HomeMy WebLinkAbout93_010 PC Resolution'7ol. o~
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-10
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 13
TO PERMIT A SEVENTY-THREE FOOT HIGH SIGN IN
THE SCENIC ltlGIrvVAY COMMERCIAL (C-P-S) ZONE
LOCATED AT THE WESTERN PORTION OF 26631 YNEZ
ROAD
WHEREAS, Ad Art Signs, Incorporated filed Variance No. 13 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHF. REAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Vaxiance on June 7, 1993, 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 denied said
Variance;
NOW, THF. REFORE, TI:~', 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 f'mdings:
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 finds, 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~13VAR,RES 7/12/93 klb
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. Pursuant to Section 18.27. d. of Ordinance No. 348, no Variance may be approved
unless the applicant demonstrates the adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges
that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is situated, and the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
D. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Variance, makes the
following f'mdings, to wit:
1. The adjustment does constitute a grant of special privileges that is
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is situated. All of the automobile dealerships have already received approval for six
(6) foot high free-standing signs which identify their businesses.
2. The proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
the community because 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~13VAR.RES 7/12/93 klb
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 7th day of June,
1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\S\STAFFRPT~13VAR.RES 7/12/93 klb