CC Resolution No. 3762 t - ~
`~y ~
~ - . ~I /~.3 ~ _ ~ .s~
" ~ ~ / ti,
! ~ t..
RESOLUTION N0. 3762 .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO HOWARD E. MALLETT FROM SECTION
16.28.010 OF THE FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT
HEDGE ACROSS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE; LOCATED AT 20699
RODRIGUES AVENUE IN A RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support
his said application; and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings, has
forwarded its recommendation to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration of maps,
facts, exhibits and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application
for the Variance (10-V-74) be and the same is hereby approved, subject to con-
ditions in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1350, attached hereunto as ~xhibit
~~A~~ .
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of findings attached hereto is
approved and adopted, and that the City Clerk be and is hereby directed to
notify the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this day of , 1974, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES : •
NOES :
ABSENT: '
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
ATTEST:
.
City Clerk
~ 10-V-74 ~
° P.ESOLUTIUN N0. 1350
~ OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ~
RECO~~i1ENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ~
P~Ri~fIT A SIX-FOOT HEDGE ~dITHIN A FRONT YARD SETBACK
AREA. .
' ~ ' •
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Ho~vard E. Mallett
ADDRESS: 20699 Rodrigues Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
SUBrIITTED: September 25, 1974 .
LOCATION:. 20699 Rodrigues Avenue, Cupertino
~ ZONE: R1-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. per draelling
. unit) '
FURTHER FINDINGS: ~ ~
1. That the applicant failed to demonstrate the justification for t11e
~ granting of a variance as outlined in Section 4.2 of Ordinance No.
002(a) Revised.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 1974, 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, Cooper, Gatto, Woodward, Chairman 0'Keefe
NAYS: None .
ABSTAIN: None
ABS~NT: None ~
' APPROVED:
~ Daniel P. 0'Keefe, Chairman
Planning Corunission ~
ATTEST:
. _ ~ .
James H. Sisk
Planning Director ~
~x ~,'6; f '19 .
~ _2_
~
C I T Y 0 F C U P E R T I N 0 ~
,
City Hall, 10300 Torre~Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: ;408) 25?-4505.
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
• RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL OF A VARIANCE
WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino re-
ceived an application for a VARIANCE, as stated on Page 2, and
, . WHEREAS the applicant has NOT met the burden of proof required
to support his said applica~ion, and
WHEREAS the Planning Commission finds that the application does
~NOT meet all of the following requirements:
l. That there are special conditions or exceptional character-
istics in the nature of the property to be affected, or
that its location or its sur~oundings are such as will per-
mit the Commission t~o make a determination that a literal
enforcement of the r~dinance would result in pr°actical
~ difficulties or unn~cessary hardships; and
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the
• prese~vation 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 manr~er which it is proposed to be used
will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the value of the property or improvements
located in said surroundings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after° careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits and
other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for
the i/ARIANCE be, and the same is, hereby NOT recommended for ~
approval to the City Council of the City of Cupertino; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the findings quoted above and on Page 2 are approved and
adopted, and that the Secretary be, and is hereby, directed
~ to notify the parties affected by this decision.
~ (Continued on Page 2)
1 '~a ~ . 4 ~ ~
<.~...J.
~ t ~ ti ~ c~ ~ `
.