HomeMy WebLinkAbout492 - Ordinances - No action NO ACTION
CS)INANCE NO. 492
(i) U.S. Pkee Corporatim 1~-~ filed an application for Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment No. 89-03 as described in the title of this Ordinance.
referred to as "the applicati~l."
(ii) On December 11, and conti/Kled to ~ 17, 1991, arr]
Ja~m~y 8, 1992, the Pla~in~ ~ic~l of the City of Rarrho Oacs~3rr3a
conducted duly noticed public hearings c~ the application. Following the
cc~clusic~ of said public hearings, the Planning Ccemissic~ adopted its
Resolutic~ No. 92-07 c~ January 22, 1992, thereby r~_i ...... ra{ng that the City
Council adopt Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 8903.
(iii) On March 18, 1992, the City Council of the City of ~
Oranrnga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. At that
meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare an Ors~nance of Approval
for the application for the April 1, 1992, ____meqtir~.
(iv) On April 1, 1992, the City Cot~lcil of the City of Rarrho
(v) All legal prerequisites prior to the ~ion of this Ordinance
B. Ordinance.
NOW, ~uME, the City Council of the City of Pancho (lEamonga does
hereby ordain as follows:
1. ~ Oouncil hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ord]aalre are true and correct.
the above-referenced public hearings on March 18 and April 1, 1992, including
here~ specifically finds as follows:
(a) ~he application applies to properties located south and
east of the Devore Freeway in the low-Medium Residential Develc[mBnt District
within the area governed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
Ordinance No. 492
Page2
(b) ~-~ amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for develoEmm~c, within the district, in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related develop; and
(c) ~is~doespruzYcethegoa~sandobjectivesofthe
Tand Use Elemmt; and
(d) ~ amendment w~uld not ~e materially injurious or
detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact
listed in Part II of the Initial Study; and
(e) ~ amendment will continue to maintain the basic goals
and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by prcer~ing larger lot single
district of the Development Code; and
(f) Ikis amendment will continue to promote densities at the
lower end of the density ranges for the Low-Medium Residential District, as is
theintentoftheBasicDevelor~m~Standards; and
(g) ~b~-~ amendment will provide a logical transitira of lot
sizes for whidl the Devo~e Freeway acts as a logical barrier; and
(h) ~fis ~m~ent win si~i~ fit~e msU~ ph. ni~ f=
parcels zoned Low-Medium Residential which are adjacent to the applicant's
pz~ and will minimize the chances fur land use cc~[licts internal to this
develo~ district by not enccuraging adjacent projects to have different
average lot sizes.
d~i~ Um ~v~r~e~m~d rubric h~ri~ a~ umn Um ~mcific findin~ of
facts set fcrth in paragl~_~_mhs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) ~bat the pr~ applicatic~ prceotes the goals and
policies of the Etiwarrla Specific Plan; and
(b) ~hat the proposed amendment would ~ot have significant
(c) ~at the proposed amendment is in co.f~nce with the
General Plan.
4. ~ Council specifically finds and determ~-~ that a Negative
Declaratim for this [=oject has been prepared in ~mpliance with the
C~nia Envirc~M~al Qu~ity Act of ~970, M amex~d, and the guide~i~s
prueulgated therezxler, and, further, this Council finds and determines that,
besed upon the firaixr3s set forth in per~ 1, 2, and 3 above, that no
~ No. 492
~ge3
5. ~bi-~ ORFEil finds that the facts su~ the abo~-st~cified
findirr~ are cuntained in the Negative Declarati~, the staff re~rt, and
bearing; and therefore, this Council hereby authurizes the i~z,~_nD,~_ of a
6. Based upon the find/rigs and cc~clusicrs set forth in [~rBgra~hs
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, tb~-~ Council hereby ordains that the City Oouncil of
the City of Panaho ~ hereby appm~s Etiwanda ~ecific Plan ~
NO. 89-03 as attached in Emhibit "A."
7. ~he Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
in tba Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulatim
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Ordinarce 492
ER VL L LM M
Lot ,~rea:
minimum average 40,000 25,000 15,000 ~
(in square re=,t) 10,000
minimum 30,000 20,000 10,000 7,200 7,200
(in square feet)
Number of DU~j 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/7,200 1,/5,000
(per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot
square feet)
Lot Dimensions:
minimum depth 135' 135' 100' 100' 100'
minimum width 120' 90' 80' 60' 60'
(at required
front setbacl<)
minimum frontage 50' 40' 40' 40' 40'
(at front p.1.)
Setbacks:
front 40' 30' 25' 25' 25'
side (street) 25' 25' 15' 25' 25'
side 20/20 10/20 0*/20 0'/15 0*/15
Total 20' Total 15' Total 15'
rear 40' 30' 25' 20' 20'
Lot Coverage 20% 25 ~ 30% 40% 40%
(maximum %)
On-site Windrows1 100'/ae 50'/at N/R N/R N/R
(in lin. feet/ac)
Street~ide N/R Required Required Required Required
(prior to occupancy)2
Height Limitationm 35' 35' 35' 35' 35'
* O lot line not to be used at project boundar
1 Existing lots of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from this requirement.
2 Custom lot subdivisions may be exempted 6tom th~s requirement.
BASIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2