My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 2001-43
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
PC 2001-43
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2006 9:32:43 AM
Creation date
3/8/2002 10:32:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/22/2001
DOCUMENT NO
PC 2001-43
DOCUMENT NAME
PV-44/PADR-369
NOTES
4222 BEVILACQUA CT
NOTES 3
TOMAN
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. PC-2001-43 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF JOHN TOMAN FOR A <br />VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW, AS FILED UNDER CASE PV-44/ <br />PADR-369 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />John Toman has applied for a variance from the Pleasanton Municipal <br />Code and design review to construct an attached garage 21 feet, six inches <br />and an enclosed covered breezeway/porch 19 feet, six inches from the <br />front property line where 23 feet is the required setback, and to locate a <br />portion of the proposed, attached garage greater than 15 feet in height <br />located at 4222 Bevilacqua Court; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District; <br /> and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />at its duly noticed public hearing of August 22, 2001, the Planning <br />Commission considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and <br />recommendations of the City staff concerning this application; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of <br /> the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: <br /> <br />That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, <br />including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict <br />application of the provisions of this chapter deprives such property of <br />privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical <br />zoning classification <br /> <br />The rear half of the lot has an elevation significantly lower than the from <br />part of the lot. This elevation difference creates a unique physical <br />circumstance which constrains development on the rear portion of the <br />building envelope. <br /> <br />The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege <br />inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same <br />zoning district. <br /> <br />Front Yard Variance <br />Given the slope of the rear of the lot, it is more difficult to build in the rear <br />portion of the building envelope than on the front portion. This physical <br />constraint located at the rear portion of the building envelope justifies <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.