Loading...
PC Minutes 1977-01-18Arroyo Grande Planning Commission January 18, 1977 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Pope presiding._ Present were Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, and Ries. Also present were Councilman Spierling and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope approved the minutes of the regular meeting of January 4, 1977, as prepared REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE NO. 77 -256, 528 IDE STREET, (C. H. PROPERTIES) Director Gallop stated this is a large parcel of property on the south side of Ide Street, about three parcels west of Garden Street. The petitioners were asking for a four -way split.- The southerly lot would have access off of Cross Street. The center two lots would be flag lots and would straddle the front piece of property.. Director Gallop added that all lots meet the require- ments of the "R -2" zone. Chairman Pope reviewed the conditions recommended by the Review Committee. He then asked for public input. John Kramer, 211 Garden, asked what was proposed for the property, and what "R -2" zoning meant. Chairman Pope stated this would be considered under the public hearings, which would follow. Carol Potter, 231 Pacific Coast Railway, said that allowing the, lot split would be giving Step 1 in terms of development. Chairman Pope stated that all the Commission was considering at this time was input on the proposed lot split; were the lots in conformance with good policy. Carol Potter said she did not think there were. Mary Egan, 521 Allen, stated she was opposed to the rear lot opening onto Cross Street. Florence Bennigsdorf, 518 Allen, felt there were too many lots in the area already. She was opposed to any triplexes. Mr. Melsheimer, 501 Allen, felt the property was being overdeveloped. He was in favor of single family development. Jerry Bowser the engineer for the petitioners, asked if the Commission wanted him to discuss a drainage problem. Chairman Pope replied that this should be done at staff level with the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. Joe Callahan 203 Garden, noted that the traffic from Parcel D would be emptying onto Cross Street, which is not zoned "R -2 "; it is single family housing only. Norton Bennett, 415 Allen, asked the size of the lots and how wide the . driveways are. Director Gallop replied that the drives are 25 ft. wide, Parcel A is 70 ft. x 130 ft, Parcel B is 98 ft, x 90 ft. plus the drive, Parcel C is the same as Parcel B, and Parcel D is 70 ft. x 110 ft, Mr. Vandeveer, 756 Myrtle, stated he had looked at the property when it was for sale, and Parcel A was 115 ft. maximum. He said that Parcel D was about 90 ft. Chairman Pope replied that all the Commission could go by was the Com- mission could go by was the Registered Engineer's drawing, which is certified to be correct. Betty Hawkins, 512 Ide, Mrs. Oliver Nelson, 538 Ide, were both opposed to the proposed lot split. Heither Carpentier, 531 Ide, stated she was sincerely opposed to.the proposed lot split. She felt there '.was -a lot of traffic already in the area and this would make that much more. Mr. Carpentier, 531 Ide, objected because the headlights would hit into his front room. Mrs. Wilks, 513 Ide, said she couldn't understand why the owners wanted to split these lots that so many people wanted to keep. She felt it was ruining the street and the environment of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hitchen asked how the adjacent properties were zoned. Director Gallop replied that they were "R -2" and were all the same size. Com- missioner Mathews asked about Mr. Callahan's statement that part of this was 313 314 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 2 not "R -2 ". Director Gallop replied that the property to the south is "R -1 "; however, all the subject property is "R -2 "e Commissioner Mathews asked what the minimum lot size was for "R -2" zoning. Director Gallop stated that it is 6,000 sq. ft.; all parcels are in excess of this. Commissioner Hitchen asked what the maximum amount of development would be on the new lot if the lot were split into two parcels. Director Gallop replied that it would be a duplex, or triplex under use permit procedure. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, stated that these lots fall within the flood plain. There was a problem with federal flood insurance in this area because the federal government will not insure. She felt this must be clarified. She asked if the lots could be built so that the owners are not in jeopardy later. Tom Sullivan, the Planning Aide, stated that the Corps of Engineers had not completed its study, and the map that is part of the City's Safety Element does not show this area as part of the flood plain. Mrs. Honeycutt asked if the City was leaving itself liable by allowing building permits. Chairman Pope replied that this would be between the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney to take care of this type of action. Mrs. Honeycutt urged the Commission to get rulings before making a decision. Florence Bennigsdorf, 518 Allen, asked if the petitioners who wanted duplexes and triplexes in this area realized that they would have a slum area in a short time. Director Gallop noted that this subdivision was recorded in the late 