HomeMy WebLinkAbout97_038 PC ResolutionPC RESOLIYrlON NO. 97-038
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0345-
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISION TO ERECT A 55.3 SQUARE FOOT
FACE GRAPHIC WALL SIGN ON Trot. k'~.NTUCKY FRIED
CltlCKEN/SmZ. LL STATION BUll.DING FRONTING MARGARITA
ROAD ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.794 ACRES LOCATED AT ~
SOUTItWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND YUKON ROAD
AND KNOWN' AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-700-017
Wl:HZ. REAS, Lee Richardson, for Kentucky Fried Chicken, filed Planning Application
No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) in accordance with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code;
Wl~.REAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-
0345 (Development Plan - Revision) on December 1, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or in opposition;
WI~.REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all oral, written and
demonstrative testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the
Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application PA96-0345 (Development
Plan - Revision);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.I.OWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. F_ig.dJ_~. The Planning Commission, in denying Planning Application
No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed sign structure is not in conformance with the Design Guidelines
promulgated pursuant to the requirement of the Land Use and Community Design elements of
the City's General Plan. The standards and regulations of relevance and applicability to the
review of the proposed 55.3 square foot sign are:
(i) "New development should respect the site settings of existing properties in the
immediate area through the use of similar setbacks building arrangements, buffer yards
and avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstruction.: (3. A. 1.b)
The proposed tower sited, wall mount sign is not in scale with the other signage
upon the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant structure, as shown by the photographs submitted
to the Planning Commission as part of staff's evidence during the hearing, nor is the scale of
this building component in keeping with that of the remainder of the adjacent shopping center
component. The proposed sign is significantly taller and wider than the existing signage per
the approved plans. This oversized sign's visual impact is exaggerated by the proposed
interior illumination behind the predominately white sign face. This proposed sign is also an
addition which is not consistent with the form, scale and building elevation orientations of the
Kentucky Fried Chicken buildings signage currently on the other consumer oriented exterior
structure walls. No evidence was offered by the applicant demonstrating that a smaller
version, consistent with the scale of the retail center and Kentucky Fried Chicken buildings
existing signage, of the proposed sign would not sufficiently advertise the restaurant.
(ii) "Franchise architecture is strongly discouraged. Building elevations should be
designed to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Amhitectural gimmicks, such as
roof lights, distinctive roof shapes, large false cornices and parapets that sacrifice the
integrity of a streetscape to promote a single structure should be avoided.' (3.C.3.e)
Incorporating the conclusions, determinations and discussion of subsection (i)
above, this Planning Commission further finds that the integrity of the comprehensive sign
architectural design and signage program is disrupted by the scale, illumination and tower
placement of the proposed sign. Locating this sign face that is inconsistent with the scale and
design of both the Kentucky Fried Chicken structure and the surrounding center at the highest
possible building wall elevation maximizes the disruptive effect generated by the proposed sign
structure. This proposal is found to disrupt, rather than "fit into" the established on-site
commercial center and, as such, has collateral deleterious light and visual impacts on the
surrounding residential uses.
"The exterior building design, including roof style, color, materials,
architectural form and detailing, should be consistent among all buildings in a complex
and on all elevations of each building to achieve design harmony and continuity within
itself.' (3.C.4.b)
The Planning Commission hereby incorporates the conclusions, determinations
and discussion set forth in subsection (i) and (ii) hereinabove and, upon such, concludes that
the sign proposal, due to scale, location, illumination and placement, presents an exterior
building design that is not consistent with: (a) the other improvements upon the structure upon
which it is placed, (b) the surrounding retail uses in the retail complex in which the structure is
located, and (c) with the comprehensive setting in which the retail complex is located.
B. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of
the public health, safety and general welfare and is inconsistent with the character of
the surrounding community and commercial development for the reasons identified in
Section 2.A above, which discussion, findings and conclusion are included by reference
herein.
Section 3. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies
Planning Application No. PA96-0345 (Development Plan - Revision) to erect a 55.3 square
foot face graphic wall sign on the Kentucky Fried Chicken/Shell Station building fronting
Margarita Road, located at the southwest comer of Margarita Road and Yukon, in the Palomar
Village Shopping Center and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-700-017.
Section 4. PASSED AND ADOPTED this first day of December, 1997.
I HE. REBY 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 first day of
December, 1997, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak
NOES:
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Guerriem
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~PLANNINOk345PA96.KE$ 1/5/98 cod 3