Resolution-PC 96-46~
RESQLI~'!ON iJ0 PC9f3~
~' J
A RESOLUTION OF THE A13AHEII~A CITY PI.ANNINGI COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDRIONAL l)SE PE~riMIT NO. 3835 BE DENIED
WI;EREAS, the PnahAfm Ciry Pianning Ga~nmissicx~ dld receNe a veriHed Petltion for
CondRlonal Use Permft for certaln ~eal property sRuated In the Cfty ~f Mi'.~heim, CouMy of Orange, State
of CalfFornla, desctibed as:
BEGINNIPiG AT A POINT WHICH IS SOl-TH 74 [)EG. 21' 15' W/EST 40•Ou FEGT
AND NOR~'H i5 DEG. 36' S5' ~NEST 33•00 FEEf' FROM A CONCRETE
MONUMENT AT TFIE INTERSEGTION OF '~HE CENTEF~ LINE OF SOUTH LOS
ANGEl.ES STREET WITH THE C:EN'fER l1NE OF WEST YERMOIVT A'JENUE AS
SHO'1NN ON A MAP OF 7RACT NO. 1134, RECORDED IN BOOK 38, PAGE 2 OF
MISCcLUWEOUS iV1APS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CF
SAID ORANGE COJNTY; THENCE NORTH 15 DEG. 36' S5' NIEST 121•00 FEET
pARALLEL WITH SAID CEN7ER LINE OF LQS ANQELES STREE'f'; THENCE
SOUTH 74 DEG. 21' 15' WEST 150.00 F~ET PARALL.EL WITH SAID CENTER L1NE
OF VERMONT AV~NUE; TFIENCE SOUTH 15 DEG. 36' S5~ EAn ~21•0~ FEE~~
THENCE NORTH 74 DEG. ~1' 15' EAST 15~•00 FEET TO THE POIN7 OF
BEGINNINu.
V',•,~EREAS, the City Plannin~ Commission did hold a pubiic hea~0 at ~~~Mer
in the Ctty of Mahefm on Ma~ 13, 1996 at 1:30 p.m., not~e d said P~blic heark~g ~`~~9 ~n duly 91ven
as required by iaw and in acc~rdance wfth the provis~ons of ~~'~ ~~,~a~ to imestigat and
to hear and ccx-sider evklence for and agai~st sald ProPo~
make flndings and recommendations in conneccion therewfth; arxi that sald publl~ hearing weis cordinued
to the May 29, 1996 Planning Commission; and
WHEHEF.S, sald Commisslan, after due Inspection, invest~e ~~~~ ~~ 9d does flnd
arxl In fts beha~f, and atter due consideration of al~ evide~ce a~d ropats
and det~rm~nb tha fMlowing fscts:
1. 7hat the proposed use Is properly ~ne for which a condftionN use permft ia authorized by
Anaheim Municlpal Code Sectfon 18.44.050.300 to permlt e drive-through lane in conJ~nction wfth en
existing fast food restaurant wfth waNers of the fdlowin9:
~'lons 18 06 0~.0~'~3 \Atn~r»~~m n11rt1F]6f OF 11cr~a ina sQBS,~g•
~a) '~- ~ r uired; 2Si ProPo~ a~ ~curred witl'- by the Cfty Trafflc
and 18.44.066.Q.~4 ~ ~ ~tfon Manager)
and Transpo
~ ~+~~-thro~ah lane reauirer~g~•
~b~ ~;yions ~a.as.o~o.ozo - ~~il.' ~.,'"
and 18.44.06~ (Required: S~f~St between stan o~ dfi'~8"through lane and
' orderln9 devtce, arxf feet between ordering device and
service window; Proposed: 4ZS~I ~~~n ~K ~ lane and
wdering devlce, and 40 feet between ordering devlce and service
wDtxiowl
That waNers (a) and (b) are hereby denied on the basis that the cw~dftlonal ~se ~8 denied;
-1- PC96-46
CR2658DM
~ ~
3. That there are no spocta~ circumstanc~s aQplk~b~e to the ProPa~hl d~ to Rs size, shape~
is a flat, rec~an9ularlY-shaPed Parcel af land
topography, Iccation or suROUndings because subJect propeRY ~~~~
which Is fully developed~ and that 9n t~he~sa~-e~v~niry andbzone ~~ e g~~ P~~
enjoyed by other simitaar properties
4. That the subJect property is r~ot d suffictent size, te a d e-throu9u h Iane; and tha~t the
restaura~ buYding does nac lend lts~lf to adequetely accornrnoda ~}{~.ts or safety
