HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 14-UP-7-1 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ON APPEAL FROM PLANNING COP~IISSION DECISION'
De Novo Hearing
WHEREAS the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has heretofore
granted the application of Ming Quong Home for a Use Permit, which
action has been appealed to the City Council in accord with Ordinance
No. 3A-1L of said City, and
WHEREAS, the Council at ~he time of hearing on appeal determined
hy a majority vote of its men~bers present that it would be more
just and .equitable to have a hearing de novo on the same, a hearing
de novo was thereupon ordered held thereon in accord with Section 2.2
of Ordinance No. 3A-11, and the same was continued to the 2nd day
of December, 1959, at Fruitvale School Auditorium, Saratoga, California,
at the hour of 9:10 o'clock P. M. of said day, at which time said
hearing de novo was held, and
~IEREAS the Applicant has not met the burden of proof required
to support his said application on said hearing de novo,
NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after careful consideration
of all evidence submitted in this matter, the application for the
Use Permit be, and the same is hereby denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report of findings attached
hereto be approved and adopted as findings of this Council on
appeal, and the City Clerk be and he is hereby directed to notify
the parties affected by this decision.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
this 2nd day of ... December , 1959, by the following vote:
AYES: Brazil, Glennon, Jepsen, Rosasco, Langwill
1
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Denial File No._ UP-?
REPORT OF FINDINDS
The application for a Use Permit on behalf of Ming Quong Home
shows:
1. That there are no special conditions or exceptional charac-
teristics in the nature of the property to be affected or
that it's location, or it's surroundings are such as will
permit the Council to make a determination that a literal
enforcement of the ordinance would result in practical diffi-
culties or unnecessary hardships; and
2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights; and
3. That the granting of the application will materially affect
adversely the health or safety of persons residing or work-
ing in the neighborhood of the proper~y 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 be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value
of property or improvements located in said surroundings.