CCMIN102880 - Laserfiche WebLink

After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Wood, and seconded by Council- member Butler, that Ordinance No. 947, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, approving the application of Robert E. Frank to rezone from the C-F (Commercial Freeway) District to the PUD-Commercial District the 2.54% acre site located at the southeast corner of Foothill Road and Stoneridge Drive with allowed and conditionally allowed uses on the site as listed in Exhibit A of the staff report dated October 21, 1980, with the following changes: Allowed Uses Remove: Ice cream sales; and Laundries, self service Conditionally Allowed Uses Add: Ice cream sales; and Laundries, self service be introduced. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Kephart Appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Robert ZieMler of a decision of the Board of Adjustment d. enyin~ a variance to Section 2-5.35 of Article 3~ Chapter 2~ Title II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Pleasanton to allow the construction of a room addition which would encroach into the required rear yard at their residence located at 6244 Robin Court. The property is .zoned R-1-6500 (SinSIc-Family, Residential) District ~Ir. Swift presented the report of the Director of Planning and Community Develop- ment (SR 80:314) dated October 21, 1980, regarding this matter. ~{ayor Mercer declared the public hearing open on this item. Mr. Richard Boell, 35500 Dante Place, Fremont, representing Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler, presented a written communication to Council outlining the details of the proposed room addition, and listing four other variances with similar conditions that had been approved by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Boell also requested Council to con- sider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the setback requirements from 20 ft. to 15 ft., especially in subdivisions with small lots such as Val Vista. He stated that in light of economic conditions many homeowners would prefer to ex- pand their existing residences rather than relocate but were prohibited from this method of enlargement because of City codes. Mr. Boell added that none of the surrounding neighbors were opposed to the proposed room addition. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. After discussion, Council instructed staff to prepare a report regarding amend- ment to the ordinance regulating setback requirements, for review at the City Council meeting of November 25, 1980. The City Attorney advised this matter would have to be considered by the Planning Cormmission before it could be adopted by Council. ~yor Mercer asked Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler if they wanted Council to make a decision on their appeal at this time, or wait until consideration of the proposed amendment regarding setback. has taken place. Mr. and Mrs. Ziegler requested this item be con- tinued to the meeting of November 25, 1980. 5. ~0/28/80