Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-08-1974 F)11.?r MINUTES OF MEETING .�..FJJE C JULY 8, 1974 1. 1157TH ZONING UNIT - BUTLER - Petition to reclassify from CONTINUED TO the R-1 (Single-Family Residence) District and the R-S-D-25 SEPTEMBER 10, (Suburban Residence, 2,500 sq. ft. Minimum Building Site 1974. Area per Dwelling Unit) District to the R-S-D-20 (Suburban Residence, 2,000 sq. ft. Minimum Building Site Area per Dwelling Unit) District, three parcels totalling approxi- mately 57,800 sq. ft. (1.33 acres) located on the east side of Center Street, immediately north of 1-580, Castro Valley Area, Eden Township. Chairman Enos announced that this matter would be continued to September 10, 1974. There was no one present desiring to speak concerning this matter. / 2J 1178TH ZONING UNIT - AMADOR INVESTMENTS - Petition to CONTINUED TO reclassify from the M-1 (Light Industrial) to C-2-B-40 JULY 22, (General Commercial, 40,000 sq. ft. Minimum Building Site 1974 Area), two parcels containing approximately 3.6 acres, located at 6837 and 6869 Dublin Boulevard, north side, at the north- westerly corner of the intersection with Sierra Court, Dublin Area, Pleasanton Township. Mr. Fry presented the staff report. He recommended that the Commission take public testimony and continue this matter to July 22, 1974, for staff recommendation and commission action. A gentleman, identifying himself as the Managing Agent and part-owner of the two pieces of property in question, read a prepared statement relating to plan consistency, changed conditions, public need, and equity. He sub- mitted copies of the statement for the record. There was no one present opposed to the application. Commissioner Carpenter asked if it is true that, since the General Plan for this area has designated this property industrial, a general plan amendment would be required. Mr. Fry indicated that this in only a three-acre piece of property which is of insufficient scale to raise the issue of Plan amendment; also, there are both commercial and industrial uses planned in the area. Commissioner Gardella moved that the matter be continued to July 22, 1974. Seconded by Commissioner Zeno and carried. 3. 1165TH ZONING UNIT - CROW CANYON ROAD - Planning Commission ADOPTED initiated reclassification consideration of 106 ownerships STAFF REC. containing approximately 272 acres zoned R-I-B-E (Single- Family Residence, 20,000 sq. ft. Minimum Building Site Area) with A (Agriculture) District to the rear, located on both sides of Crow Canyon Road, from Coldwater Drive, north- easterly 5.6 miles to the Contra Costa County Line. Mr. Henn presented the staff report. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the subject area has been found to be in conflict with the County General Plan, the Rural Residential Policy, and the Board of Supervisors' policies for zoning of land under contract in Agricultural Preserves and,therefore, should be reclassified as per the staff analysis. He indicated that this would classify all 51 parcels under 5 acres at R-1-L-B-E (5 acre Minimum PLANNING COMMISSION MI ES - JULY 8, 1974 Page 2 3. 1165TH ZONING UNIT - CROW CANYON ROAD (Continued): Building Site Area, 100' Median Lot Width, 30' front yard) to the full extent and the 55 larger parcels including all parcels in Agricultural Preserves to the A (Agriculture) District to their full extent. Commissioner Carpenter asked why the staff would recommend reclassifica- tion to a 5-acre minimum parcel if the parcel does not contain 5 acres. Mr. Henn advised that this would allow existing lots under 5 acres to remain legal building sites,whereas if they were zoned A, they would not be legal building sites. Mr. Bill Warner, property owner holding 1/3 undivided interest in a 43-acre parcel on Crow Canyon Road, indicated that his father had bought a 1/4-acre lot for a small home 50 years ago, and in order to save his home, he had acquired 47 acres from EBMUD;and the family has paid taxes on this property all these years. He indicated that he is opposed to the staff proposal as it would preclude division of the property for the purposes of building homes by his children or grandchildren. He felt that to call this land agricultural is untrue as you cannot produce any revenue from this property from an agricultural standpoint. He indicated that though he has no grandiose plans for subdivision, he would hate to be placed in the position whereby they could not will a portion of it to an heir or sell a part of it to help make the property pay for itself should it be necessary. He felt that if there is a problem of septic tanks, the problem should be corrected. He believed that lack of water in this area is a natural constraint to growth. He further felt that further restrictions on the number of landowners would inhibit the poten- tial of bringing public water to the area. Mr. Warner further noted that his address was included as a property with contamination in the water supply and yet he had never received any such report from the Health Department. He believed that this may have occured in 1962 after a flood condition. Mr. Ed Howell, of Health Care Services Agency, indicated that normally a property owner requires a test of a water supply, and a report is rendered to the owner. He offered to look into the report on file for Mr. Warner. Mr. Fennone advised that the County Subdivision Ordinance and the State Map Act don't prohibit dividing land if it isn't done for the purpose of sale, lease, or finance. If Mr. Warner wanted to leave 1/3 of his land to an heir, he could do it. Mr. Warner indicated that the taxes on this property run $2,000 per year and he thought this excessive as the land, except for the frontage land, is not good for anything. He felt that a requirement of 2 or 3 acres per building site would be more reasonable along with the recommendation that before any building is done, water source and septic tank system must be approved. Mr. Fry pointed out that only the front 200' of the Warner property is now zoned for residential use;and with 300' of frontage, there would only be the possibility of 3 lots total. Mr. Harold Jewett, of the Tribune Building Company, believed that the staff proposal would basically adversely affect property owners of large parcels, as there are only about four properties containing 100 acres or more. He indicated that his Company is attempting to divide 92 acres into 4 parcels of 23 acres each. He believed that the staff recommendation would preclude rebuilding of one of the two houses now on the property in the event it was destroyed. He believed that the ordinance is not reasonable.