1800s or early 1900s before the City required denial strips. Therefore, the property had legal access to Cross Street. Mr. Melsheimer, 501 Allen, asked that the Commission consider that the new houses on Allen had to be raised 24 " -30" in the back to keep from sitting in a mud hole. The subject property was a similar situation. Chairman Pope referred to Item 3 on the Committee Action, which requires a grading plan to be approved so that improvement water drains to Ide Street and /or Cross Street. Heither Carpentier, 531 Ide, felt that the drainage onto Ide Street would cause problems. She said she was not against development, but it should be in reason. Director Gallop noted that the property across Ide Street was also "R -2" zoning. There are several duplexes there and down the street is "R -3 ". Norton Bennett, 415 Allen, felt this development was a "hodgepodge ". He suggested holding the matter off until more land is available on each side. Chairman Popec- each " owner has the right to develop his property. Director Gallop stated that the filing had been delayed in the hopes of getting additional property; however, the adjacent property owners did not wish to cooperate at this time. Commissioner Hitchen asked if Parcel D had to enter onto Cross Street. Chairman Pope stated that the petitioners had the right to change this if they wanted. Director Gallop said the City could require an alternate access, but they would also have to allow access from Cross Street. Madeleine Steele, 1598 Hillcrest, suggested that the Commission wait on a decision until there is a. clarification from the City Attorney on the rami- fications of the flood plain legislation. Chairman Pope replied that this would mean holding up every building permit in the City. He said the City could do this under the building permit process, but there was no need to hold up the lot split proceeding. Director Gallop added that the Commission could condition the lot split that if the property is determined to be within the flood plain, no building permits be issued until clarification is received by the City Attorney. Commissioner Cole moved, Commissioner Ries seconded, that if it is determined by the Public Works Director that this proposed parcel falls within the flood plain of the Safety Element of the City of Arroyo Grande, that building permits will not be issued. Commissioner Gerrish stated he wasn't in favor of the motion, as they knew the property wasn't in the flood plain. Commissioner Cole and Commissioner Ries rescinded the motion and the second. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 3 There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Pope ordered the report filed. PUBLIC HEARINGS - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 77 -255, TO ALLOW FOR A TRIPLEX IN AN "R -2" DISTRICT, PARCEL B OF 528 IDE STREET (C. H. PROPERTIES); USE PERMIT CASE NO. 77 -256, TO ALLOW FOR A TRIPLEX IN AN "R -2" DISTRICT, PARCEL C OF 528 IDE STREET (C. H. PROPERTIES) Director Gallop stated that the two public hearings could be combined as the parcels are identical and adjacent, and they are encompassed within one property. He stated that triplexes are permissive in the "R-2" Zoned District through use permit procedure. The requests are for two interior lots with access on Ide Street. He added that if the Commission did not wish to grant the use permits, it must find reasons to deny them. Density and traffic could be the basis of doing so. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and unanimously carried, the Commission approved combining both public hearings. Director Gallop noted that one of the petitioners was out of town and the other was in the hospital. He said he did not know if the Commission wanted to continue the hearing until one of the petitioners could be present. The Commission felt that the petitioners could have had a representative present and decided to go ahead with the public hearings. After being assured by Director Gallop that the public hearings had been duly posted, published, and property owners notified, Chairman Pope opened the public hearings. George Kitchel, 525 Ide, felt the area should go back to "R -1" zoning. Joe Callahan, 203 Allen, felt Ide Street was becoming a hazard because of the apartments; he felt the triplexes would just add that much more traffic. Mr. Melsheimer, 501 Allen, objected to the triplexes because he felt there would be too many people in such a small area. He said he would like to see the area be "R -1" again. He also felt the triplexes would add more traffic. Mrs. Oliver Nelson, 538 Ide Street, said she couldn't see triplexes in this area. She added she did not like to see these large lots split. Carol Potter, 231 Pacific Coast Railway, said her objections were similar to those of the other individuals. She also objected to what the development would do to the environment. There are about 2 -23 acres of open space with wildlife, and the triplexes would disturb the environment. John Kramer, 211 Garden, agreed with the objections because of density. Gordon Bennett, 415 Allen, and Mrs. Percy Hawkins, 512 Ide Street, objected to the triplexes because of the density and traffic problems. Mr. Vandeveer, 756 Myrtle Street, felt it would be unwise to increase the density. He felt that it would be opening a "Pandora's box" as additional property became avail - able. Heither Carpentier, 531 Ide, agreed with the objections. She said she wouldn't object as much to houses. Jack Egan, 521 Allen, felt the Commission and staff should address themselves to what is coming. He felt that as the five large parcels in that area developed, there would be a hodgepodge of streets and access ways, as well as drainage problems. He suggested an over- lay for that area and others. He said he could not accept the fact that the City is helpless. The City can adopt its own plan over objections if it wanted to. He said his own property would probably be affected adversely by what he said, but the general area would be improved as a whole. Mary Egan, 521 Allen, said she wished to be on record as opposed to the requested use permits. She felt the developers had no right to have the use permits approved unless there were no objections. She also felt the greater density brings more social problems. Florence Bennigsdorf, 518 Allen Street, objected to the triplexes for the reason that this would mean nine families, and that would be manynore cars in the area. She felt there were terrible traffic problems already in the area. Mrs. Kitchel, 246 Garden, objected to the triplexes because of density and traffic. 315 316 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 4 Francis Fink, 546 Ide Street, representing D. G. Porter, 541 Ide Street, and Leo Cottle, 548 Ide Street, stated that he had not received a notice, and requested that he receive any in the future. He stated that in speaking for D. G. Porter, Mr. Porter was opposed to any change other than possibly changing to "R -1" zoning. He said he felt the same way him- self. He added that Mr. Cottle felt the same also. Jerry Bowser, the engineer for the developers, said he had spoken to Mr. Harris on the phone, and that these would be nice triplexes. He said this was not a request for rezoning. Donald Morgan, 215 Ide Street, felt it was no longer relevant that the petitioners could not be present. He felt that whatever was done, it would set a precedence. The majority of the people were opposed, as he also was. hearing There being no further input, Chairman Pope closed the public Commissioner Cole felt that the developers should be given a chance to hear the public opinion, and moved that the matter be carried over; the motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Mathews asked how many other identical parcels there were; Director Gallop replied that there were four. Commissioner Mathews felt this would be setting a precedence and there could be a problem if all the other property owners asked for triplexes. Commissioner Hitchen stated it seemed to him that they were always trying to get the maximum development out of every piece of property. Commissioner Gerrish noted that if the developer's had wished, they could have split the parcel into five lots, rather than four. He stated that what concerned him the most was the traffic, as well as the possibility of a precedence. After discussion, the following actions were taken: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. 77 -486 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 77 -255. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Hitchen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope None None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 1977. RESOLUTION NO. 77 -487 U RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A USE PERMIT, CASE NO. 77 On motion by Commissioner Hitchen, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope None None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 1977. John Kramer, 211 Garden, asked what the people could do if they wanted to rezone to "R -1 ". Director Gallop stated they would first have to determine what boundaries they wanted,_ then get a majority of the property owners to sign a petition asking for a rezoning. A public hearing would then be required. He Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 5 suggested that they come in and speak to either he or Mr. Sullivan to get the necessary information, forms, and assistance. SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 625, "JAMES HEIGHTS ",. JAMES WAY (CONTINUATION) Director Gallop referred to a memo prepared by the Director of Public Works, the City Engineer, and himself at the Commission's request. He stated that the staff recommendations included in the Subdivision Review Board Action were in conformance withthe normal subdivision requirements.. However, there could be some particular circumstances in some subdivisions which the Commission could consider and grant variances on if it felt they were justified. The memo was prepared with that thought in mind. The staff did not try to answer speci- fics because they felt they would be automatically recommending variances. They tried to point out what the results might be in granting variances. He then re- viewed the memo, noting that the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer felt very strongly about not waiving curb and gutter, because of drainage prob- lems. He added they were not enthused about accepting berms, as they become a maintenance problem. He stated that it should be recognized that if adequate right of way is deeded, sidewalks can