Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-101 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2001-00612 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING SETBACK ALONG FOOTHILL BOULEVARD FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET, FOR A RETAIL LIQUOR STORE, LOCATED AT 8939 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT(SUBAREA 2), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 208-192-07. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Arturo Flores filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC 2001-00612 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of November 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing 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 bythe 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 public hearing on November 14, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 8939 Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of approximately 110 feet and lot depth of approximately 190 feet and is presently improved with a non-conforming structure that was formerly Red Hill Liquor store; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with a commercial center, the property to the south consists of condominiums, the property to the east is developed with a fast- food restaurant, and the property to the west is developed with a service station that has a 40-foot parking setback; and C. Literal enforcement with the required parking setback would cause a physical hardship for the property owner due to the adjacent property's 40-foot parking setback and the presence of shared access for both properties from one driveway on Foothill Boulevard; and d. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to a majority of other properties in the Community Commercial District because of the property to the west having a condition of approval with a previously approved Conditional Use Permit 93-46 that required a consolidation of driveways and shared access between the properties; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 VAR DRC2001-00612 November 14, 2001 Page 2 e. Literal enforcement of the parking setback would deprive the applicant of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the Community Commercial District because of the approved 40-foot parking setback of the property to the west; and f. In 1988, Variance 88-09 was granted to the property to the west of the subject property allowing a 40-foot parking setback, hence the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone; and g. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity, but, conversely, will allow properties that are required to have shared access to maintain a uniform drive aisle width, thereby reducing the potential for conflicts. h. The 40-foot parking setback will allow for a landscaped area that is consistent with the adjacent parcel, thereby providing a uniform streetscape and depth of landscaping, consistent with the objectives of Foothill Boulevard District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 VAR DRC2001-00612 November 14, 2001 Page 3 Planning Division 1) Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or 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. 2) 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2001. PLANNING COM ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t BY: L rry T. M el, Chairman ATTEST: Brad B cret I, Brad Buller, 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 14th day of November 2001, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY