Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-104 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 00-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-11 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS ALLOWED LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141-11 AND 12 A. RECITALS. 1. Ryland Homes has filed an application for the approval of Variance No. 99- 11, 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 14`h day of October 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting and approved Tentative Tracts 15911 and 15912, which are the sites of the current application. 3. On the 12`h day of April 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was appealed in a timely manner to this Council. 5. On June 7 and continued to June 21, July 5, and July 19, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 6. 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. 00-104 Page 2 of 8 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 7, and continued to June 21, July 5, and July 19, 2000, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-32, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property on both sides of East Avenue on the north and south sides of an abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way with a street frontage of 1,240 feet on East Avenue and lot depth of 600 to 1,300 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single-family homes, the property to the south consists of vacant land and the 1-15 Freeway, the property to the east is vacant and the 1-15 Freeway, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with single-family homes; and c. The increase in wall height is necessary to reduce noise from the 1-15 Freeway to an acceptable level for residential development; and d. The visual impact of the increase in wall height will be mitigated by providing a two-tone color scheme and decorative wall material. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 7, June 21, July 5, and July 19, 2000, including, but not limited to, written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-32, and together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows with reference to points raised by the appellant: a. That it would be infeasible for the developer to provide a buffer zone with berms and trees to control freeway noise because the extreme width of such a buffer zone would preclude development of the site consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan permitted land uses; and b. While high walls proposed within the development may cause large shadow areas, these areas only impact homes within the project and any impact is offset by the noise attenuation function of the walls; and c. It is feasible to design and engineer walls high enough to effectively mitigate freeway noise; and d. The walls are designed with decorative masonry and include vine pockets with provisions for vine planting to grow onto the outside of the walls; and e. The use of higher than normal walls has already been established as precedence for freeway noise mitigation elsewhere in the community; Resolution No. 00-104 Page 3 of 8 f. The developer has agreed to explore options to the sound wall location including locating the sound wall within the Caltrans, 1-15 Freeway right-of-way. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 7, and continued to June 21, July 5, and July 19, 2000, and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code in that the only alternative to mitigate freeway noise without exceeding the 6-foot wall height limit would be to construct very high earthen berms which would severely limit the site area available for residential development. 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 properties in the same district in that the site is located adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway which generates substantial traffic noise. Freeway noise must be reduced to acceptable levels in order to permit residential development of the site consistent with noise thresholds established by the General Plan and the Development Code. 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 district in that compliance with the foot height limit would preclude the site from being developed in concert with the permitted land uses due to excessive freeway noise. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district in that most other properties in the district are not equally impacted by the 1-15 Freeway noise. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that for the most part the walls will not be completely visible to the public and the walls will have a two-tone color scheme with split faced and fluted block to soften their appearance. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to pursue other solutions to the wall location including locating the wall within Caltrans 1-15 Freeway right-of-way. Resolution No. 00-104 Page 4 of 8 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal, upholds the action of the Planning Commission, and approves the application subject to all conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 00-32, attached hereto and the following additional conditions: 7. The developer shall work with City staff to explore options to the 21- foot high sound wall which will have a lesser aesthetic impact, including but not limited to, locating the wall within the Caltrans 1-15 Freeway right-of-way. 2. Building permits shall not be issued for the wall until the matter of the wall location is resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council. 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 Carlos Garda with Ryland Homes and James Banks, at the addresses identified in City records. Please see the following page for formal adoption,certification and signatures Resolution No. 00-104 Page 5 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of July 2000. AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Ll.Q William J. Al ander, Mayor ATTEST: D bra J. Ad", CMC, 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 Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 19'h day of July 2000. Executed this 20th day of July 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Alu /I C/s� Debra J. Ada MC, City Clerk Resolution No. 00-104 Page 6 of 8 RESOLUTION NO.00-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 99-11 TO ALLOW WALLS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 21 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FREEWAY NOISE MITIGATION PURPOSES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET IS ALLOWED LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF EAST AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-05 AND 227-141-11 AND 12. A. Recitals. 1. Ryland Homes has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 99-11 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 12th day of April 2000, 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, 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 April 12, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on both sides of East Avenue on the north and south sides of abandoned railroad right-of-way with a street frontage of 1,240 feet on East Avenue and lot depth of 600 to 1,300 feet and is presently vacant;and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and developed with single family homes,the property to the south consists of vacant land and the 1-15 Freeway,the property to the east is vacant and the 1-15 Freeway, and the property to the west is vacant and developed with single family homes; and C. The increase in wall height is necessary to reduce noise from the 1-15 Freeway to an acceptable level for residential development;and d. The visual impact of the increase in wall height will be mitigated by providing a two- tone color scheme and decorative wall material. Resolution No. 00-104 Page 7 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.00-32 VAR 99-11 - RYLAND HOMES April 12,2000 Page 2 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 result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code in that the only alternative to mitigate freeway noise without exceeding the six foot wall height limit would be to construct very high earthen berms which would severely limit the site area available for residential development. 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 properties in the same district in that the site is located adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway which generates substantial traffic noise. Freeway noise must be reduced to acceptable levels in order to permit residential development of the site consistent with noise thresholds established by the General Plan and the Development Code. 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 district in that compliance with the six foot height limit would preclude the site from being developed in concert with the permitted land uses due to excessive freeway noise. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district in that most other properties in the district are not equally impacted by the 1-15 Freeway noise. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health,safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity in that for the most part the walls will not be completely visible to the public and the walls will have a two-tone color scheme with split faced and fluted block to soften their appearance. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2,and 3 above,this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: a) Provide a two-tone color scheme with the darker color on the base of the walls. Additionally use a split face/fluted block design along with a vine planting at the base to mitigate visual impact of excessively high walls along the south and east boundaries of the Tract 15911 site. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2000. PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r I Lar V. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Br ull , SeckiELV Resolution No. 00-104 Page 8 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 00-32 VAR 99-11 - RYLAND HOMES April 12, 2000 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 12th day of April 2000, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART,TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE