The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-15 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00957, A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 4 CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL UNITS, TO INCLUDE TWO DUPLEX BUILDINGS, ON .59 NET ACRE OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND HELLMAN AVENUE, IN RESPONSE TO AN APPEAL OF A CITY PLANNER DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE SAME REQUEST; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0201-474-10. A. Recitals. 1. George Jaber filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2003-00957 as described in the title of this Resolution, on September 25, 2003. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff reviewed the submitted application to determine if the application was complete in October 2003, and determined that the application was incomplete. The applicant was sent a notice of this determination. 3. The applicant responded on March 29, 2004, by providing a re-submittal for review to determine if the revised application was complete. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff determined that the revised application was incomplete. The applicant was sent a notice of this determination. 4. The applicant responded on September 20, 2004, by providing a re-submittal for review to determine if the revised application was complete. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff determined that the revised application was incomplete. The applicant was sent a notice of this determination. 5. The applicant responded on March 24, 2005, by providing a re-submittal for review to determine if the revised application was complete. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff determined that the revised application was incomplete. The applicant was sent a notice of this determination on April 21, 2005. 6. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department received no revised plans, nor any communication from the applicant or his representatives for over nine months after the last notice was sent. 7. Consequently, and in accordance with Section 17.04.020.6 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC), the City Planner issued a letter dated January 23, 2006, notifying the applicant that the application had been denied without prejudice to the applicant's right to re-apply for the same permit. The applicant was also informed of the appeal rights associated with the denial. 8. On January 30, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal of the City Planner decision with the Planning Commission secretary within the ten day appeal period. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 CONSIDERATION OR APPEAL FOR DRC2003-00957—AYAD JABER March 8, 2006 Page 2 9. On the 8th day of March 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a hearing on the appeal from the City Planner decision and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. 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 hearing of the appeal on March 8, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the northeast corner of Hellman Avenue and 19th Street with a street frontage of 130 feet and lot depth of 199 feet; and b. The application was found to be incomplete on all four of the opportunities given to review it; and C. The applicant allowed the 60-day time limit to respond to lapse on all four occasions; and d. The applicant had no contact with the Planning Department afterthe fourth letter of incompleteness was sent; and e. In accordance with Section 17.04.020.B.a of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the following Information,which is to be supplied by the applicant and is necessary to prepare a legally adequate environmental document, was not received as a part of the most recent re-submittal package and amount to an applicable reason for denial of the application: Noise Study—Revise the Site Plan to include the mitigation measures recommended in the noise study. The sound walls described in the acoustical mitigation measures are 6 feet high —the walls on the Site Plan are 3 feet high. If the mitigation measures create a condition that does not meet the development standards, alternate measures must be presented by the acoustical engineer or the project should be modified to meet the development standards. f. In accordance with Section 17.04.020.B.c of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the following information,without which the City's decision to approve a project would not be supported by substantial evidence, was not received as a part of the most recent re-submittal package and amount to an applicable reason for denial of the application: i. Supplemental Notice Requirements— For infill projects, the following items are required as described on the attached "Filing Procedures For Supplemental Notice Requirements:" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 CONSIDERATION OR APPEAL FOR DRC2003-00957 —AYAD JABER March 8, 2006 Page 3 Large 4-foot by 8-foot Notification Sign(s) shall be posted on-site. Although a Sign Permit was obtained,the sign erected at this site does not have the correct information on it. It says there is a"Proposed New Single-Family Residence"to be built there. Also, the general condition of the sign (falling over and tagged with graffiti) should be remedied. ii. Tentative Parcel Map and application fee must be submitted to create condominium ownership as requested. iii. Site Plan—The provided summary table on the Site Plan does not calculate correctly(e.g., Private Open Space[POS] and Common Open Space[COS]less the COS results in noncompliant POS) and does not seem to match the plan. Provide clear dimensional verification of compliance on the Site Plan and expanded data on the chart. iv. Conceptual Landscape Plan — The provided Conceptual Landscape Plan does not include the heritage tree replacement as described in the Tree Report of January 25,2005. Correct per replacement ratio in the report. V. Variance Request(DRC2004-00317)—Three variances are required based upon the most recent Site Plan layout: 1) reduction of streetscape building setback from 45 feet to 39 feet along 19th Street frontage, 2) reduction of interior site boundary building setback from 15 feet to 10 feet, and 3) reduction in landscape and wall setbackfrom required 35 feet average/25 feet minimum to 21 to 22 feet along both street frontages. Your justification letter must address each variance separately. Neither the Variance application form nor the Variance justification letter state the nature of the Variance requested. A detailed description of the request is required. A separate plan and/or elevation exhibit would assist in the description. The justification for the Variance is generally weak and lacking in any details, and may not provide sufficient findings for the request to be granted. vi. A 1 st floor Floor Plan drawing (at same scale as the 2nd floor Floor Plan)was not provided in the drawing set for review. vii. The Detailed Site Plan and Conceptual Grading Plan shall include typical street sections. viii. The Conceptual Grading Plan shall include cross sections at all site boundaries (minimum and maximum conditions); shade pavements areas and slopes 3:1 or steeper. Indicate elevations of existing conditions on adjacent properties. ix. The drive approach on Hellman Avenue shall be per City Standard 101,type C (commercial type). The radius"R"of the curb return shall equal the distance from the curb face to the near edge of the sidewalk with a minimum of 6.5 feet and a maximum of 20 feet. X. Submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that follows current WQMP templates/guidance and regulations set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Access the following website for an updated San Bernardino County WQMP for New Development and Redevelopment Projects: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb8/html/sb_wqmp.html. This site provides Guidance and Templates that can be filled out electronically and printed. Adhere to these guidelines and use the templates provided. Also, include the Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the plan on Grading Plans when submitted for plan check. xi. Fire District fee is due. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-15 CONSIDERATION OR APPEAL FOR DRC2003-00957 —AYAD JABER March 8, 2006 Page 4 xii. Proof of the available fire flow must be submitted. xiii. Fire Department access is not acceptable as submitted. xiv. Reciprocal agreements are required for fire department access and water supply. g. The City Planner made no error in denying the application under the provisions of Section 17.04.020.6 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced hearing on the appeal 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 Development Review DRC2003-00957 application is determined to be incomplete; and b. The applicant failed to respond to the determination and that the application was incomplete within the requisite 60 days; and C. Development Review application DRC2003-00957 was correctly denied by the City Planner without prejudice to the applicant's right to reapply for the same permit. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby sustains the decision of the City Planner as set forth in his letter of January 23, 2006, to deny without prejudice to the applicant's right to re-apply for the same permit. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2006. PLANNIN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: 'i, Pam to art, Chairman ATTEST: / Dan Coleman, Acting 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 8th day of March 2006, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MACIAS, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: