Resolution-PC 89-232r~.f{fn ~
H~~1:l~.3~_N4 ~' ' _2-..2_~..2
~M1~'tl.~
~ ~
A 1tF~SOLUTION OE THL ANAEIL•'TM C.ITY E':.ANNING COMMISSiON
THAT PN;TITION FOR CONDtTIONAL USE PERM:IT N0. 3162 BL~ D~:NIED
WAEREAS, tha Anaheim City Planning Cur,~mission di~i receivo a
veri~iod ?etitior for Conditaonal Usa P~rmit from M1~RIN M012TGAGF TRUST, 400d
Carlislo NE, Suito U. Albt~uquerquo, t7M a7107, owner and VESC012 AEVELOPMENT,
ATTN: Gaorge Krajack, 720 ~own & Country Koac1, Orange, CA 92668, aqe:it for
cortain rea.l proporty situated in the C:Ity oi Anaheim, County~ of Orange, Stato
o~ Cali£ornia, described as:
LOT , OF ORZGINAL TOWN' L,OTS OF. ANAHEIM, IN THF. CITY
OF I~NAHEY~t, COUNTY QF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MA.P RECORDCD IN HOOK 4, PAGES 629 and 63~, LEEDS,
RECOKUS ~L LOS ANGELES COU23TY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, thQ City Planning Commissio.. did hold ~ public hearing
at the Civic C~izter ~n ~he City of Anaheim c~n May 22, 19B9 at 7s30 p.m.,
noticQ of aaid public hearing havi.ng been duly given as r~quireQ by law and i.n
accordanco with L•he provisa.ons of L•ha Anaheim tdunic;ipal Code Chapter 18.03, to
hear and consider eviclencn for anci against said prcposcsd reclassif~cation anci
to invc~stigatA and make firidings and recommQndations in conr~ection therewith;
and s~id petition was continued to the meet:ngs of Jun~ 19, July 5, July 17,
August 11, Septomber ?.5 and October 9, 1989; and
WHFREA5, sazd Commiss'.on, after due in::pection, inv~stlgatipu
and study made by its~lf ar.d in .its behalf, and after di~e consideraY,ion of all
evidencQ and r~ports offare3 at sa.icl hearing, does find anfl det;ermine the
follow.ing facts:
l. That thQ proposoci use is progerty o~ne for which a
aonfiitional use permit is nuthorized by Anaheim Municipal Code SQCtion
18.44.050.135 to wit: to permit a 10-uni,t, b,816 ~quare L•oot commexcial
retail center.
2. Thnt the prupvso~l u,e is hareby denied on th~+ basis that it
is not comNatibl~s with the ~urrounQ3.ng ].ar,d uses.
3. Tha~ khe proposed us~ will advers 'x a.`f~at the edjoining
land uses and the qrowth ancl development of the aroa .in which ir. is proposed
to be located.
Q. Th~t the size anrt shape of: L•he si~e praposeci for the use is
not adequate tn allow the ~ull dQVelopment of. the proposed u~e in a manner not
detrimental tr~ the particular area nor to tho paaco, health, saEet~{ and
qencral welfHre of the Citizei~s of tho City af Aiiaheim.
1061r -1.. PC 89-7.32
~ ?~;h
,., _ :,r~sr
~~i~fG~~ "~;i~
. . ~G{n~ ~ ~ ~~'_J'~j,
~
~
5. That the grt~nti.rig of L•hQ Cond.itional UsU Permit w31.1 be
detriment~l to thQ peace, tieal~l~, saEeCy and general welEare of tha Citizons
oF tho Ci~y of AnahQim.
6. That GhH trafEic generatEd by th4 proposed usca wi17 impose
an undue ?~urden upon the streeL•s and h3.ghways designed anc~ improved ~o carry
l:he trt~fEic in ttie ~rea.
7. That one pQrson indicated his presence at the October 9,
1989, public tiiearing ln opposii::ion; tihat 9 pgrsons zndicated ttieir presence at
the May 22, 198~, pub~ic hearing; tht oi„~ or two ~ersons appoared a~;. the ~Tune
19, Ju3.y 5, July 17, Augiist 14 t~nd Sept~~nber 25, 19RU, Plannfng Commission
Publi~ Hearing; and that no currQSponder.ce w~s recei•ved in opposihion to the
' subject pet~iCion.
.~'~'-I~-IFQ-R..~II~~N_VI. RQN,i~.FNTAL _ U I.,rT~~CT FINAINGs That ~he Anaheim
City Ylanninc~ Comrnissinn has reviow~d the proposal to recla~sify subject
proparhy t.'rom the GG (Commercial, G~naraly Zone to the CL (Commercial,
Limited) Zone and to parmit a 10-u.nit, 6,816-•square foot commercial retail
canter on a ractangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
~•49 acrQ IocTted at L•ho southw~sC rorner of Sycamore Street and Anahaim
BoulevZrd, having approximate frontages of 118 fee~ nn the south siflc~ of
SycamorF: StreQt and 181 Feet on ~he west sid~ o£ ~naheim IIoulevard and
:furthQr described as 4Z3 Dtarth Anaheim Boulavard; and does heroby ttpprp~e ~~e
Negative Decla~ation upon finding that it has cansidered the Negative
Declax•ation togetliQr with any comments received during the public rev.i.ew
procoss and further finding an the basis of the initial study anQ any
comment~t recQivecl that thor~ is no substantial evi&once that the project wi11
have a signifirant ofiQCt on the envzronmeiit.
NOW, TIiERE:OFE, ~3E IT RESOLVED t_haL the Anahe.im City P.lanning
, Commission doas hereby deny su.bject Petition for Conaitional Use Perm3t, on
, the basis of lhe aforemontiioned findings,
TFiE FORLGOItJG RESOLUTION' is 3ignQd ai~d approved by m~ this 9th
day of. October, 19Ug.
~
_~` .~ ~ ~ ,- , /~!v~
} •.C~iAIRMI~h, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt9YtI5SI0N
-, ATrEST:
' ---- _~ ~~~f CNvi-~`.^'J
[~Y~ _..
:• S~;CRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLAtJNING COMMISSYUN
~,
~
-2-
PC89-232
~,1
'~ 1
s'?M1'
i ~ ' . ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . .. .. ~ .. ~... . ~ ~ . . . . , r' ..~ 7 ~ ~~' ~;::` ~rio.+IV'~M41G~,y~y',~
. } '~~'~t
~~a ~~ r,,~'
~ ~~ a ~ ,;~i
,'r,'
STATE OF CALII'ORNTA )
COUNTY OP' qRAAIGE ) s5 ~
CITY OF AI~TAFiEIM )
; I. Edith L. I3arris, Sdcretary of the Anaheim C.ity Plann,ing `
; Commission, do horeby cer.tify that ~he L•oregoinq resolutxon w~ag p~ssQd and '''~~
; adopted a~ a meeting of the Anahc~im City Plannxng Commission hold on October '
i 9. 1909. 'ay the follawing vote of thn mambexs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOrTERS: HIGRBS3', BOXbSTUN, HELLYER, F~LllHAUS, BOUAS,
MC BUI2NEY
N03S: COt~fISS10NER5: NONr^,
AESENT: CC'rIId:[SSIONF.RS: ME;SSE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hersunt~ set rny hand this 9th day ot
Octobar, 13a9.
~ ~
~ Y . '
5ECRETARY, ANAHEIM CTTY P k~"r7NING COh4~fISSION
1{1061r
-3-
L
PC89-232
;
~
,
1
f
i
,
~
~
'~
`
, ~~