be put in later through an assessment district or some other method if the people felt they wanted them. Mr. Pope asked what was required of Mr. Kvidt on the Oak Park Acres side of James Way. Director Gallop replied that the City required curb and gutter on all of it, and sidewalks were waived on the majority. They were required on one side of the street in the high density area He stated that James Way will break, topographically, somewhere on Mr. Browne's property. Part will drain to Tally Ho and part will drain to. Oak Park Acres. This could be a breaking point in James Way as to how it is treated on one side as compared to the other.. There could be high density with full curb, gutter, and sidewalks, on one side, and lower, large lot, density on the other, with. perhaps no houses facing on James Way. Chairman Pope felt that Mr. Kvidt had set a precedence on James Way,. and that there is an ordinance in Arroyo Grande requiring curb, gutter, and sidewalk with every new building permit. He felt that if James Way is to be a collector street,this would have to be the first step. Commissioner Cole said she would like to see curb and gutter as this is a collector street. Commissioner Hitchen asked if requiring Oak Park Acres to have curb and gutter on both sides would be a factor in this consideration. Director Gallop replied that this was a different case, as the petitioners do not own both sides of the street, as Mr. Kvidt did. Commissioner Moots felt there should be curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a wide street, as this is a col - lector street. Commissioner Gerrish asked how the other half of the road would be developed. Director Gallop stated this would have to be done through City Council action. The undeveloped abutting portions would have to meet the existing improvements as they developed. The existing developed portions would not have to until such time as the gaps created a hazardous condition or they get another build- ing, permit or a lot split or something similar. Commissioner Hitchen asked what improvements the other side would have to put in when they are required to do so. Director Gallop replied that they would have to match the existing improvements, and pave from the new gutter to the existing paving. Rob Plumb, 291 James Way, . asked if the developers were going to build up to James Way, or cut down to their property. Chairman Pope replied that they must meet the existing conditions. Director Gallop added that the devel- opers would have to engineer the road; when that is done, it must be approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer. They can not deny access to any existing parcel of property which abuts that road. Chairman Pope noted that it is basically up to the developers to determine if they want to meet the existing grade or not. If they change the grade line, they will have to improve the road on the east side also. Mr. Plumb felt they were making more of a road out of James Way than Tally Ho ever was. He felt Tally Ho Road should be fixed first. Jim Gering, engineer for the developer, asked about the Fire Department requirements, which they did not feel were appropriate, as they were higher than those required for Loomis Heights. Director Gallop said that the water flow requirements would have to be settled at staff level. Mr. Gering asked about the possibility of reimbursement in the future upon future possible develop- ment of other properties for the construction of the roadway which they do not front on. Director Gallop replied that they would have to petition the City 317 318 „' Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 6 V Council for reimbursement when the final map came in for approval. , On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Hitchen, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission approved deleting- the require- ment for sidewalks: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, and Chairman Pope NOES: Commissioners Moots and Ries ABSENT: None After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 77 -488 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 625, "JAMES HEIGHTS', AND REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL' PURPOSES ONLY.. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and by the following roll call vote, to,wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope NOES: None ABSENT: 1Qbne the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 1977. Request for Negative Declaration - Chairman Pope asked for public input on the Request for Negative Declaration. Mrs. Simmons, 150 Tally Ho Road, stated there had been no public notice of this request, as required by law. Director Gallop said there was a new law, effective January 1, 1977, which required this, but statements prepared prior to that date were not affected. On motion by Commissioner Gerrish, seconded by Commissioner Ries, and unanimously carried, the Commission carried the matter over until it can be ' noticed. SUBDIVISION REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 555, "OAK - CREST”, HUASNA ROAD (REVISED) Request for Negative Declaration - On motion by Commissioner Ries, seconded by Commissioner Gerrish, and unanimously carried, the Commission carried the matter over until it can be noticed as required by the