Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-124 - ResolutionsRESOLUTION NOT APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 95-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-46, A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GAS STATION AND MINI-MARKET IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-192-06 AND 07. A. Recitals. 1. Art and Diana Flores have filed an application for a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 93-46, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 27, 1994, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 93-46, subject to certain conditions, through adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-67. 3. On August 23, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. After receiving all public testimony, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. 4. On September 13, 1995, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 95- 39, denying the application. 5. On September 5, 1995, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision within the time limits prescribed by law. 6. On September 20, 1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. Resolution No. 95-124 Page 2 RESOLUTION NOT APPROVED 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public headng on September 20, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a street frontage of 140 feet along Foothill Boulevard and 155 feet along Vineyard Avenue and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and is developed with a retail center. The property to the south is designated for residential uses and is developed with a residential condominium project. The property to the east is designated for commercial uses and is developed with a liquor store. The property to the west is designated for commercial uses and is vacant; and c. The development of the gas station and mini-market is consistent with the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Commercial designation of the General Plan; and d. The original application, together with the attached conditions of approval, complies with the standards of the Development Code. Elimination of the frontage improvements across the Red Hill Liquor Store site will result in a project not meeting the requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. b. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the application. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to Art and Diane Flores that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Art and Diane Flores at the address identified in City records.