Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1963ABSI:i':'! : None 35. On motion of' Ccuncilman 'have:;, seconded b,;- Council= Shipsey the meeting was adjo.:rned to 7:3C ?. :•I. February 2K, 1953. Approved phis 11th day of i•iarch, 1953. ADJOUR'rZD flEE1'INU OF THE CM COUNCIL February 25, 1963 - 7:30 °. 11. City Hall Invocation was riven by Ylayor Clay P. Davidson Roll Call Present: Clay P. Davidson, H. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. :Miller, Gerald ':i. Shipsey Absent: lass i4argaret McAlei 1 City Staff Present: J. W. Abraha:a, Director of Planning Suilding; J. ii. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; W. :-i. Rouser, City Attorney; H. D. :.iillcr, Adanin- istrative Officer; D. 3o.mero, City Engineer; L. Schl:bohm, Fire Chief; .4. Schofield, Police Chief. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman 14iller, the follow- ing salary step increases were approved: ESHBACH, Diane J., Typist- Clerk, from Step 1 at "295 per month to Step 2 at "312 per : month, effective April 1, 1963. i•r?'rCi ?ELL, Tamy L., Stenograr)her, from SteD 1 at ::312 per month to Step 2 at "330 per month, effective April 1, 1953. X. On motion of Councilman Xiller, seconded by Councilman Graves, the following resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 1,065, a resolution endorsing Senate Sill No. 3111:, as originally proposed. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: A'i3S:. Clay P. Davidson, R. L. haves, Jr., Donald Q. i•liller, Gcrald':+. Shipsey :ICES: Plcne ABSETJT: Miss i.1ar aret i�cTdeil 2. Communication from the City Chamber of Commerce requesting ermission to place paper feet in front of each retail merchant's store as part of the pro- motion of the "Hnow Your Merchant's Week ", approved or_ .otion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Shipsey, subject to the removal of these paper fcot prints by the Chamber. 3. Cumnanitcation from Knuthson- I-Ielns Company reqluest_n:C acceptance of the sub- division improvements in 'tract No. 2 1, Ann Arbor Estates, was ordered held over at the request of the City Engineer. 40 On motion of Councilman Shipsey, seconded by Councilman lviller, the follo;•r- ino resolution was introduced. Resolution No. 108 , a resolution reducing the various equipment replacement items to reflect unspent portions thereof and -makin certian inter -fund trasfer to the equipment replacement fund. Passed and adopted on the following roll call vote: kYES: Clay P. Davidson, L. Craves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller, Gerald W. Shipsey :IDES: P•ione 4 SENT: :'Liss Margaret McNeil 5. Interim audit report from the independent auditiors, Hutcheson, Horn, Johnson ?- say, referred to the City Clerk for report to the City Council. 6. Resol>>tion of the City Planning Commission recommending adoption of the building setback line for certain portions of i•Ionterey Street. The City Ccuncil set the Public Hearing for 'March 11, 1963, at 3:00 F. ;.I. 7. _^_t this time .Iavor Clay P. Davidson opened the Public HearinL, on the Planned Development '- EltiDle ra:ail: District by the Ra;; C. Skinner Corooration. Mayor Davidson e:;plained t e rules of hog the hearin_. -could be conducted, the proponents oresentinE their proposals first. Then the report of the Planning Commission would be read and then statements from the opponents would be received and considered by the Council. Say C. Skinner, developer, presented his proposal to develope a planned apart- ment dwelling including recreational areas for the duellers of the apartments. iTs. Skinner, using aerial photos of the area, revieV:ed his entire development to date fcr the Council's information and also outlined his plans which in- cluded a commercial center, golf course, professional offices and trailer paSi; . ' I4r. S'-inner then presentee] sketches and plans showing his proposed apart- ment development includin, size of apartments, parkin-. recreation areas, access roads, architecture of units and proposed use of time units. "r. Skinner then presented what he believed to be the traffic flows from this development. He then e:;plained :now he oroposed to control the activities of the students who gill be boardin and living in the apartments. He plans to have a resident manaCer, ::ith two (2) assistants, to manage the boarding house and also a Student Council which would be elected from each building to hell; handle disciplinary problems in the hoarding house. 411 students ::ill be recnired to file a student resident's agreement which would be a bindin_; aCreement on the students. I °?r. Skinner states: he would ur:;e that the Council --rant his reauest for this apartment development and further ;rant him a use oermit to operate a student boardin,E house in this development. J. ';7. Abraham, Director of Planning tc 3uilding, briefly outlined the Plann- ing Commission's actions as follows: "Attached herewith for your Planning Commission meeting velopmert reeuest o1' IIr, 3a the Preliminary and Precise information, is a copy o' the rmimites of the of February 19, 1963, covering the Planned De- �kinner for the Laguna Lake area and a copy of Development Plan. 4s will be noted, the Cc:2rission took action to approve the Preliminary Development Plan for the entire 18 acres of land area and to aoprove the Precise Development Plan _or only the first iC units lying west of 4tascedero Street. If and -when ?•Lr. Skinner pronesed to develrne other portions of th•_ 18 acres, he will be required to suL:-a t a Precise DeveloDment Plan for those units. It should also be pointed out that the Co:mmission, in actinc, on the Pre - liminary and Precise Development Plans, eliminated that portion of the re- ouest haw -n,-: to do ,;ith board.in;_ houses. IIr. Ssinner's proposal has been to house four, (h) students per unit. Under the City iALnicipal Code, four 00 or more persons in a unit would define the xnits as a boardin house, Hr. Skinner, with the approval granted . by the Planning Cot'GniSsion, :lay still house students; hoverer, a maximum of three (3) students would be allowed per each unit. J. :i. Fitzcatrick, City Clerk, then read the action of the Plannin, Commission report dated February 21, 1963: "The Planr.in. director briefly outlined she area to be considered in the pro- posal. The proposal is for• 30 units in the first increment and 62 units in the second, -makin - a total of 10 �:r.its. The proposal is for a PD /° -3 in the form of detacned 8 unit anert;aents. The buildings are of a dwelling; Croup, therefore must have approval of a. use permit. r1-o, a use permit would be required in the PD /P -3 to allow a boardin; :- house. The lot coverage is well belc,•r maximum allowed. The bui ldin • he ,;ht is :within the maxi:nurn limits c�: the apartments and the aci:Li_nistrationv::uilding. The street setbacks are all ri ht for the a?artr:ients. The par,-.in--'- area wculd have to be de- teriained uoon the side setback on Loyal `:lay. The parkinG along Oceanaire is in the same position. except -that, it doesn't show a 10 foot setback. The parkin- adjacent to Los Oses is all right. The setbacks for the carrnorts are all riCht, ho��rever, the carports do net come out. correctly in net size androust provide the minium of 2L feet between. They don't scale off correct Mu There is plenty of room, however, because of the scale. It is quite difficult to scale oat accurately. There is sufficient number of spaces for all units proposed in the first increment. The carports are over and a- bove recuired par ir._. The density for the area under the Preliminary De- velopment Plans comes c,it to approximately 12 units per acre, which is con- siderably below the requirements, as they could go up to 15 ,nits per acre." R. C. Skinner stated that he was appealing the decision of the PlanninC Commission in denying him a use oer,nit to overate a student boardini house, thereby allo:•:ing him four (�) studonts per apartment. i °Ir•. Abraham. Plannin- Director, read for the City Council's information the Planned Development Ordinance listir_- action that could be taken by the City Council. Hr. Skinner then as ;ed that the City Council aonrove hi._ Planned Devclrefer the bgardin_ hCUse use permit b,:'.t to the Planninc ment proposal and ref Ccmmissicn. J. Knoll objected to the student housinC development in this fine re- siaentia district due to the increase in traffic i,:hich will be Generated' by the students - !oin,? to and f'ro:z school and just raclnG around. J. 13. Taylor, Council candidaue, stated that he -;;as o:)posed to this :.:e- ve opment as ne is Ve_r`7 un h —Tacev •,•rith the soe-i a.l trea.ument riven to the sub- dividers ?;y the Ci ty- Of'fi cials and believed that this was a poor development _`or this area as student hous'inE would _er.erate .nany problems as child mol- estinG and excess- traffic and he urcrcd the City Council that this proposal be denied for r2 -3 and P -4 developments. aver Fine objected to this pro'?erty development due to the hazard' of many i.rresoonsiole youn people driving throuch a residential area. He cited the example of the 'traffic problem :in the do,.ntoz•;n area cn Thursday nights and L'_TZed the city CCUP.CiI t dents this re-Cnl_ ^.; as t^c' :iormto-vm traffic problem is caused .mostly bu Cal Poly and hig v h school students and the ceeleprznEnt ,could encoura ~e more of the sane 1n a residential neishberhood. Jim',IcLain objected to accusinG Cal Poly students of all vicious crimes in the community and stated that as a student he believed that the trouble makers, if any, were small in number and that the majority of students were gentlemen, �ood.neiGhbors and good citizens of the cor:^iunity and further that the cc=..ur:ity stated they Trish Cal Poly to be here, 'out everyone objects when a student :�rishes to live in their nei;;hborhood and urCed the people to be more considerate cf the ,vote;`° men and women of Cal Poly. :Salo Solomon objected to this hoardinE; house dovcloonent as he does not believe that the stuge ^.t hcusln. is compatible with t:,e slnGle fa:;l''l re- sidential area. Per. Tom 3owles, County Planner, objected to this student ho'wsin proposal and state:.' that a bo.rdin.G house• in this area is incompatible ,.ith residen- 7I� � �___J tial uses ore -_�ntly in the area. =Use, due to this location, the traffic :could be intolerable and a definite hazard to residents in this area and requested that this request be denied. Neil Vreeland read a portion of a letter from the mana -ers of the He:,rson :'.ouse rear �n disciplinar;; probleras in lar c boarding houses and also the fact that there is presently more boardinE house space available than there are students to board. I•lilliam r'. Loy objected to this type of development and urged that the City Counci eny „his rezoning. Mrs. D. Striker urCed that the City Council support the Plannin.g Commaission's decision in aenyino a boardinS house use in this proposed apartment develcu- ment as this large number of unseoervised :gale students ;•could create a de-_ finite traffic hazard to the community and particularly to the adjacent high - class residential area. She 'believed that placinr a boarding, house in a re- sidential area is an e:•:ample of poor City planning. She continued that there is no question that the residents of the boarding house would not be re- sponsible to'the co-nunity and would be a cefinito hazard when driving to the college. Margaret Varney objected to student housing'of male students in this area as sne ;as t•;o 2) teen -ale daughters and would fear for their safety. Harreaond stated that he was opposed to this type of use in this area an urge tat the City Council turn this request do,:ai cold. Charles Pal stated that he was for this student housing development as he be ievea gat it would be an asset not only to this area but to the entire City. J. J. F. Sullivan objected to this development in this area. ' ?'•Ir. Sunderland stated that he was for this development as he believed that it wc) T7 Teor the good of the area and further, the City -,.,ill always have traffic and that you can't keep pusl,in.0 Cal Poly students out of town to live. Mrs. Clay stated that she was neither for or against this proposal, but that i it allov:ed, it should be with controls. Jim HcLain, Cal Poly student, stated that while he was not a resident of the �guna area, e was or ne student housing development and further, object- ed to the assertion of many of the people accusing the Poly students of being child ;molesters and being irresponsible and further, he did not believe that tae City as a whole, and this community in particular, ,:-as being students. flair to Poly Ray C. Skinner stated that the Poly students are -ood citizens and would :cake good neio.aoors in this area and urged that the rezoning of the Planned De- velopment be granted and further, that the use permit for student housing be granted on a year to year basis subject to Council review and recision if anv of the original requirements were not carried out. Mal or Davidson declared the Public Hearin closed. Councilman.i�iller stated that he has discussed this proposal :,r_th many of ' t.e residents in the Laguna area and ,•;ith the R. C. Skinner Corporation de- veloper, and after his d-iscussions, would like to :make the fc•llowin statement: "::hen I visited your home~ askinc you your views on 1-Ir. S::inner's proposed student housing, each of you were courteous. This I appreciated. You ex- plained your reasons - as you have here tonight - wh%, you were opposed to student housing. ?Ian I ask, are nct these students from homes like your o:•:n? Do not you in- struct your children to respect the rights of others? Dc not you instill in your youngsters the qualities of la,; abiding citizens: Certainly you do. Sc do the parents of these students who attend Cal Poly. Your basis of concern is the fear of student :dsbehavior. In answer, let us loo's at the record. Cal Poly students have always been law a'. siding citizens. I challange the claim of some that these students if housed in. supervised apartments will- create a dire co:amunity problem. Past ex:Derience has sho-em that in the few instances where students have trans- gressed the college has been swift in corrective action. I•iow there are several specific items worth . :.enticning. I can understand the opponents confusion with regards to location. ;.'h,r you ask, "did the Planning Commission deny student hcusinC adjacent to the campus yet approve si!ailar housing four riles from the campus?" My position then as now is the Commission erred. However, there is another problem worth considering. Appropriate suoervised student housing is in short supply in our conLaunicy• If this Council continues to deny this type of development through private capital, then the SLate will be forced to develope these facilities. ?,Ie the taxpayer, lose two ;ays: first your tax money will be used to cor.- Struct on- co:npus student housin;;; second, hi.-.-hl,r asses: ed propertyr will not be on the tac rolls. "i•Iany cf you who purchased your homes in the La:-Una Tract, cneti•r at the time of purchase the land in question was to be used for inultiple residential. Student housin•,; hanpens to be :multiple use. Lastly, traffic, a concern of many. The de-II-En of IIr. Sld.nner's development pro,.