Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92_015 PC ResolutionA'I-FACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 8839 REVISED NO. 1, AMENDED NO. 2, CHANGING USES ON THE SECOND FLOOR FROM 5,413 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE TO A 780 SQUARE FOOT BEAUTY SHOP, 2,961 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND 1,672 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE, AND A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-024-027. WHEREAS, Temecula Sixth Street-A Limited California Partnership filed Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 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 conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on March 16, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission denied said Plot Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findinqs. 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 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 ac, tions, 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. S\STAFFRPT~8839-REV.PP 7 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 not consistent with the SWAP and does not meet 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 denying projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a, There is not a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 as 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 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. The project as proposed is inconsistent with SWAP and Ordinance No. 348. D. 1. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c) of Ordinance No. 348, no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with ail applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b. 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. 2. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2, makes the following findings, to wit: S\STAFT-RPT~8839-REV.FP 8 a. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 would be inconsistent with the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 does not meet the parking standards as set out in the existing ordinances and anticipated in the General Plan. b. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to and interference with the future General Plan, as a result of an approval. c. The proposed use or action does not comply with State planning and zoning laws. There is no substantiation for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the usable space proposed. d. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. e. The project as designed and conditioned will adversely affect the public health or welfare due to lack of adequate parking. f. The project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. The alley would be sub-standard and would be creating traffic conflicts in the alley which needs to service surrounding properties. g. The proposal would have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the alley would be sub-standard and would be creating traffic conflicts in the alley which needs to service surrounding properties. h. The design of the project, the type of improvements, and the resulting street layout are such that they are in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. The project has inadequate circulation. i. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Coml01iance. The proposed Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No. 2 is a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines which pertains to minor alterations to existing structures. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Plot Plan No. 8839 Revised No. 1, Amended No.2 to revise Plot Plan No. 8839, changing uses on the second floo~r from storage to a 780 square foot beauty shop, 2,961 square feet of office space and 1,672 square feet of storage, and a reduction in required off-street park ng from 44 to 40 spacbs and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-024-027. SECTION 4. DENIED this 16th day March, 1992. 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 16th ,day of March, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: / AYES: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HOAGLAND, BLAIR, CHINIAEFF NOES: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FAHEY ABSTAIN: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FORD $\$TA FFRPT~8839-REV.FP 10