The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-08 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2004-01285 FOR REQUESTS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DEPTH OF LOT 10 FROM 200 FEET TO 180 FEET TO ALLOW LOT 11 TO HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG ETIWANDA AVENUE AND TO ALLOW LOT 12 TO ALSO HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG ETIWANDA AVENUE AND A REDUCED MINIMUM WIDTH FROM 90 FEET TO 75 FEET IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, NORTH OF THE 1-210 FREEWAY - APN: 0225-171-19. A. Recitals. 1. Steve Schapel on behalf of Etco Development, Inc.filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2004-01285, as described in the title of this Resolution, in conjunction with their application for approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16867. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 1. On January 11 and on January 25,2006,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. 2. 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 January 11 and January 25, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located west of Etiwanda Avenue, immediately north of the 1-210 Freeway, with a street frontage of approximately 302 feet and lot depth of 1,120 feet, and is presently vacant; and b. The properties to the north and west are developed with single-family residences, the property to the south consists of the 1-210 Freeway,the property to the east is Etiwanda Avenue; and C. The Variance is related to proposed project Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16867 for 12 parcels; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-08 DRC2004-01285— ETCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. January 25, 2006 Page 2 d. The proposed lots range in size from 20,079 to 38,267 square feet,with an average lot size of 25,416 square feet. The Etiwanda Specific Plan standard is minimum 20,000 square feet and an average of 25,000 square feet. The properties to the north, east, and west are developed with single-family residences and are approximately 20,000 to 25,000 square feet in lot area. e. Per Traffic Engineering requirements,the proposed extension of Vintage Drive will require alignment with Arapaho Road; and f. The alignment would reduce the minimum depth of Lot 10 from 200 feet to 180 feet, require Lot 11 to have frontage along Etiwanda Avenue, and would require Lot 12 to also have frontage along Etiwanda Avenue and a reduced minimum width from 90 feet to 75 feet. g. This development is unique because the property is a remnant parcel of excess right-of-way left over after construction of the 1-210 Freeway and Vintage Drive is one of the few streets in surrounding developments that will align with an opposing street (Arapaho Road). The Vintage Drive alignment with Arapaho Road creates three lots with nonconforming dimensions. h. The property abuts Etiwanda Avenue, classified as a Secondary Street in the General Plan and is approximately 70 feet from the 1-210 Freeway; therefore, the project site is subject to noise levels that exceed the City's standards. The acoustical analysis indicates the need for sound attenuation walls up to 14 feet, plus acoustic upgrades in the future homes to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. i. The application proposes the construction of a sound wall up to 14 feet high along the 1-210 Freeway to reduce traffic noise to below City standards for residential. There are existing freeway sound walls up to 16 feet along the 1-210 Freeway. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-08 DRC2004-01285 – ETCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. January 25, 2006 Page 3 4. 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. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2) For Lots 10, 11, and 12, the developer shall provide each prospective buyer written disclosure of this Variance, and that additional Variances may be necessary to develop these lots. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2006. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 12Z —' Rich Macias, Vice Chair an ATTEST: Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary 1, 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 25th day of January 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STEWART