Reso 2255 20-TM-81
RESOLUTION NO. 2255
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY. OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO RECORD A
SINGLE LOT.
•
APPLICANT: Kirkeby & Associates
ADDRESS: 7246 Sharon Drive, San Jose, California 95129
SUBMITTED: September 18, 1981
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Stelling Road and .Highway 85 right of way
approximately 450 ft. north of West Hill Lane.
FINDINGS:
That Application 20-TM-81 is inconsistent with the zoning of the property.
the property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October, 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
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Chairman Claudy
APPROVED:
/s/ Victor J. Adams
Victor J. Adams, Vice Chairman
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
< 59E--._„>42•?-0 ,‘
James H. Sisk '
Planning Director
-2-
CITY OF CUP, ERT INO
1 I
City Hall, 10300 Toirre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 252-,4505 •
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF iTHE. CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
THE DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP
WHEREAS, the attached application has been submitted to the City of Cupertino
requesting approval of a tentative map; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in
regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly, considered and heard all evidence
submitted in regard to said application; and.
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
subdivision and procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino.
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
a) That the proposed map is inconsistent with the general and specific
plans. 410
b) That the design or improvement of :the proposed subdivision is
inconsistent with the general and specific plans.
c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are
likely to cause serious public health problems.
•
g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for
- access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
••
•