Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout91_025 PC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 91-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULAAPPROVINGAN EXTENSION OFTIME FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO, 660 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF CHILD CARE CENTER LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF LYNDIE LANE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WHEREAS. Kinder Care Learning Centers filed an application for an extension of time for PUP No, 660 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning. Planning and Subdivision Ordinances. which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said PUP extension was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said PUP extension on April 15. 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 PUP extension: 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 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 9eneral 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 actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: PUP660 6 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. ~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 PUP 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 PUP No, 660 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal bein9 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: PUP660 7 D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.29(d), no PUP 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 PUP 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 Commlssion, in approving the proposed PUP extension, makes the following findings, to wit: 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 in that the proposed child care center will be compatible with existing and approved land uses in the vicinity. 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 in that child care centers are permitted in any zone subject to approval of a Public Use Permit. c) The project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. d) The site takes access from a public street, Lyndie Lane. e) The project will be compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the site. f) The site is adequate for the proposed use in that all applicable requirements can be satisfied, parking is adequate, and landscaping is substantial. g) The project will not pose an undue burden on streets in the vicinity in that it will only generate 69 arrivals and departures per hour during peak period, and the nearest intersection will be signalized in conjunction with construction of a commercial project. A: PUP660 8 h) The proposed use will not be detrimental to tl~e I~ealtl% safety, or general welfare of the community. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, tl~e PUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Conditions. Tl~at the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves an extension of time for PUP No. 660 for the operation and construction of a child care center located on the easterly side of Lyndle Lane approximately 200 feet north of Rancho California Road subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 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 15 day of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 3 PLANNING COI~II~IISSIONERS NOES: 1 PLANNING COI~IMISSIONERS ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A:PUP660 9