CC 2017-10-10_10b Appeal 779_759 Castillo del Mar
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009;
PROPOSED MERGER OF TWO (2) LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 12,730 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION – 779
AND 759 CASTILLO DEL MAR (LOTS 6 AND 7 OF TRACT 3048 –
HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT – JAMES AND KATY
REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE – RRM DESIGN GROUP
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2017
BACKGROUND:
The project site is 2.66 acres in size and includes Lots 6 and 7 of the Heights at Vista
Del Mar subdivision (Tract 3048), located southeast of the Vista Del Mar residential
development (see location map below). The property is zoned Residential Hillside (RH),
but is subject to the Tract 3048 Lot Layout Plan for setbacks and to the Heights at Vista
Del Mar Design Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) for site and architectural standards (see
Attachment 1 for Lot Layout Plan and Attachment 2 for the Guidelines). To protect the
upland slope area, a “no build zone” line has been delineated for Lots 2–10.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a proposal to construct a
12,730 square foot single family residence on two (2) legal lots.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 17-002 and Architectural Review 16-009;
and
2. Take no action on Lot Merger 17-003.
Item 10.b. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 2
Project Location
The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered this project on May 1, 2017 and
continued the item to allow the applicant to provide additional information regarding
landscaping, retaining walls, lighting fixtures, fencing and a perspective drawing viewed
from street level (see Attachment 3 for meeting minutes).
The ARC reviewed additional information for the project on May 15, 2017. Although the
architectural design was considered exceptional, the ARC recommended denial of the
project due to the Committee’s inability to make the necessary findings to approve an
Architectural Review permit. Specifically, this action was based upon concerns
regarding the large scale of the home and incompatibility with the neighborhood
character as envisioned in the Guidelines. The ARC was also concerned about the
potential of precedent setting action outside the purview of the ARC by-laws for
potential policy-making action (see Attachment 4 for meeting minutes).
On June 20, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the project as a non-public
hearing item and discussed issues related to the large scale of the house, visual
impacts, neighborhood compatibility, the lack of a maximum building size standard in
the Development Code, potential commercial use of the gym, noise impacts from the
Item 10.b. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 3
gym, long term use of the house, and parking (see Attachment 5 for meeting minutes).
The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain, and directed staff to return with
a Resolution to approve the project with notification of the meeting to the surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
The project was scheduled for the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting as a
public hearing item, but the Commission continued the project at the applicant’s request
after receiving public testimony (see Attachment 6 for meeting minutes).
On September 5, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project
and after public comment and deliberation, adopted a Resolution denying the project
without prejudice (see Attachment 7 for meeting minutes).
On September 13, 2017, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
denial of the project (see Attachment 8).
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The pending Architectural Review permit cannot be approved without first approving a
Lot Merger. Although the Community Development Director administratively determines
the approval or denial of all Architectural Review permits, due to concurrent processing
of the Lot Merger which requires Planning Commission approval, and the unique nature
of the project, Planning Commission action was required. Action on the Lot Merger is
not necessary if the Architectural Review permit is denied.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a new 12,730 square foot home that includes five
(5) bedrooms, six (6) bathrooms, two (2) half baths, a 975 square foot garage, and
additional amenities including a theatre, sky box, great room, game room, a gym, 4,300
square foot basketball court, a swimming pool with spa, and sunken fire pit lounge.
Because development is proposed over an existing lot line, the Lot Merger must be
recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.
With the Lot Merger, the proposed residence meets all applicable development
standards per the Tract 3048 Site Layout Plan and Development Code, including floor
area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, height, setbacks and parking. These are shown in Table
1 below. The residence would not fit on either of the two existing lots separately in the
proposed configuration.
Table 1: Site Development Standards for the RH Zoning District/Tact 3048 Site
Layout Plan
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed Notes
Minimum front 25’ 50.6’ Consistent with Site
Item 10.b. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 4
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed Notes
yard setback Layout Plan.
Minimum interior
side yard setback
15’ 22’ and 38’ Consistent with Site
Layout Plan.
Minimum rear
yard setback
Building limit line
varies per lot.
42’ from building limit
line.
Consistent with Site
Layout Plan.
Maximum lot
coverage
35% 8% Consistent with Code.
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio
0.45 0.10 Consistent with Code.
Maximum height
for buildings
Development Code:
30’ or 2 stories,
whichever is less.
Tract Conditions:
No higher than 295’
above sea level.
30’, 2 stories. Consistent with Code.
As conditioned,
consistent with
Conditions of Approval
for Tract 3048
Minimum
distance between
buildings
20’ N/A N/A
Parking
Requirements
2 spaces within an
enclosed garage and
1 space for the guest
suite.
3 spaces within an
enclosed garage.
Consistent with Code.
Architectural Character
The project is consistent with the Guidelines for architectural style, which specifies
Modern Craftsman as one of the preferred designs. This style of architecture is typically
constructed with “a rough finish, attention to detail, using materials such as stone,
rough- hewn wood, siding and stucco. It often features wide front entry porches
supported by columns, large gables and decorative brackets or timber detailing”
(Guidelines, Page 14).
The proposed home is designed in a Contemporary Craftsman style, with smooth finish
stucco in a light tan color, dark wood siding, multi-sized stone siding in natural tan
colors, and dark wood stained beams and soffits. The selection of these earth tone
colors is consistent with the Guidelines. The proposed roofing material is fiber shingles
using “Certainteed Presidential Shake” design in a classic weathered wood finish.
Window treatments are simple and several of the doors, including the garage doors, are
multi-paned.
The Guidelines specify that varying ridge heights and wall planes should be used to
provide a deliberate sense of proportion and scale to the building, and that no single
vertical wall plane may exceed sixteen feet (16’) in height without at least one setback
Item 10.b. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 5
of at least eight feet (8’) within any sixteen-foot (16’) rise unless broken up with
fenestration or other architectural element. This condition is met; the front (south)
elevation of the home provides a variety of roof heights, decks, and both large and small
windows to create an interesting and well-articulated street view of the home. The
proposed gutters and downspouts are proposed in bonze aluminum. Retaining walls
would be made of stone or a system of boulders. The swimming pool equipment would
be screened entirely underneath the deck.
Landscaping
The project site is void of any existing trees or native vegetation. The project plans
include a diverse plant palette consisting primarily of drought tolerant species. The
landscape plan includes detailed information about the proposed plant species, plant
layout, plant size, and irrigation methods. The material list is lengthy and includes all
exterior materials. The submitted landscape plan appears to be in conformance with
the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
General Plan Policies
The Planning Commission determined that the proposed project conflicts with the
following General Plan Land Use Element policies given the large scale of the home
and accessory uses:
LU 11: Promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land
uses, area resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional
boundaries with adjacent communities and the County.
o LU 11-2: Require that new development should be designed to create
pleasing transitions to surrounding development.
LU 11-2.2: Require that the new structures relate to the prevailing
existing, or planned scale of adjacent development.
LU 12: Components of “rural setting” and “small town character” shall be
protected.
o LU 12-2: Except for narrow, two and three-story structures within the
Village Core and other designated Mixed-Use areas, limit the scale of
buildings within both the urban and rural portions of Arroyo Grande to low-
profile, horizontal forms; design buildings to be compatible with Arroyo
Grande’s historic small town character.
o LU 12-9: Encourage the provision of custom homes or homes that
simulate a rural, small town, custom home atmosphere.
o LU 12-10: Ensure that residential accessory uses and buildings are
consistent with the primary residential character of the area, as well as the
overall small town character of Arroyo Grande.
Item 10.b. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 6
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 17-002 and Architectural Review 16-009 and
take no action on Lot Merger 17-003;
Modify and adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 17-002 and Architectural Review
16-009 and take no action on Lot Merger 17-003;
Direct staff to return with a Resolution approving Appeal 17-002, Lot Merger 17-
003 and Architectural Review 16-009; or
Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The proposed architectural design of the house meets the site development standards
of the Lot Layout Plan and the Design Guidelines. With the proposed Lot Merger, the
project also meets Development Code standards. It should be noted that the
Development Code does not have a maximum building size standard that limits the size
of residential dwelling units.
DISADVANTAGES:
The proposed development will be much larger than any other homes within the tract
given that it occupies two (2) lots and is over 12,000 square feet in size. The home will
also be out of scale with existing adjacent development within the Vista Del Mar
residential subdivision. The project therefore conflicts with several General Plan Land
Use Element policies relating to protecting the small town character of the City and
neighborhood transitioning, and approval of the project could be precedent setting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, the
project has been determined to be categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) of the
Guidelines regarding construction of a single family residence.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
Although neither a Lot Merger nor an Architectural Review permit require a public
hearing, it was determined that the surrounding neighborhoods should be notified given
the visual impact of the proposed project. A public hearing notice was therefore sent to
property owners within 300’ of the project site, and expanded to include all property
owners and occupants within the adjacent Vista Del Mar residential subdivision, a
portion of the Sunrise Terrace Mobilehome Park and the Orchard Avenue
neighborhood. A notice was also posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in
accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. To date, staff has received
numerous letters and emails regarding this project (see Attachment 9).
Item 10.b. - Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 17-002; APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DENIAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009
OCTOBER 10, 2017
PAGE 7
Attachments:
1. Tract 3048 Site Layout Plan
2. Project Design Guidelines
3. May 1, 2017 ARC Meeting Minutes
4. May 15, 2017 ARC Meeting Minutes
5. June 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. August 1, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7. September 5, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. Appeal form
9. Comment Letters and Emails
10. Project Plans
Item 10.b. - Page 7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL 17-002 AND
DENYING ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009; LOCATION –
779 AND 759 CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 –
HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT – JAMES
AND KATY REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE – RRM
DESIGN GROUP
WHEREAS, the 2.66-acre project site consists of Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048 (Heights at
Vista Del Mar) and is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009 to
construct a 12,730 square foot single-family residence (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee of the City of Arroyo Grande considered
the Project on May 1, 2017 and May 15, 2017 and recommended denial of the Project to
the Community Development Director based on the inability to make the necessary
Architectural Review permit findings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande reviewed the Project
on June 20, 2017, August 1, 2017 and September 5, 2017, and adopted a Resolution
denying the Project without prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the
Project on September 13, 2017 in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section
16.12.150; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande considered Appeal 17-002 and
the Project at a duly noticed public hearing on October 10, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande
Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that the Project is
categorically exempt per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines regarding construction
of a single family residence; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study and deliberation, that the following
required Architectural Review permit findings in Section 16.16.130(E) of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code cannot be made. Only the findings that cannot be made are provided
below.
Architectural Review Permit Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the architectural guidelines of the City,
or guidelines prepared for the area in which the project is located.
The proposed development is not consistent with the Heights at Vista Del
Item 10.b. - Page 8
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
Mar Design Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) because the mass and scale of the
12,730 square foot single-family residence is not consistent with the
development expectations of the Guidelines. The proposed residence would
be constructed on two (2) lots, and the intent of the Guidelines is to provide
one (1) primary residence on each lot. The large size of the proposed home
will be incompatible with the planned scale of envisioned development of the
Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision and with the adjacent Vista Del Mar
neighborhood.
2. The proposal will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of the proposed project.
The proposed development will be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort
and general welfare of the persons residing in the Heights at Vista Del Mar
subdivision because the 4,300 square foot basketball court could generate
adverse noise, parking and traffic impacts, and the size of the structure is
incompatible, affecting comfort of persons residing within the neighborhood.
3. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood.
The general appearance of the proposed 12,730 square foot home is out of
scale and character with the planned scale of homes envisioned for the
Heights at Vista Del Mar residential subdivision. The typical home size
intended for the subdivision is between 3,000 to 5,000 square feet, and the
proposed home is two to three times the typical size, making the proposal
inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood.
4. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or
occupation in the neighborhood.
The proposal will impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the
neighborhood because the mass and scale of the home is out of character
with the intended types of homes to be constructed within the subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
hereby denies Appeal 17-002 and Architectural Review 16-009, without prejudice, based
on the above findings.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and
on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 10th day of October, 2017.
Item 10.b. - Page 9
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
______________________________________
JIM HILL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
______________________________________
JAMES A. BERGMAN, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________
HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 10.b. - Page 10
ATTACHMENT 1Item 10.b. - Page 11
1 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
The Heights
at Vista Del Mar
Arroyo Grande, CA
The Heights at Vista Del Mar (HVDM)
Arroyo Grande, CA
Adopted December 2015
(Updated August 2017)
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 10.b. - Page 12
2 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
HVDM Design Guidelines
Adopted December 2015
(Updated August 2017)
Prepared for
The Heights
at
Vista Del Mar
22 Custom Home Lots
Arroyo Grande, CA
The Heights at Vista Del Mar - TRACT 3048
Item 10.b. - Page 13
3 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Item 10.b. - Page 14
4 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
HVDM DESIGN GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. THE HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR
INTRODUCTION
6
II. PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES 6
Architectural Review Board 6
III. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7
Site Preparation 7
Topography and Drainage 7
Retaining and Foundation Walls 8
Building Setbacks 9
Building Height, Mass & Scale 9
Privacy, Views, Light & Air 10
Parking and Access 10
Game Courts 11
Duplicate Building Plans 11
Water Conservation 12
Stormwater Management 12
Energy Efficiency 12
Urban Fire Interface 12
IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS 12
Architectural Character – Design Examples 12
California Mission 13
Spanish Colonial 14
Modern Craftsman 14
Tuscan/Mediterranean 15
Italianate 16
Ranch 16
Spanish 17
Building Forms and Massing 18
General Design Requirements 18
Exterior Elevations 19
Roof Design Requirements 20
Gutters, Downspouts, Vents and Flashing 20
Item 10.b. - Page 15
5 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
SECTION PAGE
Materials of Construction 21
Exterior Siding 21
Awnings, Patio Covers and Arbors 21
Solar Roof-Mounted Equipment 22
Roofing Materials 22
Doors & Windows 23
Exterior Colors 24
Lighting 24
Mechanical Equipment, Utilities, Trash Containers and Signs 25
V. LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS 25
Planting Material 26
Hardscape 26
Landscape Structures 27
Fencing & Garden Walls 27
VI. THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 28
Overview 28
Plan Preparation 28
Pre-Application Meeting 29
Design Submittal – Review and Procedures 29
Design Application – Materials Required 29
Construction Documents Submittal 30
Landscape Plan Review 31
Project Completion 31
VII. APPENDIX 32
The Heights at Vista Del Mar Fencing Detail 32
Color & Materials Board Example 32
Landscape Materials & Plant Palette 33
VIII. FORMS 37
Form A – Request for Design Review Meeting 37
Form B – Design Submittal 38
Form C – Construction Protocol 40
Item 10.b. - Page 16
6 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
I. THE HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR INTRODUCTION
The Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision, Tract 3048, is comprised of 22 custom residential lots located
above an existing home development, Vista Del Mar, which is within the City of Arroyo Grande, County
of San Luis Obispo. Development of the property is subject to Tract 3048 Conditions of Approval and
governed by the City of Arroyo Grande’s zoning ordinances, building codes, grading codes and planning
regulations. The Heights at Vista Del Mar development is also subject to the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions of the subdivision as well as the Design Guidelines contained herein. Property owners of
lots within Tract 3048 are responsible for reviewing these conditions, requirements and
guidelines prior to preparing development plans.
II. PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Design Guidelines for lots within Tract 3048 o f The Heights at Vista Del Mar have been
prepared by The Heights at Vista Del Mar as a tool to implement certain design standards and
development expectations on the property and to insure a quality product. It is expected that all
designs are complimentary to and enhances the community character established within the
development. These Guidelines are intended to provide site, landscape and architectural guidance for
residential development proposed within Tract 3048.
The Design Guidelines for the Heights at Vista Del Mar is a manual of design directives and
approval procedures for development within The Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision. Property
Owners and Applicants should familiarize themselves with this document to ensure that their
proposed project is in compliance with the design standards and development expectations of
The Heights at Vista Del Mar.
