HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 77-040RESOLUTION 77-40
r ,
J1 OUTTIAI 0 'tHE CITT OOUNCIL OF iNE CITY OF PlII11 DL'SERT.
CAI.Il R1fIA. AMNOIJIICUC PINOIIICS A!m p£MIpC Ap AppEAI, FpR THE '.
REVISION OP rLAMfLNG 0014iISSIOt1 RESOLlTfION FtO. 206, RECAl1aING
SIAIS !OR dAlf[ Of 11l RICA Otl PROPERTY CENERALLY LOCATED AT TNE
lIORTEffJIS1 OORlIEIt OF EL PASEO Atm SAN LUIS REY.
CI 4E 110. iC '
r i
tiiHERTJIS, tAe C1t Council of the Cltr of Pal■ Deserc did receive a
aerlfied pplication fro CUN'[LNEKTAL SERVICE COMPNQY requeatinq approval
of ar ppe l for the cevision of Planning Coe siseton Resolution lio. 206
!n order to a ead conditionrs regarding the color. nu+ er. and loca[ion of
•16n tor tht pToposed A1fIC OF AnERIG1 atructure to be located at the northeaat
corner of E1 P seo and San Luia Rey. and aore particularl described a : '
,,
1.0'fS 31 and l2, BLOCR S.
PALTI OFSERi TRACi
Y!lERF.AS. said application has comQlied vith the City o[ Palm Deser['s
appe l procedure requlreAents; and.
WHERF.AS. on April 14. 1977. the City Council of the City of Palm Desert.
G1lfornia. did consider this request for a reviaion of Planning Coom isston
ttesolucion No. 206; and.
1iHERF 15. •t [hat tise. upon recelvinq and considering the testimony and
erguments, if anj. of all Lnterested persona desScing [o be fieard. said Council
3;
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to deny the appeal: °
1. ?he applicaat has signed the Co ditions oE Approval for Case
,i::
No. 45C which iaclude a condition, namely, Condition No. 9 on signage: `
k.
:Y
♦
2. tt ia City policy that signs be compatible noc just vith the ;',
_ '.
develop ent in vfiich the are locsted. but also to the surrounding area, and
ultiutel , [he total coa ioitp. The colors suggested by the Deaign Revtev
Eoard and approved b the Planning Co ission vould be consistent vith the
CitT'• policy on sisas;
3. 'the location of the sou eac siBn sgreed upoa the Deaign Reviev
Eoard aad the applieant at the March 8. 1977 eeeting is the sost appropriate
location for •uch a sisn.
110 W 'I RgFqRE. EE IT RESOLVED by the City Cvuncil of the Clty of
YaL D sert. California. as follovs:
1. i'hat the above recitationa are true and correct and conatitute
the fiodie s of the Couacil 1A thi• case;
Z. rhat it doe• hereb den the appeal Eor revision of Planning
Co is ion Resolution eio. 206•
-1-
i'.' �*.
� �:
�� �� ;� Re�olution 77-40 �,�.'�:y
T�gsED� AT'lR01►ED. and ADOPTED at a regular �eetins of the Pal� Desert ��'
F.
tity Conncil� field oa this 14th day of J1vri1. 19�I. br the folloving vote, to vit: � �,"?
ATtg= lltwh. !lcPftenon. ll�brandrr i Mullins l
.�
�� :•,
lbne ';
lIO�S t ��
;,,r
MSQRt �� �'Y
MSTAIX t �c �'
�';
�/ / � �
� '! � , ��
1 ...
D{JARD D. Ml.'I1.IN5. �. MAYOR
�
AT7FST :
�� Q�
SHEILA R. CILLI , CII7 ERR
CITY OF PALlt DESBRt. CALIFORNLA
i