Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-011 - Resolutions" RESOLUTION NOT APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 96-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-26 FOR THE REQUEST TO SERVE DISTILLED LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BILLIARD HALL LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 208-811-56, 59, 60, & 61. A. Recitals. 1. Mr. Sam Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 95-60 thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 4. On February 7th, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. Resolution No. 96-011 Page 2 RESOLUTION NOT APPROVED 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on February 7, 1996, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-60, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center. b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are shopping centers, and the properties to the west are single family homes. c. The proposed use is for the serving of distilled liquor within an existing restaurant and billiard hall with a leased space of 4,200 square feet. The hours of operation for the full bar are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. d. West of the shopping center are single family residences. They have been adversely impacted by nuisance problems such as, loitering activities, and loud noise within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours before by the same business that previously had a full bar service. e. Because of the nuisance problems and non-compliance with conditions of approval, the City conducted revocation hearings in 1991 and 1994. On October 5, 1994, the applicant relinquished his Conditional Use Permit for the full bar. f. The City did not receive complaints from the adjacent residents after Sam's Place stopped serving hard liquor. g. The nature of the business will have the potential for nuisance problems such as loud noise and loitering activities within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours. These types of nuisance problems will adversely impact the adjacent single family residences. h. The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to and harmonious with the character of the surrounding residential area. Also, one of the goals of the General Plan is to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. Because of the potential for nuisance problems, the proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: RESOLUTION NOT APPROVED Resolution No. 96-011 Page 3 a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, or the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the application. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to Mr. Sam Pellegrino that the time within which judicial review of the decision, represented by this Resolution, must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Sam Pellegrino at the address identified in City records. 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.