Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-09 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO.13-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2012-00513, A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE BOUNDARY WALL HEIGHTS ON LOTS 1, 9, AND 10 IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD SOUTH AND WEST OF BLUE SKY COURT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0226-081-15 16 AND 17. A. Recitals. 1. Jonathan Curtis, legal receiver for the property, filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2012-00513, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 9th day of January 2013, and continued to the 23rd day of January 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 9, and January 23, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located on the west side of Wardman Bullock Road south and west of Blue Sky Court with a street frontage of approximately 778 feet and lot depth of approximately 633 feet and is presently vacant land; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant flood control property and three single-family residences, the property to the south is vacant land, the property to the east across Wardman Bullock Road consists of existing single-family residences, and the property to the west is the flood control basin; and C. The proposed use together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as the increase in the height of the wall to 8 feet is required for Lot 1 to meet the requirements of the fire protection plan and to increase the heights of the rearyard walls by adding up to 2 feet, 8 inches (2'-8") of retaining wall on Lots 9 and 10 for privacy; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-09 _ MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2012-00513 - JONATHAN c. CURTIS January 23, 2013 Page 2 d. The project includes the concurrent submittal of a Variance to reduce the lot depth on Lot 9 to 124 feet from the required 150 feet and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18823, a subdivision of approximately 12.93 acres of land into 19 single-family residential lots, and e. The walls on Lots 9 and 10 are necessary to ensure an adequate level of privacy and to compensate for the finished grade differences between the applicant's property and the equestrian trail between the wall and the southern property lines. The increase of the wall height on Lot 1 is to meet the requirement of the Fire Protection Plan that requires the north wall to be increased to 8 feet tall. 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. The proposed development is of sufficient size and is designed so as to provide a desirable environment within its own boundaries. Increasing the wall height by two feet will provide better fire protection on Lot 1, and increasing the height on Lots 9 and 10 with a retaining wall 2 feet 8 inches (2' - 8") (calculated height of 1-foot, 4 inches) will maintain privacy along the southern lot lines. b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area as the applicant is proposing a residential development as part of this application and there are residential developments to the north and east of the project with a proposed residential tract proposed to the south. This application will allow for the privacy and protection of the future residents. C. Any exceptions to or deviation from the density, requirements, or design standards result in the creation of project amenities that would not be available through strict adherence to Code provisions (e.g., additional open space, protection of natural resources, improved pedestrian connectivity, public plazas). The Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or amenity not available to other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow a wall to provide fire protection for Lot 1 and a 6 foot tall privacy wall for Lots 9 and 10, with the addition of the retaining wall. These are amenities parcels in the area also enjoy. d. That the granting of the Minor exception will not adversely affect the interest of the public or the interest of the residents and property owners in the vicinity of the premises in question as the increased heights will be located along the tract boundary and will architecturally the existing walls in the area. e. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan in that it helps encourage new development by allowing the applicant to provide privacy and fire protection to the specified lots that is enjoyed by the other lots in the area. f. The Minor Exception is the minimum required in that it allows the specified improvement to occur, but does not provide additional development rights.The granting of the Minor Exception does not provide a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-09 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2012-00513 —JONATHAN C. CURTIS January 23, 2013 Page 3 classified in the same district as all properties are shall meet the minimum fire protection allowed by a particular plan and be allowed to have the same level of privacy as other residential lots. 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 to Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-07 approving Tentative Tract Map 18823, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that,with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 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 and the Mitigation Measures provided for Tentative Tract Map 18823. Planning Department 1) Approval of this resolution is for the increase of wall height to 8 feet(8') on the north property line of Lot 1 of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18823, and the increase in the height of the south perimeter PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-09 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2012-00513 —JONATHAN C. CURTIS January 23, 2013 Page 4 walls on Lots 9 and 10 of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18823 by a maximum of 2 feet 8 inches (2' - 8") for the retaining walls. 2) The approval of this application is contingent on the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18823. 3) 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. 4) Prior to any use of the project site, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5) The applicant shall comply with all applicable codes and obtain the necessary building permits from the Building and Safety Department. 6) All retaining walls visible to public view shall be decorative and adhere to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Neighborhood Theme design requirements. 7) 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. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: 0,0, a�,,,Zt Cand 6 Burnett, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-09 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2012-00513 —JONATHAN C. CURTIS January 23, 2013 Page 5 I, Candyce Burnett, Senior Planner for 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 January 2013, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, OAXACA WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE