Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 05-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2004-01002 FOR WALL HEIGHTS EXCEEDING 8 FEET FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16776, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET EAST OF ETIWANDAAVENUE IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, AND 55 THRU 58. A. Recitals. 1. Van Daele Development Corporation filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2004-01002, as described in the title of this Resolution, in conjunction with their applications for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776 and Design Review DRC2004-00052. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 26, 2005, and continued to February 9, March 9, and March 23, 2005, 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 January 26, February 9, March 9, and March 23, 2005, 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 Base Line Road, a major divided arterial street, 1,200 feet east of Etiwanda Avenue,with a street frontage of 706 feet and lot depth of approximately 1,350 feet, and is presently improved with a plant nursery and office; and b. The property to the east of the southern portion of the site is vacant. The 1-15 Freeway off-ramp is approximately 200 feet to the east and the 1-15 Freeway travel lanes are approximately 500 feet to the east; and C. The proposed project would include the development of 59 single-family detached residences; and d. The acoustical analysis (Gordon Bricken &Associates, March 2004)prepared for the project determined that noise levels exceed City, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),and Caltrans noise limits; and therefore, recommended sound attenuations barriers such as block walls. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-17 DRC2004-01002—VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. March 23, 2005 Page 2 e. Variances have been granted for sound wall heights for all other residential projects along the 1-15 Freeway. 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 orconditions 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. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,together with all written and oral reports included for the 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 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. 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 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 or the 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 RESOLUTION NO. 05-17 DRC2004-01002 —VAN DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORP. March 23, 2005 Page 3 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. 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2005. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY- l/I A La cNiel, Vice Chairm n ATTEST: Brad B r ecreta 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 23rd day of March 2005, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS