Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20-04 Resolution RESOLUTION NO.20-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 45-FOOT SETBACK ADJACENT OT RESIDENTIAL RELATED TO A PROJECT OF THREE (3) INDUSTRIALIWAREHOUSE BUILDINGS TOTALING 236,534 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 9TH STREET, WEST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AT 8768 9sH STREET - APN: 0207-262-28, -35, -36, -41, and -42. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Phelan Development, filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2019-00205, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 8, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and due to a noticing error, Continue said hearing to January 22, 2020. 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 8, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an irregularly shaped project site that consists of five (5) parcels located at the north side of 91h Street about 550 feet west of Vineyard Avenue. The subject parcels have a combined area of 11.73 acres with overall maximum dimensions of about 640 feet (east-west) and about 885 feet (north-south); and b. The site is partially developed with several industrial buildings of various sizes but is otherwise vacant. There are also paved areas for parking and driveways, and landscaping that varies in type and condition. The site has a street frontage along 9'h Street of about 640 feet. The property and buildings are all vacant; and C. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties are as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205 — PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 2 Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Mostly Vacant with General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Limited Development District Single Family Residences General Industrial General Industrial (GI) North District Apartment Complex Medium Residential Medium Residential (M) District Vacant General Industrial (GI) South Office BuildinR General Industrial District Industrial Development East industrial Offices General Industrial General Industrial (GI) Self-Storage Facility District Apartment Complex Medium Residential (M) West Condominium Complex Medium Residential District legal,non-conforming,i.e residences within an industrial zone d. Associated with this application is Design Review DRC2018-00912, a request for the construction of three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling 236,534 square feet; and e. The application is a request for a reduction in the required minimum building setback. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code,the minimum side and rear setbacks(measured from the building wall to the property line) in all industrial districts is 5 feet (side) and zero feet (rear) except when the project site is immediately adjacent to a residential district, i.e. zone. In such circumstances, the minimum setback is required to be 45 feet(between the building and the property line between and adjacent residential district, where applicable). The project contemplates a reduction in the rear setback to 41 feet. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the reduction to allow part of the northwest corner of one the buildings of the project to encroach 4 feet into this setback; and 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 minor exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan land use designation of the project site is General Industrial. The industrial warehouse/logistics project is consistent with the other industrial uses in the area and therefore consistent with the intent of the General Park designation of the General Plan. The General Plan does not establish a procedure for reducing setback requirements but recognizes the Development Code as the governing document for technical standards for building setback. The Development Code permits a reduction of up to 10% in the setback requirement. The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet(8.9%).Therefore, the proposed setback reduction request is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No specific plan nor development agreement applies to this project. b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed project is a set of industrial warehousellogistics buildings with a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205— PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 3 combined floor area of 236,534 square feet for office and warehousing. It is similar with the other industrial uses and buildings in the general area. Per Table 17.36.040-1 of the Development Code, the minimum special building setback in all industrial districts when adjacent to a residential district is 45 feet (measured from the building wall to the property line). The proposed Minor Exception is for a reduction of 4 feet (8.9%). The reduction in the setback is for only for the northwest corner of Building B. The remainder of Building B, and the other two buildings proposed with this project, will be in compliance with the subject setback requirement. Furthermore, the physical separation between Building B and the nearest residential structure is about 115 feet. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement will not have an impact on the surrounding area and/or uses and the project will be compatible with the existing land uses. c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The project site has an irregularly shaped perimeter along its west side. This results in a condition where many of the required site improvements for the project such as fire access lanes, parking, and landscaping are in unusual locations or have unusual layouts throughout the site which, in turn, affects the plotting of a building. In this case, Building B is at the most logical location on the site relative to above-noted improvements and Buildings A and C. Also, the part of the building that encroaches into the subject setback is minor. It consists of 110 feet(east-west horizontal dimension)of building wall plane and 440 square feet(a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). Furthermore, if the location of the building wall plane and corresponding floor plan was revised to comply with the subject setback requirement, it would result in operating inefficiencies for future potential tenants. Therefore, the reduction in the setback requirement accommodates unique site conditions. d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The reduction in the setback requirement will not be a grant of special privilege as other applicants developing industrial project on sites with similar physical constraints could request a Minor Exception for consideration by the City. The reduction in the setback is for only 110 feet(east-west horizontal dimension)of building wall plane and 440 square feet(a rectangular floor area of 4 feet x 110 feet). This is negligible as the affected building is 466 feet long (east- west horizontal dimension) and has a floor area of 85,209 square feet. The remainder of the affected building and the other buildings proposed for the project will be at, or exceed,the required setback from the west property line. Therefore, the reduction in the building setback will not be detrimental to public health, safety orwelfare, 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. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) of the potential environmental effects of the project was prepared. Based on the findings contained in that IS, it was determined that, with the imposition PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205— PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 4 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 (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. During the 30-day review public comment period, Staff received a comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on January 7, 2020. The letter commented on the applicant's analysis of the air quality impacts and included recommended mitigation measures. The applicant's environmental consultant provided a response to those comments which were, in turn, submitted to the SCAQMD. No follow-up comments were received from SCAQMD. Staff has reviewed the comments from SCAQMD, and the applicant's consultant's responses to them, and has concluded that no revisions to, and/or recirculation of, the IS/MND is required. 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 in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2019-00205— PHELAN DEVELOPMENT January 22, 2020 Page 5 BY: -Tonf Guglielmo, Chairman 1 ATTEST: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission 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 22"d day of January 2020, by the following vote- to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GUGLIELMO, OAXACA, DOPP, MORALES, WILLIAMS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: