Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1981M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1981 - 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Pledge Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Gerald Munger, and ' Mayor Cooper Absent: Ron Dunin City Staff Present.: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director 1. Further consideration of the development plan for Whelchel/ Villa Fontana lot split at 2885 -2895 South Higuera Street. Henry Engen, Community Development Director, reviewed for the City Council their action of November 3, 1980 when the council authorized the staff to proceed to process a driveway entrance solution to the Dennis Transfer and Villa Fontana properties. Currently amendments to the subdivision ordinance to provide for deep lot standards that would eliminate them from the zoning ordinance were initiated. The applicants were also asked to submit a potential development plan for informal review by the council for the deep lot being proposed behind the Dennis Transfer warehouse. Henry Engen continued that no formal use permit was being applied for; all they were asking the City Council to do was to review and comment as to any development concerns that they may have on this property. Henry Engen continued that C1ell Whelchel has protested the approved development plans for Villa Fontana and the City Council and Planning Commission have urged that a mutually satisfactory access plan be provided which was done with the assistance of the City Engineer. As part of the trade -offs between the two owners, Mr. Bruington of Villa Fontana, is proposing a deep lot subdivision for the rear portion of the Dennis Transfer property. This property is zoned C -H -S (use permit required). A tentative parcel map has been submitted for the council consideration which provides for a 111 acre rear lot. Also, the applicant has submitted a site plan for potential use of the property for mini- storage warehouses. Keith Bruington, property owner of Villa Fontana, appeared before the City Council saying he's in support of some use of the land between his property and Clell Whelchel's and hoped that this proposal of the mini - warehouse to give the council some points of discussion. He said he was available to answer questions. Councilman Bond stated the city must recognize that residential neighborhoods opposed to the suggested use of a mini - warehouse. He felt other uses might be more compatible. Councilman Munger stated he supported the proposal, felt it was a low use operation that would not hinder the adjacent residential properties. Councilwoman Billig opposed to the suggested use; felt too many conflicts with residential areas and would not support the suggested use. It was incompatible with residential uses. She felt commercial residential would cause intolerable traffic conditions. Mayor Cooper stated that any development should consider the residential area adjacent to it. He also felt that traffic and Higuera Street should be looked at very carefully, particularly the access and egress to the two driveways. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 4:00 p.m. Page 2 After some discussion, the developer was asked to consider the council's comments at this meeting for guidance and to process the lot split and entrances to protect both properties. At 4:20 p.m. Councilman Dunin took his place at the council table. 2. At this time the City Council considered a request to determine the number of lake shore lots to be allowed as required by condition 425 of the tentative map approval for Tract No. 683, a 105 -lot residential subdivision located at 850 Los Osos Valley Road, R -1 and A /C -20 zones. Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, stated that when the City Council approved the tentative map for Tract No. 683 there was a concern that the lots in front of the lake might not have sufficient useable areas above flood levels for building a house. A condition of the tentative map approval required the council determine the number of lakeshore lots when more detailed information was available. A subdivider is now requesting that this determination be.made prior to filing the final map. The city staff recommends that the council approve 24 lakeshore lots which is one less than requested by the subdivider. The lots in question are only those that front Laguna Lake, the large open space lots subject to flooding. They are now numbered as lots 80 through 104; on the approved tentative map they were numbered 1 through 25. There were two primary issues to be considered in determining how many lots would be allowed: 1) is there sufficient useable lot area above the high water elevation for the lake for a house and yard not subject to flooding; and 2) do the lots meet subdivision ordinance requirements. It was the opinion of the Community Development Department staff that the proposed lots do have sufficient useable areas for house and yard. However, some proposed lots do not meet minimum standard subdivision ordinance requirements. For example, a number of lots have average cross slopes between 10 and 12 percent thus requiring minimum lot frontages of 70 feet. These lots proposed have approximately 65 foot frontage._ When the tentative map was approved no subdivision variances were ' granted. Staff feels the subdivision would be improved if variances were not granted. In conclusion, the staff felt that the elimination of the one lot from 25 to 24 would make a better final subdivision and would reduce the necessity for any variances to the tract. He then reviewed very briefly the conditions under which variances can be granted to the .subdivision regulations. He concluded his comments by stating that staff recommended that one lot be eliminated and adjacent lots be adjusted and a variance to subdivision:::regulations be granted to allow a lot frontage of 65 feet where 75 feet would be required due to the grade of the lot. To achieve this recommendation, the item should be continued until March 17, 1981 council meeting to allow advertising of a public hearing. David Romero, Public Services Director, stated that he and the developer's engineer had reviewed the lake front lots and have found a way to adjust lot lines.in such a manner as to eliminate all requirements for variances. It was his recommendation that if all variances could be eliminated, the developer should be permitted the 25 lots along the lake front. Stan Bell, developer, stated that his engineers and the city's engineers have agreed that he can have the 25 lots as requested and that further, no variance of subdivision recommendations would be needed. He asked the council to approve the lots and the layout as outlined. Councilman Dunin asked to have the staff look into the soil conditions on the lakeshore lots as it was his understanding in talking to some of the staff that a number of them were developed over fill from adjacent subdivision, but he said if engineers for both sides agree and so state in writing, then he would accept the lots as approved in the tentative map. Councilwoman Billig asked the staff to explain how they approved lot areas and size on the new tract. She said she was opposed to granting any variances but if the staff can show her how they can fit, it would be okay with her as long as no variances were granted. Councilman Bond stated 25 lots were okay with him as long as no variances were necessary. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 4:00 p.m. Page 3 Councilman Munger stated he would support the 25 -lot proposal if all conditions were met. He would not oppose minimum variances to make the tract fit. On motion of Councilman Munger, moved 25 lots along the lake shore be approved for Tract 683. Motion lost for lack of a second. On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the City Council approve 25 lots along the lake shore for Tract 683 on the condition that no variances be allowed; otherwise, develop 24 lots on the lake shore. Motion lost on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin and Billig NOES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilman Bond, approve 25 lots with a condition that any variances necessary to make the development fit should be returned to the city council. Motion carried, Councilman Munger voting no. 3. At this time the City Council considered the appointment of an acting City Clerk due to the retirement of City Clerk, J.H. Fitzpatrick. On motion of Mayor Cooper, seconded by Councilman Bond, the City Clerk Secretary, Pam Voges, be appointed Acting City Clerk for a maximum of 90 days but not at the present salary of the City Clerk, although some adjustment would be made. Motion carried, all ayes. 4. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4395 (1980 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the city and Paul and Judy Cavigli for Cavigli to landscape and maintain a city parcel adjacent to their residence. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Billig, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 5a. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Bond, the plans and specifications for North Broad Street Storm Drain, City Plan No. E -03, bid estimate $54,790 without contingencies was approved and the city staff was authorized to call for bids. Motion carried. 5b. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4396 (1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the city and Santa Rosa Street project for grant of easement and installation of storm drainage. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Billig, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Munger, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4403 (1981 Series), a resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving the ' application for monies from California Parklands Act of 1980 for further develop- ment of the municipal swimming complex at Sinsheimer Park in the City of San Luis Obispo. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 4:00 p.m. Page 4 Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Munger, Bond, Dunin, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 C -1. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, claims against the city for the month of February, seconded by Councilman Dunin, 1981 were approved and ordered paid subject to the approval of the Administrative Officer. Motion carried. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, minutes of the city council meetings of February 3, 1981 at 4:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. were approved as amended. Motion carried. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4397 (1981 Series), a resolution of the City of San Luis Obispo approving an agreement between the city and J.H. Fitzpatrick, an independent contractor to provide consulting, election, and training services. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -4 -A. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman.Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4398, .a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo increasing general fund appropriations. for the 1980 -81 fiscal year (salaries for the Planning Commission). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -4 -B. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4399 (1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo increasing capital outlay appropriations for the 1980 -81 fiscal year (5 -ton hydro crane). