Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-78 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 03-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2003-00050, A REQUEST TO 'INCREASE THE MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 15 FEET ON 11 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED EAST OF MULBERRY STREET, GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE 1-210 AND 1-15 FREEWAYS INTERCHANGE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0228-011-20, 24, 25, AND 34. A. Recitals. 1. American Pacific Homes, filed an application for the issuance of Variance DCR2003-00050, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 28, 2003, 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 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 public hearing on May 28, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located east of Mulberry Street and generally south of 1-210 Freeway and the 1-15 interchange; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant single-family residences and the 1-210 Freeway; the property to the south is the San Bernardino County Victoria Basin; to the east is the Etiwanda Creek/San Sevaine Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and the property to west is single-family residences (Ryland Tract TT15798); and C. The application is necessitated by Development Review DRC2003-00049,a review of 23 single-family residences; and d. The Variance request is to increase the maximum allowable wall height from 6 feet to 15 feet; and e. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would cause a physical hardship and practical difficulty for development of the property because of exposing residents to excessive noise levels; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-78 VARIANCE DRC2003-00050—AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES May 28, 2003 Page 2 f. There are exceptional circumstances, in that the property is in close proximity to the 1-210 and 1-15 Freeways interchange, which has the cumulative effect of amplified sound, thereby creating exceptional circumstances with regard to achieving sound attenuation; and g. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would deprive the applicant of development enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District, by requiring the applicant to significantly alter the proposed design of the subdivision by using alternative design and construction methods that are not feasible for the subject property and have not been required of other properties in the Low Residential District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. h. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a special privilege because there are unique site conditions (i.e., location adjoining freeway), and the granting of the Variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone in that Variances for wall heights for sound attenuation purposes have been granted for other subdivisions that abut the 1-210 and 1-15 Freeways; and i. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; but conversely,will provide the necessary sound attenuation required for the subdivision to adequately meet the required interior and exterior noise level standards for properties in the Low Residential 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; and 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; and 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;and 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; and 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. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed project,togetherwith all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16302, the project is in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map. Therefore, no additional environmental assessment was conducted with the Design/Development Review. The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Tract Map 16302 on January 8, 2003,which included an Environmental Assessment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. This application is substantially consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map; therefore, no further environmental review was deemed necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-78 VARIANCE DRC2003-00050—AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES May 28, 2003 Page 3 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 setforth below and in the Standard Condition, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planning Division 1) Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. 2) All perimeter walls, and all walls exposed to public view shall be decorative. Perimeter walls shall be decorative in nature 3) All applicable Conditions of Approval per Resolution No. 03-77 approving Development Review DRC2003-00049 shall apply. 4) The perimeter wall shall be constructed in accordance with height and location recommendations made in the acoustical report. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: LarVyl k4Niel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad B ecre ry 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 28th day of May by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MCNIEL, MCPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-78 VARIANCE DRC2003-00050—AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES May 28, 2003 Page 3 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 Condition, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planning Division 1) Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within 5 years from the date of approval. 2) All perimeter walls, and all walls exposed to public view shall be decorative. Perimeter walls shall be decorative in nature 3) All applicable Conditions of Approval per Resolution No. ,03-77 approving Development Review ORC2003-00049 shall apply. 4) The perimeter wall shall be constructed in accordance with height and location recommendations made in the acoustical report. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: '�? La i I, Chairman ATTEST: Brad By ecret I, Brad Buller, Acting 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 8th day of January 2003, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2003-00050 SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: AMERICAN PACIFIC HOMES LOCATION: EAST OF MULBERRY STREET AND GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE 1-210 FREEWAY ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General 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. SC-03-03 1