Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92_003 PC ResolutionATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING APPEAL NO, 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO, 248 TO CONSTRUCT TWO WALL-MOUNTED SIGNS ON A PARCEL LOCATED AT 27469 YNEZ ROAD. WHEREAS, Country Signs and Designs filed Appeal No. 19 of Administrative Plot Plan No. 248 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Appeal 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 Appeal on January 27, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Appeal; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission denied said Appeal No. 19; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Finding,s. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 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: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) 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. (2) 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. S\STAFFRPT\I 9,AFP 7 (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 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. The proposed Plot Plan is inconsistent with the SWAP and (meets the following requirement set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:) The City is ~roceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in denying projects pursuant to this title, each of the following: There is reasonable probability that Appeal No. 19 as proposed will be inconsistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied. Future design criteria for signage which will be included in the General Plan will most likely be consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and SWAP. This proposal is inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348 and SWAP. 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. Nonconforming uses such as the proposed signage will present an obstacle to the attainment of goals, objectives and policies of the Future General Plan. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), a plot plan may be denied if any of the following findings can be made: The proposed use does not conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare does not conform to the logical development of the land and is incompatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. S\STAFFRP~lg. APP 8 6. The Planning Commission, in denying the Appeal, makes the following findings, to wit; There is a reasonable probability that Administrative Plot Plan No. 248 (Appeal No. 19) will be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with state law. The project, as proposed, is inconsistent with current Ordinance requirements, as well as, City policy regarding the number of wall-mounted identification signs. The project would therefore likely be inconsistent with new development for signs standards adopted with the new General Plan. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with, the City's future General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project would set a precedence which would hinder development of new standards within the development code regarding the amount and type of sign wall-mounted signage. The project is inconsistent in terms of the size and amount of wall-mounted signage that are permitted under City Ordinance 348. The applicant is proposing two signs which total 53 square feet in size. The Ordinance permits a sign not exceeding five percent of the surface area (34.6 square feet) of the rear face of the building and it permits 1 (one) sign. This sign, as proposed by the applicant, is inconsistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan guideline for signage along an eligible State Scenic Highway. SWAP permits the signage size, height and type within scenic corridors shall be the minimum necessary for identification. SECTION II. Conditions. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Appeal No. 19 for Administrative Plot Plan No. 248 to construct two wall-mounted signs located at 27469 Ynez Road. SECTION III. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 19.92., ,, _ 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 27th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPTt 19.APP 9