Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS <br /> <br />WHEREAS <br />~E~AS <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 78-181 <br /> <br />APPROVING THE APPEAL OF RONALD FIORIO OF A DECISION <br />OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENYING CASE Z-78-6 <br /> <br />Ronald Fiorio applied to the Board of Adjustment for a <br />variance from the site requirements of the Code to allow <br />the construction of an addition to a residence located at <br />3247 Royalton Court which would encroach into the required <br />rear yard and be less than the minimum distance to the <br />main structure on the adjacent lot; and <br /> <br />the Board of Adjustment at its meeting of May 10, 1978, <br />considered the application together with the staff report <br />regarding this matter; and <br /> <br />the Board of Adjustment denied Mr. Fiorio's application; <br />and <br /> <br />within the time specified by the Ordinance Code of the <br />City of Pleasanton the applicant submitted an appeal to <br />the City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton; and <br /> <br />the City Council at its meeting of July 11, 1978, received <br />a report dated June 16, 1978, from the Director of Planning <br />and Community Development together with a copy of the staff <br />report to the Board of Adjustment regarding this matter; and <br /> <br />the City Council held a public hearing at which time <br />applicant and any other members of the public was offered <br />an opportunity to present evidence regarding this appeal; <br />and <br /> <br />upon close of the public hearing, the City Council deli- <br />berated on this appeal; and <br /> <br />the tract in which Mr. Fiorio's property <br />approved as a PUD in 1967 and there were <br />requirements at that time; and <br /> <br />is located was <br />special setback <br /> <br />it was not clear whether Mr. Fiorio's property would be <br />affected by the ordinance change that went into effect <br />after construction of his house; and <br /> <br />under the original PUD requirements, Mr. Fiorio's variance <br />would only be for 1' to 1~' encroachment in the side yard <br />and there was no encroachment into the rear yard; and <br /> <br />staff recommends, in light of the above information, that <br />Mr. Fiorio's appeal be granted. <br /> <br />III <br /> <br /> <br />