new State law. subdivision Review Board Recommendations - Director Gallop stated that this tract was originally about three times larger than is now planned. It will extend northerly from Huasna Road. The stub road is indicated to be extended if other maps are submitted in the future on the rest of the property. There are 23 lots planned on the property, which has been zoned "R. =I" for abOtt 15 years.. The proposed density is about "B -1" density. The main street has been petitioned is a• rural road; it is not a collector street. Commissioner Gerrish noted that the Review Board did not recommend curb and gutter on the rural road. Lowell Kraatz, the engineer for the development, said he did not agree with the staff's feeling that a dike is not a viable way to provide for drain- age. He said the City Standards call for dikes on a rural road section. He felt that their appearance and maintenance are all right on rural roads. Ella Honeycutt, 560 Oak Hill Road, asked how far up the hill the develop- ment would_ Director Gallop replied that it would go to the 250 ft. eleva- tion. He added that all building sites would be near the 200 ft. level. This would be a 50• ft, rise above the center line of Huasna Road. The road will run approximately east and west. There will be a temporary turn around at the end of the road',, subject to an extension. Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 8 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 555, "OAKCREST ", AND REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Hitchen, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of January 1977. REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: REoUEST OF DONALD McHANEY FOR REDUCTION OF EASEMENT, LOT 1, RUTH ANN WAY Director Gallop stated that several years ago there used to be a street off of Montego known as "Joe" Street. When that street was abandoned, the City maintained a 15 ft. drainage easement to take care of drainage off of Montego, to bring it down to Ruth Ann Way. The structure has now been put in to take care of the drainage, and the easement is no longer necessary. Mr. McHaney, the property owner, has asked that the easement be changed to 5 ft., for the protection of the pipe line. The Public Works Director and City Engineer have no objection to the reduction in easement. Chairman Pope suggested that the easement be changed to 5 ft. all the way up. RESOLUTION NO. 77 -489 Commissioners Cole, Gerrish, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commis- sioner Hitchen, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council that the requested reduction of easement be granted and that the reduction be extended from the terminus of Ruth Ann Way to Montego. REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL RE: REQUEST FOR EXCHANGE OF EASEMENT BY JOHN MILLER, LOOMIS HEIGHTS, WITH THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Director Gallop explained that this was a change from the original tract design; it had been found to be more advantageous because of the elevation, to move the site for the water tank for Loomis Heights from its original proposed site. It will be located in the second unit of the tract. The petitioner is requesting that the deeds be exchanged so that the deed for the present tank site can be recorded. After discussion, on motion by Commissioner Hitchen, seconded by Com- missioner Cole, and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council that the requested exchange of easement be granted. WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE Chairman Pope noted that the Commission had received a copy of a minority report prepared by Mrs. Honeycutt regarding the agricultural lands matter, and that it would be discussed during the public hearing phase at a later date. Director Gallop noted that the Commission had five areas of considera- tion regarding changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and asked how the Commission wished to handle these. After discussion, the Commission agreed to consider the proposed changes to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances at the next regular meeting and hold discussion of the agriculturally oriented considerations t� a later date. Conflict of Interest Forms - Director Gallop stated that the Commission had received copies of a proposed conflict of interest ordinance and forms which they must complete when the ordinance is adopted. E. I. R. Procedures - Chairman Pope referred to a report prepared by the Plan- ning Aide regarding E. I. R. procedures. He said he had checked the report out himself with other city Planning Commissions and the report was correct, and the City of Arroyo Grande is in step with other Planning Commissions in 319 320 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 9 this procedure and others as well. Commissioner Gerrish added that the City Attorney had said that the Planning Commission would approve or disapprove Negative Declarations, but the City Council would have to approve E. I. R.s. