CC Resolution No. 5633 ~ ~
t
; RESOLUTION C]0. 5633
~
A RESOLUTI~N OF THE CITY COUNCLL OF T}lE CITY OF CUPERTINO
! GRANTINC A VARIANCE TO RONALD JONES FROt~t SECTIONS 8.31b
AND 9.1 OF THE R1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEIiTIAL) ZONING ORD-
~ IflANCE TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDG YARD SETBACK AIID A ONE-
' CAR GARAGE, IN LIEU OF THF. MINIMUM 10 FT. SGTBACK AND TI70
~ ENCLOSED GARAGE PARKING SPACES AS REQUIRED SY ORDINANCE;
LOCATGD ON TIIE t70RT11 SIDE OF SCGNIC IIOULEVARU APPROXI-
MATELY 100 FT. EASTERLY OF CARMEN ROAD IN AN R1-10 ZONING
DISTRICT
II i~IHEREAS, the applican[ has met the burden of proof reyuired to suppor[
i his sflid application; and
i ~dF1F.REAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings,
has forwarded its recommendation to the City Council;
i10W, THEREF4RE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps,
facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application
for the Variance (2-V-81) be and the same is hereby approved, subject to
conditions in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2210, attached hereun[o as
Exhibit "A".
BC• IT FURTIIER RESOLVF.D khat the report of fi.ndings attached hereto is
approved and adopted, and [hat the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to
no[ify [he parttes affected by this decision.
I PASSED AND ADOPTFD at a regu.lar meeting of the C1ty Counctl of [he City
of Cupertino this 18[h day of May , 1981 by the following vote:
Vote Ftembers of the Ci~ Council
AYGS: Gatto, .Iohnson, Plungy, Sparks
iJOES: None
AfiSE"7T: Rogers
ABSTAIN: None
APPROVED:
i ~ ~ r
~ ~
~
; ~ ' -
` Mayor, City of pertino
~ ATTES'f •
~ .
° Ci[v Clerk
~ ~
z-V-BI
II RESOLtJTIOH tv0. 2210 • •
~ OF THE PLANIIING COP4SISSION OF THE CITY OF
I CUPERTIPtO RECO~C~IE~DIi~G APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
j TO ALLOW AN 8 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK DISTAi1CE
I AND TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-CAR GARACE.
~ ~
APPLLCANT; Ronald E. Jones
I~ ADDRESS: 10205 Scenic Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014
i SUBMITTED: April 7, 1981
I LOCATION: North side of Scenic Houlevard approxima[ely 100 ft. easterly
of Carmen Road
j
FINDINGS:
I~ The Planning Commission finds as follows with respect to this appllcation;
~
1• Approval of a teduced side yard setback is justified because the applicant
purchased his pre-cut home on the basis of County setback regulations,
; w1[hout knowledge of an impending annexation to the City of Cupertino.
~ Denial of this application would present financial hardships to the property
{ owner. A reduced side yard will not adversely impact adjoining properties.
~ 2. The approval of the variance permitting a single car garage is justified
because single car garages are coaunon to the area and adherence to a two
car tequirement would force the applicant to remove a cree which is
' valuable to the applicant and neighborhood.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
, 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 enumera[ed herein shall apply.
15. The approval is based upon Exhibit A of Applica[ion 2-V-81 as may be
amended by special conditions contained herein.
16. The 8 ft. side yard depicted on Exhibit A is approved.
17. The applicant shall provide a single car garage as described on Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOP2ED this llth day of May, 1981, at a regular meeting oE 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
ATTEST: APPROVED:
1
` /s/ John Claudy
Robert Cowan John Claudy, Chairman
Assistanc Planning Director Planning Commission
-2_ .
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
I ~ vnRt,~ycE ~
FINDINGS ,4`ID SUHCONCLUSIONS
i -
WHEi! RECO?L~IENDIVG THE GRA:JTItiG OF A VARIANCE TNE PLaIvNIVG CO?L`tISSLOY SHALL
~ P1AKE ALL OF THE FOLLOIJING FINDINGS:
i
~
~ 1. That there are special conditions or exceptiunal characteristics
~ in the nature of the property to be afiected, ur that its luca-
! ciun or its surroundings are such as ~aill pernit the Commission
~ to make a de[ermination that a literal enforcement of the Ordinance
i would result !n prac[ical difficulties or unnecessary hardships;
and
~ 2. That the gra~ting uf che application is necessary fur the preserva-
i tion and enjoyment uf substantial property righ.c9; and
i 3. That the hearings shuw that [he granting of the applicatiun will
, nut materially affect adversely the health ur safety of persons
~I, residing or caorking in the neighborhood uf the property whlch is
the subject of the application, and that the use uf said pruperry
i in the manner in which it is proposed to be used will nut be
' ma[erially detrimental to the public welfare or iajuriuus to the
i value of property or improvements lucated in said surroundings.
, ADDITIOVALLY, AS A PAR'f OF THE CO`CiISSION'S ACTION, SCRCOYCLUSIO:QS IV
SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE FIVDI:IGS SH?~LL BE ;41DE ORALLY, THUS BECOHING PART
OF THE RECORD, PRIOR TO FIV.1L VOTE ON THE APPLICATIOY.
WHEV RECOiII`~vDIiCG THE DESIAL OF a VARIANCE, THE CO^^tISSION SHAI.L ~1DDRESS
AI.L OF THE ABOVE FIVDI:VGS. IF THE CO*QtISSIO\' IS L'VABLF 'f0 `LAKE OV£ OR
' `tORE OF THE FIYDI\'GS, THE RECO`L*[ENDATION MUST BE FOR DE*tIAL. SI;SCO~CLUSIONS
I~~t SL'PPORT OF THE ~1BOVE FINDINGS Sti.1LL BE `~~DE ORaLLY, 2HLS BEC0:1I\G A PART
OF 'LHE RECORD, PRIOR TO FINAL VOTE ON 'IHE APPLICATIOV.
1-20-77