-ides two streets opening directly onto Los Osos `toad. It is my opinion most traffic will use this access; instead of th:; circuitous route throucrh the tract. To conclude, the housin_ V of students in a supervised project as this is better for the student and the co.r_:iuni ty. The ?resent problem is, many students live off campus in residential areas throughout our city. i,In iy of these areas do not have sufficient off - street parking. But, more important, :many of these students live in houses where there is no supervision, By such projects as Hr. Skinner's, we can foster an orderly growth of our City." Council_-man i-Liller :moved that the Planned Development proposal be approved and the Planning Comm scion be requested to approve a use permit allcurin5 a boarding house use of foru (1r) students to eacl, apartment. i.r. Gross stated that fie cbjectad to having his property val::es depreciated by havinif the student hcusinr,; in the area. Councilman Lraves aGreed ti-at the R -3 zoning is the correct, zoninE„ for this area and is well planned in the area wherein it lies. 'urther, LhaL the de- velopment as presented by time Sinner Corporation is in-accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance and further, he does not :relieve that Co]-mcil has the right to tell a person hour he can use his property. r'urther, as an instructor at Cal Poly, he believed that the students have been :maligned this evening, as his contact with the students he has found that they are fine, upstanding men and wcmen and that they would be a fine asset to the area and neighborhood. Councilman Graves seccnded Councilman tiller's :notion with the reservation on instructing the Planning Commission to approve a boarding house permit. On motion of Councilman :filler, seconded .c y Councilman ;rages, the original motion was a :enaec as S G1 -Lows: That the Plannin Lon be recuested to reconsider the number of students to be allo:red in the apart:aent develooment of the :•:inner Corporation. Councilman Shipsey s ated that he disagreed t-rith several statements of pron- er y aeva ua ion wnen this has not been proved in the past. He also disagreed with the statements of the irresponsiGility of the Poly students. Further, he agreedi -Lth the Planning Co: mission's findin;;s regardin;; traffic problems, but still he believed this was a good development for the City, no da,ger to time G. L. Smith School an; was in favor of the Planned Development project as approved b;;• the Planning Comidssicn. i-Iaycr Davidson stated :.hat he :ras in favor of any housin,; for Cal Polir and would do all he could to acquire housin;;, but he believed that the land in the vicinity of the Cal Poly campus should be developed for multiole boarding house uses and that the present proposed development is in the wrong area i I I 1 and he would be against development at this time. Preliminary plan £cr the Planned Development 'estricted `h ltiple gamily Dis- trict -as approved on the following roll call vole: AY3S: Donald Q. :.Liller, i ?. L. Gravcs, Jr., Gerald Shipsey N,0ES: Clay P. Davidson `?3SEENT: Liss r,Iargaret I•IcNei l I7b. At this time the City Council held s hearing on ;,he Precise Plan for the Plann- ed Development "estricted 1•1ultiple Family District, as per publication. D. F. Romero, City Engineer, reported that he had "been informed that a property owner might Ii.Le an inj77c ion i.t 14r. ST;inner atLe:apted to divert Perfumo Canyon Creek. If this injunction were upheld, this would mean that i'•'L•. Skinner could nct develope access reads to Los Osos Hoad as sho:•rn on the Planned De- velopment proposal., taus all traffic ;.:ould route through the Laguna Park Homes subdivisions. Jr . Romero suggested that approval of the Precise Development Plan 'ce subject to.�Fe co`nditicn that no oc-u?ancy of the 'Linits would be permitted until the develoaer Iliad completed access roads to Los Osos Road as shown. R. C. S_irner stated he'guara-teed that all the conditions regardin; diver - sion o' eer_u.-no Creek and proper vehicle access to the road rust be completed before occuoanyc :;ill be allowed in thestructures. On Notion of Councilman 'Graves, succnded by Council:aan "•Tiller, the precise clan for the annec Deveionmunt Restricted f-mitipi 0 Tani district was approved subject to the conditions aforementioned, on the followin;; roll call vote: ' AYES: Donald Q. -- iller, Gerald W. Shipsey, R. L. „raves, Jr. I�ICZS: Clay P • Davidson ASS T: _�Ii.�s tlargaret McNeil 3. Copies of communications :nailed out and received b: the San Luis Obispo County Pure hater Association regarding recreational use of drin.cin� •rater reservoirs, were ordered received and filed. - 9. Co:inunlcatlon fre'^ the San Luis Obispo Ccunt':' :iistorical �oclety t:lank.ing the City Council for their donation to the Daii1det Adobe, :as ordered re- ceived and riled. 10. Notice of Chamber of Commerce Economic Development meetin- for :March 1, 1;063, at 12:00 Moon, ;ias oraerec eceive an Ti e . 11. The City Council set ..ednesday, Iarch..16, 1;;63, at 12:30 ?.'I. for an official inspection c_' the se;-rage plant enlargement project. 12. City Council set Ilionday, 1.1arch 25, 1963, for the report b y the City En-ineer on Lhe 'Uity's street deficiencies. 13. On motion of Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Shipsey, the meeting was adjourned to C.ednesday, February 27, 1963 at :3O_'.i. ' A7D2'OVed this 20L.-: Gay of ADr11, 19`3. /yi /� 11 -