CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

289 referred to the requirement that a screening fence be approved by the Architecutral Committee and the reportedly deteriorated condistions of the fence , Mr . Stuhr took exception to that statement , and said that it was a painted , solid wooden fence seven feet high . Councilman Henderson noted that the Planning Commission record indicated that the seven foot fence exceeded the legal height limit and owner was so informed by the Planning Depart- ment , after which part of the fence was cut down to five feet , rather than the required three feet , with part remaining at seven feet , Mr . Stuhr said two fences were involved , and that due to misunderstanding when told the fence must be shortened , it was cut to five feet , but that it was now three feet in front . With respect to reference to the deteriorated condi - tion of the fence , Mr , Stuhr stated it was built with new lumber at the time of issuance of. the Use Permit , and could not understand what the statement meant . There was additional discussion relating to ingress and egress , which was to have been limited to Railroad Avenue from Pine Street , whereas Chew Street was used as the main access . Mr , Stuhr acknowledged that for a period of time , until approximately October 1972 , this was true , but the gates along Chew Street were closed in November . Mr , Richard Bywater , 433 Parrot Drive , San Mateo , responded to report of non-compliance of condition relating to improvement of Rail- road Avenue , stating there was existing pave - ment on the street , and that he did place fill in the chuck holes which developed from time to time , He also described events relative to fencing plans and building plans , which had not been possible because Southern Pacific right of way had not been possible to use . After additional discussion , City Attorney was granted the opportunity to question Mr . Bywater , following which he concluded that from the proceedings so far , the testimony related to some kind of confusion on the part of the applicant , while the matter before Council concerned conditions of the Use Permit , and the applicant had admitted a number of times that he had violated those conditions . Following brief discussion , Mayor Keckley invited the Planning Director to respond , He reviewed events relating to the Use Permit , issued on April of 1971 , referring to a drawing which delineated the area involved in the Permit . He listed the conditions attached to the Permit , Subse - quently , applicant worked with Public Works Department in the hope of achieving abandonment of public property adjacent , which would have 2 /5/73