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