Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91-058 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 91-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 54 UNIT FOUR-PLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370- 005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Plot Plan No. 227 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on May 6, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on June 11, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findim, s. findings: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: generalplan. (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the R¢~o 91-58 -1- (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: general plan. (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the (2) The City Council finds, in denying the application, that: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), any plot plan may be denied when any of the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use will not conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is not designed for the Reso 91-58 -2- protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The City Council, in denying the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 227 will be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed four-plexes are inconsistent with the existing residential development to the east and does not provide an adequate transition between multiple and single family development. 2. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the development to the east and would set a precedence regarding transitioning and buffering for single family residential projects. 3. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. 4. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the project requires mass grading and the use of 20 foot high crib walls to provide the pad areas for the proposed units. The grading and height for walls are inappropriate for a residential project. 5. The project may adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the project does not provide an adequate buffer to the residential project to the east, the increased traffic in the area, and the lack of recreational facilities provided for the project. 6. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates an incompatible physical relationship with adjoining properties to the north and east due to the fact that the proposed development is inconsistent with the single family projects and does not provide adequate buffering for these areas. 7. The proposal will have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it represents a significant change to the present use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north and east are single family residential developments. The rental nature and density of the proposed use is inconsistent with single family residential areaS. 91-58 -3- 8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular improvements for the proposed project have been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff and direct access exists to Margarita Road. 9. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that Conditions of Approval have been included for this project to mitigate agains possible impacts. 10. The design of the project and the type of improvement are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project in that the easements have been provided for as shown on the site plan marked Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Plot Plan No. 227 for the construction of 54 four-plex units located on the south side of Margarita Road 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road based on the above findings. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Reso 91-58 -4- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I I4ERERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 11th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall R¢~o 91-58 -5-