Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/06/26 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION " AGENDA WEDNESDAY JUNE 26, 1996 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher __ Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy __ Commissioner Lumpp III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes May 8, 1996 May 29, 1996, Joint Meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the relatedproject. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. A ll such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in aJ?er speaking. A. MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEl, MAP 8587 - PHILLIPS - A request to delete a condition of approval requiring the improvement of a local trail between Parcels 1 and 2 and along the south boundary of Parcel 2 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre), located on Rancho Street, east of Mayberry Avenue APN: 1074-291-11 and 12. B. VARIANCE 96-08 - ROBERT B. LAGNESS - A request to vary the rear lot height, rear lot building coverage, and guest house size regulations of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code to allow for the construction of a combination residential garage and guest house of 3,231 square feet, 26 feet high, 7 ¼ feet from the side property line, and 5 feet from the rear property line in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at 13355 Victoria Street - APN: 227-141-52. C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code pertaining to the addition of property maintenance standards for landscaping. VI. Public Comments This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. ltems to be : discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11: O0 P. A,t adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shah be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Gall Sanchez, planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certijSa that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 20, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. / VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 26, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEl, MAP 8587 - PHILLIPS - A request to delete a condition of approval requiting the improvement of a local trail between Parcels 1 and 2 and along the south boundary of Parcel 2 in the Very Low Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) located on Rancho Street, east of Mayberry Avenue - APN: 1074-291-11 and 12. BACKGROUND: The Tentative Parcel Map was presented before the Planning Commission on September 26, 1984. At that meeting, the owner at that time requested that the requirement to improve the trail be deferred until development of Parcel 2. The private trail easement was subsequently reserved and the improvement requirement noted on the recorded parcel map. The applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted to allow for the vacation of the trail easement and relief from the requirement to improve same. ANALYSIS: The parcel map indicates that the private trail be improved with the development of Parcel 2. The applicant and current owner of Parcel 2 is ready to build a custom home on the site and has questioned the reasonableness of requiring a private trail within a developed area. The City's goal with respect to trails is to establish an interconnected system for the use and enjoyment of residents. The subject easements are "local feeder" trails which are intended to provide access from the rear of the lot to the public Community Trails. The issue of eliminating the trail was addressed by the Trails Committee on May 22, 1996, and recommended for Planning Commission approval (See Exhibit "E" - Trails Advisory Committee Action dated May 22, 1996). Engineering staff has reviewed the Subdivision Map Act and determined that in order to remove the trail requirement from the map, a public hearing is required. Subsequent to the public hearing and the Planning Commission's Resolution of Approval, Engineering staff will process a certificate of correction to eliminate the trail. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 8587 - PHILLIPS June 26, 1996 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request to eliminate the condition to improve a private equestrian trail between Parcels 1 and 2 and along the south boundary of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8587. A Resolution of Appr0val is attached. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:MP/dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Trail System Map Exhibit "C" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "D"- August 19, 1992, Trails Advisory Committee Action Exhibit "E"- May 22, 1996, Trails Advisory Committee Action Exhibit "F" - Resolution No. 84-105 with Conditions Resolution of Approval ITEM: VICINITY MAP CITY OF TITLE: Modificaion to RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tentative Parcel ENGINEERING DIVISION Map 8587 EXHIBIT: 'A' City of Rancho Cucamonga April 11, 1996 Community Development Department Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dr. P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Gentlemen: This letter is in regard to the equestrian easement that affects Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 8587. As we have recently purchased Parcel 2 and plan to build our home here, we have some concerns about the equestrian easement. As you can see from the Parcel Map, the easement runs southerly between Parcels 1 and 2, and then easterly along the south side of Parcel 2 where it dead ends. As the Assessor's Map shows, there is no "feeder trail" nearby for this easement to connect into. Because the lots all around Parcel 2 have already been developed, the easement will never be used for its intended purpose. The improvement of this easement would not only be a waste of time and money, but would create other problems as well. Our first concern is for the alley that would be created with the improvement of the easement. At our previous home, we had just such a problem. Because the trail was never used for equestrian purposes, it became an alley for drug use, graffiti, and neighborhood crime. Chino Police officers had to walk the trail regularly. Although the developer planned for the equestrian trail to be an asset to the neighborhood, it soon proved otherwise. The homeowners finally had the easement vacated and the trails were closed off completely. Our other concern is for proper drainage of water off the lot. Our engineer discovered that a drainage problem would occur with the development of the equestrian easement. He has since ceased work on our grading plan until the issue of the easement is resolved. We understand and agree that equestrian trails are an asset to the community in preserving the rural character in Alta Loma. However, this particular easement serves no function and can, in fact, foster crime. