Resolution-PC 92-40REgpLf7T~UN NO. PC92-4Q
A RESOLTJTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN(3 COMMI$SION
THAT PExITION FOR CONDITIONAL (73E PERHIT ti0. 3492 BE qENIED
WHEFtEAS, the Anaheim Clty PlanniTiq Commleeion did receive a
verifier~ Petition for Conditlor~al Uee i~ermit for cRrtain roal property situated
in thQ City ~f Anaheim, County of oranqe, StMte of Caliiornia, closcribed a~:
TENTATIV~ TRACT 12991 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PAACEL 6~
7, 8 AND 9 OF PARCEL MAP li0. 87-210 FILED IN BOOK 231,
PAG~3 42 THROUG'i 47 OT' PARCCL MAPS.
WHERE;AS, the CiL•y Planning Commi.eaion did hold r, public hearinq
at thR Civic Center 1n the City of. Anahoim on February 24, 1992 at 1=30 p.m.,
notice uf eaid publir, hearing having boen duly given ae roquired by law and in
accor~ance with the provioione of the Anaheirn Hunicipnl Codo, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and coneider evidence £or and againet said pr.oposed conditionnl ure
permik and to inveatigate and make findinga and recommandations in connocti.on
thercwitht and that naid publia hearinq was continued to tha March 23 and
April 6, 1992 Planning Commiseion meetinga; and
41HEAEAS, sAid Commiaeion, after due inBpection, inveet.lgation
and 4tudy ma9o by iteelf ard in its behal~, and attor due coneideration oY u11
evidence an~ reporte ofler~+d nt uaid h~arinc~, doea find and determine the
followinq fecCe:
1. Thet tho propotiod uee i~ proper. ona for which a
conditional uoe pormit io authorizad by Anshoim liunicipal C~de Sectiono
18.44.050.070, 19.44.050.OA0, 18.44.050.135 and 18.71.050.070 to pmrmit
qaeuline eateu in conjunction with a 1,825 sq.ft. car waoh facility, x2,465
eq.ft. oi a~~to repair, a 1,767, aq.ft. lube and tune facility, and a 12-unit
11,665 aq.~t. commerci~al rotail center with waiver of the Followings
~ej aP~."PZON3 18,~,1.060.070 - l~;nie~um_ h"~ldina eetback.
and 28.84.06~Q.3.~, (.~40 oet from Weir Canyon Rosd r~+quirod~
Q~fao~ to gaaoline pump iolnnd propo~od)
~b~ c~g~,,~I~NS 18•71.Q~.Q~QZS~ - pQrmitte root mo~.~nted Qauiwnent.
~pd 18.~~ (No roof mounted equipmonk pormitted in the
Scenic Corxidor Ovex.lay 2ona~ roof mounted
equipmont progoaad)
2. That tho pzopoaoA uee will advereoly ofi~ct the adjoining
land ueQS end the growth and development of the arua in which it la prop~sod to
be loc.ated far th¢ followinq roasonu:
(a) SubyQCt pr.operty in deuignated ae a"Netqhbarhood Conv9niencQ Shoppinq
Conter" in the Sycamoro Canyen Specific P.Lan and s rotail cpntor in wh.tch
58~ nf tho uneo are outomotl~ve-ralat~ed do~s not fi* thv intont of thio
cloxiqne~iont
CR14b3MS.DOX -1- YCS2-40
(b) The pr~poeed increaee of automot•ive-relat~d ueee b~yond khoso previoual~~
approved undor Co:~ditiar~al U~e P~rmit No. 3228 (which permitted a totnl oE
7,030 oq.£t. of automotive-rQlated uaen (42~ of the kotal building ar~a]
in comparieon to subject petiticn whiah include0 16,057 aq.ft. af euch
usee [569 of t.he total bui.lding aren)) may be detrimantal to eucroundinq
einglA•Eamily reeidencee baeauae oP ~otential v~.OUaL and noiae impacte,
ai~d further those potential impucts hsve not been addreaaed by tha
pAtitionerT
(c) The yropoaed alignmenr. of the car wa~h tunnel would raeult in nnisa beinq
directed towarde the reeidences to tt~e north and towarde the canyon to the
south which ie deeiqnated aa an open epace corridar.
7. That the eize and ehape of the eitA for tho propaeed uec ie
not adaqunte to allow tiie full development o~ the propooed uoe in a mannar no~
detrimental to the particular area n~.r to the peace, health, enfety, and
general welfgror
4. Thnt the traffic generated b,y the propoaed u0e will impoee an
undue burden upon the streeta and hiphwaye do~igned and improved tn carry the
traffic in the ~rea;
5. ~ihat thn qranting of the co~~ditional ued permit will be
det• .,~ental to the F.euce, health, eafety and gonQral taelfaro uf the citixen~ of
the City ot Anahoimj
6. That the petittoner hae not eubmitted auffici~nt informxtiun
to thorouyhly snalyze the vieual impacta the proposed roof-mout~ted aquipment
ma,y hava an adjacent up-hill residenceW to the north an~, tlierofore, thQ
requuated wai~er (b) ie not justifiodi
~. That thore aro no epecinl circumetancen applicablo *o the
rroperty eucl- ae eiza, ehape, topoqraphq, lacntion o: ourr~~ur.dLnqnr wtiiclt d~
not apply to oL•her i.dentically zoned praperties in the vicinityj
8. That etrict application of thc~ 2oninq Code doon not deprivo
the proporty of privilegee anjoyed by vther propertiea uncfor idantical zoning
claeeitication in the vicinityt and
9. Thnt fourteen (14) people indicated their preoanco aG anid
public hosrinq in oppoAition nnd that approximately two hundred ^iqnad
petitiona wore proeen~od ln oppoeition.
_2_ PC92-40
~ALIFORNIA ENVI$Q~ENTAL OUAL1,~( AGT ~INDIN6s That tho Anahaim
Cit.y Planning Commiaeion has reviewed the propoeal ~to permit qaeoline ~alee in
conjunction wiEh a 1,825 eq.ft. cmr wxeti Paaility, 12,465 oq.fL•. o! auto
repair, a 1,757, eq.~ft. lube and tune facility, and a 12-unit 11,665 eq.Et.
comniercial retail cantor with waivere of minimum building eetbaalc and permi.tted
roof mounted equipment on an ir.regulurly-Ahaned Parcel oP land coneist~ng oE
approximately 3.9 acres lorated at the northeaet corner o! Wdir Canyon Roa4 and
Canyon Viota Drivo, having approximate fr.ontsq~e of '/55 feot on the north eide
of weir Canyon xoad and 450 feet on the oaet eido of Caayon Ji~ta Drivo and
~urther deecribed ae Development Ar.ea 5 0£ the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
(SP88-1}j and d~ee horeby deny the Negstive Declaration upon findinq that the
declaration reflecte the independent j~idgement of the lead agoncy and that 1i
hae coiieid9red the Nogativu Declaxation toqether with any oomments recefvcd
during the publia review pr.ocees and further finding on the basia thnt the
Lnitial Ntud~ and any commente re<:oivad that there is eubetantial evidence that
th6 projact will hav4 a eignificant efiect on the environment.
NOW, THER.~FORE, BF IT RE'SOLVED that the Anahoim Cfty Planning
Commia~ion does hereby deny oubject Petition for Conditianal Uae Permit, an th•
basi.s af the aforementioned findinga.
THE FOR~~OING RESOLJTIODI was adopted at the Planninq Commioaion
meeting of April 6, 1992. .
~~.~ ~~- c~"-l ~ .
I I-N~ ANAHE M CIT PLANNI COMPfI33ION
ATTESTt
`~'Y ~tr ~~
3ECRET Y, A AHE2M CITY PLANNING COMMI33ION
STATE OF CALIFOP.NIA )
COUNTY Ok' ORANOF. ) es.
C2TY uF ANAHEIH )
I, Margarita Solario, seczetary of the Anahoim c:itf Plenning
Commieoion, do hereby oertify that the foragoSng reeolution wne passsd and
adopted at a moeting of tho Anahaim City Planrting CommSeeion held on April 6,
1992, by the followin7 vote ot the membvre theroof:
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs HOUAS, BRSSTOL~ HELLYER~ MESBE~ PERAZA~ 2E!'~'u
N063s COHMI33IONERSs NONE
ABSENTs COHMSS420NER:~t HENNINGE;R
1 I!i WITNESS W1iEAEOF, I have here~nto eet my hand thio I If~ day
ot _ Y~~~ 1992.
`-~y' ~ ,r~wft~s~~S~ ~ rc~o-'
sECRE~AR~ I ANAHF.iti CiTY PLANNINr, cOM!li83ION
-3- PC92-40