PC 70-36. ~ ,~
RESOLUTION NO. FC70~36 /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2158 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the C.ity Planning Commiasion of the City of Maheim did receive a veriEied Pelition for Variance from
JOYCL- La~DFORD, 1i58 Hazelv~ood Street, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner of certair, real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of O:ange, State of Colifornia, described as
Lot P~o. 101, of Tract No. 1247.
WHEREAS, the City Plonning Commiseion did hold e public hearing et the City Hell in the City of Aaaheim on
Maa :h 99 19?Q, et Z:00 o'doc;: P.M., notice of said public hearin hevin been dul
lew endia accordence withthe provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Cade, Chepter 18.68, to hear and c gns der evldence or
end age~nat said proposed votiance and to inve~stigete and meke fiudings end recommendatians in connection therewith;
and
r_~ end efterH ueEcronslderot on of ell'evidenceaend'reQorte~otfe cd atgseild ~hearngtudoes find~ ndtdetermine,the fo ]owing
fNCt5:
1. Thet the petitioner requests e veriance from the Aneheim Municipel Code as f o i law~s y to Fermi t r_hc
~:on!in:.~ed operation of a beauty shop in.the attached t+nro-car garage on subject. ~:ope::;y.
~~ ~_C~rION lE.2A~U1G 1 - Permit:ted uses in the R-1 Zone.
k, SECTION 18.24.030(5) - Repuired two-car qaraqe.
r. ?haT, the petitioner has not presented evidence to prove a hardshiE: would exi;t in
r:hlct; the petitioner would be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by adjoining property owrc~rs.
3. That the petitioner by st.atements made, indicated this was a full-f'ledged commercial
`~'~~~p~•is~ which could not be construed as a home occupation.
4. ihat the comme*cial operation created a parking p*oblem, s;nce tF~e petit?oner ~N~~
~ina~le to or~~~icie adepuate on-site parking.
5. ir:at Aven tho~igh limitation in the numher of customers and hou.rs of operatior~ ,..~c.
a~;c~ed to, f.olicing of the operation would be exilemely diCficult.
~%. li~at epproval of ,ubject pAtition would establish an ~ndesirable ~;r~~edent wi.~r:~ir,
many simi:a; reaur.sts ror comm~icial us~ of rc;itlential homes wo~ld be p;ocesse.9, whi:.r
>.ci~id iu~ther niscourage revit.aiizatiun of thu ciovmtown area and creale o: mainLain
:~a~ar,cies in legitimate commercial. shopping area:; througho~t the City.
~. rr~at one parson appeared in opposition, and that a petition signed by 23 pe~~on, tivas
recriv~d in favor of' subject petition.
C'~ \
- 1 ~~_o
a
.1_
t
_ _; _
s:~,. .
~;;;'
1 _..t.
~, .
f:;,
:, . _.
?,
1,;,
NOIV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Veriance on the basis of the uforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved e this Lti day o Marchy 1970.
CHAI MAN ANAHEIM CIi' ` DLANNING CQMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ ~ ~~-~~ ~~
~
SF,CRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ~RANGE ) ss.
{ CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby ceRify that the fere-
G going resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
~ March 9, 1970, at 2:00 o'c1ocE: p,-~,~ by the foilowing vote o( the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Seymour, kowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, lierbst, Thom.
' ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~lone.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han!3 this 19ttt day of h1arch, 1970.
I
I
~ -~( ~~
; ~ ~" z~ ` /i1"u- ~
~ SECRETARY ANAHE[M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 36
V2-D _2_
,~ ,
r:i *
,~ ~
~