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