Loading...
PC13-143Resolution PC 13-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MENIFEE DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 2009-047 FOR SIGNS AT AN APPROVED JACK IN THE BOX RESTAURANT ON HIGHWAY 74 AND TRUMBLE ROAD Whereas, on April 2, 2009, the applicant, filed a formal application with the City of Menifee for signage for a Jack in the Box Restaurant, and, Whereas, the project was publicly noticed by a publication in the newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice for a Planning Commission public hearing on October 11, 2011; and, Whereas, the applicant requested that the project be pulled from the October 11, 2011 agenda and the October 11, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing was canceled; and, Whereas, on October 25, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and Whereas, at the October 25, 2011 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission continued the project off calendar per the request of the applicant; and, Whereas, on January 24, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and, Whereas, at the January 24, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission continued the project to March 13, 2012; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission held a subsequent public hearing on March 13, 2012, considered public testimony and materials in the staff report and accompanying documents, which hearing did not require an additional public notice pursuant to Ordinance 348, Section 1.11; and, Whereas, at the March 13, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission discussed and continued the project off calendar; and, Whereas, on the February 26, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, which hearing was publicly noticed by a publication in the newspaper of general circulation, an agenda posting, and notice to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project boundaries, and to persons requesting public notice; and Whereas, on February 26, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time the comments from members of the public were heard and considered. Resolution No. 13-143 Plot Plan No. 2009-047 February 26, 2013 Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee resolves and orders as follows: 1. FINDINGS: A. Consistency with the General Plan. The plot plan is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and applicable General Plan objectives, policies, and programs. The general plan land use designation is Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR). Signs for commercial uses are allowed in this general plan land use designation. This project site is also with a Scenic Highway Corridor. Based on the land use and location within a Scenic Corridor, the project must comply with multiple general plan policies related to scenic highways and commercial development. The project is inconsistent with the following General Plan policies: HVWAP 14.1 Protect the scenic highways in the Harvest ValleyMinchester planning area from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent properties in accordance with the Scenic Corridors sections of the General Plan Land Use, Multipurpose Open Space, and Circulation Elements. LU 13.1 Preserve and protect outstanding scenic vistas and visual features for the enjoyment of the traveling public. LU 13.3 Ensure that the design and appearance of new landscaping, structures, equipment, signs, or grading within Designated and Eligible State and County scenic highway corridors are compatible with the surrounding scenic setting or environment. LU 13.7 Require that the size, height, and type of on -premise signs visible from Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways be the minimum necessary for identification. The design, materials, color, and location of the signs shall blend with the environment, utilizing natural materials where possible. LU 13.8 Avoid the blocking of public views by solid walls. OS 22.1 Design developments within designated scenic highway corridors to balance the objectives of maintaining scenic resources with accommodating compatible land uses. LU 23.9 Require that commercial development be designed to consider their surroundings and visually enhance, not degrade, the character of the surrounding area. (Al 3) The proposed signs are not the minimum necessary for identification based on the size of the property and number of tenants (2). The height and size of the signs would be more appropriate for a 10 acre commercial site. The design, materials, color and location of the signs due not blend in with the surrounding environment due to the size. The pole sign has not been designed to enhance the surrounding area and is not aesthetically pleasing. The Jack in the Box pylon Resolution No. 13-143 Plot Plan No. 2009-047 February 26, 2013 sign blocks public views due to the size and does not fit within the location shown on the site plan. The proposed signs do not visually enhance the character of the surrounding area. Therefore, the project is not consistent with the general plan. B. Consistency with the Zoning Code. The proposed project is not consistent with the zoning code. The zoning of the property is Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S); however, onsite advertising regulations are under Ordinance 348 Section 19.4. Because the project site is located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the freeway right of way line (1-215 on ramp at Highway 74 is freeway right-of-way; however, the project is over 1,000 feet from the actual freeway), Ordinance 348, Section 19.4 allows the maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 45 feet and the maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. The signs are consistent with this maximum height and surface area; however, these are the maximums. The regulations on signs from Ordinance 348 provide for the maximum heights and surface areas but approval of signage is discretionary and smaller signs can be requested. The planner makes a determination on the acceptability of the signage based on the size of the property, location of the property, number of tenants and aesthetics. Based on the size of the properties (both under 1 acre) and the number of tenants (two), and general plan policies, the size of the signs should be smaller than the maximum allowed height. The Jack in the Box project only proposes one freestanding onsite advertising sign. The directional signs and menu board are not considered freestanding on - site advertising signs. Therefore, no variance is required for the signs within the Jack in the Box site. Based on the discussion above, the project is not consistent with Ordinance 348, Section 19.4. C. Effect on Surrounding Uses. Approval of the application may create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or incompatible with other properties or land uses in the project vicinity. Surrounding uses include a variety of industrial uses, vacant land and future commercial uses. The project site is within a Redevelopment Area and is currently blighted; however, the goal of the City is to eliminate present blight and prevent the potential for future blight in and ultimately add value to all redevelopment areas by recommending approval on projects that meet the highest standards of quality as possible. The proposed signs are not of the highest standards of quality as possible. The signs are not consistent with the general plan or zoning code. The project does not comply with the general plan policies in place to protect scenic highways. The signs do not comply with the 3rtl and 5`h Supervisorial Design Guidelines related to commercial development. Due to the project's inconsistency with the general plan, zoning code, and design guidelines, it may create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and incompatible with the surrounding development. Resolution No. 13-143 Plot Plan No. 2009-047 February 26, 2013 The proposed signs do not visually enhance the character of the surrounding area. D. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed use has been determined to be Categorically Exempt (Class I — Projects which are Disapproved) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. 2. Denial of Plot Plan. In accord with the findings set forth herein, Plot Plan No. 2009-047 is hereby denied by the Planning Commission orl, February 26, 2013. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTgO THIS ?6'0 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013. Matt Liesemeyer, PlIAXing Commission Chair ATTEST: J nitwI n, Planning Commission Secretary Approved as to form: Scott A. Mann Mayor Wallace W. Edgerton Deputy Mayor John V. Denver Counciimember Thomas Fuhrman Counciimember Greg August Councilmember 29714 Haun Road Menifee, CA 92586 Phone 951.672.6777 Fax 951.6793843 www.cityofinenifee.us STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF MENIFEE ) I, Jennifer Allen, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Menifee, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC13-143 was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Menifee at a meeting thereof held on the 26t" day of February, 2013 by the following vote: Ayes: Liesemeyer, Matelko, Sobek Noes: Pica Absent: Thomas Abstain: None Jennifer Allen, Planning Commission Secretary