyer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • • -7- C-6 4„ is‘• Planning Commission Meeting of /40 ?/V RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you. ,�%�►� NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM 1. / A 6 7-/P.42EL /7/°c. 2. C4a,v, It, 3. ea-e. 6IhGDj 4. 5. XiP,ae- Slo,,-had-7'l 6.e/y/Gf c% ' No tC.-na4LJ 7. aa si n�� 8. Cn Ditf 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.