Loading...
Reso 223, 224, 225 410 API 8v-64 9--v-64 File No. 10 V-64 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2.23 - 224 - 225 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received the application of Blossom View Homes For a VARIANCE for 8 r fence where ordiance allows at 20025, 20065, and 20105Cei.ar Tree :Lane and WHEREAS, the applicant has. met the burden of proof required to support his said applications^'�� NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the VARIANCE 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: That the location of the fence be checked with the Building Department for compliance with the Building Code. BE IT 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 decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, Sate of California, this 24th day of August, 1964, by the following roll call vote: AYES : Commissioners : Frolich, Hirshon, Small, Thomson NOES: Commissioners: Gates, Johnson, Traeumer ABSENT: Commissioners: None Scott Thomson Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: CE_ CYO-g iv City and Traffic Planner 411 8-v-64 9,v-64 File No. 10-V-64 REPORT OF FINDINGS The application for a VARIANCE on behalf of Blossom View Homes shows: 1. That there are special conditions or exceptional character- istics in the nature of the property to be affected or that it ' s location, or itfls surroundings are such as will permit the Commission to make a determination 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 preservation 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 which11/ it is proposed to be used will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value of property or improvements located in said surroundings. 110 -2