Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-37 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. DRC2014-00535 A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 60 FEET TO 30 FOR LOTS 1 AND 5, TRACT 18747, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REVIEW OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE VERY LOW(VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE EAST TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-181-73. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2014-00535 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014, 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. 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 August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a parcel located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place; and b. The project site is a rectangular parcel with an overall area of approximately 3.4 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 442 feet deep (east to west) and 331 feet (north to south) and is currently vacant; and C. To the north, west, and south of the project site are existing residences; to the east is a telephone facility; and d. This application is in conjunction with the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00963, and the current applications Design Review DRC2014-00425 and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535 — MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 2 e. The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet for Lots 1 and 5 within the subdivision; and f. Per Figure 5-2, Page 5-9 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the rear yard setback is 60 feet. 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. The proposed residential subdivision is an in-fill project with limited reasonable lot configuration options. The overall north to south dimension of the project site is approximately 331 feet. If it was possible to not have a public street serve the subdivision, Lots 1 and 5 would still be only approximately 165 feet in depth and an associated result would be that Lots 2 through 4 would have no direct access to a public street, which is not a permissible condition. The project site is bound on all sides by existing development. Therefore, there was no opportunity to acquire additional land, specifically to the north or the south, which would allow Lots 1 and 5 to be greater in depth. Requiring the applicant to maintain the 60-foot rear yard setback creates practical difficulties in the design and function of floor plans for the new homes on these lots. Additionally, because of the lot configuration, there still adequate rear yard private open space and adequate separation between these proposed residences and existing structures to the north and south. 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. The project site is located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of that street with Choctaw Place. The project site is bound to the north, south, and west by existing residential development and associated improvements. The extension of Arapaho Road will generally bisect the project site. Alternate alignments of the proposed extension such as shifting it further south or north were not possible because of the limits imposed by technical standards for street design including minimum dimensions for street width, curve radii, and cul-de-sacs. The project site was part of a larger parcel that was partially developed with a telephone switching facility on the east side. In May 2006, the larger parcel was subdivided into two (2) parcels. The part of the property that was developed with the telephone switching facility became a separate parcel, while the larger, undeveloped part of the property was sold for this project site. As the telephone facility occupies the entire smaller parcel, it was not possible at the time of the subdivision, nor is it possible now, to consider the option of a street connecting the project site with East Avenue that, in turn, could have provided the applicant the opportunity to propose an alternate subdivision design. This limited subdivision design created wider and shallower lots on Lots 1 and 5, which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone. 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. The overall tract design and lot configuration approved with SUBTT18747 resulted in 5 lots that substantially exceeded minimum lot areas standards. Because of the limitations of street design Lots 1 and 5 were designed with a reduced depth, but excessive side yard areas. There are a significant number of residences in the immediate area that were developed under a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535 — MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 3 prior code standard that required a 30-foot minimum rear yard setback. The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 would be compatible with these other properties in the vicinity. 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. Within the Very Low Residential District lots are required to provide a minimum 200-foot lot depth and a 60-foot rear yard setback. The principal purpose of the minimum lot depth standard is to allow horse keeping, while still maintaining a minimum separation of 70 feet between horse corrals (or similar equestrian facilities) and dwellings on neighboring properties per Section 17.08.030(E)(2)(b) of the Development Code. The lot depth reduction from 200 feet to 135 feet was determined to not be in conflict with this requirement as it was off-set by the width of each lot. Lots 1 and 5 are approximately 190 feet wide, while the minimum lot width in this development district is 90 feet. The proposed rear yard setback reduction from 60 feet to 30 feet is compatible with the existing setbacks currently enjoyed by adjacent property owners. 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. The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 will not affect the neighboring properties and/or property owners. Practical differences in the physical attributes/characteristics between the lots in the surrounding area and the subject lots will be limited. Although the subject lots will be approximately 135 feet in depth, they will be approximately 190 feet in width, thereby providing sufficient areas for private open space and the location of horse corrals. The separation between structures and common property lines will be consistent with the existing residential development within this development district. The floor area of each of the proposed single-story homes on the subject lots is generally consistent with the floor areas of the surrounding homes. The overall floor area of the homes on Lots 1 and 5 will be 3,995 square feet. Similarly, the overall area of Lots 1 and 5 are 25,910 and 24,309 square feet, respectively; the lot areas of the neighboring properties to the west at 13186 Arapaho Road and at 6323 Choctaw Place are 22,165 and 21,168 square feet, respectively. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 13, 2012, in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the Variance DRC2014-00535, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535 — MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 4 project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUBTT18747 provided for the subdivision of 3.4 acres into 5 lots. Design Review DRC2014-00425 provides for revised architecture to that approved subdivision and Variance DRC2014-00535 provides for a reduced rear yard setback on two lots within SUBTT18747. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The project provides for the development of the same 5 lots considered in the approval of SUBTT18747 and the current application proposes the development of those same lots with single-family homes. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Variance DRC2014-00535. 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the rear yard setback (from the required 60 feet minimum to 30 feet) for Lots 1 and 5 of a proposed 5-lot subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place -APN: 0225-181-73. 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 3) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425, Minor Exception DRC2014-00536, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00964 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: A�J&L Frances Hckvdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Ca b�J� Candy a urnett, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535 — MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 5 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 27th day of August 2014 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2014-00535 SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: MANNING HOMES TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE - LOCATION: APN: 0225-1881-73 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Date 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. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 14-37, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. Variance approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 1 Project No. DRC2014-00535 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 4. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 2