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None C -4 -C. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4400.(1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo increasing parking fund appropriations for the 1980 -81 fiscal year (parking meters and parking meter parts). Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Billig, Dunin, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilman Bond ABSENT: None 1 C -5. - The appointment of a member to the Mass Transportation Committee representing the .downtown business community was continued due to no reply from either the B.I.A. or the Chamber of Commerce with a suggested name. C -6. The City Council considered a report from the City Engineer dealing with the draft preliminary transportation improvement program in which deletes the Los Osos Valley Road project in the city of San Luis Obispo. City engineers felt that some action should be taken to try and keep this particular project on the cal Trans proposed budgets. After some discussion, the council took the following action: City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 4:00 p.m. Page 5 On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin: 1) that the City Council's representative.to COG attempt to have the COG organization continue this project on their priority needs, and 2) that the staff look into the city of San Luis Obispo doing a portion of the work either through assessment districts and /or county and city cooperation. Motion carried. C -7. At this time the City Council considered the report of the Advisory Committee recommendation studying the proposed Energy Element of the General Plan. 1 On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, referred the Advisory Committee recommended Energy Element Plan to the Planning Commission with a report back to the City Council within 40 days. Motion carried. C -8. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the claim against the city by Margaret McAnaney for damages sustained to her personal property during sewage backup was denied. Motion carried. C -9. On motion of Councilwoman Billig, seconded by Councilman Dunin, the claim against the city by Lawrence Hawkins in the amount of $1,000,000 for alleged illegal detainment, false arrest and assault by off -duty police officers was denied. Motion carried. B -1. City Clerk reported on bids received for janitorial services for the recreational center. BID Pierose Building Maintenance $532.60 mo. 1026 Pine Paso Robles, CA ServiceMaster Building Maintenance $602.00 mo. 383 Margarita Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ' Jones Janitorial & Building $635.00 mo. Maintenance Service 743 Huasna.Road . Arroyo Grande, CA ExCel Cleaning $675.00 mo. 1820 Alrita San Luis Obispo,'CA. American Maintenance $823.00 mo. 1527 7th Street Los Osos, CA 93402 On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4401 (1981 Series), a resolution awarding the janitorial contract to Pierose Building Maintenance, etc. Motion carried. There being no further business to come before-the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, February 17, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: 7 3/3/81 J.H.,,Fltzpatrick, C ty Clerk M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL -"f CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET Pledge Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig, Alan.Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger, and Mayor Cooper Absent: None City Staff Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; George Thacher., City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Henry Engen, Community Development Director; Ken Bruce, Planning Department; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero., Public Services Director; and Geoff Grote, Legal Assistant 7. At this time Mayor Cooper made a presentation honoring Police Officer James English for his life saving efforts involving a citizen. 8. At this-time the-City Council:held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Merriam, Deasy, Whisenant Associates of a Planning Commission decision to deny a request for tentative map approval of Tract No. 912 to create an 18 -lot residential subdivision.located at 1250 Orcutt Road; R -1 zone; Richard Burke and Frank Truchan, subdividers. Mayor Cooper left the meeting due to a possible conflict of interest. Henry Engen, Community Development Director,.stated that the Planning Commission on January 14, 1981 took two actions on Tract 912. On a 4 - 0 -'.l vote they recommended the final environmental..impact.report be certified -as complete and accepted. On a 3 - 1 - 1 vote they.denied the proposed tentative map. The subdivider is appealing the denial of the subdivision to the City Council. As part of the subdivider's appeal, he is asking the council consider.a 15 -lot design. The majority of the Planning Commission supports a 10 -lot design.as noted in the EIR. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the Commission was an alternative which=was -a modified-.8 -lot plus one 9 detached condominium.design which ..,.is also not in the EIR. The recommended action by the planning staff is: A) that the council approve the EIR prepared for the .project as adequate and.is.in compliance with the CEQA.Act and the state and city environmental impact guidelines; and B) the planning staff recommends.that the appeal be upheld.and the council approve a subdivision design of 8 lots for house plus 1 lot that could have up to 9 residential air -space condominium units, and direct the subdivider to revise tentative map and siilimit back to the city so that conditions can be established for a public hearing before the City Council on March 17, 1981. Further, he stated that if the City Council desired-to uphold .the appeal and approve the-.subdivider's revised 15 -lot design or any other alternate design, the staff recommends-that the public hearing be continued to the,meeting.of•March::17 so that the staff could prepare the various conditions for approval of the.