HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-06 - Denying Planning Action PA-93-55k 31'7
RESOLUTION NO. 94-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PLANNING
ACTION PA -93-55.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was Filed by Robert Davis, authorized agent for Mark Les,
with respect to real property located at 1525 Mesa Verde Drive East, Suite 123, requesting
Conditional Use Permits to legalize an acupressure business and to deviate from shared parking
requirements with a Variance from locational provisions in a Cl zone; and
WHEREAS, a duty noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on
December 13, 1993; and
WHEREAS, an interested party filed an appeal of said Planning Commission decision
on December 20, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 22, 1994;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the evidence in the record and
findings contained in Exhibit "A", the City Council hereby DENIES Planning Action PA -93-55
with respect to the property described above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1994.
G;
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
—21��77
Deputy CityPerk of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 94-6 was
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof,
held on the 22nd day of February, 1994.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City
of Costa Mesa this 23rd day of February, 1994.
Deputy City jtlerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT"A"
FINDINGS
PA -93-55
A. The proposed use could be contrary to the public interest, due to secondary impacts as
cited in studies prepared for other cities, nowbly Mission Viejo. A "skid row" effect
is not necessarily something visual, but can result from an aver -concentration of similar
uses within a specific area. The proposed use is contrary to objectives of the General
Plan to preserve residential areas. The proposed use may negatively impact minors
frequenting the coffee house located elsewhere in the center.
B. This business would be located within 500 feet of residential dwellings and within 1,000
feet of uses frequented by minors.
C. This business has operated in violation of the zoning code and parking requirements by
continuing to operate without a Conditional Use Permit.
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 94-6
Page lofI