HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 14-V-163-1 RESOLUTION NO. 14-V-163-1
RESOLUTION ON APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
De Novo Hearing
WHEREAS the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has heretofore
denied the application of Thomas E. Lewis for a Variance in site
width from required 150 foot to a requested 142' 2" which action
has been appealed to the City Council in accord wi~h Ordinance No.
3A-11 of said city, and
WHEREAS., the Council at the time of hearing on appeal determined
by a majority vote of its members 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 17~h day of
February, 1960, at Fruitvale School Auditorium, Saratoga, California,
at the hour of 8:20 o'clock P. M. of said day, at which time said
hearing de novo was held, and
!WHEREAS 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
Variance 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
~his ~2_.n.d day of ~ ~ March , 19 ........60 , by the following vote:
AYES: Brazil, Glennon, Lsngwill
NOES.: Jepsen, Rosasco
ABSENT: None R
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
File No. V-163
REPORT OF FINDINGS
The application for a Variance on behalf of
Thomas E. Lewis _ shows:
1. That there are no special conditions or exceptional
characteristics 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
enibrcement of the ordinance would result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships; and
2. That the granting of the application is not necessary for
the preservation end 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 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 be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the value
of property or improvements located in said surroundings.