Reso 2260 5-V-81
RESOLUTION NO. 2260
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 8.3.2b OF THE
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT A 12 FT. SETBACK IN LIEU OF A
20 FT. SETBACK FOR A SECOND STORY ELEMENT.
APPLICANT: Nilda Argandona
ADDRESS: 7192 Via Vico, San Jose, California 95129
SUBMITTED: October 20, 1981
LOCATION: [Jest side of Mt. Crest Drive approximately 120 ft. south of
Linda Vista Drive.
FINDINGS:
1. The narrow elongated building site and severe slopes on this parcel
constitute extraordinary circumstances applicable to the land referred
to in the application which does not generally affect other parcels
within the same district.
.2. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.
3. The variance will not materially affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially
detrimental to public welfare or injurious to property or improvements
IIPin said neighborhood.
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 enumerated herein shall apply.
15. The approval is based upon Exhibit A of Application 5-V-81.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of November, 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, Koenitzer, Chairman Claudy
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVED:
•
•
/s/ John Claudy
ATTEST: John Claudy, Chairman
Planning Commission •
1110
James-H. Sisk
•
Planning' Director
- 2 - •
VARIANCE
FINDINGS AND SUBCONCLUSIONS •
S
WHEN RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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 411
ALL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS. IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE 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.
•
•
•
•
•
110
•
1-20-77