|
M I N U T E S
<br />of
<br />THE MEETING
<br />of
<br />THE PLANNING COMMISSION
<br />Pleasanton, California
<br />November 13, 1963
<br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at
<br />8:00 P.M, on Wednesday, November 13, 1963, by Vice-Chairman Frank Lozano,
<br />ROLL CALL showed the following:
<br />Present: Cocmd.saioners Antonini
<br />Lozano
<br />Rega
<br />Sdipfli
<br />Secretary Fates
<br />Absent: Commissioner Landon
<br />On motion of Commissioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Wipfli, the minutes
<br />of the meeting of October 23, 1963, were approved as presented by unanimous vote
<br />of those Commissioners present.
<br />The next item on the agenda was the public hearing on the application of Mr. Ted
<br />Kuhlkin, 20928 Redwood Road, Castro Valley, for a Variance from Section 17.404,
<br />Ord. Ne, 309, to allow a reduced site area, increased unit density, reduced recrea-
<br />tional space and reduced setbacks, as a matter for reconsideration, in connection
<br />with the expansion of an existing trailer park at 777, 779 and 785 Roae Avenue, in
<br />an RG-15 District. This matter was continued from October 23, 1963. It was moved
<br />by Commissioner An~onin~, aeeonded by Commissioner Rega, and carried, that the
<br />public hearing tln the application of Mr, Ted Kuhlkin ba continued to the meeting of
<br />November 27, 1963.
<br />Vice-Chairman Lozano opened the public hearing on tie application of Earl Dawes
<br />1774 "E" Street, Hayward, for a Variance from Section 6.5, Ordinance No, 309, allow-
<br />ing a reduced lot area, width, aideyard and rearyard setbacks, in connection with
<br />a proposed seven-Lot subdivision, Tract Ho, 2560, located at the northeast corner
<br />of Ilevla Street and ban*_a Rita Road, in an R-1 District. Mr. Ted Fairfield, of
<br />MacKay & Somps, stated the Variances requested are as follocaa: Lot area from 6,500
<br />aq.ft, to 4,600 sq.ft.; lot width from 65 ft. to 50 ft.; aide yards (one story)
<br />from 5 and 7 ft. (total 12 ft,) to 4 and 4 ft, (total 8 ft,); aide yards (two story;
<br />from 6 and 9 ft. (total 15 ft,) to 5 and 6 ft. (total 11 ft.); rear yards from
<br />25 ft, to 10 ft. Lot No, 7 is subject to filing of deed restrictions with the City,
<br />There will be common ownership of Lot No. 7. Mr. Falea stated that as a condition
<br />to approval of the Tentative Map a Zoning Permit must be issued prior to develop-
<br />ment of the common area, including the swimming pool, landscaping and anything e1sF
<br />involved, The share of each of the owners moat be upheld, A question from the
<br />audience was posed by Mrs. Donald Smith, 4098 Walla St., who inquired as to fencing
<br />of the common area. Mr. Fates replied the City would recounnend a fence surrounding
<br />the swimming pool and also fencing of the property itself. Mrs. I~iichael Kudlick,
<br />4126 Wells St., inquired if the houses would be sold or rented. Mr. Fairfield
<br />replied they would be offered for sale for approximately $20,000 each. There will
<br />be 3 and 4-bedroom houses, probably half of them two-story. There being no further
<br />comments from the audience, Vice-Chairman Lozano declared the public hearing closed.
<br />Mr. Fates, in giving the staff report, stated the Council and Planning Commission
<br />have experienced difficulty in finding a logical way in which this property might
<br />be developed, If this experiment on the part of this particular developer is al-
<br />lowed to proceed, it can be a credit to the neighborhood and the City. There axe
<br />four different Variances involved in this applicaticn; however, the staff believes
<br />that the community will not make atrid:a forward until experimentation is done on
<br />certain occasions. Therefore, the staff recommends approval of the Variances.
<br />Commissioner Rega stated he felt this would be a good use of the land area and a
<br />good type of comity living and would complement tFie neighborhood. Commissioner
<br />Antonini asked City Attorney Struthers what control the City has in this instance.
<br />Mr, Struthers replied that the City is entitled to look at deed restrictions, but
<br />takes the risk that individual owners will er..°orce de?d restrictions. Upon motion
<br />of Commissioner Rega, seconded by Co~isaioner Wipfli, the following resolution
<br />was unanimously adopted by those Commi.saionera present:
<br />
|