Loading...
90-107 RESOLUTION NO. 90R-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3229. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit to permit a 26-unit motel and manager's unit with waivers of the hereinafter specified provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA, AS SAID SECTION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK $1, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 5, IN THE LIS PENDENS IN CASE NO. 41023 FILED NOVEMBER 10, 1942 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A COPY OF WHICH IS RECORDED NOVEMBER 10, 1942 IN BOOK 1170, PGB 140 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9, EAST 606.95 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 823.48 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE ANAHEIM HOMESTEAD TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: THENCE EAST 401.18 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 821.59 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 9; THENCE WEST 401.70 FEET ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE WEST 261.00 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPT THAT A PORTION THEREOF INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89 DBG. 14' 25" EAST 606.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DBG. 44' 50" WEST 661.64 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED A PARCEL 5 IN THE LIS PENDENS IN CASE NO, 41023 FILED NOVEMBER 10, 1942 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A COPY OF WHICH IS RECORDED IN BOOK 1170, PAGE 140 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING THE CUP 3229 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 0 DEG. 44' SO" WEST 46.32 FEET TO A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3S28.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 151.07 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS SOUTH ?S DBG. 40' SI" EAST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2 DEG. 2?' 12" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY THEREOF WITH A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2028.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY 280.57 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ? DEG. S5' 36" TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2 IN DEED TO RANDOLPH C. Mc KINLEY AND WIFE, RECORDED MARCH ?, 1946 IN BOOK 1373, PAGE 584, OFFICIAL RECORDS, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 0 DEG. 43' 18" WEST ??.70 FEET FROM SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 5 IN SAID LI$ PENDENS; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 0 DEG. 43' 18" EAST 77.?0 FEET TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE, NORTHWESTERLY 444.09 FEET ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2S00.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEG. 10' 40" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 12, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK S9 PAGE 50 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly given as required by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. PC90-26 denying Conditional Use Permit No. 5229; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public hearing, the City Council did hold and conduct such public hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be heard and did receive evidence and reports, and did consider the same; and WHEREAS, the City Council does find, after careful consideration of the action of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said public hearing before the City Council, that all of the conditions and criteria set forth in -2- Section 18.05.050.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not present for the £ollowing reasons: 1. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because: a. The subject property is located in the COMMERCIAL, LIMITED (CL) ZONE of the City which allows certain commercial business activities. b. The subject property is surrounded by single-family residences to the north; residential condominiums to the east; the Santa Ana Freeway to the south; and commercial offices to the west. c. Elevation plans show a ZS-foot high tower incorporated into the building design and attached to the south side of the building which tower is incompatible with adjacent land uses. d. The proposed motel use of the subject property will generate additional vehicular traffic and noise from patrons, especially during late evening and early morning hours and weekends, which are not generated by typical commercial uses permitted in the zone and which will adversely affect the peace of the neighborhood and the quiet enjoyment of surrounding properties; and Z. That the size and shape o£ the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare because: a. Development plans for the proposed motel are designed to encroach into the structural setback required by the Zoning Code. b. Full development of the proposed use would require either a larger parcel to avoid the aforesaid encroachment, or a redesign of the project; and 5. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because: a. The proposed motel use would generate high volumes of vehicular traffic through residential neighborhoods. b. A high percentage of the vehicle drivers (motel patrons) would be people unfamiliar with the neighborhood or location of the motel. '3- c. Street access to the proposed use is by way of Wilshire Avenue which, due to its design, location and character is unsuitable £or larger volumes of transient traffic by drivers unfamiliar with the street or the area; and 4. That the granting of the conditional use permit would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because: a. The proposed motel use is a 24-hour commercial operation which would involve traffic and patron noise during late evening and early morning hours (and weekends). b. Wilshire Avenue is used as a pedestrian way and by children and others who would be imperiled by high volumes of vehicular traffic along said street (especially by drivers unfamiliar with the area). c. The aforesaid noise and traffic which the proposed use would generate are incompatible with the adjacent residential uses, would adversely affect the peace and safety of the neighborhood, and are inimical to the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding property; and WHEREAS, said application requests waivers of the following provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18.44.065.010 - Minimum structural setback. [10 feet along Wilshire Avenue required; 5 to 15 feet existing) WHEREAS, the City Council does find, after careful consideration of the action of the Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said public hearing before the City Council regarding said requested waivers, that all of the conditions of Section 18.05.040.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are not present, and that said waivers should be denied, for the following reasons: 1. That the project applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because. Z. That the project applicant has failed to demonstrate that strict application of the zoning code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because. -4- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning Commission denying said conditional use permit be, and the same is hereby, affirmed disapproving a 26-unit motel and manager's unit on the hereinabove described real property with waivers of the aforesaid provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the time within which rehearings must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section 1.12.100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and the time within which judicial review of final decisions must be sought is governed by the provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code o£ Civil Procedure and Anaheim City Council Resolution No. 79R-S24. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 3rd day of April, 1990. ATTEST: ~.CiTY CLERK OF THE OF ANAHEIM JLW:kh 3609L CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 90R-107 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 3rd day of April, 1990, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 90R-107 on the 6th day of April, 1990. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Anaheim this 6th day of April, 1990. (SEAL) I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 90R-107~ duly passed and adopted by the Anaheim City Council on April 3, 1990. ~CITY CLERK OF THE Ci OF ANAHEIM