Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />COUNTY OF ALAMEDA <br />STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION NO. 1469 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING <br />A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 5726 <br />SONOMA DRIVE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD. <br />EREAS, J. Jack Bras, on behalf of Mini-Systems, Inc., has <br />applied for a variance to Sec. 2-5.35, Article 3, <br />Chapter 2, Title II of the Ordinance Code of the City <br />of Pleasanton to allow the construction of an industrial <br />building which would encroach into the required side <br />yard of the lot located at 5726 Sonoma Drive; and <br />REAS, zoning for the property is I-P (Industrial Park) <br />District; and <br />this case was scheduled to be heard by the Board of <br />Adjustment on November 10, 1976, at which time it was <br />continued to the Planning Commission meeting, pending <br />review of the General Plan amendment for that site; and <br />on November 10, the Planning Commission held a public <br />hearing on this application and reviewed pertinent maps, <br />drawings, documents and testimony; and <br />the Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Adjust- <br />ment, made the following findings: <br />A. That the subject site is a part of a subdivision <br />created prior to the adoption of the City of <br />Pleasanton zoning ordinance and the width of <br />the lots in the subdivision are narrower than <br />the zoning ordinance currently permits, as a <br />result the sideyard requirements, keyed to the <br />size of lots currently permitted in the I-P <br />District, would severely limit the alternatives <br />available for developing the subject parcel. <br />Therefore, the narrow condition of the subject <br />lot would deprive the applicant of privileges <br />enjoyed by the owners of other property classified <br />in the same zoning district. <br />B. That because of these exceptional circumstances <br />applicable to the subject property, the granting <br />of the variance will not constitute a grant of <br />special privilege inconsistent with the limitation <br />on other properties classified in the same zoning <br />district. <br />