Resolution-PC 98-26RESOLI TIOP! NO. pC98-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE HPIAHEIAI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL i;SE PERMIT NO. 4003 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Corrimission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Mahpim, County of Orange, State
of California, and described as:
THAT PORTION OF LOT 7 OF BLOCK 17 OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WES7, S.B.B. 8~ M,
BEING PART OF THE FAIRVIEW COLUNY TRACT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SFiOWN Oh
MAP RECQRDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 33 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, It~ THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST HALF OF THE FOLLOWING
PARCEL OF LAND:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7, DISTANT
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51' 10" EAST 460.40 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWES7
CORNER THEREOF. SAID PGINT BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE LAND CONVEYED TO ROBERT H. HUDSON AND WIFE BY DEED
RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1950 IN BOOK, 2094, PAGE 16, OFFICIAL
RECOFtDS; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 33' 10" EAST ALONG THE EAST
LINE OF SAID LANG CONVEYED TO ROBERT H. HUDSON AND WIFE, 668.87
FEET TO A POINT ON THE NGRTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 43' S0" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7 AND THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT 8 IN BLOCK 17 OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 202 FEET TO A
POINT; THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 33' 10" WEST 668.17 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51; 10"
WE5T ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 7 AND 8, 202 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hoid a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on February 18, 1998 at 1;30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipa! Code, Chapter
18.0~, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to
investigate and make findings and recommendalions in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports affered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a condflional use permit is
authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.44.050.060 and 18.44.050.085 to permit an
automotive sales, rental and repair facility with waivers of the following:
(a) Section 18.44.062.011 - VLlaximum structurai heiaht.
1( 5%: feet permitted when located 31 feet from single-
famiiy residential zoning; 16 feet proposod because the
property adjofns RS-7200 zoning to the norlh)
(b) Section 18.44.063.040 - Min(mum structural and landsr,aaed setbacks adiacent to
a residential zone boundarv.
CR3192PL.DOC -1- PC98-26
2. That waiver (a), pertaining to maximum structurai hefght, is hereby denied
because there are no special circumstances applicabie to the property such as size shape, topography,
location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that
strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because the building could either be lowered
to a maximum height of 15%= feet or relocated to provide the minimum 32-foot structural setback ~equired
b~ Code;
3. That waiver (b), pertaining to minimum structura~ and land~caped setbacks
adjacent to a residential zone boundary, was deleted follo~ving public advertisement of this petition;
4. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is
authorized by the Zoning Code;
5. That the proposed use would adversely affect adjoining land uses and the growth
and deveiopment of the area in which it is proposed to be localed because subject property adjoins
residential uses to the north and west;
6. That approval of this use would be inconsistent with the General Plan because
the land use designation is "Commercial Profossfonal," typically implemented by the CO (Commercial,
Oifice and Professional) Zone, and automotive sales, rental and repair facilities are not permitted uses in
the CO Zone;
7. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed 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, safery and general welfare because the proposed automotive facility would necessitate a
substantial buffer area to reduce detrimentai impacts (such as nuise) on abulting and nearby residences;
8. That the traffic generated by the proposed use may impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area;
9. Ttiat granting of this condiiional use permit would be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of lhe citizens of the City of Anaheim because the proposal is located
adjacent to residential neighborhoods and this business would adversely affect those adjoining homes,
particularly due to noise and the high level of activity typically associated with automotive uses; and
10. That three people at the public hearing spoke in favor of the proposal and 2
people indicated their presence in opposition; and that no correspondence was recefved in opposition ta
the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive saies, rental and repair facility
with waivers of maximum slructurai height and minimum structural and landscaped setbacks adjacent to a
residential zone boundary on a 0.71-acre parcel having a frontage of 101 feet on the north sfde of Katelia
Avenue, being located 285 feet west of the centerline of Bayless Street (1565 West Katella Avenue); and
does hereby deny the Negative Declaration upon finding that the deciaraQon reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Dec'~ration together with any
comments received during lhe public review process and further finding on lhe basis of the initial study
and any comments received that there is substantial evidence that the proJect would have a slgnificant
effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City P~anning Commissfon
does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, on the basis of the aforementioned findfngs.
-2- PC98•26
THE FORF_GOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planring Commission meeting of
February 18, 1998.
~~ti~~~~~
CFIAIRPERSOiV, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
G~~
SECRET RY, AN EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF OR4NGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
l, Margarita Solorio, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Con-~mission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of thr•, Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on February 18, 1998, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NENNIt~GER, NAPOLES, PERAZA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NON~
ABSENT: COMMiSSiONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE SEAT
,,~~q, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~~ day of
~LU(/al. , 1998.
C~k~~
SECRETAR , NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC98-28