Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/29/1976Roll Call MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1976 - 12:10 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PRESENT: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz ABSENT: None City Staff PRESENT: R.D. Miller, Administrative Officer; William Flory, Grants -and Special Projects Manager; Mikel Park, Fire Marshal; Rob Strong, Director of Community Development; Wayne Peterson, City Engineer; D.F. Romero, Director of Public Services; Terry Sanville, Planning Associate; Pam Voges, Recording Secretary 1. Council consideration of proposal for design of the Fire Station No. 4 by James T. Fickes, architect (cont'd from 9/20/76). Bill Flory; Grants and Special Projects Manager,.stated that part of the Fire House grant application had been completed and mailed in and that they were continuing to wokk on the application. Mr. Fickes, Architect, stated that he-had been ,,,a ded by the Historical _Society in declaring this site one of non historical significance. He then gave a brief up -date of their present studies of other fire stations, the site itself, etc. The fire station was now estimated to be at 2,893 sq, ft. He outlined the schematic plans and stated that to his:knowledge.there were no major pro- blems with regard to earthquakes, etc.. Councilman Norris felt the plans were reasonable and good. He .did question who was to pay for curb, gutter and sidewalks? Mikel Park, Fire Marshal-and Project Coordinator, stated that he had already talked to the Grants.Department and they - indicated that curb, gutter and sidewalk could be included in the grant application. Councilman Gurnee stated he thought the plan was good and would support it. Councilman Graham agreed with Councilman Gurnee that the-plan was well thought out and he could support it.. Councilman Petterson also liked the plan but questioned what provisions had been made for the garbage dumpster.and.where the low spot for.washing of the trucks would be as he was concerned with drainage. Mayor Schwartz:felt.there might be a serious problem with the plan as now presented as he-could see no provisions made for separate sleeping quarters, bathing, or toilet facilities for both male and female and he wondered if this might meet the Federal requirements of not discriminating against women firefighters, should the City.Fire.Department.be in a position to hire them-in the future.: He-felt that.provisions should be made for women 1 to be applied for in the grant as he would hate-to risk losing the Federal Grant. Mr. Fickes explained that the storage area would house two beds and there would be a possibility of setting up a partition dividing the dormitory. He stated that this would be looked into. There was brief discussion of what the grant would cover as far as appliances, built -ins, extras,-etc. City Council Minutes September 29, 1976 Page 2 Mikel Park stated that most everything necessary to build or operate the fire station could be included in the grant although one could not be sure of receiving it all. On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Graham, to approve the general scope of work for the Fire Station with emphasis on.handling of the sexes with the architect to proceed with the grant application on a crash basis. Motion carried, all ayes. 2. Council consideration of the General Plan - Residential Densities (continued from 9/13/76). Terry Sanville, Planning Associate, gave a brief report as to the determin- ation of population levels as discussed at the last meeting, and further, developed 2 charts to indicate the number of dwelling units, according to- bedroom size, allowed per acre of land (excluding rights -of -way). Density was expressed in terms of bedrooms in order to relate land develop- ment to the number of-people likely to be concentrated in an area. The "multiplier" was derived from census and apartment survey results, and indicated, for example, that a one bedroom unit was considered to have about two - thirds (.66) the population impact of a two bedroom apartment. Combin- ations of unit types would be possible. In determining density within a project, each unit would be counted according to the multiplier value. He outlined density bonuses and how they would be provided under Planned Development and supplemental performance standards. Special residential' projects, such as group quarters for the elderly or for.students, would be subject to specialized standards, not as yet determined. Councilman Norris stated he would like to see Planned Development.given more flexibility, and not be restricted in height limits, lot size or yard space. Vic Montgomery, Priest,.Richmond, Wolf. & Rossi, stated that he would like see the General Plan allow higher height limits and a higher density in the downtown area. Andrew Merriam, of Meyer, Merriam and Associates, Inc., submitted a letter suggesting three areas of comment as follows: 1. It was his feeling that reduction of density allowed in a zone designation and allowing variation for given apartment size was appropriate and a realistic response to the parking /density issue. 2. In regard to densities within the City, he felt the City should encourage selected areas of relatively high density (R -3 and R -4 zones) and regardless of the criticism of the visual impact of of higher density complexes, he felt their value outweighed any disadvantages for the following reasons: A. Control: Reasonable visual and aesthetic control could be maintained by the A.R.C. B. Cost: Lower densities fostered the old American dream, which might be great,.but was statistically affordable by fewer and fewer families. C. Aesthetics: The town should be kept as compact as possible. The compact city in its rural setting was of greater aesthetic importance to the community than whether certain areas appeared higher than tra- ditional village densities. D. Economic Efficiency: Fifty thousand people compactly placed were more effi;.ient for the City to service, especially in the areas of utilities.and public transportation. 3. He felt that especially in the downtown area, the proposed revision was not responsive enough and that more zoning flexibility was necessary. He felt that further study and refinement was needed in 1) specific planning /urban design for the central area; 2) proposed PD incentives were inadequate; and 3) the general tone of the proposed revision was prescriptive rather than emphasizing basic performance requirements. 1 1 City Council Minutes September 29, 1976 Page 3 Mike DeNeve also stated his support for more flexibility to be given the Planned Developments. Councilman Petterson stated he would like to get an economic cost factor relative to density before the Council too much more action at setting densities. Rob Strong stated it would take his department at least 6 months to a year to 1 obtain this information and even then he did not feel that density would be found relative to cost of housing. Due to the number of citizens in the audience still wishing to comment, the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, October 6, 1976 for further discussion. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m. APPROVED: October 26, 1976 ' J itzpatrick, City Clerk 1 1