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "C" Enclosed are the notafized signatures from all property owners of legal record for Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 8587. We respectfully request that you review this matter and agree to vacate this easement. Sincerely, Victor and Lori Phillips Parcel 1 James McKenney Patricia McKenney Parcel 2 Victor M. Phillips Loft Jane Phillips TRAILS ADV!SOR~ COMMI'rXr~ COMiMENT SF~X August 19, 1992 Recues~ to delete ecuestrian trail easement at 103~ Ranchc Road. Staff has received a written request ~o delete the equestrian trail easement on the east side of 10313 .~ancho Street. The parcel is located south of Hillside Road, east of Mayberry Avenue and is a portion of Parcel Map 8587. The applicant is considering purchasing the parcel to the east (10329 Rancho Road) and wishes to landscape the two lots as one unit and to eventually construct a .cuest house on the vacant parcel. S~aff does not support the applicants request as it would c~eate a disjointed, illogical trail easement along the south property line of the second parcel. However, if the applicant proposes to relocate the easement along the south property line of Parcel One, staff could support this concept since it would create one long continuous trail se.Tment. Staff Planner: Beverly Nissen Attachments: Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Parcel Map ACTION: The Committee did not support the req-aest for ~acation of the easement as presented, however, they ~ugqested that the trail eas~nt could be relocated as follows: 10 feet on the east side of Parcel 2 and 15 feet on the north side of Parcel 2. The location of the eas~nt in this location would provide equestrian access for five lots and eliminate the potion of the eas~-~nt which bisects Parcels ~ and 2- If it is still the o~-ner's desire to pursue ab~ndom-~nt, staff will explain the proper procedures. Exhibit "D" po,. I p.,. : R3bX3-O ? ?. > ..... "=' ~ ~ ~ ,,..~ TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENT SHEET May 22, 1996 II. NEW BUSINESS: A. PARCEL MAP 8587 AMENDMENT - PHILLIPS - A request to delete the equestrian easements at 10329 Rancho Street. Backaround: In 1992, the property owner to the west requested deletion of the north- south equestrian easement between 10313 and 10329 Rancho Street. The Trails Advisory Committee did not support the request and instead recommended shifting the trails to the west property line of 10329 Rancho Street (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant did not pursue the matter further. Context: This is the only undeveloped lot with this block. The subject trail easements do not connect with other trails because there are no equestrian trails on adjoining lots (see Exhibit "B"). The nearest local feeder trails are approximately 400 feet away. Analysis: The City's goal is to establish a system of interconnected trails for the use and enjoyment of residents. The subject easements are "local feeder' trails which are intended to provide access from the rear of the lot to the public Community Trails. However. in this case staff believes the following facts support the proposed amendment: 1. The trails are isolated and would provide trail access to one other lot. The construction of the trails would only serve to perpetuate a fragmented trail system contrary to the General Plan goals to establish an interconnected trail system. 2. The trails will not Contribute to completion of a logical local feeder trail system in this area. The local trail system will not be expanded in this neighborhood because all other properties are developed. 3. The trails do not connect to the Community Trail or Regional Trail system. Staff Planner: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - August 19, 1992 Trails Advisory Committee Action Exhibit "B" - Trail System Map Exhibit "C" - Letter from Applicant ACTION: Approved as proposed by applicant. EXHIBIT "E" RESOLUTION NO. 84-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 8587 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8587) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MAYBERRY AVENUE AND RANCHO STREET WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8587, submitted by James Previti, and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the southeast corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street, being a division of Parcel 3 and the North 12.00 feet of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 3574 as recorded in Book 36, Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 1984, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3.That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on September 26, 1984. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8587 is approved subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto. EXHIBIT "F" APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984. PLANNIN MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA nni s'l_./S~out3/ChaH rman De Y'; "'~./'~//"' ~ , . . ATTEST: Rick/Gomez/Deputy Secretary I, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOCATION: SQUtheast corner of Mayberry TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8587 Avenue and RanChQ Street DATE FILED: 8/2/84 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A diviSiOn of Pa~cel 3 NUMBER OF LOTS: and.the North 12.00 fret of Parcel 4 of GROSS ACREAGE: 1.04 Parcel MaD 3574 as recorded in Book 36. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 201-111-35 Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR James Previti Same Linville-Sanderson 10313 Rancho Street 9587 Arrow Route. Ste H Rancho Cucamonqa. CA 91701 Rancho CucamonQa. CA 91730 Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited to, the following: DediCatiOnS and Vehicular Access 1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be'made of the following rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on 3. Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards. 4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated as follows: 5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C. &R.s and shall be recorded concurrent with the map. 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City engineer's requirements. 7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. Surety X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the · ' satisfaction of the City Engineer and Cit3r Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to building permit issuance for Parcel 2. 