-type of design desired by-the City Council. Richard Burke, one of the property owners, appeared before the City.Council stating that when they appeared before the Planning Commission they presented two alternate designs for their consideration. One contained 16'lots and the second had 15 lots. The,property owner's intent.was to work out a compromise with the commission based on staff concerns expressed at the subdivision.review committee: -After public- - hearing- for-the meeting was closed; the:commission did not consider-the developer or property owner's alternatives but rather focused their attention to a 10 -lot City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Two alternative presented in the EIR. Given the fact...that. the 10 -lot design was only a conceptual layout and would not .be.economically.feasible, the property owner had no recourse but to refuse the 10 -lot preference. Had he been given the opportunity before the Planning Commission to speak to-the apparent shortcomings of their 10 -lot layout, perhaps we would not need to approach the council. However, in the interest of fairness on behalf.of the applicants and community, we ask that you hear our appeal. They would like the council to consider a 15 -lot design for Tract 912. This revised scheme expands all the remaining-lots giving more spaciousness to the hill. It manages to mitigate the impact of hillside homes, include vegetative screening around the entire perimeter of the tract, architectural review by the ARC, and approximately 4 acres of open space, landscaped with native plant materials. Also, this property owner developer has taken the.council's recommendations generated at.the 17th of April 1980 special.session for Tract 12 and incorporated all points of concern. His attempt has been to identify all controversial issues and work out real positive solutions. This compromise of 15 lots has the primary benefits of planned development without sacrificing the character of.the surrounding neighborhood. Dan Lloyd,.representing Merriam; Deasy, and Whisenant, reviewed the actions through staff.and Planning Commission and prior hearings with the City Council in an attempt to develop this particular tract. He urged the City Council to seriously consider the 15 =lot single - family development rather.than.the condominiums. He reviewed.for the City Council such items as 1) lot size variance, 2) density of the area, 3) the character of the tract, 4) the hillside visual, and 5) the privacy intrusion worries of the council and staff. Don Graham, resident of Fernwood Drive, stated he.was.opposed to the use of Fernwood Drive for access -to Tract 912 as he felt.that.Kentwood Drive and Fernwood Drive are now residential streets and he.would object to increasing traffic in• this neighborhood. He had-.no' objection to the development or the design of the tract, just keep the tract off his street. Dennis Frey, 1351 Fernwood Drive, agreed with Graham's comments about the increase in traffic-on Fernwood Drive and the danger.to.the residents and their children. Tom Ryan, consultant representing Westex Corporation who prepared the EIR, reviewed in detail for the City Council the studies made in the EIR for access to this particular tract. D.F. Romero, Public Services Director,.reviewed for..the..City Council the methods to be used by-the developer.in this Tract 912 to alleviate the drainage and flooding problems which exist at the present time and.would continue to exist without these development. Vice -Mayor Dunin declared.the public hearing closed On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, that the City Council find the environmental impact report prepared for Tract 912 to be certified as.adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and state and city environmental impact regulations. Motion carried, all ayes; Mayor Cooper absent. Councilman Bond stated as far as Tract No. 912 was.concerned., he would rather have a 15 -lot single =house subdivision rather.than.a lot with a condo development. Councilman Munger.stated he-also would support the 15 -lot subdivision for single - family houses only, not condominiums or multiple type dwellings. _ Councilwoman.Billig stated she too would support a 15 -lot subdivision with R -1 style homes as long.as she feels this meets the.general plan conditions on infill, but she would add some of.the foliowing..conditions to the development: 1) correct the drainage, 2) minimize.grading on the.propprty, 3) plant screens along borders, property lines to_proiect pr vicy:`of current.residents below, 4) no - buildings - built -over the- 320•foot'::elevation,`'5)_all- buildings approved by -the ARC, 6) the ARC consider the building:.envelope,_.7) -some sharing .of: costs on removing stump ift 'et *eeY: city, county; and 'developer,'-8) a 3 -foot natural rock =wall, `shoul8 �� be placed along Orcutt Road to prevent rocks rolling City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Three into:the street, 9):the street should be developed.to the city's.hillside'standards with sidewalk on one side with heavy tree growth.-and-to repair existing conditions of the hill. Vice -Mayor Dunin stated he too would support a.15 -lot R- l..development and include a number of the suggestions submitted by the council .this evening. