HomeMy WebLinkAbout92_034 PC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 92-034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO.
245, AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 246,
AMENDMF, NT NO. 1 TO ERECT TWO (2) V-TYPE
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 6.70 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF WINCHESTER ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,200 AND
1,850 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WINCHESTER AND NICHOLAS ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-150~005
WltEREAS, Adams Advertising filed Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot
Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan applications were processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plans on September 21, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plans; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission denied said
Plot Plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general l~lan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of tune, 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:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
S\STAFFRPT~245-246.Pp ! 9
2. The planning agency f'mds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance 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 al/ 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 Plans are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
2. 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:
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), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
S\STA FFRPT~245 -246.FP 1 0
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. Th'e Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Plot Plans, makes the
following f'mdingS, to wit:
There is a likely probability that Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan
No. 246, Amendment No. 1 will not be consistent with the General Plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable tune. The Draft
Preferred Land Use Plan designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential.
The proposed signs are inconsistent with this land use designation. In addition, the
proposed signs are inconsistent with the Draft General Plan Land Use and Community
Design Elements.
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 two (2) V-type Outdoor Advertising Displays will be inconsistent with the
proposed land use designation of Medium Density Residential for the site. There are
exist'mg 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 Displays, the proposed General Plan Goals
and Policies will be difficult to obtain.
The proPosed use or action does not comply with all other applicable requirements of
state law and local ordinances. Ordinance No. 92-06 prohibits the establishment of
Outdoor Advertising Displays. Section 4.A. of Ordinance No. 92-06 contains hardship
provisions, however, a hardship has not been demonstrated to exist for the proposed
signs. Approvals were never granted by the Riverside County Planning Department, and
the subsequent approval procedure with the City of Temecula was not pursued.
The proposed signs are not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and do not conform to the logical development of the land. Further, the
signs are 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. Proposed uses will include residential uses
to the norih and east, with commercial and industrial uses to the south. The signs, as
S\STAFFRPT~245*246.PP 1 1
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.' Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies
Plot Plan No. 245, Amendment No. 1 and Plot Plan No. 246, Amendment No. 1 to erect two
(2) V-Type Outdoor Advertising Displays on a parcel containing 6.70 acres located on the east
side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,200 and 1,850 feet north of the intersection of
Winchester and Nicholas Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-150-005
Section 3. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of September, 1992.
CHAIRMAN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
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 21st day of
September, 1992 :by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: BLAIR, CHINIA~FF, FAHEY,
HOAGLAND
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
FORD
?~GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
S\STAFFRPT~245-246.PP 1 2