Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-87 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. DRC2004-00522, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM 45 TO 20 FEET FOR BUILDINGS A AND H ALONG BASE LINE ROAD WITHIN A PROPOSED VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER TOTALING 79,661 SQUARE FEET ON APPROXIMATELY 9.23 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0227-161-39. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph Associates for Marketplace Partners filed an application forthe issuance of Variance No. DRC2004-00522, 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 July 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 property located at the southeast comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard with a street frontage of approximately 2,100 feet(along Day Creek Boulevard) and lot depth of 716 feet and which is presently improved undeveloped. b. The properties to the north are single-family homes, the properties to the south are single-family homes under construction, the property to the east is Joseph Filippi Winery, and the property to the west is undeveloped. C. The site abuts a local historic landmark winery. The winery building is very close to the ultimate curb, and the strict application of the 45 feet building setback for the project site would result in practical difficulty in creating a master plan of streetscape and visual integration of the historic winery with the site. d. The project site has extraordinary circumstance as it is abutting a local historic landmark winery, which does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-87 VAR DRC2004-00522 —CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/MARKETPLACE PARTNERS JULY 14, 2004 Page 2 e. The strict application of the 45 feet setback will affect the design of the project, which in tum would affect the master plan of streetscape from the historic winery. f. The granting of the reduction in setback does not constitute a grant of special privilege or set a precedent for the City because there is no other properties in the city that abut a working historic winery. g. The reduction of the setback will not affect public health, safety, or welfare. 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. On July 7, 1999, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) as adequate and complete. On December 20,2000,the City Council adopted Facts and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for approving the Victoria Arbors Land Use entitlements. On March 21, 2001, the City Council approved an addendum to the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) for approving the Victoria Arbors Master Plan and the Tentative Parcel Map that created the parcel for the project site. Based on the Initial Study prepared by the City s Environmental Consultant, LSA, Associates, Inc., it was determined that the project described above is within the scope of the certified EIR and addendum. Further, it was determined that none of the elements set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) exists and therefore no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration is required to be prepared. 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. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-87 VAR DRC2004-00522—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/MARKETPLACE PARTNERS JULY 14, 2004 Page 3 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. 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. 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: Rich Macias, Chairman AT rad Bul reta 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: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McPHAIL