granting of the watvers w o u l d r e s u l t In on- s l t e a n d o n- s V e e t trafflc ar~c1/or p e destrfa~
hazards;
5. That the proposed use Is propedY one for whkh a conditional use Pem~R is auihorized by
the Zoning Code;
6. That the proposed t~e wiU adveraely affect the adjoininy land uses and 2he qrowth and
development ~f the area In whicn ~ is Proposed to be located~
7. That the size and shape of the sfte for the Pr°P°~ ~~~~~~te to allow the fuli
dev~lopment of the proposed use in a manner not detrin~ental to the paRku~r area nor to the peace,
health, safery, snd general welfare;
8. That the pr4posed use wouid impose an undue burden on the streets an~ highways
designed to carry trafffc in the immediate area because vehk~es wai~rW t° er~te~ ~~e d~e'through Iane
off Anaheim Boulevard ma ~i ~safety aCnd ge eral elfa e of the cftizens 4he yCitY ofi Anahelm; and~
detrimeMal to the pes~cc;
9. 'fhat no one Indkk;ated their presence at safd pub(ic hearing in opposrtlan~ and that no
~orrespondence was received In opposftbn to the subject peticion.
ce~FORNIAy.~"QOhR"Eh'T~9~ ~A~ ~ ACT FIt~DIN~: Thea the Mahoim City Planning
Commission has review~l the p~oPosa~ to Pe~Tnk $ drive-through lane i~ c~nSundio~ with an exlsting fast-
food restauran: with waNe~s of minimum number of paek~~9 aPeces and mtnimum driv~throuflh lane
requfremeMs on a rectangulariy-shaped Uercel of lund cdnslsNrW of aPProxima~y 0•~ acre~s located at
~he nathwest comer of VeRnc~rn Avenue end Anaheim Boulevard, havtnq ePPrwdmat~ f:onta9es of 150
feet on the noKh side of `~ermorrt Avenue and 121 faet on the west side d Anahelm Boulevard~ N~~e
described as 899 South AnahAim Boulevard (Ted's Burgers); and do~is hereby appr
Dedaration upors flndiny tha2 the deC~araUon reflects the IndependeM Jixl~ement d the lead agencY and
that k has considered the NegaWe Declaratbn together with any commerts receNed during the publb
isno su stantlal evidencerthatithe proJectwqlha e aislgnHiu~rrtyeffect on the environrr~rrt ~ that there
NOW, THEREF'ORE, BE R RESOLVED tF~at the Anaheim Clry P~ann~n0 Commiss!°^
does hereby deny sub~ect PetiUon tor Condftlonal Use PertntL
-2- PC96-46
..
.,
~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTiON was~ aclopted at the Plannin~ Commission meet~~p of
May 29, 1 ~6. ~~D~~
CHAIRMAN, PRO TEM ORE
ANAHEIM qTY PLAN ING COMMISSION
ATfEST:
% ~ ..~o~
SECRET Y, EIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION
STATE OF CAUFORNIA )
CC+UNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Nlargar;ta Sdorio, Secretary of the Maheim CftY Flanning Commleslon, do hereby
certffy that the foregotng resdution wes Paased a^d edopted at a meetlrW of the Ana-~m Ciry
Planning Commissbn held on May 29, 1996, by the fdiowfn~ vote oF the mert~becs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, FiENNINGEA, MESSE, PERAZh
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: t~ONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEHS: MAYER
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand tt-~s ~ daY d=~
~
, ~
,sss. ~,~tud
SECRETAR ,;~ EIM GTY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ PC96~46