HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-66 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 89-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 89-04 TO REDUCE THE
PARKING SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 8 FEET AND REDUCE THE
LANDSCAPE SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 8 FEET FOR 12 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED ON THE SCUTH SIDE OF JERSEY BOULEVARD
BETWEEN UTICA AND VINCENT AVENUES IN THE MINIMUM
IMPACT/HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) , AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-143,-07, 08, 09
A. Recitals.
(i) Commercial Carriers has filed an application for the issuance
of the Variance No. 89-04 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as
"the application".
( ii) On April 26 , 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and continued said hearing to May 10, 1989.
( iii) All legal prerequisites 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on April 26, 1989, and continued to
May 10, 1989, 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 10807
Jersey Boulevard with a street frontage of 814 feet and an average lot depth
of 673 feet and is presently improved with an office, warehouse, and parking
lot; and
( b) The property to the north of the subject site is multi-
tenant industrial , the property to the south of that site consists of a
warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to the west is
a warehouse ; and
(c) The application applies to a site that is currently
improved with an office building, warehouse building and parking lot and is
considered a legal non-conforming lot; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-66
VA89-04 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS
May 10, 1989
Page 2
(d) Municipal Code Section 17.06.0208 authorizes the City
Planner to impose reasonable conditions upon a Minor Development Review permit
approval , including requirements for landscaping, street improvements,
regulation of vehicular ingress , egress and traffic circulation, establishment
of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion ; and
(e) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020A states that the purpose
and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process is to assure that
such limited projects comply with all applicable City Standards and
Ordinances; and
(f) The site plan submitted in conjunction with the
application, does not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standard of a 35-foot
average landscape setback and minimum 25-foot parking setback , as measured
from the ultimate face of curb. Further, the site plan and existing chain
link fence improvements do not meet the Industrial Specific Plan standards for
screening outdoor storage of vehicles within 120 feet of a street frontage
with masonry, concrete or other similar materials ; and
(g) The site currently is improved with four driveways within
820 feet of street frontage. The City 's access policy for arterial streets
specifies that driveways on the sane side of a street be spaced 300 feet
apart. Therefore , only two driveways would be allowed on this site . Further,
driveways should align with driveways on the opposite side of the street or by
off-setting a safe distance to avoid conflicting left-turn movements. The
City 's access policy also requires the access be located a minimum 100 feet
from intersections.
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 regulation would not
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code.
(b) That there are not exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the
properties in the same district.
(c) That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would not
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-66
VA89-04 - COMMERCIAL CARRIERS
May 10, 1989
Page 3
CO That the granting of the Variance will 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 be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF MAY 1989.
PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
f , I
BY: FA .. w ,
'arry Suaaie , airy.
ATTEST: A � es __
sra, 'MUT ec
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 10th day of May 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE