My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0002389
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LONE TREE
>
13625
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
UP-92-12
>
SU0002389
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2020 1:51:36 PM
Creation date
5/15/2020 4:08:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0002389
PE
2626
FACILITY_NAME
UP-92-12
STREET_NUMBER
13625
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
LONE TREE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
ESCALON
ENTERED_DATE
10/26/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
13625 E LONE TREE RD
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
193
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> OCTOBER 1, 1992 <br /> 5. USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. UP-92-12 OF DAN AND PAT VAN <br /> GRONINGEN for a farm equipment and agriculture sales yard. The <br /> project site is located on the northeast corner of Lone Tree Road <br /> and Jack Tone Road, northeast of Manteca (Supervisorial District <br /> 5) . Continued from September 3, 1992. <br /> Associate Planner Chandler Martin introduced a staff report into <br /> the record. <br /> PUBLIC HEARING OPENED <br /> PROPONENTS: Dan Van Groningen was present and said he owns the <br /> subject property. He said -this has been an existing farm equipment <br /> and agriculture sales yard for the past 12 years. He said the use <br /> will conform to the agricultural zone. He objected to some of the <br /> requirements and asked that some of the Conditions of Approval be <br /> deferred contingent upon a change in the use. He said the property <br /> is 7 miles from town. The proposed monument signs are very small. <br /> The required side yards are too large. He wanted to put in a 6 <br /> foot wide planting strip rather than the 10 foot strip. The <br /> drainage requirement would take up so much room that it would not <br /> leave enough work area. He requested portable restrooms. He did <br /> not want to put in a domestic water well. He wanted to put in a <br /> gravel parking area. <br /> OPPONENTS: None <br /> PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED <br /> Comm. Morri said he agreed with Mr. Van Groningen as to changing <br /> the requirement from a 10 foot planting strip to a 6 foot strip. <br /> Comm. Morri suggested a restriction against spray painting <br /> equipment. <br /> Staff explained that painting is not addressed in the Conditions <br /> because painting would require a booth and a compressor and that <br /> would not be allowed here. <br /> Comm. Gillispie said that this is a valid use in the country and <br /> there are safeguards in the Conditions of Approval. <br /> MOTION: Moved, seconded (Gillispie-Rojas) and carried by a vote of <br /> 6-0 to: <br /> 1. Approve the Negative Declaration; and <br /> 2 . Approve Use Permit Application No. UP-92-12 with the Findings <br /> and Conditions of Approval in the staff report and with a <br /> revision to Condition No. l.f. , noted below: <br /> Condition No. l.f. : A minimum six-foot-wide planting strip is <br /> -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.