Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91_061 PC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A CAR CARE CENTER CONSISTING OF A RETAIL CARWASH. SERVICE STATION. AUTO SERVICE BAYS AND MINI MARKET LOCATED WEST OF FRONT STREET AND NORTHWEST OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY AND HIGHWAY 79 INTERCHANGE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-110-006. WHEREAS, Lou Kashmere filed CUP No. 5 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on June 17, 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 approval of said CUP; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findin.cts. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months following incorporation. Durin9 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. 12) The planning agency finds, in approvin9 projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A:CUP5 I 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. l 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 CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: [1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that CUP No. 5 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 complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. A:CUP5 2 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.26(e). no CUP may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. (2) The Planning commission, in approving the proposed CUP. makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 5 will be consistent 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 gasoline service station and auto service is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial. b) There is not 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 car care center is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of Commercial. and the ex~sting developments of the surrounding area. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3[~8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. d) The site is 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 proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No, 348. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained. A:CUP5 3 f) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk. height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with current surrounding development and Ordinance No, 348. g) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties are zoned C-l/C-P I General Commercial ) and M- SC ~Manufacturlng - Service Commercial) which are consistent with the project zoning and proposed use. h) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by. vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Front Street. i) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigations for the project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project as represented on the site plan. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECT ION 3, the CUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. A:CUP5 4 SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No, 5 for the operation and construction of a car care center consisting of a retail carwash, service station and market located west of Front Street and northwest of the 1-15 Freeway and Highway 79 Interchange. and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-110-006. subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A. attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June. 1991. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:CUP5 5