PC 06/26/68 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Oakes noted that either material was satisfactory to him. UPON MOTION OF COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, SECONDED BY CODAfISSIONER PLATO, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO APPROVE THE REVISED FENCE DESIGN AS SUBMITTED RATHER THAN THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED DESIGN UNDER 20NING PERMIT Z-64-28, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. That the permit is granted for the property as described in the applica- tion and any attachment thereto, and as shown on the attached plan labeled Exhibit A. 2. That the fence material and height be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 6c.) Z-68-39 Amador Vallev Investors Application of Amador Valley Investors, 39955 Mission Boulevard, Fremont, for a Zoning Permit for a temporary construction yard and office trailer to be located on applicant's property on Santa Rita Road. Mr. Castro reviewed the staff report with suggested conditions. The applicant concurred with the proposed conditions. UPON MOTION OF CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO APPROVE ZONING PERMIT Z-68-39 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the permit is granted for the property as described in the application and any attachment thereto, and as shown on the attached plan, labeled Exhibit A. 2. That the permit is approved for a period of two years. 3. That a new plan be submitted showing the revised location of the office trailer. At this point Chairman Antonini called for a ten minute recess. 10. REFERRALS FROM CITY COUNCIL a.) Consideration for the acquisition of additional land for property right- of-way, Tract 2892 (Longview) as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Lee Amaral, representing Mr. McCloud (owner of a portion of the subject property), asked if the public hearing could be continued as Mr. McCloud was not able to attend due to an emergency. Mr. Amaral explained that Mr. McCloud owned the strip of land which Dr. Long was trying to acquire in order to realign the proposed road. Mr. Aral strongly felt that Mr. McCloud should be present at all proceedings concerning his land. Mr. Struthers, when requested by the Planning Commission to make a legal interpretation, stated the Commission could legally proceed with the public hearing on any matters where there was not a time limit set by the Ordinance. The majority of the Commission favored continuing with the public hearing. Mr. Fairfield proceeded to explain the reasons making it desirable to acquire a small strip of Mr. McCloud's property in order to realign the road on Dr. Long s property. Mr. Fairfield explained that a large grove of eucalyptus trees would have to be removed if the road were built as presently proposed. Mr. Fairfield stated that the owner, Mr. McCloud, had been contacted several times by Dr. Long concerning acquisition of land, but all requests had been denied. Mr. Fair- field stated the road should be realigned for engineering and aesthetic reasons and hoped the City would endorse the purchase of the subject property. Mr. Herlihy spoke briefly in favor of the park tzail proposed by Dr. Long. Mr. Mark Gerton noted that to remove the eucalyptus trees would be a very great loss. Mr. Struthers explained to the Commission that condemnation of private land for public use is legal. Dr. Long introduced to the Commission several people who were interested in the development, and particularly the park trail. After further discussion, UPON MOTION OF CHAIRMAN ANTONINI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GIBBS, AND CARRIED, IT WAS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MEETING OF JULY 24, 1968, TO ALLOW THE STAFF ADDITIONAL TIME TO STUDY THE PROPOSAL. 12.) MATTERS FOR INFORMATION OF THE COMMISSION a.) Mr. Castro asked that the Code Change Memo from the Fire Department be continued to the meeting of July 10, 1968, due to the late hour. b.) Mr. Castro read a letter from Ted J. Slosek, 490 Pinehill Lane, who requested a reconsideration of conditions placed on the proposed addition at 490 Pinehill Lane, Zoning Permit Z-68-16, approved March 27, 1968. Mr. Slosek felt that Conditions 2 and 3 of the letter of approval dated March 29, 1968, made the addition to his home economically prohibitive. Mr. Campbell explained that the reason for the condition concerning road improvements is due to the problem of emergency vehicles getting into an area on a sub-standard 4. 6-26-68