HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-83 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
DRC2003-01187, A REQUEST TO ALLOW UP TO AN 8.5 FOOT
COMBINATION FREESTANDING/RETAINING WALL HEIGHT FOR GRADE
DIFFERENTIAL PURPOSES,ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE
OF LOT 10 OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT14493 IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE
RANCHO ETIWANDA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BANYAN STREET AND DAY CREEK
BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
0225-161-45.
A. Recitals.
1. Young California Homes, L.P. filed an application for the issuance of Variance
DCR2003-01187, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Variance request is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 14, 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 July 14, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14493,a subdivision located
at the southwest comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street,which has a significant north to
south grade differential between the adjacent properties; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and is zoned Low Residential;
the property to the south is developed with single-family residences zoned Low Residential; the
property to the east is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; the
property to west is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; and
C. The application applies to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14493, a subdivision that
was previously approved by the County of San Bernardino for 15 single-family lots; and
d. The Variance request is to increase the maximum allowable wall height from 6 feet
to 8.5 feet; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-83
VARIANCE DRC2003-01187—YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.
July 14, 2004
Page 2
e. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would cause a physical hardship and
practical difficultly for development of the property because of the presence of a grade differential
that was created when the adjacent subdivision was graded. Enforcement of the wall height limit
would necessitate a 2:1 downslope condition at the property line, which is undesirable for
maintenance purposes since it would be difficult to maintain by the upslope property owner and
contrary the Design Policies of the Planning Commission; and
f. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not
apply to a majority of other properties in the immediate surrounding area because of the presence of
an adjacent lot (Lot 55 of Tentative Tract SUBTT14493-1) that is part of a previously approved
subdivision. The adjacent lot (Lot 55 of Tentative Tract SUBTT 14493-1) has pad elevation that is
several feet lower than the subject property (Lot of 10 of Tentative Tract SUBTT14493), thereby
creating exceptional circumstances with regard to achieving an adequate level of side yard privacy
between the two lots and the avoidance of a downslope maintenance condition on Lot 55 of
Tentative Tract 14493; 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. Alternative design and construction
methods are not feasible for the subject property and have not been required of other properties in
the Low Residential District within the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development; and
h. 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 because of
grade differential purposes between two lots have been granted for other subdivisions; and
i. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare; but conversely, will promote public safety and welfare by providing adequate privacy
between the side yards of two single-family dwelling units and enable the maintenance of private
yards by avoiding the construction of a downslope maintenance 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; 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-83
VARIANCE DRC2003-01187 — YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.
July 14, 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. An Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse No. 8808291)was prepared and
certified by the County of San Bernardino as a Master Environmental Impact Report for the
University/Crest Planned Development. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)provides
that once a Master EIR Environmental Impact Report has been certified, no further Environmental
Impact Report or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the
Master Environmental Impact Report. On October 26, 1999, the County of San Bernardino Board of
Supervisors certified a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse
No. 98121091), because of a revision to the Development Plan University/Crest Planned
Development. In August 1999, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address
issues associated with the adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The
Addendum identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the
previous Environmental Impact Report. Based upon the facts and information contained in the
certified Environmental Impact Report, together with all written and oral reports, the Planning
Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
upon the environment.
a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions
to the previous Environmental Impact Report because of no new significant environmental effects or
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.
b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous Environmental
Impact Report because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
C. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known,with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Environmental
Impact Report was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have
one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Environmental Impact Report;
2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous Environmental Impact Report; 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to
be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
final Environmental Impact Report, would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
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:
1) Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued within
five years from the date of approval.
2) All perimeter walls, and all walls exposed to public view shall be
decorative. Perimeter walls fronting Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan
Street shall adhere to the approved wall design and materials palette
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-83
VARIANCE DRC2003-01187—YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.
July 14, 2004
Page 4
for Day Creek Boulevard, Banyan Street, and Rancho Etiwanda,
including, but not limited to, river rock pilasters.
3) All applicable Conditions of Approval per Resolution No. 04-82
approving Development Review DRC2003-01186 shall apply.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY 2004.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: /t
Rich Macias, Chairman
ATTEST:
ad Buller, 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 14th day of July 2004, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McPHAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: DRC2003-01187
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR ALL HEIGHT (LOT 10 OF TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT14493)
APPLICANT: YOUNG CALIFORNIA HOMES, L.P.
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND BANYAN STREET
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE 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.
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 04-83, 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.
B. Time Limits
1. Variance 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.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans,architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development
Code regulations.
SC-1-04 1
i:\planning\final\pingcomm\drc2003-01187cond7-14.doc
Project No.DRC2003-01187
Completion Date
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner 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.
D. Landscaping
1. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
SC-1-04
2
is\planning\final\pingcomm\dre2003-01187cond7-14.doc