Reso 052 File No. 12 V
• PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 52
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received
the application of M. J. King
for a VARIANCE x to the Sign Ordinance to allow flags to be flown at
20379 Bollinger Road
and
WHEREAS, the applicant Xxxx has not, met the burden of proof re-
quired to support his said application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other
evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the VARIANCE Dig
not be, and the same #11 is not, hereby recommended for approval to the
City Council of the City of Cupertino for appropriate action, subject
to the terms and conditions which are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit "A" .
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the report of findings attached hereto approved and adopted,
and that the Secretary be, and is hereby, directed to notify the parties
affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino ,
State of California, this 8th day of May , 19 61 , by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Bagar, Fitch, Leonard, Rampy, Snyder, Small
NAYS: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
/s/ E. J. Small
Chairman of the Planning Comm.
ATTEST:
/s/ Lawrence K. Martin
Secretary of the Planning Commission
4
-1-
File Noe 12 V
REPORT OF FINDINGS
410
The application for a VARIANCE on behalf of M. J. King
does not show*:
1. That there are special conditions or exceptional characteristics
in the nature of the property to be affected or that it ' s location, •or
it' s surroundings are such as will permit the Commission to make a deter-
mination that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships; and
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the pre-
servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
3. That the granting of the application will not materially affect
adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the application,
and that the use of said property in the manner which it is proposed to
be used will. not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in-
jurious to the value of property or improvements located in said surr-
oundings.
•
-2-
6