Reso 205 file No. 3-7-64
® PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUT T ON NO. 205
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received
the application of ANTHONY LI_,LO for a VARIANCE to allow a car port
'where Ordinance requires a garage; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application.
NOW9 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and
other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the VAR-
IANCE be and the same is hereby recommended for approval to the City
Council of the City of Cupertino for appropriate action, subject to
the following conditions:
1 - Applicant to submit written statement, of agreement from ad-
jacent property owners to the east and west of this parcel
of the hearing before the City Council.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the report of findings attached hereto are approved and
adopted, and that the Secretary be, and is hereby directed to notify
the parties affected by this decision0
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Cu-
pertino, State of California, this 13th day of April, 1964, by the fol-
lowing roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Adamo, Fitzgerald, Rampy, Small, Snyder, Fro-
lich
NOES: Commissioners : None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Thomson
/s/ Donald Frolich
haiirin•an, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
/'s/ Robert S e Shook
Secretary, Planning Commission
411
-1-
File No. 3-V-64
111
REPORT OF FINDINGS,
The application for a VARIANCE on behalf of ANTHONY LILLO shows:
1. That there are special conditions or exceptional characteris-
tics in the nature of the property to be affected or that it' s loca-
tion, or it' s surroundings are such as will permit the Commission to
make a determinationthat 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 af-
fect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of the property which is the subject of the applica-
tion, and that the use of said property in the manner which it is pro-
posed to be used will not be materially detrimental to the public wel-
fare or injurious to the value of property or improvements located in
said surroundings.
•
•
•
-2-