Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-49 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2004- 00050, TO REDUCE THE BUILDING SETBACK TO ZERO FEET ALONG THE EAST AND SOUTH BOUNDARIES OF A PROPOSED PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND THE EASTBOUND 210-FREEWAY ON-RAMP IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1076-331-02 AND 1076-341-01 (A PORTION). A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates filed an application on behalf of Aim All Storage for the issuance of Variance DRC2004-00050, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of April 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 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 April 28, 2004, 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 the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and the eastbound on-ramp of the 210-Freeway, with a street frontage of approximately 405 feet along Haven Avenue, and a lot depth of approximately 560 feet,which is presently improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk along Haven Avenue; and b. The application for a Variance was filed in conjunction, and necessitated by, a related application for Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850, to develop a public mini-storage facility; and C. The property to the north of the subject site is the 210-Freeway, the property to the south of the proposed storage facility is proposed to be subdivided by Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16648 into seven lots for single-family detached homes, and the property to the east consists of existing single-family homes; and d. The application proposes to reduce the building setback to zero feet;whereas, the standard setback requirement for a commercial activity that is adjacent to a residential land use is 20 feet; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-49 DRC2004-00050 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES -AIM ALL STORAGE April 28, 2004 Page 2 e. In this case, because of the inherent design of the public storage facility, a 20-foot setback would create a"no man's Land" (an area situated between the building wall and a property line wall that would have limited visibility and no convenient access); and f. The situation described above results in maintenance problems and difficulty in policing unauthorized activities within the 20-foot setback areas; and g. The Planning Commission previously approved a similar Variance for a similar public storage facility for a project located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue. 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, as noted in the findings above. 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, as noted in the findings above. 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, as noted in the findings above. 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, as noted in the findings above. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, orwelfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as noted in the findings above. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, togetherwith all written and oral reports included forthe environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-49 DRC2004-00050—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - AIM ALL STORAGE April 28, 2004 Page 3 b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources orthe habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 Department 1) A perimeter wall shall be constructed along the south and east project boundaries, consistent with the development plans submitted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00850. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: / Rich Macias, Chairman ATTEST: rad Bulle a eta 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 April 2004, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McNIEL