Loading...
1982-360RESOLUTION NO. 82R-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2340 . WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit from LA PALMA PARTNERS, owner, and YONG H. PARK, agent, to permit a golf clinic with retail sales on certain real prop- erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: THOSE PORTIONS OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, MARCH 23, 1875, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN 18 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; and -1- BOOK 94, PAGE COUNTY RECORDER ATTY -26 (Pays I of 2 Pages) 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 re- quired by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investi- gation 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. PC82 -116 , denying_ Conditional Use Permit No. 2340 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 duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be heard and did receive evidence and reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consider- ation of the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, that: 1. The proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located. 3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is 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. 4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not im- pose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning Commission denyin said conditional use permit be, and the same is hereby, reversed and that Conditional Use Permit No. 2340 be, and the same is Fereby, granted permitting a golf clinic with re- tail sales on the hereinabove described real property subject to the following conditions: —2- ATTY -26 (Page 2 of 2 Pages) 1. That the owner of subject property shall pay the difference between the industrial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896) for an area of 2,160 square feet in an amount as determined by the City Council. Said fee shall be paid within a period of sixty (60) days from the date hereof. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that a maxi- mum of twenty -two percent (22 %) of the building gross floor area shall be used for purposes of retail display. 3. That no on -site advertising signs shall include the terms "open to the public," "retail sales" or other similar terms designed or intended to attract retail customers. 4. That there shall be no advertising in magazines, newspapers or the telephone directory which advertising includes the terms "open to the public," "retail sales" or other similar terms designed or in- tended to attract retail customers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Anaheim does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted this 6th day of July, 1982. MAYOR OF THE CITY QP ANAHEI ATTEST: CITY ..LERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM JLW :fm -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 82R -360 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 6th day of July, 1982, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 82R -360 on the 6th day of July, 1982. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Anaheim this 6th day of July, 1982. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY F ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 82R -360 duly passed and adopted by the Anaheim City Council on July 6, 1982. CITY CLERK