Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 95-134 <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION DENYING ~ APPEAL OF A <br /> DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND <br /> GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL <br /> CODE TO ALLOW A GAZEBO WITHIN THE <br /> REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE-FAMILY <br /> LOT LOCATED AT 17 FOOTHILL LANE <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Robert and SuT~qnne Earnest, the owners of property at 17 Foothill Lane, <br /> applied to the City for a variance from the Pleasanton Municipal Code and <br /> for design review approval to allow within the required front yard of their <br /> single-family lot an existing, approximately 15 foot tall, open gazebo; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-l-20,000 (single-family residential) District; <br /> and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of October I l, 1995, the planning Commission approved the <br /> application of Robert and Suzanrte Earnest for the variance and design <br /> review; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, an appeal was <br /> filed with the City Clerk; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, a public heating was held before the City Council on November 21, 1995, <br /> at which time all pertinent testimony and documents were reviewed; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, after a review of the material presented, the City Council makes the <br /> following fmdings: <br /> <br /> a. The applicants have an unusual lot configuration in that a portion of <br /> what technically is their front yard is behind a fence and visually and <br /> functionally is part of their property's rear and side yard areas. Therefore, <br /> special circumstances exist and requiring the applicants to abide by the <br /> strict requirements of the Pleasanton Municipal Code would restrict the <br /> applicants' full use and enjoyment of their property's rear and side yard <br /> areas° <br /> <br /> b. Because of the special circumstance identified above, the granting of <br /> the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with <br /> the limitation on other properties classified in the same zoning district. <br /> <br /> <br />