Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-96 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2003-01061 TO INCREASE WALL HEIGHTS FROM 6 FEET TO 11.5 FEET ON THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN PROPERTY LINES OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16716 IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN ETIWANDA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL AND THE ETIWANDA RAILWAY STATION; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0227-121-16 AND 49. A. Recitals. 1. J.T. Storm filed an application for Variance DRC2003-01061, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of July 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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 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 on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Etiwanda Intermediate School and the Etiwanda Railway Station; and b. The property to the north is Etiwanda Intermediate School and south of the subject site is the Pacific Electric Trail, the property to the east is single-family residential, and the property to the west is Etiwanda Avenue; and C. The applicant is requesting a Variance in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16716 for the expansion of the wall heights to allow up to an 11.5-foot high combination wall along the north and south property boundary in a residential zone where the Development Code allows a maximum height of 6 feet. The Variance is necessary because of retaining walls,varying in height from 1.5 feet to 5.5 feet, needed to handle the significant slope grade differential from the properties to the east north and south. The walls will be constructed as retaining walls to retain a portion of the slope. Approval for the Variance for wall heights would be compatible with the surrounding areas and infill conditions. The walls proposed are a combination of perimeter wall and retaining wall varying from 5.5 feet to 11.5 feet in height. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-96 DRC2003-01061 - J.T. STORM July 28, 2004 Page 2 d. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship, in that limiting wall heights at the rear of the lots would create slopes that are hard to maintain and that would allow visibility into the rear yards. e. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district, in that the property is surrounded by an Intermediate School, Etiwanda Railway Station, and a vineyard. Creating a terrace wall design on-site would create a double wall condition that would create slopes that are hard to maintain. f. 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 essentially reduce the usable yards for those lots on the south side of the property,with slopes that are hard to maintain and that would allow visibility into the rear yards. g. 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 and wall conditions would warrant the granting of a Variance. h. 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 wall will be constructed per building code and with a decorative material to match existing perimeterwalls in the area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on July 28, 2004, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-96 DRC2003-01061 - J.T. STORM July 28, 2004 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. Planning Division 1) All perimeter walls along the property boundaries shall be made of a decorative material, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY 2004. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: /� Rich Macias, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Secret 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 bythe Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of July 2004, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE