Reso 2209 3-V-81
.RESOLUTION NO. 2209 •
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE
0 FRONT YARD SETBACK DISTANCE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING ON PARCEL C OF APPLICATION 7-TM-81 FROM
20 FT. TO VARIOUS DISTANCES WITH A MAXIMUM DEVIATION
OF 7 FT.
APPLICANT: Pat-Whale, Inc. (WTW)
ADDRESS: 22023 Baxley Court, Cupertino, California 95014
SUBMITTED: April 16, 1981
LOCATION: Southerly terminus of San Felipe Road approximately 300 ft, south
• of Alcalde Road
FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS:
•
Approval is recommended subject to the findings as set forth on Page 1 and sub-
conclusions as set forth in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting •
of May 11, 1981.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS:
The loss of land due to long-term servicing discrepancies and topographical constraints
affecting road alignments are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that limit
design flexibility for the applicant's property.
CONDITIONS:
• 1-14. Standard Conditions to the extent that they do not conflict with the
special conditions enumerated herein. In the event a conflict does exist,
the special conditions as enumerated herein shall apply.
15. The approval is based upon Exhibit A of Application 3-V-81 as may be amended
by additional conditions contained herein.
16. The normal side and rear setback requirements for Parcel. C shall prevail.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of May, 1981, at a 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:
" •'f s/_ Sohn Claudy'
ATTEST: John Claudy, Chairman
• Planning Commission
TULA-GM/Mt
Robert Cowan
Assistant Planning Director
•
-2-
11
VARIANCE 1
11 I
FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS I
I'
9
WHEN RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL ,
MAKE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 11
1. That there are special conditiofisior exceptional characteristics
in the nature of the property to be affected, or that its loca- 0,
tion or its surroundings are suchlas will permit the Commission 0
to make a determination that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships;
and I .
1
2.. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- ;.
tion and enjoyment of substantiall property rights; and
3. That the hearings show that thelgranting of the application will !!
not materially affect adverselyllithe health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the property which is 1
the subject of the application, ' and that the use of said property _ 1
in the manner in which it is proposed to be used will not be „ j,
' materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the "`
value of property or improvements located in said surroundings. '=
I
ADDITIONALLY, AS A PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION, SUBCONCLUSIONS IN'
SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS SHALL BEMADE ORALLY, THUS BECOMING A PART 1
OF THE RECORD, PRIOR TO FINAL VOTE ON-THE APPLICATION.
it I I
WHEN RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIAN���1E THE COMMISSION SHALL ADDRESS � �� �
ALL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS. IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO MAKE ONE OR
MORE OF THE FINDINGS, THE RECOMMENDATIONOIST BE FOR DENIAL. SUBCONCLUSIONS
Idd: SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS SHALL BE MADE ORALLY, THUS BECOMING A PART
OF. THE RECORD, PRIOR TO FINAL VOTE ON THE APPLICATION.
II,
i
•
_ - ,. III
Il
I
I
1'.
1i:
II
, , II
II
rF
_ 1-20-77
i
11
11
i 1