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that.Tract No. 912 be referred back to staff to prepare the necessary documents.to allow a 15 -lot R -1 type subdivision with the existing conditions listed and to consider those discussed by the City Council this.evening. Motion continued to March 17 regular meetingAYES: Councilmembers Billig; Dunin, Munger, and Bond NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Cooper . Mayor Cooper returned and.took his place at the council table. 9: At .this time the-City Council.held a.public.hearing to consider an appeal.of Sing Chou Wu and Ellen Wu of an Architectural Review Commission decision denying approval of several "as built" changes in ARC- approved plans for a 4 unit residential condominium.project located at 178 Stenner Street.. Henry Engen,.Community Development Director, stated that.on February 2 the ARC voted.7 - 0 to deny requested as- built.changes.of plans.approved•by both.the ARC and building di.visi.on.as.part of a building_permit.on: the request.of the applicant. Planning staff has.allowed release of one.of the. "four complete living units . for. occupancy, pending resolution of ARC concerns and project built not as.per. approved building.permit. Henry Engen continued that.the staff feels.the appeal should be denied but allow the applicant to work with staff on.some.revisions.or modifications in order to comply with the ARC's directive. He continued that.the'• council adopted standards and guidelines for the Architectural Review Commission state the basis for.appeals as follows: "An appeal may be based only on inconsistencies between ARC action and the procedures and criteria established by law.or stated in this booklet. These alleged inconsistencies must be explained in detail in the appeal." In his appeal Mr. Wu listed three grounds for appeal as follows: 1) action of the ARC is causing owner /builder a severe financial hardship in that they have three finished unoccupied units due to denial of.the approval.: Henry Engen stated that.this did not establish any inconsistencv between the ARC's action and the commission's guidelines. He stated.it should be.noted that.the.project delay resulted from the applicant building the project different from both ARC and building permit approved plans. As noted in the.ARC minutes of February.19, -a signing, fencing, landscaping, irrigation, and accomodation.for trees along the property line were to be worked out with staff as a condition of final approval. Staff was never consulted on these items and except for a change order,requested to allow the stairwell modification which was approved by the.city, staff has never notified of changes in the approved plans; 2) ARC.denied applicants a fair hearing; 3) city staff did not follow established procedures." .Henry Engen stated that the applicant presented his request to the ARC at an.advertised.public hearing.according to procedures.outlined in the ARC guidelines.. The city staff attempted to deal fairly and openly with the applicant and were not aware of any transgressions by staff in this matter. In the opinion of staff, the applicant made a fair hearing before the commission though he may not have.agreed with their actions._ 4) ARC's decision is in non - conformance with their own guidelines. ARC decision is inconsistent with ARC guidelines." Henry Engen continued that the applicant was not specific as to how the decision is inconsistent with ARC.guidelines. While staff feels the appeal should be denied because the appellant has not provided any information or submitted any evidence to show that the commission's actions were inconsistent with the adopted procedures or guidelines. Staff does feel there is grounds for compromise. Now that.the project is built, in _staff's opinion,. no.purpose would be served enforcing full compliance'with.originally approved plans or'by requiring'a significant redesign of the project. As a minimum, -the staff.would recommend that the developer work with staff installing driveways,.originally approved, to allow trees removed to be planted, signing, and landscaped irrigation system. Finally, on behalf of the staff, Henry Engen stated that they recommend that the appeal be denied and that the council direct the developer to work with staff to resolve acceptable modifications with the Community Development Director given authority on final decision. The City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Four following shall be minimum requrements: 1) sign design and color return for approval; 2) landscape irrigation and 5 15- gallon trees be installed;, and 3) driveway modified to allow for tree planting. Don Kahn, Chairman of the ARC, reviewed for the City Council the actions taken on the subject property and appeal in denying the applicant's as -built changes to approved plans. He reviewed some of the statements made by members of the Planning Commission dealing with this particular project, not.only at the appeal meeting of February 2, 1981, but at prior meetings with this particular project. He concluded that the ARC would be most willing to take this project back and to try to work with the property owner in order to save it. Sing Chou Wu, owner /builder, appeared on behalf of his appeal. It was his opinion that the ARC and staff of the city had caused him his problems in developing his little project on Stenner Street. He again cited the fact that the actions of the . ARC was causing him a severe financial hardship in'that he had three finished units and they cannot be rented due to the denial of the approval. He also felt that Architectural Review. Commission action denied applicants a fair.hearing,..and ..further that the city staff did not follow established procedures. And finally,'thit the Architectural Review Commission decision is in non - conformance with their own guidelines. He said the ARC is inconsistent with its.owh adopted.guidelines. He then took the City Council through a long discussion as to why-he