Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 84-464 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING APPEAL (AP-84-12) OF MORGAN CON- <br />STRUCTION TO A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY- <br />ING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE <br /> <br />at its meeting Of August 8, 1984, the Board of Adjust- <br />ment denied case AP-84-12, the application of Morgan <br />Construction Company for a variance from the require- <br />ments of the Code to allow the establishment of a sub- <br />division sales office for the Brookfield Place Townhomes <br />located in the area west of 1-680 and south of West Las <br />Positas Boulevard which would be less than 200 feet from <br />an existing occupied dwelling unit outside of the sub- <br />division; and <br /> <br />within the time specified by the Ordinance Code of the <br />City of Pleasanton, the applicant submitted an appeal to <br />this decision to the City Clerk of the City of Pleasan- <br />ton; and <br /> <br />at its meeting of September 11, 1984, the City Council <br />reviewed a report dated September 5, 1984 from the Di- <br />rector of Planning and Community Development together <br />with copies of staff reports to the Board of Adjustment <br />regarding this matter; and <br /> <br />the City Council held a public hearing at which time <br />applicant and any other member of the public was offered <br />an opportunity to present evidence regarding this ap- <br />peal; and <br /> <br />after a review of the material presented, the City Coun- <br />cil makes the following findings: <br /> <br />That because if the special circumstance that there <br />is only one party within 200 feet and written accep- <br />tance of the situation has been obtained, the strict <br />application of the provisions of the Code would <br />deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by <br />other properties in the vicinity and under identical <br />zoning classification. <br /> <br />That because of the special circumstance mentioned <br />in paragraph (a) above, the granting of the variance <br />will not constitute a grant of special privilege <br />inconsistent with the limitation on other properties <br />classified in the same zoning district. <br /> <br /> <br />