HomeMy WebLinkAbout93_009 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 93-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO.
249, AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-
THREE FOOT SIGN WITH AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE
BOARD ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 5.07 ACRES
LOCATED AT 26631 YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-080-039
WI~REAS, Ad Art Signs, Incorporated filed Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment No. 2 in
accordance with the Riverside County l_and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WIII~REAS, 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 June 7, 1993, 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 THF~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findines. 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:
general plan.
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
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.
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.RES 7/12/93 klb
b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future adopted general plan ff 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. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), 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.
D. The Planning Commission, in denying proposed Plot Plan No. 249, Amendment
No. 2, makes the following f'mdings, to wit:
1. The project as designed and conditioned will adversely affect the public
health or welfare. The Plot Plan as proposed does not conform to the logical development of
its proposed site, and is not compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property. Current heights of existing free-standing, freeway-oriented signage long
Interstate 15 range from 25 feet to 40 feet in height.
2. The scale of the sign in terms of size and intensity will create a negative
impact upon the environment. The project creates excessive light which while meeting the letter
of Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance) does not meet the intent of Ordinance
No. 655. The project will therefore have a negative effect on the Mt. Palomar Observatory.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~249PP.RES 7/12/93 klb
Section 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day June, 1993.
I/W~REBY 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 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPT\249PP.RES 7/12/93 klb