2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map for the following: 3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and "Safety Division prior to recording for and/or prior to issuance of building permit for Street Im6rovements Pursuant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section 16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map and/or building permit issuance. 1. Construct full street improvements, including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets. 2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half- section streets. X 3. Construct the following missing improvements: Prior to building permit issuance for Parcel 2 Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street A.C. Median Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk ADDr. Trees Liqhts 0vetlay Island* Other RanchO X X X * Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office. In addition to any other permits required. X 5. Street improvement plans shall be Peviewed by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of an encroachment permit. 6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 7. Existing lines of 12KV or less fronting the property shall be undergrounded. 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and markings with locations and types approved by the City Engineer. X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the · Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with underground service. lO. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permit. ll. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. DrainaGe and Flood Control 1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review. 5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be constructed to detain increased runoff - 3 - Gradinq X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices, The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the-approved conceptual grading plan, x 2· A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior to issuance of building permit. 3, A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application or grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of building permit whichever comes first. X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the · Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of building permit. General Reouirements and AoOrOvalS X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: CalTrans for San Bernardino County Flood Control District X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water __San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to issuance of a grading permit) Other 2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.s) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation of the map, x 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage. water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street construction. X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District Standards· A letter of acceptance is required. 5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from GaITtans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved~ Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. - 4 - X 7. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing, X 8. Local trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths. maximum slopes. physical conditions. fencing and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards. shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for Parcel 1 and prior to building permit issuance for Parcel 2. 9. Prior to recording. a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment Distridt 82-1 among the newly created parcels. X lO. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Title Report. traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or showing original land division. the notes and bench marks · referenced. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 8587 BY DELETING THE CONDITION TO IMPROVE THE LOCAL TRAIL AT 10329 RANCHO STREET, LOCATED EAST OF MAYBERRY AVENUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-291-11 AND 12. A, Recitals 1. On September 26, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 84-105, conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8587, providing for the development of two single family lots. 2. On April 9, 1996, an application was filed by Ms. Lori Jane Phillips requesting a modification to the conditions of approval by deleting the requirement for the improvement of a local trail upon development of Parcel 2. 3. On June 26, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. 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 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 June 26, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. Condition No. 8, under the heading General Requirements and Approvals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 84-105 reads as follows: "Local trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation for Parcel 1 and prior to building permit issuance for Parcel 2." b. The trail is isolated and would provide trail access to only one other lot. The construction of the trial would only serve to perpetuate a fragmented trial system contrary to the General Plan's goal to establish an interconnected trail system. c. The tdal would not contribute to completidn of a logical local feeder trail system in this area. The local trail system would not be expanded in this neighborhood because all other PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PARCEL MAP 8587- PHILLIPS June.26, 1996 Page 2 d. The proposed trail does not connect to the Community Trail or Regional Trail system. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the applicant's request to delete Condition No. 8, under the heading General Requirements and Approvals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 84-105. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, 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 26th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 26, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 96-08 - ROBERT B. LAGNESS - A request to vary the rear lot height, rear lot building coverage, and guest house size regulations of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code to allow for the construction of a combination residential garage and guest house of 3,231 square feet, 26 feet high, 7 ¼ feet from the side property line, and 5 feet from the rear property line in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at 13355 Victoria Street - APN: 227-141-52 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Rec~uested: Approval of variances to reduce the rear yard two-story setback, reduce the rear yard coverage, and exceed the guest house size limitation. B. Surroundino Land Use and Zonina: North - Single family house, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Single family house, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West Single family house, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) D. Site Characteristics: The site slopes gently to the south and is currently developed with a single family residence (one-story) and some contractor storage activity. The site is located just east of the intersection of Victoria Street and East Avenue. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed garage/guest house structure does not comply with the following development standards: 1. The proposed 25-foot structure exceeds the -16-foot height limit within the rear lot area (Development Code Section 17.08.060A. 1 .a). ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-08- ROBERT B. LAGNESS June 26,1996 Page 2 2. The structure exceeds the 30 percent coverage limit'within the 25-foot rear lot area by 73 square feet, a coverage of 33.3 percent (Development Code Section 17.08.060A. 1 .b). 3. At 1,408 square feet, the second floor area significantly exceeds the 640 square foot maximum for a guest house (Development Code Section 17.02.140 - Definitions). The floor plan has a single function layout (i.e., needing to go through other rooms to get to the "guest room") and so the entire second floor is considered to be a guest house. B. Site Constraints: The lot is 14,685 square feet (85 feet by 165 feet), is rectangular shaped, typical of those lots on the south side of Victoria Street, and far exceeds the minimum lot requirements for the district. In reviewing the request, staff cannot find any unusual constraints (configuration or topography) to justify the granting of the variance. The applicant has stated to staff that he wishes to locate the structure as proposed in order to keep as much of the rear yard area open to allow for a view to the south and the prevailing winds into the backyard. Also, the applicant advised staff that the proposed location would avoid the removal of improvements (landscaping and irrigation system) presently in-place in the backyard. C. Characteristics of the Surroundino Neiohborhood: The developed lots along the south side of Victoria Street have single family houses similar to the subject site. Some have two stories that are in conformance with the required allowable setbacks. The rear property line abuts a very large undeveloped parcel that is within the same distdct and it should be expected that this property will be developed with single family lots. No project has been submitted for that parcel and none is anticipated in the near future. D. Environmental: The subject application is exempt from environmental review as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15303. FACTS FOR FINDING: In order to approve the proposed variance, the Planning Commission must make all of the following findings as provided in Development Code Section 17.04.040E. 1 (a-e): A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation 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 propedies in the same zone. 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 zone. D. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. E. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health. safety, or welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-08- ROBERT B. LAGNESS June 26,1996 Page 3 Based on the information contained in this repod, staff does r~ot believe the facts are evident to make any of the requisite findings. The height emphasizing features of the west elevation (gables with tail windows) will make the structure all the more intrusive to the adjacent properties. Further, staff believes that there is more than enough space elsewhere in the backyard to construct a similar structure within the height, coverage, and setback restrictions. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance 96-08 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. Respectfull bmitted Iler BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Justification Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Location Map Resolution of Denial Robert Lagmass Justification of Variance: Applicant is asking for approval for this garage/workshop, guest house. The lower floor to accomodate and R..V. garage with a workshop and storage area. His existing home has a two car garage and is not adequate for his vehicles and restoring a vintage automobile. The lot is 'located in a rural area with numerous neighbors having two story homes, old two story farm houses and a numerous array of utility structures. The guest house is to be used only for out of town guests or possibly in the future for their aged parents. Exterior materials, textures and colors will be in keeping with adjacent structures. Robert Lagmess Project Description Proposed 2 story combination garage/workshop on first floor with recreation and guest house on 2nd floor. First floor dimensions approximate 49 ft. X 37 ft. = 1,813 sq. ft. Second floor dimensions 28'-9" X 49 ft. = 1,408 sq. ft. ~terials to be comparable with existing single story residence, stucco exterior with composition shingle roof. To allow for an r.v. garage a first floor height of 12 ft. with a 2nd floor height of 8 ft. with a total height from existing grade of 26 ft. (see attached drawings). Residence roof is in need of re-shingling and will be done at time of new garage. P/J/IS rr-%4// EEl FF1 /<_ ITI ['1113 .........III ITI ........." ,1'1'1 " ........... ,,,5 .: ~. i" · {,- :. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 96-08, A REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT WITHIN THE REAR YARD, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM REAR LOT COVERAGE, AND EXCEED THE GUEST HOUSE SIZE LIMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO-STORY GARAGE/GUEST HOUSE, LOCATED AT 13355 VICTORIA STREET WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 227-141-52. A. Recitals, 1. Robert B. Lagness has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-08 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of June 1996, 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, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 26, 1996, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a rectangular shaped property located at 13355 Victoria Street with a street frontage of 89 feet and lot depth of 165 feet and is presently improved with a single-story residence; and b. The properties to the north, east, and west of the subject site are designated for single family residential uses and are developed with one house each; the properly to the south is vacant and is designated for single family residential use; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a two-story garage and guest house with a total height of 26 feet; and d. The applicant is proposing to locate the structure 5 feet from the rear property line and 7% feet from the west properly line contrary to the Development Code that does not authorize any structures exceeding 16 feet in the rear 25 feet of the lot, and contrary to the required 25-foot rear yard setback for two-story structures; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-08-LAGNESS June 26,1996 Page 2 e. The proposed structure is to occupy 33.3 percent of the rear lot area contrary to the Development Code limitation of a maximum 30 percent rear lot coverage; and f. The proposed second floor guest house area occupies 1,408 square feet contrary to the Development Code that establishes, by definition, a 640 square foot maximum area for a guest house; and g. No evidence was presented by the applicant, or on behalf of the applicant, to support the granting of the subject Variance request. 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 not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. b. That there are not 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 stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propedies classified in the same district. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-08-LAGNESS June 26, 1996 Page 3 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 26th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 26, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director BY: Bill Makshanoff, Building Official SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code pedaining to the addition of property maintenance standards for landscaping. BACKGROUND: In February 1996, following testimony from several concerned citizens, staff was directed by the City Council to develop new language in the Municipal Code pertaining to property maintenance standards for landscaping in residential areas. The attached resolution and ordinance with the amended language addressing those concerns is being submitted to the Planning Commission for review. This language was developed by an ad hoc committee made up of two City Council Members, members of the community, and staff. The language has also been reviewed by the City Attorneys office. ANALYSIS: Currently the Municipal Code does not require landscaping in residential developments. This has created problems for Code Enforcement when complaints have been received regarding lack of landscape maintenance. The language proposed in the attached ordinance. when adopted into the Municipal Code, will address these problems by requiring landscaping in front, side, and rear yards visible from a public right-of-way and maintenance of that landscaping by the property owner. The proposed language was written in a manner that does not require a specific type of landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment 96-03. Re u~mitted]n Riik Gomez C ' elopm t Director R :WNM:II Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Development Code Section 17.08.070.B Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 96-03 ITEM C Rancho CucamonS'a Development Code Section 17. 08.060 Section 17.08.070 - General Provisions A. Siqns. In all residential districts, signs shall be subject to the provisions of Title 14 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. · B· Property Maintenance. All buildings, structures, yards, and other improvements shall be maintained in a manner which does not detract from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood. The following conditions are prohibited. 1. Dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures, such as: fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows. 2. Scrap lumber, junk, trash, or debris· 3. Abandoned, discarded, or unused objects or equipment, such as automobiles, automobile parts, furniture, stoves, refrigerators, cans, containers, or similar items. 4. Stagnant water or excavations, including pools or spas. 5. Any device, decoration, design, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or its inappropriate location. 6. Front, side, or rear yards visible from an abutting street or alley which lack substantial landscaping. 17.08-40 3/96 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-03, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.08.070B TO ADD PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPING, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. 96-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 26th day of June 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducled 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, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 26, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment. 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 I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the city, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives Of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 96-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 26, 1996 Page 2 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment 96-03 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATi'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary 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 26th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAPPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-03, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.08.070B ADDING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPING. A.. Recitals. 1. On June 26, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Development Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution , recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt these amendments. 2. On July ,1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly-noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Development Code. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that the subject amendment identified in this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. Section 17.08.070B of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection 17.08.070B.6., to be read, in words and figures, as follows: "6. Front, side, or rear yards visible from an abutting street or alley which lack substantial landscaping." SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a_newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.