My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01/18/62
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1960-1969
>
1962
>
01/18/62
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2013 2:26:24 PM
Creation date
7/9/2007 10:53:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/18/1962
DOCUMENT NAME
01/18/62
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
area, particularly for chlldren. He also said he felt that, if this <br />Variance were granted, other businesses would then have the right to <br />apply for and possibly receive variances also. <br />Mr. Carl Walter, 4123 Silver Street, spoke against the Variance <br />stating that it is his feeling that any business which is granted the <br />right to operate in a residential zone reduces the value of resldential <br />property. Mr. Walter also pointed out that there are certain restrictive <br />rights in the legal documents pertaining to the purchase of his home, <br />and posed the question of how far his restrictive rights go. Mr. William <br />Struthers, City Attorney, explained the City's proprietary position over <br />such rights, especially where public welfare is concerned. <br />Mr. William .Lorenz, 1011 Kolln Street, spoke against the Variance. <br />stating that it would set a poor precedent for the area in the future <br />and felt that the residents might well suffer a loss in value of their <br />property <br />Mr. Tendon then closed the Public Hearing on this application since <br />there was no further discussion from the floor. <br />Mr. Landon requested that Mr. Fales give the Staff's report of <br />their findings on this Variance. Mr. Fales said that the Staff had <br />visited the premises and found that the physical alterations necessary <br />have already been made and that, with these alterations, the house can <br />still be used as a single-family dwelling satisfactorily. He said the <br />Staff's conclusion is based principally on the fact that this is a solid <br />R-1 zone and that variances should not be granted except where extraordinary <br />circumstances exist, which is not the case here, and that it might create <br />a bad or unhealthy situation in the neighborhood and, consequently, it is <br />the Staff's opinion that this variance should not be granted. <br />A discussion by the Commission followed, and, on motion by Co~nissioner <br />Rega, seconded by Chairman Mitchell, the following resolution was unanimously <br />adopted: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 164 <br />WHEREAS, the application of MR. and MRS. GEORGE TAYLOR, 4180 Jensen Street, <br />for a Variance from Section 17.605, Ordinance No. 309, in order to <br />condust a beauty shop operation in a single-family dwelling located in an <br />2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.