Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-86 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 05-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2005-00527 TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ABOVE THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL IN EXCESS OF THE 3-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT ON-SITE FOR THE PROPOSED ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE NEW COUNTRY CLUB FACILITY LOCATED AT 8358 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-101-03, 23, AND 35. A. Recitals. 1. Red Hill Country Club Inc. filed an application for Variance DRC2005-00527, as described in the title of this Resolution, in conjunction with the related Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00068. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 14th day of September 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing to consider 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 September 14, 2005, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: Variance for Building Height: Literal enforcement of the building height would not allow the height to exceed 30 feet from the finished grade. The 35,176 square foot building is located on 120 acres of open golf course property. Because of the tuck-under cart storage, pro shop, and maintenance facilities, a variance is necessary. The increased height is only visible on the west side of building which is not visible to the surrounding residents. The staff supports the incorporation of architectural towers, which include tile roofing and similar Tuscan architectural features to the as the main building. Because of the unique topography (8-15 percent slopes) and the preexisting surrounding conditions of the parking lot and golf course area, the request for a variance is necessary. 1. Finding: 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. Fact/s: There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to the majority of other properties. The proposed clubhouse would replace en existing clubhouse in the same location and in a similar size. The existing site conditions include a substantial slope in grade from northeast to southwest in PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-86 DRC2005-00527 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB September 14, 2005 Page 2 the clubhouse area. The property is not typical of the surrounding area,which is single-family hillside homes. The clubhouse is located within 120 acres of golf course and related uses. The literal interpretation would enforce regulations applicable to single-family homes, such as the 30-foot height limit, which is an unnecessary hardship for a 35,176 square foot golf course facility. 2. Finding: 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. Fact/s: The property is unique in that it is the only golf course in the City in a residential zone. The increased height is only visible on the west side of the building that is not visible to the surrounding residents. The height limit would enforce a residential requirement (30-foot maximum) on a building that is approximately 10 times the size of a single-family home in this area. 3. Finding: That the 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. Fact/s: The property is unique in its land use as a golf course/country club. The granting of a Variance would not constitute a granting of a special privilege and would not be inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same district. The properties in the surrounding area have extended wall heights and architectural elements which exceed the height limit of 30 feet. 4. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same district. Fact/s: The granting of the Variance for the increased building height will not be potentially materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. 5. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The clubhouse will be setback approximately 240 feet from nearest surrounding single-family residences; therefore, there will be no impact from the increased building height. Variance for Retaining Walls: Literal enforcement of the height limit for retaining walls would necessitate substantial reconstruction the property due to the presence of a grade differential that was created when the clubhouse was originally constructed. Enforcement of the wall height limit would necessitate a 2:1 or steeper slope and result in a reduction in parking spaces, contrary to the Development Code Requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-86 DRC2005-00527 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB September 14, 2005 Page 3 1. Finding: 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. Fact/s: There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to the majority of other properties. The existing site conditions include a substantial slope in grade from the northeast to the southwest in the clubhouse area. The project design uses this grade difference to "tuck-under" the lower level of the building which results in the need for retaining walls. The property is not typical of the surrounding area, which is single-family hillside homes. The clubhouse is located within 120 acres of golf course and related uses. The literal interpretation would enforce regulations applicable to single-family homes, such as the 3-foot retaining wall limit,which is an unnecessary hardship for a 35,176 square foot golf course facility. 2. Finding: 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. Fact/s: The property is unique in that it is the only golf course in the City in a residential zone. The increased retaining wall height is only visible from the west (golf course itself), and is not visible from the surrounding residences because of a greater than 200-foot setback, intervening clubhouse, landscaping, and other structures. Strict or literal interpretation of the wall height would also limit the height to 3 feet,forcing the applicant to delete the parking and reduce the size of the country club. 3. Finding: That the 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. Fact/s: The property is unique in its land use as a golf course/country club. The granting of a variance would not constitute a granting of a special privilege because the property is already being used for a golf course and a clubhouse. Many properties in the surrounding Red Hill . area have wall heights which exceed the height limit of 3 feet. 4. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same district. Fact/s: The granting of the variance for the increased building height will not be potentially materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. If the Variance were granted, only portions of the height of the wall would be a maximum of 12 feet. This is consistent with the Hillside Residential District, including infill properties, and surrounding properties which have received wall height variances. 5. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-86 DRC2005-00527 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB September 14, 2005 Page 4 Fact/s: The granting of the Variance would allow construction of a new clubhouse with associated parking and amenities to replace an existing clubhouse. The increased retaining wall height would not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 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. Planning Department 1) The retaining wall along the south portion of the property shall be made of a decorative stacked stone material, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 2) The project shall be developed consistent with the approved plans for Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00068 on file with the Planning Department. Any additional extension of the building height will require the applicant to submit an additional variance application, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2005. PLANNING C MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: - P to rt, Chair an ATTEST: / D oleman, Act' g Secretary I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 14th day of September 2005, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS