Loading...
PC Minutes 1978-12-05ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION December 5, 1978 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Harris presiding. Present are Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Vandeveer. Commissioner Gorsline is absent. Planning Director Castro and Planner Sullivan are also in attendance. MINUTE APPROVAL Upon hearing no additions or corrections, the minutes of the regular meeting of November 21, 1978 were approved by the Chairman as submitted. SUBDIVISION: REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS - LOT SPLIT CASE 78 -299, PARCEL MAP NO. 77 -103 - "RANCHO GRANDE ". Planning Director Castro referred to the Minor Subdivision Committee Action, dated November 29, 1978, and requested modification and addition of items as follows: 1. Applicable City Ordinance and Planned Development conditions of approval must be met. 6. Radii of curves of right -of -way through Parcel to be lengthened to enable 35 miles per hour without super elevation. 7. Furnish Planning Department copies of corrected tentative parcel map prior to, and use for, final map approval. (ADD) 9. Additional dedication for Branch Street frontage road may be required subject to final design plans. Mr. Castro referred to the exhibit of the proposed parcel map division encompassing 11 parcels all exceeding the 20 acre minimum permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. With regard to the communications received on the project, Mr. Castro advised that Mr. Hoagland, of the Lucia Mar School District, recom- mends that no further housing construction be approved unless the builder is willing to provide as a mitigating factor $400 per home and /or $300 per mobile home... Also, Mr. Castro read from a letter dated November 27, 1978, from Cal - trans with reference to the Brisco Road Interchange, as follows: "The Inter- change will probably become inadequate to properly handle the increased flow, due to the development of this area. Also, there is little possibility that Caltrans will be able to revise this interchange in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we recommend that all development plans should provide sufficient space for eventual interchange revisions. It is our current design policy to have the frontage road connections placed approximately 300 feet from where the ramps intersect with the cross street. This distance is needed for traffic channelization, signals, and proper signing ". Commissioner Vandeveer inquired if it is the applicant's intent to develop these by progression, or if it is their intent to break these into larger segments and to then sell them in segments to Other developers. Planning Director Castro stated that the possibility is there for sale of parcels with the division of the property that is being presented tonight, however, he did not know if that was the intent of the developer at this point in time, but regardless of whether the parcels are sold or retained by the developer, the development is still subject to the approval of the City, so the control is still there. Mr. Castro pointed out that the divisions are legal under the Subdivision Map Act and the zoning still applies. Mr. Bob Flowers, Engineer for the applicants, advised that the parcels as laid out and submitted on the subdivision map conforms to the conceptual master plan that was submitted in the areas that the master plan indicated lot configurations. Mr. Flowers pointed out that rather than trying to divide the old lots of the LaBelle Tract and the other tracts, they set it up so that with the roadways and the division points, they could file subdivision tentative maps and final maps within those areas, and once the final map records, they could erase the old lot lines and the easements from the old tract maps. Mr. Henry Case, Caltrans, 50 Higuera Street, stated their concern is not so much with just this subdivision, but with the overall planning of the area. Back in May, after seeing a number of environmental reports, they wrote a letter both to Mr. Castro and to Mr. Funk of Pismo Beach expressing concern that there wasn't a great deal of coordination in looking at the traffic impacts, and perhaps other impacts, of the overall development of the area. So the point here is that the freeway, the way it exists today, is probably the way it is going to exist for a long time in the future unless the City takes some action to change it on their own volition. There was a time in the past when developers 045 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -5 -78 Page 2 came in and had their plans approved and they impacted upon State highways, freeways, etc., and then when traffic problems developed, they looked to Caltrans to solve them by some means or another. He pointed out that through the years there have been changes in the laws and in the policies, so that Caltrans is no longer in a position to do this. The primary responsibility for planning of transportation facilities has descended on the local agencies through the enaction of several acts of legislation over the years. There- fore, the City should be looking toward the overall gross impacts and perhaps coordinating with the local abutting communities. He stated that this particular development will impact the Brisco Road interchange rather severely, but he sees no immediate problem, at least until the whole area is developed. He stated the Brisco Road interchange was built primarily to serve marginal agricultural land and other little intensity uses, and was an appropriate action to what we had 25 years ago when the freeway was built, but looking 10 or 15 years down the line, either someone has to take action to improve the interchange and the freeway in the area, or the City may be very dissatisfied with the traffic service it has. Planning Director Castro advised that the letter Mr. Case made reference to was one that the City took quite seriously, in fact a meeting was held with Mr. Case and other people in Caltrans in San Luis,Obispo. He stated that he and City Engineer Karp attended that meeting, and he is a little bit confused with the comments made by Mr. Case on Brisco. He stated his understanding of that letter was that everyone felt the improvements on the Brisco Road inter- change were going to be almost impossible because of the cemetery. We could all foresee maybe taking a dedication of right of way on the northerly side of the freeway, but we didn't see the right of way needed on the south side being real- istic because of the cemetery. Mr. Castro further stated that he also got the impression that rather than to do any major work here,, with the exception of the lighting under the bridge, that the emphasis should be placed on Oak Park and on Grand Avenue to serve this area and also to satisfy Caltrans' concern about this development impacting the freeway system. Mr. Case stated his primary concern was that they seem to be directing the traffic to the Frontage Road through widening that road in its existing location. The Frontage Road has a very small spacing between the frontage road and the ramps, and that was allright as long as there was no traffic, but as soon as you develop a great deal of traffic, the conflicting movements in that configuration become rather unbearable. Commissioner Moots stated, in his opinion, the Commission should look at this traffic situation. Planning Director Castro advised he is in the process of preparing a report to the City Manager and Council in regard to the land use and the impact that the land use will have on the circulation of this area. Mr. Castro further advised that the map that is now before the Commission is consistent with the zoning that both the Commission and Council have approved. Whether the amount of commercial changes in the future, whether it stays the same, or whether some other modifications need to take place pending these studies mentioned, may very well dictate a revised parcel map, but for the time being, it is consistent. With regard to Dr. Jones' report recommending 56 ft. right of way on Frontage Road, Mr. Castro stated he has reservations on that recom- mendation based on what is now being proposed, and in his opinion, it should be reviewed further. City Engineer Karp advised that the way it is now you could take out some sidewalk area and get three narrow lanes, and that was the suggestion of the Traffic Engineer, until such time as a full blown widening of the bridge underneath could be provided. He further advised that he had talked to Dr. Jones today, and he doesn't see a problem on what is proposed now being amenable to future solutions to the ramp situation. He further noted -r it has been known all along that the widening of the underpass would have to take place at some future date, and that could be tied to development of the commercial area or any subdivision in that area. After considerable discussion regarding circulation, Chairman Harris pointed out that since the development of most of this property has already been pre- decided by this body and the City Council on its density and the type of development that is basically going to occur. The issue left for the Com- mission to decide is whether more land is needed for dedication for road purposes; in other words, is the land which is required for dedication now adequate for any future contingencies either for a possible interchange at Brisco Road or the maximum conceivable width of the Frontage Road through the section of the Rancho Grande property, which is really the only control the Commission now has because most of what is being discussed on Brisco is not on the land which is owned by the applicant. Chairman Harris further Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -5 -78 Page 3 stated he..felt_the.:.only issue right now. is if the .land ..that.the adequate for any conceivable future roadway. City Engineer Karp advised that is why the condition was put on that a minimum of 56 ft. will be required. Planning Director Castro stated, in his opinion, for the time being the only requirement you can impose is the 56 ft. because that is the standard that the City Council adopted for the Frontage Road. He further stated that as the precise development plans come in and we know the magnitude of that development, it is then incumbent upon us to say whether we think 56 ft. is proper .and determine what is adequate and how feasible the project is; the Commission will have the control every time there is a modification. Mr. Karp requested that the Commission, in approving the Subdivision Review Committee action, make the finding that the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. After further discussion, on motion by Commissioner Vandeveer, seconded by Commissioner Cole, and unanimously carried, Minor Subdivision Committee Action of November 29, 1978, Lot Split Case No. 78 -299, was approved subject to the conditions listed, and as modified by the Planning Director. PUBLIC HEARING.- VARIANCE CASE NO. 78 -60, 205 SO. HALCYON ROAD, REDUCTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A "P -C" PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - RESUBMITTAL (JENKINS). Planning Director Castro read the staff report prepared by Mr. Sullivan, dated November 30, 1978. He stated that the Architectural Review Committee felt that this matter should'be by the Commission as a"whole, and that both the plan approval and the Variance should be discussed jointly. Mr. Castro re- viewed the proposed plan, stating he felt there should be a minimum of at least 14 ft. on the driveway running to the rear of the property, and that he didn't feel any reduction in parking should take place because of the nature of the uses that are being proposed,'which are medical facilities. He pointed out that just the employment alone may use the greater portion of the parking. Also, the property is slightly hidden from the main street, which will cause some problems, and the design of the parking is tight. He further stated that the development does meet the minimum requirements of the District, but it is a tight development. Upon being assured by Planning Directro Castro that Variance Case No. 78 -60 had been duly posted, published and property owners notified, Chairman Harris declared the hearing open. Commissioner Vandeveer stated that this project was approved by the Commission two sessions ago, and inquired what changes were being made. Planner Sullivan advised that the Architectural Review Committee and the Commission gave approval of the project during the period of time when the property was in escrow, and before the escrow was completed, Dr. Jenkins had it surveyed, and the top line measured 124 ft. and on the original plans, that measurement was 135 ft. Also, the property line on the left was reduced 2 or 3 ft. as a result of the survey, so the property is much smaller than was originally presented. Also, when the building plans came to the Planning De- partment for approval, it was noted that there was a change in the proposed building materials, which was a result of structural engineering requirements, however, approval of the changes would have to be given by this body. Dr. Jenkins, 378 So. Halcyon Road, applicant for the Variance, advised when he applied for permission to build in this design originally, they used the figures that were given by the County. They then found that it looked like the driveway next door was over the property line, so they decided to have the property surveyed. The survey showed they were about 2 ft. narrow across the back, which meant 10 ft. in total length. What this did was squeeze it up a little bit and they have one parking space that has to be reduced in size in order to have their driveway. He pointed out that the original driveway that was approved was a 12 ft. driveway. When the survey was done, they found they had 14 ft. to enter. Dr. Jenkens stated that the 14 ft. driveway means that the building has to go over further yet, unless they can have a 14 ft. driveway part of the way, and a 12 ft. drive the rest of the way, but then they would be limited with this corner of the building, which necessitates making one parking space for a small car, or eliminate the parking space. Mr. H. M. Andrews, 219 So. Halcyon Road, advised that there is an eye doctor and a general practitioner across the street, so the on- street parking in the area is pretty severe right now, and he would object to reducing the parking in this unit which would result in more on- street parking. 047 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -5 -78 Page 4 There being no further comments for or against the proposed Variance, Chairman Harris declared the hearing closed. Commissioner Vandeveer pointed out that a 12 ft. driveway was originally approved for this development, and inquired if a 12 ft. driveway would be suf- ficient. Planning Director Castro stated he didn't believe that a 12 ft. drive- way would be adequate and, in discussing the matter with the Public Works Depart- ment, they feel that a 14 ft. driveway is necessary. He pointed out the problem is that with the traffic movement that is going to take place onto Halcyon Road, you have to at least' two driveways open. Mr. Castro further pointed out that if the 14 ft. driveway is approved, the corner of the building is going to have to be moved, which would then eliminate the parking stall. Planner Sullivan clarified that the original approval was granted with a 12 ft. driveway because the plans indicated there were only 12 ft. available and, after the property was surveyed and the rest of the dimensions were reduced, that flag grew by two feet; if there would have been 14 ft. available before the survey, we would have required a 14 ft. driveway. Chairman Harris stated that considering the use that the property is going to be put to, the type of offices, and considering the potential parking, he could foresee problems. Even taking into account that it is a difficult lot and some consideration should be given to it, it was his feeling that the property would be over -built considering the proposed use, and he felt the project should be re- designed. After considerable discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 78 -647 V RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING A VARIANCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CASE NO. 78 -60. On motion by Commissioner Cole, seconded by Commissioner Moots, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Cole, Fischer, Moots, Simmons and Chairman Harris NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vandeveer ABSENT: Commissioner Gorsline the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of December 1978. Planning Director Castro advised that the applicant can come back before the Commission at any time with a redesign of the project. Chairman Harris stated that since the Variance was denied, the Architectural Review Case and Request for Negative Declaration are moot and there is no point in voting on them. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Moots, seconded by Commissioner Fischer, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary / Chairman