RES 95050 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 95-50 Page 2 to mean that any second unit must be constructed within the building envelope; and WHEREAS, in November, 1994, Mr. Raber then applied for a variance to construct a second unit outside of the building envelope and applied for a conditional use permit for construction of a second unit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director determined that those applications were not the correct processes to follow to allow a second unit to be built outside the building envelope; the Director determined that a major modification to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan was the correct process; and WHEREAS, Mr. Raber appealed this determination to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission upheld the determination of the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, Mr. Raber appealed that decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 16, 1995, the City Council reviewed the report of the Director of Planning and Community Development (SR 95:131), the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and considered all pertinent testimony and documents; and WHEREAS, the City Council found that the proper procedure to follow in order to build a second unit outside the building envelope under this PUD plan is to submit an application for a major modification to the PUD plan and that an application for a variance is not the proper procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Denies the appeal of Samuel Raber, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director that the process which must be followed in order to build a second unit outside the building envelope under the PUD plan for Deer Oaks is to submit an application for a PUD major modification and that an application for a variance is not an acceptable procedure to follow in order to build a second unit outside the building envelope.