did not-comply with the ARC regulations and those of the building. department. ..He_stated. first that the surveyor he hired made a mistake surveying the property and located the trees incorrectly on the site plan which was presented to the ARC.. He did not-realize it there until the grading contractor was working, and as it took him five months to.get the building plans approved he would have.to have gone back to.drawing,.board to change the plans to accomodate the trees. So . he decided to save time and had the contractor take them out. He did not feel that the concrete, driveway decreased the value of the project as'he had made it to look like brick which was the decision or requirement by the Planning Commission. He then also stated it would be,.difficult to install five'15- gallon trees to replace the trees that had been taken out. He would like to.leave that open and-work with the city. He reviewed other problems 1 that he has had with city government_in. attempting to.get.the. project through. He stated one of the problems was that he was an amateur contractor, an instructor at Cal Poly and does not know all the rules and regulations and..he hoped.that the city council would consider this in making their final decision. Dr. Carl Hsieh; a registered engineer, spoke in support of Sing Chou Wu's-appeal to allow him to use his completed units even though they.are different than.those_. approved by the Planning and the building inspector. He felt that as a registered engineer the site was beautiful.._. . Bret Green, 178 Stenner Street, tenant of.Sing Chou „Wu,.felt that the,present... development was great and that the city should give'him his permit to use.the. area for units. Don Kahn, Chairman of the ARC, again appeared before the City.Council, spoke in support of denying the Wu appeal and that it be referred back to the ARC to try and work out Wu's problems with him.. Don Kahn stated that this..was_a very important 'to-work issue to the Architectural Review Commission..as they have-always-been able with property owners in the past and they would like,to keep their._recoid of- solving this problem for the city. John Wright, contractor, appeared before the City-Council explaining why he poured the red concrete as he did. Steve Boyd said it would be cruel and inhuman treatment to.send back the Wu's 1 project back to the ARC for conclusion as he. felt .thit all that could be done has been done. Charles Delmartini, realtor, submitted a letter from Josephine C. Vinsel who owns property at 176 Stenner Street, in support of Mr. Wu's development.. Mrs. Austin, Murray Street, felt that the Wu project was an asset to the neighborhood, nice - looking, decent, etc. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Five Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Dunin felt the City Council-should support the ARC when they act on official decisions. He felt the council should look into Wu's alleged claims of mistreatment at ARC meetings. He felt it should be sent back to the ARC for conclusion. Councilwoman Billig felt that when Wu found he had problems he should have come immediately -.to the -city_to.review.t.w th_city staff- the- errorsl -or= ,problems to:be­ corrected but= he.was =wrong in-proceeding- without-anv notice to -tT1e: city: LBecause he chose not to hold.his.professional =architect and.contractor responsible, he could not ask the city to do likewise. Councilman Bond agreed with Councilman Dunin's comments, felt that the action of The ARC meeting should be looked into carefully; but felt that the matter before the council should be denied when referred back to city staff to try and work out the problems with the property owner, not to the ARC. Councilman Munger stated he would agree with Councilman Dunin to see what problems were being faced at the ARC meetings by the public, but he too would deny the appeal but urged that the city staff try and work out the problems. _ Mayor Cooper stated he too would deny the appeal but he would accept the city staff's recommendations as to minimum action on site design, irrigation, tree planting, and driveway adjustments. On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the City Council 1) deny the appeal and refer the matter to the city staff for report to the City Council on the solution, and 2) request the City Attorney to look into the action at the ARC meeting on this matter with a report back to the City Council. After some discussion by the city council and staff members, the motion was amended as follows: On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the City Council continue the hearing and refer the problems to the staff for a report to council on the solution of the Wu problem. Motion carried. AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmembers Billig and Dunin. ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman Bond, seconded by Councilman Munger, that the City Attorney be asked to look into the actions at the ARC meeting when this matter was discussed to.see what could be done to correct any errors if there were any. Motion carried. AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Munger, Dunin, Billig, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None. Councilman Dunin stated he voted no on the first motion, felt that the appeal should be considered by the ARC and not staff because in the future if the applicant disagrees with the recommendations of the ARC to the council then they would ask to have it turned over to the staff which he felt was not correct. Councilwoman Billig agreed with Councilman Dunin stating that turning it over to the staff would be a deterrent to ARC's future actions. Items 10 -1, 10 -2, 10 -2 -A, and 10 -2 -B were continued to the March 17, 1981 city council meeting. 