PC Minutes 1971-12-2139 6
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
December 21, 1971
The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Vice
Chairman Bowles presiding. Present are Commissioners Berryhill, Jones, Nunes and
St. Denis. Commissioner Porter and Chairman Schultz are absent. Also in attendance
is Planning Director Gallop.
MINUTE APPROVAL
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 7, 1971 were approved on a
motion by Commissioner Berryhill, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unanimously
carried.
APPEAL -BLOT SPLIT CASE NO, 71 -147, FAIR OAKS AVE., LOT 1, TRACT 260, J. DAN
0 "DONNELL, AGENT FOR M. BETITA.
By way of explanation, Director Gallop advised that the memo received by the
Commission this evening was a result of reconsideration on the part of the Fire
Department and Public Works Department. The Fire Department felt that, after study,
there are two hydrants which are within service area of these lots and, therefore,
a fire hydrant would not be a requirement. Director of Public Works Anderson felt
that because of problems in a short stub water line, he would also withdraw the
requirements of a 6" water line extension and permit meters to be placed on Fair Oaks
Avenue to serve the interior lots. The Department heads also reconsidered the access
problem and felt that if Parcels B and C were flag lots, with one -half of the 20'
access drive being a portion of each of the two back parcels with an easement to each
other, this would eliminate any multiple ownership problem of a single parcel, and
that they would agree on that basis. He also recommended that Parcel A access be
restricted to the westerly side of Fair Oaks Avenue and without easement to the access
drive to Parcels B and C. It was Mr. Anderson's feeling that three lots having access
on the 20' drive could create problems. Director Gallop advised that if Parcel A is
restricted, the staff did not feel that the cul -de -sac would be a necessity. He
advised the cul -de -sac as indicated on the original map would have to be at least a
45' radius in order to make a cireular turn, and this would take up quite a bit of
the property and would also be quite expensive.
Director Gallop pointed out that from the experience the City has had in
the past with joint ownerships of a single parcel is the problem of who assumes the
maintenance and who pays the taxes. Commissioner Jones pointed out that he lives
where there are eleven common owners of a drive, and they do not consider this to
be a problem..
Mr. Dan O'Donnell, Realtor from San Luis Obispo,.representing Mr. and Mrs.
Betita, was present and advised that in looking the property over and with his past
experience, he felt that it would be better to request a minor subdivision in this
case because the property has in excess of 30,000 square feet. Mr. O'Donnell point-
ed out that the main reason cited for denying the lot split was the multiple owner-
ship in a common drive and a 50' frontage on Fair Oaks Avenue would not be in keep-
ing with other lots in the area. Mr. O'Donnell stated that he didn't feel there
would be a problem as to the maintenance of the drive, and if access by governmental
agencies is a concern, this can be provided for in a deed creating the common drive-
way. The owners of the property could spell out that the City or governmental
agencies necessary would have access. He stated in the reconsideration by Staff,
they still have an objection of the use of the three parcels in a common right -of-
way, and in his opinion, it would be much more desirable for all three parcels to
use the one driveway rather than having two approaches.
COMMISSIONER PORTER ENTERED THE MEETING DURING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION
Mr. O'Donnell stated he felt it would be better to have all of the parcels
using one access. He advised the main purpose for the cul -de -sac is so that visitors
coming into the back properties would have a place to park, without parking on Fair
Oaks Avenue. He advised the sketches and plans presented are not necessarily the
development plan. He pointed out the four bedroom house shown was designed to fit
on the front parcel and he didn't think it was out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood, and the two houses shown on the back lots contain 2,000 square feet
sn each one. Mr. O'Donnell concluded that, in his opinion, the development will
to the neighborhood and if the split is granted in the manner they originally
ccLcd, there would be three very nice homes going in there, and that right now
the property is a "catch -all" for all the neighborhood garbage and a possible
' -ward for children in the neighborhood.
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -21 -71 Page 2
With regard to the minimum lot width requirement of 60' in the District,
Director Gallop advised that the Commission could grant a variance through approval
of the subdivision or parcel map.
Mr. O'Donnell explained they plan to have a 16' paved driveway, with a
planting area of 2' on either side, one approach and all cars coming out in a
forward direction, and it was their intent to surface and curb the drive.
Commissioner Berryhill stated his main concern is private drives with a
common ownership and who maintains them, and whether in five or six years from now
if the neighbors can get together and resurface or if they would let the drive
deteriorate because of the lack of controls. He further advised that as far as
the 50' lot facing on Fair Oaks Avenue, in his opinion, it doesn't fit in with the
surrounding property.
After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Berryhill to adopt
Resolution No. 71 -230 denying the appeal of Lot Split Case No. 71 -147; motion lost
for lack of a second.
After further discussion, the following action was taken:
On motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner St. Denis, and
on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -231
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT SPLIT CASE NO, 71 -147.
Commissioners Jones, Nunes, Porter and St. Denis
Commissioner Berryhill
V;i:+ae thi::rman Bowles
Chairman Schultz
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of December, 1971.
PUBLIC HEARING - USE PERMIT CASE NO. 71 -183, WILLIAM E. BARKER, 1020 GRAND AVENUE,
FREE STANDING SIGN
Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Use Permit
Case No. 71 -183 had been duly published,,.posted and property owners notified, Vice
Chairman Bowles declared the hearing open.
Director Gallop advised that the requested sign is located on the corner
of the property within a planter area. He advised this is for a new building under
construction and is to be used as a barber shop. The small sign to be used includes
a flood light oriented to the parking area and building. A 3 inch pipe will contain
a typical rotating "barber pole" sign and name plate, which is approximately 3' x 4i=.
Director Gallop suggested that perhaps this sign should be of routed redwood in keep-
ing with the aesthetics of the area.
Mr. William E. Barker, the petitioner, was present and advised the
Commission that it was his intention to use a routed redwood sign.
No further discussion for or against the proposed Use Permit, Vice Chair-
man Bowles declared the hearing closed, and the following action was taken:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 -232 U
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE GRANTING A USE PERMIT, CASE
NO, 71 -183.
On motion of Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and on
the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and
Vice Chairman Bowles
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Schultz
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 21st day of December, 1971.
397
3 98
Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 12 -21 -71 Page 3
USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
Director Gallop advised with reference to the Commission Members' request
for a ruling concerning the statement to be included in Use Permits as requested by
Mr. Goulart and Mr. Gallagher, unofficial verbal opinion from the City Attorney . was
given to the effect that it has no meaning, in that each ordinance itself is self -
policing, however, he did advise he would submit a written report to the Commission.
COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AND IS NOW ABSENT.
In answer to Mr. Goulart's question that if the ordinances are applicable in
themselves, why weren't they used at the hearings for the tire recap shop, Director
Gallop advised that the Ordinance under which that Use Permit was issued is not the
applicable ordinance today and is an entirely different ordinance than the one under
which we operate today, and further advised that there were no performance standards
or anything of that nature in the original Zoning Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, Vice Chairman Bowles
declared the meeting adjourned at 8 :27 P.M.
ATTEST:
,PaA (V.
•Secretary
Vice Chairman
1
1