Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1980City Council Minutes April 8, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 2 The City Council stated they had no objection to the Planning Commission attending these public discussions. In fact, they would welcome their attendance in order to get the broadest exposure to these problems. Henry Engen presented to the City Council a lengthy report dealing with the history of development of the property known as Orcutt Heights or Orcutt -Nob; a parcel of land consisting of 8.1 acres of R -1 prperty lying north of Orcutt Road between Fernwood Drive and Lawnwood Drive. He continued that ' the developer of this property, in 1979 was denied a subdivision for a 25 -lot residents. The council, in May of 1979, encouraged the developer to bring back design ideas for their review prior to commencing formal developments. The purpose of this meeting, was to discuss issues indicating individual areas of concern on the project and to give the public an opportunity to air their particular concerns so as to encourage a design process which would be acceptable for eventual approval. 1 He also stated that the project under consideration had not been routed to each affected department and agency which would occur after the council meeting. However, for discussions purposes, the developer had submitted a map, Tract 748 with background material, to provide a basis of discussion, together with data which compares the number of minutes cut and shelved involved in previous tracts in contrast to the three approaches being suggested by the applicants. Henry Engen suggested that some of the questions before the council at this time are: 1) Appropriate Land Uses; 2) Appropriate Intensity of Use; 3) Grading Impacts; 4) Exceptions to Normal Standards; 5) Special Restrictions; 6) Circulation and Access. Richard Burke, property owner, stated he has a new engineer and a new planner for his development and hoped he could present for the council's consideration and for the city a new proposal for their consideration of development of this property. Jay R. Whisenant, planning consultant, stated that they had filed a tract map, No. 912, for 18 units as a starting point for discussion. They were also ready to discuss alternatives to this tract map with the City Council. 1) A 20 -unit condominium development 2) A 19 -unit combination of condominiums and normal single - family subdivision. He then reviewed with the City Council the two alternatives, the amount of land to be cut, the amount of fill and soil to be taken off the property. Robert Vessley engineer for the property owner, reviewed the alternatives again for the City Council and reviewed alternatives to objections raised by the adjacent owners, Planning Commission, staff and council during the 1979 hearings. Vice Mayor Dunin asked if there was any input from the public; that this would be the time to make their presentation. Tom Shuman stated he was opposed to any development on this hill. He felt the grading would cause erosion and danger to adjacent property owners. He felt the grading scars would be ugly and remain forever. He also opposed ' the density proposed. Robert Vessley stated that all top soil left on the mountain would be removed during the grading operation and then would be brought back and resloped for planting. Don Graham, 1348 Fernwood Drive, was worried about continued erosion of soil and rocks during storms; but he was mainly worried about traffic City Council Minutes -:. April 8, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 3 using Fernwood from Orcutt Road.to.Johnson.Avenue which exists at the present time.-.He felt that this development would just add to'the traffic problem. He felt:that some type.of traffic control should.`be. placed on Fernwood Drive at Southwood and at Kenwood.to discourage through traffic. Mrs. 1179 Fernwood-Drive, was worried about what was to-happen-to water that..now comes off-the hill;.where would_ihe dirt go that now comes off the hill-and-endangers their property. She urger careful consideration of grading and-run -off. C. Hewitt, 1303 Tangelewood Drive; felt that.the propose .tract, No. 912, is a much better proposal than the last_one propose.-,He felt.the "density was much more acceptable, although he worried about what was to happen to the unused portions of the land not.being developed at this time. He also felt that the grading was more.acceptable. He was worried about the size, shape and height of the proposed dwellings. Kennedy, Kentwood Drive, would support a.development of single family dwellings such as the 912 Tract.due to the density, cut and fill, etc, if traffic and drainage problems could be solved. Martin Lang, Tanglewood Court, felt that.the proposed Tract No. 912 was much more acceptable to him and.his neighbors. He felt the density was more in keeping with the neighborhood. He also felt that reduced grading was a step in the right-direction, although he questioned the size of the proposed lots in Tract No. 9122. John Rugaci, 689.Tanglewood, was disturbed about the improvements to Orcutt Road and wondered if the widening would stop the dirt-from falling into the street. Don Smith, Prefumo Canyon Road, opposed the development due to density requested. He felt density should be 8-to:10 units and the development should be put on the lower side of the property. He would prefer a planned unit development with public open space and no fences. Kennedy, 1327.Tanglewood.Drive, felt .good,..about..the...reduced amount of grading. He hoped any development would consider the neighborhood around the area and hoped.that the safety of children "would be considered during construction. Robert Vessley answered a number.of questions brought out by the public in the meeting such as traffic, grading, open space, lot size, fences, etc. He felt that most of the questions would be answered at the E.I.R. study . report level. He felt that as to the size of the lots, they were designed according to:city. ordinance. Hopefully, a fence design would be approved at the A.R.C. hearing. Finally, he felt that the property development would solve the flood problems in the area. Henry Engen stated.:that. the staff - comments of'8 to 12 units were in answer to a questions as to any development without exception on density bonus. He then again reviewed the six points for council consideration. Councilwoman Billig stated.she could approve some development subject to the three alternatives.for.council consideration. She also felt that the E.I.R. was a step in the right direction.. She hoped that any grading-done Would be done to clean up prior damage..and_drainage.problems. She would support minimal grading on ..the land. ..She felt that the.density would be more pleasing and environmentally satisfactory if the buildings were clustered with surplus land under control of ' the.Homeawners Association. She hoped that landscaping would be planned to com- pliment the buildings.to..scredn them from the adjacent property.owners. She felt that she would like less than 18- units, unless the design was exemplary and protected the visual impace of the neighborhood. She felt the A.R.C. should review the buildings, that Orcutt.Road.should be widened with the cooperation of the .developer, hoped that open space would be provided-for the future, and she also felt that a planned.unit development..might be the best way to. go in this development. Councilman Bond stated he felt he could-support 18- units. He also felt he would like to.see single family dwellings, not condominiums, and would like to see the E.I.R. answer the traffic, drainage and design questions. He felt that the development should be of the highest character. He also appreciated the developer's offer for an E.I.R. 1 City Council Minutes April 8, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Page 4 Councilman Munger agreed-with-the other councilmembers' comments.. He appreciated.the developer's.attitude. and the neighborhood comments to try and solve this land-problem. He too', would rather support single family detached development, minimize grading, correct.current drainage.problems.. He felt the E.I.R. would answer traffic problems, if -.any, and circulation matters. Councilman Dunin.felt.that : most.issues covered by the developer, public, staff and council would be addressed by the E.I..R..study proposed by the- developer. His main.worry was to drainage and erosion from this lot and hoped that the developer would.correct_ prior damage. He would support..single.family homes but he felt condominium s. would -be cheaper to purchase by the people. Mike Deneve, chairman of the Planning Commission, thanked the City Council for the opportunity to listen to the presentation by the developer, neighbors, staff and council, which would make the Planning Commission aware.of the council's concern during their deliberations on this proposed development. There being no further.busiriess to 'come before the City Council, Vice Mayor Dunin adjourned the meeting. at 9:05.p.m. until 4:00 p.m. April 15, 1980. COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES ON: 5/6/80 r J.,I Oltzpitrick, City Clerk -------------------------------- - - - - -- M I N U T E S ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI.SPO. TUESDAY, APRIL 15,.1980.- 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL., 990 PALM STREET Roll Call Councilmembers Present: Melanie Billig,.Alan Bond, Ron Dunin and Gerry Munger Absent: Mayor Lynn R. Cooper 'City Staff Present: Lee Walton,.Administrative Officer;.George Thacher, City Attorney; J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; Terry Sanville.,.. Senior Planner; Ren Bruce, Senior Planner;'Richard.Minor, Fire Chief;.Jim.Stockton,. Director of Parks & Recreation; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; D.F. Romero, Public Services Director; Geoff Grote, Legal.Assistant Vice -Mayor Ron Dunin presiding. 1. bowntown Housing Conversion Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, presented for the Council's informatiogy a progress report on action taken in the past six months on the Downtown Conversion Program and recommendations for future actions. After presentation of this report, he stated that in order to proceed with the Downtown Housing Conversion Program, the City Council should review the following options-. 1) Block Grant Application - which would be to authorize.the staff to .prepare a formal block grant application; 2) Conversion Ordinance - the Council should review the concepts in the proposed ordinance, send it to the Planning Commission for their review;