Reso 2205 1-V-81
• RESOLUTION NO. 2205
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
410 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7.2
OF THE R1(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT A 50 FT. WIDTH FOR EACH PROPOSED LOT IN LIEU
OF 60 FT. AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
APPLICANT: Terry Brown (Louis &,Diedrich)
ADDRESS: 778 North First Street, San Jose, California. 95112
SUBMITTED: March 31, 1981
LOCATION: North side of Alcazar Avenue approximately 300 ft. westerly
of Orange Avenue
FINDINGS :
The Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to this application:
1. That the size and shape of the property is such that it would otherwise
only permit a flag lot design which would be inconsistent with the
established character of the Monta Vista neighborhood. .
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances
of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of
S the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to property or improvements in said neighborhood.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of May, 1981, at regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Adams, Binneweg, Blaine, Chairman Claudy
NAYS : None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Koenitzer
APPROVED:.
/s/ John Claudy
John Claudy, Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
\-LOASA...COAreAkk.
Robert Cowan
Assistant Planning Director
•
-2-
VARIANCE
FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS
110
WHEN RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE THE PLANNING CO:l1ISSION SHALL
MAKE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That there are special conditions or exceptional characteristics
in the nature of the property to be affected, or that its loca-
tion or its 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 preserva-
tion and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
3. That the hearings show 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 in which 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.
• ADDITIONALLY, AS A PART OF THE COMMISSION`S ACTION, SUBCONCLUSIONS IN"
SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS SHALL BE MADE ORALLY, THUS BECOMING A PART
OF THE RECORD, PRIOR•TO FINAL VOTE ON -THE APPLICATION.
WHEN RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE, THE COMMISSION SHALL ADDRESS
ALL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS. IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLF TO MAKE ONE OR
MORE OF THE FINDINGS, THE RECOMMENDATION MUST BE FOR DENIAL. SUBCONCLUSIONS
Iid SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS SHALL BE MADE ORALLY, THUS BECOMING A PART
OF THE RECORD, PRIOR TO FINAL VOTE ON THE APPLICATION.
•
• 1-20-77