Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93_020 PC ResolutionPC RESOLUTION NO. 93-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25338, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.56 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 28 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-330-050. WHEREAS, Dan Sterick and Leigh Waxman filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25338, Amendment No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission cont'mued said Tentative Tract Map on May 16, 1991, until January 6, 1992; WtlEREAS, the Planning Commission continued said Tentative Tract Map on January 6, 1992, until February 24, 1992; WltEREAS, the Planning Commission continued said Tentative Tract Map on January 6, 1992, until February 24, 1992; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission cont'mued said Tentative Tract Map off-calendar at the February 24, 1992 meet'mg; WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on August 2, 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 Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 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 tune, 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: R:\S\STAFFRPT\25338TM.PC 8/5/93 klb 6 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. 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 Planning Commission in denying the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: 1. There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25338, Amendment No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Medium density residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre). The project proposes a residential density of 10.9 dwelling units/acre and is therefore is likely to be consistent with the General Plan upon its adoption. 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. The draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Medium density residential. Land uses surrounding the site have been identified as residential, with medium density residential designations to the east and west of the site, low-medium density residential land uses to the north and high density residential uses to the south. 3. 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 Sections 5.1 and 5.3 of Ordinance No. 460. In addition, submittal requirements have not been met. R:\S\STAFFRPT\25338TM.PC 8/5/93 klb 7 4. That the site of the proposed land division may not be physically suitable for the type of development. The preliminary title report indicates that the property is impacted by flooding, by a natural stream course, and has restricted access across the entire frontage of Solana Way. No support documents have been received to provide additional information on the easements and other constraints. 5. That the site of the proposed land division may not be physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The preliminary title report indicates that the property is impacted by flooding, by a natural stream course, and has restricted access across the entire frontage of Solana Way. No support documents have been received to provide additional information on the easements and other constraints, therefore, the site may not be suitable for the proposed density. 6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements may be likely to cause serious public health problems. The preliminary title report indicates that the property is impacted by flooding. No support documents have been received to provide additional information on this constraint, therefore, the site may be likely to cause serious public health problems. D. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Tentative Tract Map No. 25338, Amendment No. 1 is statutorily exempt pursuant to Article 18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED t~~August, 1993. R:\S\STAFFRPT\25338TM.PC 8/5/93 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 2nd day of August, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: BLAIR, CHINIAEFF, FAHEY, FORD, HOAGLAND NOKS: 0 ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: //~GARY THORNI-IILL SECRETARY R:\S\STAFFRPT\25338TM.PC 8/5/93 klb 9