HomeMy WebLinkAbout06_036 PC Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA 05-0314, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
FINDINGS TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF BEER, WINE, AND
DISTILLED SPIRITS (TYPE 21 LICENSE, OFF-SALE
GENERAL) FROM AN APPROVED 16,836 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 39782
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 920-100-013
Section 1. Matthew Fagan, representing Matthew Fagan Consulting filed Planning
Application No. PA05-0314 on October 25, 2006, in a manner in accord with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code.
Section 2. Planning Application No. PA05-0314 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law.
Section 3. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No, PA05-0314 on April 19, 2006, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify
either in support or in opposition to this matter.
Section 4. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission's Hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission denied Planning Application No.
PA05-0314 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder.
Section 5. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 6. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in denying Planning Application No.
PA05-0314 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by
Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010El
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (Community
Commercial) and Zoning (Specific Plan-1), as well as, the standards within the
Development Code. The project exceeds the minimum separation requirement of 500
feet from a religious institution, school, or public park. However, the Planning
Commission determined that the use is not compatible with existing adjacent uses.
B. The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use
will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0314 R~e-Ajd CUP, PCNIPlannlnglFinal PC Resa and COA's.dac
The proposed project is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project is in close
proximity to a public high school.
C. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare
of the community because the project is in close proximity to a public high school and is
located on a comer that receives a high amount of foot traffic from adolescents before,
during, and after school hours.
Criteria to iustifv makina a findina of Public Convenience or Necessitv:
A.
Code?
Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Yes. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element
(Community Commercial) and Zoning (Specific Plan-1), as well as, the standards within
the Development Code. The project exceeds the separation requirement of 500 feet
from a religious institution, school, or public park. However, the Planning Commission
determined that the use is not compatible with existing adjacent uses.
B. Is the proposed use compatible with the nature, condition, and character of
adjacent land uses?
No. The proposed project is not compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project is in close
proximity to a public high school.
C. Will the proposed use have an adverse effect on adjacent land uses?
Yes. The site is in close proximity to a public high school and is located on comer that
receives a high amount of foot traffic from adolescents before, during, and after school
hours.
D. Would the proposed use result in an excessive number of similar establishments
in close proximity?
Yes. Per information obtained from Alcohol Beverage Control, there are currently a
total of 11 Type 21/icenses authorized within Census Tract 0432.03 and a total of 8 are
allowed before being considered over-concentrated by ABC. Based on the information
provided by ABC, it has been determined that the tract is over-concentrated in Type 21
licenses.
G:IPlanning1200SIPA05-<l314 Rne-Aid CUP, PCNIPlanninglFinal pc Reso and COA's.doc
2
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission on this 19th day of April 2006.
~ ~4.- ,-
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
ATTEST:
~..e-' ~~~
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
SEAL}
- .
,.., :--....."
,I )~_
~.
1,0'
f'"
. ~'.}
o. ...1..
~ !', '(:~.
. .;...
f."'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
','-
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 06-36 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of April 2006, by the
following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter
Telesio
None
None
~0/~- ~~
Deb ie Ubnoske, Secretary
G:IPlanning\2005IPA05-0314 Rne-Ald CUP, PCNIPlanninglFinal pc Reso and COA's.doc
3