Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-07 - Denying Planning Action PA-93-56. 319 RESOLUTION NO. 94-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PLANNING ACTION PA -93-56. 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 California Federal Bank, FSB, with respect to real property located at 2845 Mesa Verde Drive East, Suite 2, requesting Conditional Use Permits to legalize an acupressure business and to deviate from shared parking requirements with a Variance from locational provisions in a C1 zone; and WHEREAS, a duly 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 -93-56 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1994. Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: Deputy City rk 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. 94-7 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. r 1. Deputy C'j Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City C uncil of the City of Costa Mesa 320 FAlllBIT "A" FINDINGS PA -93-56 A. The variance front locational icyuirements will he contrary to the public interest because the use is aoljacent to a residenlial area aurl in pioximity Io churches and establishments likely to be used by minors, i.e., lite Girl Scout headquarters and the Orange County Health Clinic. The proposed use is contrary to one of lite purposes of the General Plan to preserve viability of residenlial areas, and the use is contrary to neighborhood conservation. B. This business would be located within 51111 feet of resideniial dwellings and within 1,000 feet of uses frequented by minors. C. 'phis business has operated in violation of Ills zoning axle an(] parking requirements. U. The proposed use will he contrary to the public inieresl and injurious to the nearby properties and that the spirit and intent of this article will not I)e observed; the proposed use will enlarge or encourage the development of a skill row area; and the establishment of an additional regulated use in the area will he contrary to any program for neighborhood conservation. E. No evidence has been presenled to justify a finding that special conditions exist that would justify a variance in any case. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 94-7 Page i of l