HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso No 2017-64 (Ricmond America, VAR 2017-04)RESOLUTTON NO.2017-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE
ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
oF LAKE ELS|NORE, CAL|FORN|A" APPROVAL OF VARTANCE NO. 2017-04 FOR
LOT 7 OF TRACT 31920..t4 TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 15 FEET
TO 10 FEET AND THE REAR SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 13 FEET AND
VARIANCE NO. 2017.05 FOR LOT 38 OF TRACT 31920.14 TO REDUCE THE
FRONT SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 10 FEET
Whereas, Richmond American Homes has filed an application with the City of Lake Elsinore
(City) requesting approval of Planning Application No. 2017-41 (Residential Design Review No.
2017-17 , Variance No. 2017-04, and Variance No. 2017-05) for the design and construction of
5"1 single-family residential units, preliminary plotting, conceptual wall and fence plan, including
a new model home complex and related improvements and a variance for Lots 7 and 38 for
reduced setbacks due to site constraints (Project). The Project is located in Tract Map No. 31920-
14 (APN: 371-270-049) of the Summerly Development of the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP);
and,
Whereas, Variance No.2017-04 is requesting to reduce the minimum required front setback from
15 feet to 1 0 feet and the rear setback from 15 feet to 13 feet for Lot 7 of TR 31920-14; and,
Whereas, Variance No.2017-05 is requesting to reduce the minimum required front setback from
15 feet to 10 feet for Lot 38 ofTR 31920-14; and,
Whereas, pursuant to LEMC Chapter 17.172 (Variances) the Planning Commission
(Commission) has been delegated with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City
Council (Council) pertaining to variances; and,
Whereas, on August 15,2017, at duly noticed Public Hearing the Commission has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Department and other interested parties with
respect to this item.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Commission has considered the Project prior to recommending to the Council
and has found it acceptable.
Section 2: The Commission finds and determines that no new CEQA documentation is
necessary. The Project comprises the whole of the action which was analyzed in the previously
approved and certified Supplemental Environmental lmpact Report (SCH # 2003071050) for the
ELSP No. 6. Approval of the Project will not change density or intensity of use; it simply
establishes standards for color palettes, articulation, orientation, and design of single-family
residential development. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary.
Section 3: That in accordance with the LEMC, the Commission makes the following findings
regarding Planning Application No. 2017-41 (Variance No. 2017-04 and Variance No. 2017-05):
1. Adequate conditions and safeguards pursuant to LEMC, Section 17.172.050 have been
incorporated into the approval of the variance to ensure development of the property in
PC Reso. No.2017-64
Page 2 of 3
accord with the objectives of the General Plan and the purpose of the planning district in
which the site is located.
The Project has a General Plan Land Use designation of Specific Plan, is located in the
East Lake Planning Area, and has a Zoning designation of Specific Plan. The proposed
Project constitutes build out of a previously approved tract map that was found to comply
with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the ELSP No. 6. The proposed
variance would not diminish the residential nature of the propefty. The proposed variance
would not alter the existing land use.
2. There are special circumstances, pursuant to the purpose of Chapter 17. 1 72 of the LEMC,
applicable to the subject property which do not apply generally to other properties in the
neighborhood, and, therefore, granting of the variance shall not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
district in which the subject property is located.
The Project is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum setback requirements for Lots
7 (front and rear setbacks) and Lot 38 (front setback). Ihese /ots are irregular in shape
and the strict application of the code will not allow the smallest Plan type to be placed.
The strict application of the zoning ordinance will prevent the subject propefty from
enjoying the same rlghts as the surrcunding properties. The granting of the variance will
not constitute granting of a special privilege to these two lots. The variance will allow the
two lots to be developed in a similar fashion as the sunounding properties.
3. ln approving the variance, any reductions authorized from the strict interpretation of the
zoning ordinance represents the minimum deviation from this code necessary to fulfill the
purpose of this chapter and enable reasonable development of the property.
The proposed variance would allow the lwo lots to be developed with single-family
residences conslslent with the other lots located adjacent to the Project area. The
proposed variance represents the minimum deviation necessary to enable reasonable
development of the property in a manner consistent with the sunounding area.
Section 4: Based upon the evidence presented, the above findings, and the attached Conditions
of Approval, the Commission hereby recommends that the Council approve Planning Application
No. 2017-4'l (Variance No. 2017-04 and Variance No. 2017-05).
Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed and Adopted on this 15s day of August, 201 7, by the following vote.
PC Reso. No.2017-64
Page 3 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
l, Justin Kirk, Principal Planner of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 2017-64 was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at a Regular meeting held of August 15, 2017, and that the same was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner's Ross, Carroll, Klaarenbeek; and Chairman Gray
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Armit
ABSTAIN: None