HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-48 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 94-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
CITY PLANNER'S DECISION OF MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 94-03
WHICH DENIED A LATTICE FENCE EXTENSION OF 18 INCHES ON
THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE AND 24 INCHES ON THE WEST SIDE OF
11226 TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, #58, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-673-22.
A. Recitals.
1. Mr. & Mrs. Ken Fornal have filed an application for the issuance
of Minor Exception No. 94-03 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is
referred to as "the application. "
2. On April 19, 1994, Minor Exception 94-03 was denied by the City
Planner after reviewing all pertinent information, visiting the site, and
notifying all adjacent property owners.
3. On April 29, 1994, the applicant timely appealed the denial of
Minor Exception 94-03.
4. On the 8th day of June 1994, 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.
5. 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on June 8, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 11226 Terra
Vista Parkway, #58; a townhome project which is presently improved with one
attached townhome unit; and
b. The property surrounding all sides of the project are
townhome units; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-48
ME 93-04 - FORNAL
June 8, 1994
Page 2
c. The applicant has constructed a lattice work extension which
was denied by the Homeowner Association or the City; and
d. The lattice fence extension has been attached to an existing
wooden fence owned in common by adjoining residences; and
e. The lattice fence extension is incompatible with the existing
fencing which lends cohesiveness to the neighborhood; and
f. Privacy may be obtained by the use of plant materials which
would form a dense hedge along the rear property line and could be allowed to
grow taller than the proposed lattice extension; and
g. There is neighborhood opposition to the project.
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 not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
b. That there are not 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 not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Minor Exception will constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Minor Exception will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the appeal of the
City Planner denial of Minor Exception 94-03.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-48
ME 93-04 - FORNAL
June 8, 1994
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 1994.
PLANNING CO SIsi1 • �� OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
/` AA
BY: h�`1�i!.,•
E. David Bark- - - an
ATTEST: 100-/
Bra. Crary
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 8th day of June 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY