The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About93-009 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 93-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEM[ECULA DENYING APPEAL NO. 289 UPHOLDING PLANNING CO@SSION'S DECISION TO DENY PLOT PLAN NO. 245, AMIENDMIENT NO. 19 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) V- TYPE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF WINCHESTER AND NICOLAS ROADS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150-005. V;HEREAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 245 on July 15, 1992; V*THEREAS, an Amendment No. 1 to Plot Plan No. 245 was filed on August 14, 1992; V,iHERF,AS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; VMEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; VVTHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said Plot Plan. VMEREAS, Adams Advertising, Inc. filed Appeal No. 28 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; VVMEREAS, said Appeal application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; VMEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Appeal on December 8, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and WHEREAS, Appeal No. 28 was continued at the December 8, 1992 public hearing; VMEREAS, Appeal No. 28 was continued at the January 12, 1993 public hearing; Resos93-09 -I- WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Appeal; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 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: 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan.2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including theissuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There is a 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 County of Riverside SWAP Guidelines and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: 1. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: Resos93-09 -2- a. There is a likely probability that the land use or action 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. C. The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: 1 . The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. E. The City Council, in denying the Appeal No. 28, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. I will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. The proposed sign is inconsistent with this land use designation. In addition, the proposed sign is inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements, due to its impact upon the surrounding development and the fact that the proposed project site is a potential "gateway" to the City. 2. 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. The erection of one (1) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are existing residential uses to the west of the project site and residential development is proposed to the northeast and the east of the site. In addition, the Community Design Element has determined that the area of the project will be a "gateway" to the City. By approving the proposed Outdoor Advertising Display, the proposed General Plan Goals and Policies will be difficult to obtain. 3 . The proposed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06, prohibiting the establishment of Outdoor Advertising Displays, contains hardship provisions, Resos93-09 -3- which have not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed sign. Approval was never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department, and the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued. 4. The proposed sign is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare and does not conform to the logical development of the land. Further, the sign is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. At the current time, the subject project site is zoned for industrial development. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan has been developed and the designation for the site is Medium Density Residential. The present development in the immediate area is vacant to the south, east and portions north of the site. Residential uses exist to the north/northwest of the site. Approved uses will include residential uses to the north and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The sign as proposed, will not be consistent with the immediate surrounding development. In addition, the Community Design Element identifies this area as a potential gateway to the City, the development of which would not include Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula City Council hereby determines that Appeal No. 28 is a statutory exemption under CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 (a)of the CEQA guidelines. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 1993. 4 J. SAL MU:OZ MAYO ATTEST: J n reek, ifity c@ [SEAL] Resos93-09 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) 1, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 93-09 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of January, 1993, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone, Roberts, Mufioz NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None i reek, City Cler Resos93-09