Resolution-PC 2001-20• •
RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2910 BE DENIED
(CUP Tracking No. 2001-04280)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
THAT PORTIONS OF LOT 22 OF THE GOLDEN STATE TRACT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 4, PAGE(S) 68, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTRY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 22, SAID LINE BEING
CONSIDERED AS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF ACACIA STREET AND LOCATED 526.21
FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORRIDOR OF SAID LOT 22, SAID POINT BEING
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 8 ACRES OF SAID LOT 22; RUNNING FROM
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING EAST 281.85 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 22; THENCE SOUTH 62.64 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO
THE SAID WEST LINE OF LOT 22; THENCE WEST 281.84 FEET PARALLEL TO SAID
NORTH LINE TO A POINT IN THE SAID WEST LINE; THENCE NORTH 62.64 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on February 12, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that the hearing was
continued from the meetings of January 17 and January 29, 2001; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by
itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.34.050.030 to expand and increase the enrollment of an existing
preschool facility with the following waivers:
(a) Section 18.04.042.020 - Institutional uses adiacent to a residential zone.
(b) Sections 18.06.050.020.026.0264 - Minimum number of parkinq spaces.
18.06.080 (13 spaces required ; 9 spaces proposed and concurred
and 18.34.066.010 with by the Public Works Department, Traffic Section)
(c) Sections 18.04.043 - Permitted encroachments into reauired yards.
and 18.34.064 (Parking spaces and loading zone proposed to encroach
into the required front yard setback; no such
encroachments permitted)
CR5015PK.doc -1- PC2001-20
• ~
2. That waiver (a), minimum setback between an institutional use and a residential zone, is
hereby denied on the basis that it was deleted following the public notification.
3. That waiver (b), minimum number of parking spaces, is hereby denied on the basis that a
potential vehicle overflow would occur in the front loading zone area during peak weekday hours because
the proposed expansion (from an enrollment of 30 to 50 children, or 66%) would increase the demand
and competition for parking spaces on the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.
4. That the proposed expansion would increase traffic congestion within the off-street
parking and loading area provided for such use, particularly within the front semi-circular driveway
(loading zone) of the property.
5. That the proposed expansion would result in a significant increase in traffic flows within
the front yard drop-off and pick-up area, and may impede vehicle ingress and egress from adjacent
properties to the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposal.
6. That waiver (c), permitted encroachments in#o required yards, is hereby denied on the
basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to this flat and rectangularly-shaped property,
such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vicinity.
7. That the petitioner has not demonstrated that strict application of the Zoning Code would
deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties and by other similar preschool uses under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
8. That the proposed use is hereby denied on the basis that the size and shape of the site
for the proposal is not adequate to allow for the proposed expansion and increase in enrollment in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfare due to
the inadequate lot size and site configuration which will not accommodate adequate on-site vehicle
circulation and loading /unloading, and due to insufficient vehicle ingress and egress from the property.
9. That the proposal may adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and
development of the area in which it is located due to potential vehicle congestion and circulation problems
occurring in and around the site during peak morning and afternoon hours.
10. That the traffic generated by the proposal may impose an undue burden upon the streets
designed and improved to carry traffic in the area due to possible vehicle congestion and the potential for
heavy use of on-street parking for drop-off and pick-up purposes.
11. That granting of this conditional use permit would be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
12. That one person indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the
proposal; and that correspondence with 13 signatures in opposition was received.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to expand and increase the enrollment of an existing
preschool facility with waivers of minimum setback between an institutional use and a residential zone,
minimum number of parking spaces and permitted encroachments into required yards on a rectangularly-
shaped 0.34-acre property having a frontage of 62 feet on the east side of Acacia Street and a maximum
depth of 240 feet, being located 525 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive, and further described
as 1108 North Acacia Street (Montessori Child Care Center); and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and
that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public
-2- PC2001-20
~
•
review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there
is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
February 12, 2001. /~ ,~
ATTEST:
CHAIRPERSON, AN EIM CI
PLANNING COMMISSION
. ~J
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CtTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) ~
I, Osbelia Edmundson, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing reso~ution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Eommission held on Febcuary 12, 2001, by the foUowing vote of the raembers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this I°Z- day of
1'`~a~.~~ , 2001.
, ~G
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC2001-20