Laserfiche WebLink
4~~,~SAN~~~ <br />~. CITY of PLEASANTON <br />'ssion <br />.o Planning Cornmi <br />SPECIAL <br />MINUTES ~OF ~74~t MEETING. <br />DC1B ; June 23, 1976 <br />Time : 5:15 P.M. <br />PIcCe: Pleasanton Council Chambers <br />MATTERS FOR COM- <br />MISSION'S REVIEW <br />Commissioner Jamieson also expressed <br />concerns over the safety aspects as <br />well as the possibility of setting <br />a precedent here. <br />Commissioner Wood concurred with the <br />views expressed by the other members <br />A resolution denying this applicatio <br />was entered and unanimously adopted, <br />with the Commissioners making the <br />findings as expressed by them in the <br />foregoing. <br />The applicant was advised of his rig <br />to appeal this decision to the City <br />Council within 15 days. <br />Discussion of changes to Article 26, <br />Chapter 2, Title II of the Ordinance <br />Code of the City of Pleasanton per- <br />taining to variances. <br />Deputy City Attorney Harvey Levine <br />summarized the proposed changes to <br />Article 26 on variances. The sub- <br />stantive changes are to the findings <br />to bring them into line with the <br />Government Code requirement. The <br />new wording should focus the decisio <br />makers attention onto the property <br />rather than the hardship to the appl <br />cant. The Commissioners suggested <br />some changes in the wording of the <br />findings proposed. <br />The Deputy City Attorney also dis- <br />cussed the process by which findings <br />are to be made. Ideally, the member <br />making a motion should also set fort <br />the findings. <br />-4- <br /> <br />