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Gerrish reported that at the last Council meeting, the Council discussed the various powers of the Planning Commission. The Council held the matter over until the next meeting when the City staff will have more information. Director Gallop stated he felt it was unfortunate that a report by the Administrative Intern had been released, as it was not com- plete and is being redone. Commissioner Gerrish also reported that the parcel map on Stagecoach Road was approved by the Council at their meeting. Mrs. Honeycutt distributed and discussed a report she had prepared about the availability of "R -1" lots in Arroyo Grande. She said that the 3% "ideal growth" figure set out in the General Plan had been greatly exceeded for the years 1974, 1975, and 1976. She said that all City services are greatly affected by Planning Commission decisions. With the City sitting on the edge of a building boom, she urged the Commission to get the complete data; it is only as effective as the information it receives. She felt it should be determined how many building lots are left in Arroyo Grande, with no regard to what zoning, price, or if they are for sale. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked if there were extra copies of the proposed amendments available for the public. Director Gallop stated that they were available in the Planning Department. Mr. McCann also felt that the Council Chambers would be large enough when the agricultural lands matter is considered; he suggested that plans be made to use larger quarters when the public hearings are' held. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, on motion by Commissioner Mathews, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and unanimously carried, the Commission adjourned at 10:23 P.M. ATTEST: c„ ' d g2,1 Secretary Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 1 -18 -77 Page 7 Mrs. Honeycutt felt that the pond on the property would be a very good asset to the City as a nature walk. She said there were many birds, including the blue heron, which use the pond. She stated that under the impact, there must be a cumulative effect, and this must be considered. Chairman Pope suggested that if she felt the pond had a strong environmental impact, she contact the property owners and see if something could be worked out. Mrs. Honeycutt felt this was a City asset and the City should look after it. Chairman Pope recommended that she contact the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council. Mrs. Honeycutt said she had brought the matter to the City Administrator's attention and he was going to follow it up. She added that the Commission should be aware a man in the audience told her they would bulldoze the pond the following day. Commissioner Ries asked what "RCP culvert" meant in the Review Board report. Chairman Pope replied that it meant "reinforced concrete pipe ". Don Rowe said that the pond is not a natural pond. It was built by the property owner to irrigate his pastures. He has since sold the property. Mr. Rowe did not feel this should be maintained as public heritage. He added beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Mrs. Honeycutt said the City Administra- tor *as :interested in getting someone to develop the pond. She felt the de- velopers give park monies to the City and maybe this could be a nature walk from Strother Park. Mrs. Honeycutt stated that. the blue heron use the pond; they are an endangered specie.. Director Gallop said he would investigate the legal ramifications before the next meeting with regards to the Environ- mental Determination. Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked what the grade of the road will be. Mr. Kraatz stated it would be about 15% on the steep end, Commissioner Gerrish noted that the Director of Public Works' objection to berms was due to maintenance, which is done by the City. He felt they are difficult to maintain. Chairman Pope felt that if the-Commission allows A -C dike in one subdivision and not in another, it is not consistent. Commissioner Mathews asked what' the City Code called for. Director Gallop replied it Calls. .for . curb, gutters:,-:.and sidewalks, except in the. Circulation Plan - dikes are recommended for tons deration- on rural roads. This is not a standard; it is a policy the staff_„can.accept or not accept. He.stated that the. City,,;,Engineer and Public Works Director felt there was no adequate way df the „drive - way approach on individual properties when dikes are used. Lowell Kraatz stated they were only asking for dikes on Chaparral Drive. There would be full curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Laurel and Huasna Road. The lots on Chaparral will not be as large as those on Laurel. Commissioner Hitchen asked what would happen when and if Chaparral is extended. Mr. Kraatz replied that the property is all in one ownership and that the extension will also be a rural road section. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Mathews, and by the following roll call vote, the Commission amended the Subdivision Review Board Report, dated January 12, 1977, to allow A -C dike on Chaparral rather than curb and gutter:. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Hitchen, Mathews, Moots, Ries, and Chairman Pope commissioner Gerrish None Bill McCann, 428 Tanner Lane, asked what type of land classification was involved. Planning Adie Sullivan replied that it is Class III; IV, and V; there is no Class II soil because of the slope. After discussion, the following action was taken: 321