PC 72-50RESOLUTI0~0. PC72-5C ~
A RESOLUTION Cr^ THE CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITl G: AN~HEIM
THAT PE'TITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT 1294 gE GRANTED IN PART
WHEREAS, the Ciiy Planning Commission oE the City of Anaheim did :eceive a verified Petition for Con-
ditionalUse Permitfrom FRED MILLER, 2109 Nor.th Mary Way, Placentia, California 92670, Owner;
LFONARD SMITH REAL ESTA.TE, 125 "D" South Claudina Screet, Anaheim, California 92805,
A~ent af certain real property situated in ttie City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
uf California, described as The East Half of Lot 2 of T'ract 162 as shown on a map thereof
recorded in Book 12, page 6, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Urange County; EXCEPTIIVG
therefrom an undivided 11/12 interest in a 14 iuch pioeline extending along front of said
lot, commonly knewn and r.eferred to as "tract pipeline", also ar, undivided one-half inter-
e~t in the Cast 20 feet of the South 20 feet of the ~orth 103 feet of the West half of
Lot 2 of Tract 162, in the County of Orange, as shown on a map thereof record~d in IIook Z2
Page 6, MisceZlaneous Maps, records of said Oranbe Cour~ry, together with a like interest
in the well, pumping plant and equipment locate:f thereon
; end
WHEREAS, thr City?lanning Commission did hold e pubiic hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on Marcli 20, 19/2 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given
as required by law an9 in accordance with the pcuvisions of ihe Anaheim Municipel code, Chepter 18.64,to hear
and consider evidence for and ageinst said proposed conditional use and to investiga:e and make Eindings and
recommendations in coanec'.ion therewith; and
WFtEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its be-
halE, and after due consideration of ell evidence and repods ofEeced et seid hearing, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional LTs~~ Permit is authorized by Code :
Section 18.40 060(g) - p~rmit on-sale liquor in conjunction with an existing restaurant
wlth waivers of:
a, SECTION 18.40.U30 1-b - Acceasory uses permi.tted.(A residence where
use y a proprietor, menager, or custodian
permitted; residence used as a renta7 unit
proposed)
b. SECTION 18.40,070(2-a-3) - Landscaped front setback, (3 feet reQuired;
0 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.40.070(2-a-5-a) - Screen landscapin~ requirem~iit. (Screen
lsndscaping along boundary line separating
commercial from resident. ' required; no
landscaping proposed)
d. SECTION 18.40.07C(2-a-6) - Minimum interior parkinQ area landgcapinK.
2% reuuired; none provided)
2. That the request to pe~ ~~_'.~. on-sale liauc•r is hereby granted.
3. That Wsiver 1-a, above mentioned, is tieceby denied on the 'basia L-hat this would
be an inappropriate land use on thia property; however, the Planning Cortanisaion gran[s
the petitioner uue (1) pear to discontinae tha: rene~il use ~f this residential structure.
4. That Waivers 1•~b and 1-d, ab«ve mentioned, are hereby denied on the basis tliat
there is adeq~+~te are~ to provide parking to the rear of the building thereby utilizing
a portion of Che front parking a~ea fer che required landscaping; however, the Planning
Commission hereby grants the petitioner fiEte~n (15) months to comply with theae land-
scaping requirements, since the agent for the pe~itioner sti.pulat~ed that said landscap-
ing would be installed within this period of time.
5, Tbat Waiver 1-c, above nientioned, is hereby granted on th~ basis that landscap-
ing usually required betw~en commer~ial acid residential uses would appear to be unwaL•-
ranted due to the fact thet the 10-fool: w:+ll of the carports of the miiltiple family units
to the rear of subject prnperty ail~quately separ.at~ the two uses.
C1-G -1-
6. That the proposed use, as approved, will not adve~`aely affect the adjoining
land uses snd the growth and deveYopmenL- of the area in which it is proposed to be lccated.
7. That the s~ze and shape of th~e site proposed for the use is adequate Co allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner aot detrimental to the particular
area nor to the peace, he~lth, safety, aind general welfare of the CiL•izens of the City of
Analieim.
8. That the granting of the CondiEional Uae Permit, as approved, under the condi-
tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, healtt::, safety, and general
welfare of Che Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THSREFORE, BE IT 1'~SOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Co~iission does hereby
grant in part subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions
which are hereby £ound to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the ~ubject
property in order to preserve: the safety and general ~oelfare of the Citizens of the City
of Anaheim:
(1) That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a ctrip
of land 53 feet in width .f.rom the centerline of the street along Ball P.oad for street
widening purooses.
(2) That the required three (3) feet landscape strip along Ball Road and the required
2% interior parking area landscaping shall be installed within fifteen (15) months from
date hereaf, as stipulated to by the petit:ioner; and that a bond in an amount and form sat-
isfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City L•o guarantee the inatalla-
L•ion of L-he above mentioned requirements,
(3) That the rental use of the residential structure on ithe rear of the proper.ty
shall be discontinued one (1) year from date hereo'i.
(4) That aubject property shall Se developed substantiall.y in accordance with plans
and specifii:ations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Eahibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; pro-
vided, howe~~er, that the proposed bar shall be screened from view from the dining area;
and further provided that the terme of Condition Nos. 2 and 3, ebove mentioned, shall be
complied wit.h within the time limits established therein.
(5) That Condition Nos. 1 and 2;, above mentioned, shall be complied with pricr to
the co:nmencemene of the activity authnrized under this resoluti~n, or prior to the time
that the building permit is issued, or within a period of 180 days from date hereof, which-
ever occurs fi.rat, or such further time as the Planning Commission ma~ gr~nt.
THE POREGOING RESOLUTION is sign~:d and app ved by me is 30th da of March, 1972
CHAIP1fAN ANAH IM CITY PLANNING COI~AtISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~Yf/J'~'' %,I~ ~"iWV/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATG OP CALIFORIITA )
COUNTY OF ORANG~ ) ss.
CITY OP AI~AHEIM )
I, Atm Krebs~ Secretary of the Cir.y Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and sdopted at a meeting of the City
Planning Commi.ssion of the City of Anaheim, held on March 20, 1972, at 2:00 ~'clock P.M.,
by the fol.lowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, rARANO, GAU6R, P.OWLAND, SEYMOUR, Herbst.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KAYWOOD.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.S: i]OtI~.
IPd WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of March, 1972.
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-50
~iJ?/~'f~ a~
SECRETARY AN.9HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
C2-G '2-