HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-130 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 89-130
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO.
89-22, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY
AND GROVE AVENUE IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 207-220-05.
A. Recitals.
(i) An application has been submitted to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by Howard and Yolanda Geivett (hereinafter "applicant") , for a Minor
Development Review for the approval of an existing carport addition to the
north side of an automotive repair shop located on the southeast corner of
Grove Avenue and Arrow Highway, hereinafter referred to as "the application".
(ii) On September 8, 1989, the City Planner denied the application.
(iii) The City Planner's denial was timely appealed to the Planning
Commission on September 18, 1989.
(iv) On the 11th day of October, 1989, the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and
concluded said meeting on that date.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution has
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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meeting on October 11, 1989, including written and
oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 8517 Grove
Avenue, with a street frontage of 189 feet and lot depth of 225 feet and is
presently improved with an automotive repair shop, an asphalt parking lot with
13 spaces, and no street frontage landscaping; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is single
family residential, the property to the south of that site consists of
commercial (vacant) , the property to the east is single family residential ,
and the property to the west is the City of Upland; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-130
RE: MDR 89-22 - GEIVETT
October 11, 1989
Page 2
(c) The carport addition was built without Minor Development
Review approval or building permits; and
(d) The carport addition does not conform with the City's
setback requirements; and
(e) The carport addition constitutes an addition to an
existing non-conforming structure; and
(f) The carport addition is inconsistent with the intent of
the Development Code regulations which prohibit the enlargement of non-
conforming structures.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meeting 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 the proposed project is not consistent with the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located; and
(b) That the proposed project is not in compliance with each of
the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
(c) That the proposed project is not consistent with the
General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application without
prejudice.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1989.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ��/ 02 k , /
arry '. McNie Chairm.n
/, /
ATTEST: _ei :wet(� ;
r.'>c e W*'retary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-130
RE: MDR 89-22 - GEIVETT
October 11, 1989
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 11th day of October, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WEINBERGER