Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes No 549PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 549 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT AND AN AMENDED RELATED PARKING VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL PASEO BETWEEN SUN LODGE LANE AND LUPINE LANE. CASE NO. CUP 16-78 (SECOND AMENDMENT) WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of the Palm Desert zoning ordi- nance, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on October 30, 1979, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued Public Hearing on November 14, 1979, to consider an application from DON DRYSDALE, requesting approval of an Amended Conditional Use Permit to allow a 3,608 sq. ft. restaurant and outdoor patio seating and a related Amended Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 55 spaces required by the Municipal Code to 30 spaces, in the C-1, S.P. (General Commercial, Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone on the south side of El Paseo between Sun Lodge Lane and Lupine Lnae, more particularly described as: APN 627-252-002 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined that the original project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been issued; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed location of the amended conditional use is not in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordi- nance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the amended conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed amended conditonal use does not comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's adopt- ed General Plan, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of the Variance to reduce the number of parking spaces from 55 spaces required by the Municipal Code to 30 spaces: 1. The mandatory findings the Planning Commission must make when granting a Variance as specified in Section 25.78.070 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are not applicable to the subject case, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That Conditional Use Permit CUP 16-78 (Second Amendment), and related Amended Parking Variance is hereby denied for reasons. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 549 Page -2- Desert Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of November, 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, MILLER, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: FLESHMAN ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER SNYDER, Chai man ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /dj PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 549 Page -3- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 16-78 (SECOND AMENDMENT) 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit "A" on file with the Department of Environmental Services, Case No. CUP 16-78 (Second Amendment), unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The development and use of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and State and Federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 3. All conditions required as a part of future review shall have equal force and effect as those approved at the time of original approval. 4. All signs shall conform to the approved sign program for the building complex in which it is proposed. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a floor plan for the proposed restaurant shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environmental Services. 6. That the Planning Commission shall have the right to review the case one year from occupancy to determine if the conditions that warranted the original approval still exist; and, at their option, the Commission may impose additional requirements, restrictions, or limitations which. they deem appropriate to make Conditional Use compatible with businesses and properties in the vicinity.