Resolution-PC 89-203~~~f1~~ t~ 2 r •;~ ~P ;a,~ i ~~: `~ i~ r I ~.:r ..} i , . . .. '
' .L P ~ , f. r t
~ " '1 _ e : •., ` ~'!V ~ .av~ ~ i ! r ~~+~ , fr:i?~i Yt~ f j ~ ~,A~tlu'~~\~~4~`~~
~~~. t
y dFi
~ • '~
~ ~
~ ~ :
l~iti.~ ;,
;
, ~?FS.~e(iT7AN 270,.-=,~Q.~?~Q~
A RESULUTION OF TH~ ANAHI:IM CITY. PLY~NNING COhIIdISSTON
THAT PETI'PION FOR CONDYTIONAL tJSE PERMIT N0. 3188 BE DENI~;D
F1idERF.AS, the Anaheim City Planning Commissian did receivg a
~~° ~veriEiQtl Potition for Conc]it5.ona7. Use Permit fz~om llOM.NZC C. ETCfIANDY AND
BETTY J. .Ex'CHA~IDY, 12~1 N, Lakr~view Av~nue, Anaheim, CA 92807, owners of
certain re~l proparty sftuaked in the City of Anaheim, County oF Oranye, State
oC California, describod as:
PARCET, 1, TN THE CITY OF A..*IAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STAT~ OF CALIF~i2NIA, Au SF;OWN ON A M1,P FxLED 2N 800K
146, PAG~S 1 A:ID 2 OF PARCEL Di7~P5, IN THE OFFYCE OF
THE COUNTY REC~RDER OF QF2ANGE COUN'xY, CAI.IFORNIi~.
hrFiBREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a pu~lic hearin~
at the Civic Center in Cho City of Anat~eirn on August 14, 1989 at 1;30 p.m.,
notice of. said public hQaring Y,aving been duly given as required by law and in
acrozdance witti the pravisians of. the Ana2ie.im Municipal Codo, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and $yainat said pr~posod conditional use
p~rmit and to invest:igate and make Eindings and cecommendaL•ions in connection
therewi th; and
WHEREAS, said ~ornmis~ion, after due inspection, invostigt~tion
and study made by it:self and in its bel~alf, and after due consid~ration of all
~vidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the
~ollow:ing facts:
1. ThaF: the pQtitioner requoats appravc+l of a f;unditional Use
Permit undor Autharity o:: Codc~ Se~tion 18.G1.050.195 to Wit: to p@rmit a
"industrially r~,lated" retai] oales of silk flowers, plants and relatied '
product~ (at 1261 "A" North Lakeview Avenuo) and a retail laundry facility (at ~>
1261 '~K"North Lakeview Avenue).
2. That tl~e proposed use is horeby deni~d on the basls that
the proposed use:s do noL• servirQ the industrial area and are n~t compatibl~
wir.h fndustri~l uses ar,d would crsato conflicting traffic p»tternss an8
turther thnt the usas are commorcial and are ~ormitted ~ises in comm~rcial
retafl zones.
3. 'Phat the propo3od use will adversely ~ffect the adjoining
land uses ~nd tha yrowth anrl dQVelopment of Che area in whirh it is proposed
to b~ ioc~t~d.
4. That the sixe and shn~e of t,hQ site propoand for the use fs
not ~duquate to allow the ful.l deLelopment of the propor,ed uso in ~ manner not
detrlm~ntal t~ th~ pa:ticular area n~r to the peace, health, ~safety an8
gennrai welCare of thQ Citizen~ of kh~ City of: A~-aheir~~.
0990r -.1- PC89-203
,, ^
~
'~'~
'
, r~
'"
"' --
j,
,..
~'~' ~~4'~:.,~~c~.~r .~r~if:. ~ ~.i+:~ 4 arvi ~ ~r~;;,~r~
. I :. P"~~~. I~t ;' l~r~ !( , 1,.
..I ~f\ inri
~h
5. Thal: ~he gxa».ting oE the C~ndition~l Uae Pec~m3,t Wil'1 be
~tetrimental to the poace, hoalth, saf~ty ancl gonoral welfaro of tha Citiaana
of tho Czty a! Annhoim.
6, That thu traff•ic qenc~rat~d by the prnposed use w.ill 3mpase
an undue bur8on upon the s~rQOr.s and h.ighor~ya ~esi~Yned and 3mproved to carry
the tra~Eic in the aroa.
7. That no ono indicated thoir presence at snid public 2iearing
in oppositions and thae no co.rre3pondence was received in opposition to ~he
subjecC petition.
('.~LxF~R~JA EI3VIRONMF.~ITA~, O~1~T~'_.A~T ~INpINC~s That ti.~ An~heim
Cfty Planninq Commi~sian has reviewed k2ie prop~~al to pormit "industrially
relatad" retail sales of silk F.lowers, piants and related products and a
r~tail laundry facility on an irr.egularly-~haped parcel of iand consisCing o.f
appr.oximatoay 6.2 a~res located at ~he southWesL• r.orner af Miral~ma Aveiiue
and Lakeview Avonue~ hraving b frontage of nppro:cimatoly 5G0 foot on r,he south
side o.f Miraloma avenue and 4~8 fed1: on the west side of Lakevi~w Avenue and
Lurther described as 1261 N. Gakeview Avenue, Suite:s "l~" anii "K"; and cloea
h~reby appxove the Negativo Declaratiun upo» finding t}~at 3~ has c~nsidered
the Negative Declar.a~ion togethor with any commen~s raceived durfng ti~e
public rovfew process and furthei• finding on the basis of the ir,itial study
and any comments received that thPre is no substantia.l evii.ence thac r_he
p:ojact will have a sigt-ificant effect on L-lie envir.onment.
NOW, TH~ktiEORE, F!E IT R~SOLVED that thQ AnahE~im City Planni.ng
Commissioii does horeby cleny subjnc~ Petition f.or Conditi~nal Use Permit, on
tl~e basis of tho xf~rementio-~ed finclings.
THE F012EGOING R~SALUTI~N is signed und npprovod by ma this ].4t2:
~iay oE Auqust., 1999. r,~. j
~,- . '>', ~"' tQ,.~`'
- ~-~
L/-~ --' -" ~ .L~ ~ ~ t~. ~-
CFfAIRWO ~ tMA J PRO TEMPOR~, AHEIM Ci'tX PI,I~NNING COMMI~5ZON
ATTEST: ~%
~_---_~~.-t-~., ~~'- -~~ _~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM rlry pLANltiNG COMMISSiON
. ' ,~ ,:~.t'±T
'~,L~
': : `~.P~''.
t~
._2_ pcs9-aoa
.°.
. ,:.t~;
•
~
STATE OF CALTFORNYA
1~. . ~
~.: i u ~',;.,~i~ a~ a?yrh~j~~\~ ~
ie~ ~ yi~
. ~ l{ :.'~!1!i}, ~
. I 1 /.:..1~~
~A
^~y
COUNTY OF' ORANGE ) ss.
CI'~X OF ANAIiEIM )
T, Edir.h L. Harris, Secre~ary of tho Anaheim Ci.ty P]~anning
Commission, da horeby aertiFy that the fc~rogaing reaolution was ga~lsdd and
adopted aC a meating of the Ant~heim City Planninq Commxgsion hold an August
14, 1989, Ly the ~ollowiny vote of tYie membara Chereof:
AYGS: COMMISSIJNERS: H~;T.I.YER, F~LllHAUS
MC DURNGY, MESSE
NOFSs CO1~II~ISSIONERS: BOYDSTU:I, BGiIAS
ABSENT: COI~tISSTONERSs HERDST
IN WITDIY;SS WHERE~F, I h~ve hereuixto set my ha:xd this 1~4Lh clay
of Aiigust, 1989. .
,~. _~~~%C:?~.. ~f ~~~~1.t.d.~.~
SECRETAR.Y~, ANi1li~IM CITY PLf~NNING COMMISSION
~~
,,
,r
N.
~,
a
~:
,(
1
r~tw
) ~
~~1.
-3-
PC89-203
t ~;
' ;i
'f~
~7
' .'~~
.~rY
. , - _ "~:~.t~
::8~
..:.i,:ir~