HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-317 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 89-317
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE~CITY OF.-R~CHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVI~
'NO.'~87-71,~' LOCATED AT '10807 'JERSEY BOULEVARD IN THE
'"MINIMUM IMPACT/HEAVY INDUSTRIAL' DISTRICT (SUBAREA'9)
'THE INDUSTRIAU SPECIFIC 'PL~ AND' MAKING FINDINGS' IN'
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-143-07, ~, 09 .........
A~ Recital's~
(i) Commercial Carriers has filed an application.for the approval of
Minor Development Review No. 87-71 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review
~equest. is referred to as "the ~pplication". "
(i~i') ' On the 26th of April'1989'; the Planning Commission of-the City
o'f Rancho Cucamonga conducted'a meeting on the application and continued said
meeting to May 10,'1989. ~'"
(iii) On ~y '10, -1989, 'the Pl~anning - Commiss4o'n' denied' the
application..
(iv) 'The Planning Co~miSsion's denial was~appealed to the City
Council'and on.June 21, 1989,'the City Council of the City of Ra'ncho"Cuca~nga
'conducted a duly noticed-public hearing on'the application.'-
~' ('v) 'Al'l legal prerequisites to the adoptid~'of this Resolution'have
occurred. .........
B. Resolution.
NOW~'THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of'Rancho Cucamonga does
h'ereby find, d~termine and resolve-as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, ofthis'Resolution are true and cor~ct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during
the' above-referenced meeting on June 21,. 1989; including, written and oral
st~ff reports, this Council hereby sp'ecificallY' finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 10807
Jersey Boulevard ~ith 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 park, the property to'the south of that'site consists of a
warehouse, the property to the east is vacant, and the property to t~e'west is
a warehouse; and
Resolution Noj 89Z317
Page 2
(c) The application applies' to a site that is currently
improved with an office building, warehouse building and parking lot and is
considered a..!,egal non-cQnforming lot; and
· ' (d) Municipal 'Code 'Seation 17.06~020B ~authoriZes the City
Planner to' impose'r6asonable'conditions updn a MinOr"Degelopment Review permit
approval, including reqoTr6~nt~' f6r''landscaping,' ~tre~t improvements,
regulation of veh'i6ular ingress, egress and traffic'~cir6ulation, ~stablishment
of development schedules or time limits for ~ePformance 'or completion; and
(e) Municipal Code Section 17.06.020JA states that the purpose
and intent of the Minor Development Review permit process is'to-'asSure'that
such limited project) comply with all applicable City Standards and
OrU, inanc~es;' and
" (f): The site pla'n . submittedl in' cbnjunction 'with 'the
application, does not meet the'Inddstri~l 'Specific Plan standard bfa 35-foot
average landscape setback and minimum 25-foot parking setback,, as measured
fro~ {be'Ultimate face of curb. Furtherj the site 'plah and existing chain
link ~ce' improve~ent~'do not'meet the Industrial Specific Plan ~tand~rds 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 driveway's' within
820 feet of street frontage. The City's access policy for arterial streets
spec'ifi~s th~at driveways 6n the same Side'of ~ street be spaceU no 1.ess than
300 'fe~t~'apa~t. "Thereforej'~nly two- driveways would be allowed on this
site. Further,~Uei~ewa~s should aligh with'driveways on th'e opposfte side of
the street or by off-setting a safe distance to avoid conflict.lng left-turn
mov~men'ts. The' City's ~a'ecess policy also 'requires th'e access be located a
minimum 100 feet from intersections.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to'-th'is Council
during the above-referenced meetings and upon the specific findings of facts
set ferth in paragraph~ 1 and 2'above, thi~ Council' hereby'finds and concludes
as follows:
..... (a) That th'e proposed project i~ not cohsistent with the
obje6tive~ of the General Plan~'and
.... (b) That the propose~ use ii~ not in accord with the objective
of the Inddstrial Specifi? Plan 'and the~pulrpose's. of the distfict in which the
site is ldcat~d; and
~' '(c) That'the propo~sed use i~ not in compliance with each of the
a.pp.li'cable~ provisions bf the Development Code;' ~nd
(d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will be detrimental .to the public, health, safety, or
welfalre,'.'or~ materially 'injUrious to properties ,dr i:provements in the
Resolution NoJ 89L317
Page 3
4~ Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1~ 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the application.
PASSED, APPROVEDj and ADOPTED this 19th day of July 1989.
AYES: Brown, Stout, Wright
NOES: Alexander
ABSENT: Buquet
Dennis L. Sto~t, M~yor
ATTEST:
D~bra J. Adam~ City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed,
approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho CucanDnga,
California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 19th day of
July, 1989.
Executed this 20th day of Julyj 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
D~bra J. Ada~6fs, City Clerk