The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-26 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2003-00848 TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND RETAINING WALL HEIGHT PERMITTED IN THE HILLSIDE AREA, FOR A PROPOSED 92 CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON 6.90 ACRES OF LAND IN THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD-CUCAMONGA CHANNEL MIXED-USE AREA WITHIN SUBAREA 1 OF THE FOOTHILL DISTRICTS, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, WEST OF THE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0207-101-32, 33, AND 50. A. Recitals. 1. Fuscoe Engineering filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2003-00848 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 February 11, 2004, 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 February 11, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 6.90 acres of vacant property located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Channel; and b. The site is triangular in shape and slopes southerly at an average of approximately 4 to 5 percent, with the exception of an area at the northeast portion of the site, where the slopes exceed 25 percent; and C. The site is bordered by the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail and vacant land to the north, Foothill Boulevard and vacant land, followed by single-family development and a trailer park to the south, the Cucamonga Channel followed by Vineyard Town Center to the east, and vacant land to the west; and d. The applicant is requesting Variance DRC2003-00848 in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16651 and Development Review DRC2003-00847, to allow and increase the maximum building height and maximum retaining wall height permitted in the hillside area,where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 30 feet and 4 feet, respectively. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 VARIANCE DRC2003-00848 — FUSCOE ENGINEERING February 11, 2004 Page 2 e. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in that it would substantially limit the size of the site and number of units allowed (both because of site area and building height) to be constructed that would not normally occur with multi-family development in a non-hillside area. The site is nestled up against a steep slope embankment of the former Pacific Electric Railway, which measures approximately 15 to 20 feet in height; hence, the 18-inch increase in building height will be greatly diminished by the slope and related landscaping. The nearest existing residences to the north are considerably higher uphill, and more than 300 feet away from the project site;therefore,will not be affected by the increased height. The retaining walls proposed by the grading design are necessary to create a buildable area within the confines of this very narrow triangular parcel. f. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances orconditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district, in that the project is a multi-family development in an isolated hillside area. The site is surrounded by the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail and vacant land to the north, Foothill Boulevard and vacant land to the south, and the Cucamonga Channel to the east. Because of the site location, the area and design of the project is limited compared to other multi-family development in vacant areas outside of a hillside area. g. 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, in that it would substantially limit the size of the site and number of units allowed to be constructed that would not normally occur with multi-family development in a non-hillside area. h. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, in that other properties with similar site constraints and/or restrictions would warrant the granting of a Variance. i. 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, in that the buildings and walls will be constructed per building code and with decorative materials to match existing development in the area. 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 specked 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 VARIANCE DRC2003-00848— FUSCOE ENGINEERING February 11, 2004 Page 3 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 (CEQA) 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, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Division: 1) All conditions of approval from Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16651 and Development Review DRC2003-00847 that pertain to this Variance shall apply. 2) All walls shall be made of a decorative wall material, subject to review and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer. 3) The applicant shall get permission from adjacent property owners for any off-site grading. 4) 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 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: / / r c Larry . cNiel, Vice Chairman ATTEST: ' Brad '>eesecretsaV PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-26 VARIANCE DRC2003-00848 — FUSCOE ENGINEERING February 11, 2004 Page 4 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 11th day of February 2004, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS