PC 2006-37 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. PC-2006-37 Page Two 2. That the granting of the vaziance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same zoning district; In order for this finding to be made, a relationship between the unique site and the variance in question must exist. As stated above, the site is unique due to the three existing, over 100-year-old historic buildings, which prevent the applicant from adding building area without removing the existing four-space parking lot. Additionally, granting of the variance would not be precedent-setting as there are probably few other lots Downtown that have similar characteristics to the subject lot. Therefore, there is a direct relationship between the uniqueness of the property and the variance in question, and granting the variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege to the applicant that is inconsistent with other commercial properties in the City. Therefore, this second finding can be made. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting the applicant afour-space parking variance would reduce the number of in-lieu parking spaces for this project from 14 to 10. This reduction would not have a significant impact on Downtown pazking such that it would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The proposed project would create a new public parking space on Division Street without receiving credit for this new space. Furthermore, the existing on-site angled parking is unsafe and non-conforming with respect to back-up/circulation, as it requires users to back up out of the parking lot, across the sidewalk, and onto Division Street. The existing off-street parking spaces would be removed with the proposed prof ect, thereby improving vehicular and pedestrian safety on the property and along Division Street. Therefore, the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or materially injurious to properties in the area, and this third finding can be made. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.132.100 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the Planning Commission made the following three additional required findings for a variance for parking or loading facilities: 1. That neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or the uses of the site in the vicinity reasonable require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation.