HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 95-102RESOLUTION NO. 95-102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY DENYING A
REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO SECTIONS 25.68.640 AND
25.68.650 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE
CHANGE IN COLOR (REPAINTING AND RE -FACING) OF
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIGNS AT THE PALM DESERT
LODGE AT 74-527 HIGHWAY 111.
CASE NO. 4540 SA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 17th day of October, 1995, hold a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request of QUIEL BROS. SIGNS for PALM
DESERT LODGE for approval of an exception to Section 25.68.640 and 650
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the change in color (repainting and
re -facing) of existing nonconforming signs at Palm Desert Lodge; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 1705 denied
the requested exception to the sign ordinance for reasons specified in
the resolution and in the planning department staff report dated
October 17, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the applicant and/or his agent filed a timely appeal to
the action of the planning commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California,
did on the 9th day 'of November, 1995, hold a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the appeal to the decision of the planning
commission in the matter of Case No. 4540 SA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to
exist to justify conditional denial of the appeal:
1. The city council concurs with the findings of the planning
commission, specifically that:
A. The subject signs are inconsistent with Sections
25.68.640 and 25.68.650 of the Palm Desert Zoning
Ordinance.
B. Architecturally incompatible legally nonconforming signs
are detrimental to neighboring businesses and the
community in general.
2. That the required affirmative findings to grant the requested
exception as delineated in Municipal Code Section 25.68.730
'A' and 'B' can not be affirmed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the council in this case.
2. That the request for an exception to the provisions of
Municipal Code Sections 25.68.640 and 25.68.650, Case No.
4540 SA, is hereby determined as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 95-102
A. Roof signs shown as #1 and #2 of Exhibit "A" are hereby
denied.
B. Pole sign shown as #3 of Exhibit "A" is conditionally
approved provided it is upgraded per Palm Desert
Architectural Commission recommendations and all other
nonconforming signs are removed.
C. Freestanding sign shown as #4 of Exhibit "A" shall be
abated unless applicant can produce evidence of a valid
building permit.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert City Council, held on this 9th day of November , 1995, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, KELLY, SNYDER, SPIEGEL, CRITES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
BUFO2jH" A. CRITES, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA Rj GILLIGAN, City Clerk a
City of P m Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO.
I•
EXHIBIT "A"