11. At this time the City Council heard a continued public hearing on an appeal of David A. Bowen of a denial by the city Planning Commission of a variance to allow a 10 -foot street yard setback and to allow two required parking spaces to back up in the street yard at 2030, 2040, and 2066 Broad Street; C -N zone. Matter was continued from the council meeting of September 18, 1979 pending an ARC final action on the project. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Six Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, stated that on August 22, 1979 the Planning Commission On motion of Councilman Munger, technically denied the variance request on a 3 - 1 vote to approve. The commission by -laws required four affirmative votes to approve.the variance. The applicant 877 (1981 Series), an ordinance of then appealed this denial to the council on September!18,.,1979: -The council heard the appeal; took action to continue the request until the applicant met with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to rescind neighborhood and received ARC approval. The applicant has met the council request and is now asking for action on the appeal request. Staff is also requesting the and tree number sections 9200.16(H) council grant the applicant an extension of time on the approved use permit--- 1 allowing offices in the C -N zone. He stated on behalf of the staff---he felt'the appeal should be upheld and the variance granted and the extension of times also be approved. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. Carol Lutz, representing the applicant, described the-plan changes that have been made, the meetings with the neighborhood, and stated that she agreed on behalf of the property owner with.the comments made by the city staff members. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Bond stated he would support the approval of:both the variance and also extend the use permit as requested.. Councilman Munger stated he too would support the appeal and the extension of the use permit. Councilman Dunin agreed with both supporting the appeal and extending the use permit. Councilwoman Billig would uphold the appeal and giant an extension of time on the use permit. She thought that it was a very much improved project and a credit to the neighborhood. On motion.of Councilman Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Billig; the following , resolution was introduced: Resolution.4402 (1981 Series), a.resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo granting a variance request'to allow two parking spaces to back up into required street yard setback and to allow a 10 -foot street yard setback on Chorro Street frontage at 2030, 2040, and 2066 Broad Street; David Bowen, applicant. Passed .and adopted on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Billig, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion of Councilman -Dunin, seconded by Councilwoman Billig, the following resolution was introduced: Resolution No. 4402A (1981 Series), a resolution of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo approving Application No. U0622 by David A. Bowen.. Passed and adovted:.ori the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Dunin, Billig, Bond, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. On motion of Councilman Munger, seconded by Mayor Cooper, Ordinance No. 877 (1981 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo amending the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to rescind 9200.16(G), subdivision of deep lots and tree number sections 9200.16(H) and (I) to 9200.16(G) and (H) 1 respectively in the zoning regulations. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. No one appeared before the City Council for or against the final adoption of the ordinance. City Council Minutes February 17, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. Page Seven On the following roll call vote the ordinance was finally passed: AYES: Councilmembers Munger, Bond, And-Mayor-�Cooper'coo.a.- NOES: Councilmember Billig and Dunin ABSENT: None 13. At this time the City Council considered the final passage of Ordinance No. 878 (1981 Series), an ordinance of the city of San Luis Obispo amending Section 9604 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to reduce from four to a majority of the voting members the number of Planning Commission members who must vote affirmatively to recommend to the council approval of a general plan amendment. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing open. No one spoke f6r or against the final adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Cooper declared the public hearing closed. On the following roll call vote,.Ordinance No. 878 was adopted for final passage. AYES: Councilmembers Bond, Dunin, Munger, and Mayor Cooper NOES: Councilmember Billig ABSENT: None 14. At 10:10 p.m. the City Council adjourned to executive session. At 10:20 p.m. the City Council reconvened in regular session. 15. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Cooper adjourned the meeting to 11:00 a.m. Monday, February 23, 1981. APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON: 3/17/81 J.W. Fitzpatrick; City Clerk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1981 - 11:00,A.M. COUNCIL HEARING ROOM, CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Roll Call Present: Melanie Billig, Alan Bond, Ron Dunin, Gerald Munger, and Mayor Cooper Absent: None City Staff Present: Lee Walton, Administrative Officer; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City - Clerk; George Thacher, City Attorney; Geoff Grote, Legal Assistant; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director; Rudy Muravez, Finance Director; Ann McKibbin, Personnel Director