These Guidelines are a portion of a larger set of restrictive covenants governing development at
The Heights at Vista Del Mar, the “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of The
Heights at Vista Del Mar” recorded in the Office of the County Reco rder of San Luis Obispo County
on December 16, 2015.
Architectural Review Board
In Compliance with California Civil Code §1378, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has adopted the
following Architectural Review procedures. Any and all improvements with The Heights at Vista Del
Mar, including initial construction, or improvements and any change to the exterior of their unit, shall
be subject to architectural approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of The Heights at Vista
Del Mar Homeowners Association (TH@VDMHOA) in accordance with the provisions of The Heights
at Vista Del Mar CC&Rs and these Design Guidelines.
The Architectural Review Board is comprised of volunteer citizens whose professional backgrounds
are typically in the fields of design, architecture and/or real estate development. The ARB shall have
Item 10.b. - Page 17
7 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
the responsibility in determining whether a project substantially complies with the Design Guidelines
for Tract 3048. The ARB has considerable discretion in making that determination and can take into
account special circumstances which may make the strict application of the Guidelines impractical
and/or suggest alternative methods to achieve the intent of a particular Guideline standard.
Grievances of decisions made by the Architectural Review Board may be appealed as described in the
CC&R’s for The Heights at Vista Del Mar.
The ARB members shall not be liable for damages to any person submitting plans or specifications for
approval. The ARB members shall not be liable for damages to any owner by reason of mistakes in
judgment, negligence or non-feasibility, failure to approve or disapprove any such plans or
specifications. Architectural and landscape plans for new residential development must also be
reviewed and approved by the City through the Architectural Review process prior to issuance of a
building permit.
III. SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Each lot is an important part of a larger neighborhood, and each neighborhood is a vital component of
the unique development at The Heights at Vista Del Mar. Consequently, when a lot is developed it
should contribute to the overall neighborhood character and compliment the development objectives of
The Heights at Vista Del Mar. Each site is also unique and will present its own design challenges and
opportunities. A first step in developing a plan for a project is to assess the site, its resources and
constraints and the context of the site within the neighborhood.
On sloping lots or where possible, lot owners should consider multi-level custom homes, gardens,
terraces, courtyards and outdoor spaces to minimize topographic disturbance. Lots with rough grades
of six (6) percent or more are required to have a topographic survey prepared. For Lots 3-10, no
development (except fences) or uses are allowed within the open space easement. No buildings,
structures, grading, filling, or other improvements shall occur within this area. Owners shall not cut,
injure or remove any vegetation from this area except for fire protection, elimination of diseased growth
and similar health and safety protective measures as approved by the City. This also includes all
accessory structures, gazebos and decks, which are not allowed in the open space easement.
Site Preparation
All demolition, clearing, grubbing, stripping of soil, excavation, compaction, and grading must be
completed within the owner’s lot. All lumber, soil, or other construction material must be
stockpiled on the owner’s lot or an undeveloped neighboring lot. If utilizing a neighboring lot,
written permission from said lot owner must be obtained in advance.
Stockpiling must not impact landscaping or drainage systems on adjacent lots, sidewalks or
streets. Any damage from stockpiling will be invoiced to the responsible party by the
TH@VDMHOA. Stockpiles on adjacent lots must be screened.
Topography & Drainage
In accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande, all lot grading plans must be based on a grading plan
prepared by a registered civil engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Grading and
Excavation Codes. The plan must be submitted to the ARB for review and approval prior to submittal to
the City of Arroyo Grande. Approvals must also be obtained from the City of Arroyo Grande. All
necessary bonds and/or deposits required by the TH@VDMHOA and the City of Arroyo Grande must be
paid prior to commencing work.
Item 10.b. - Page 18
8 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
The site design should follow the established contours of the site. The finished pads and slopes are to
be maintained with minimum alteration to the established finished grades.
Lot owners who wish to place fill at or near the property line must first contact the City to determine if a
grading permit is required, and have written permission of the adjacent or lower property owner. If
cutting or filling of the side yard grade is performed, the lot owner must have a qualified soil
engineer review the impact of such grading. The ARB, by consenting to any such grading, is not
certifying that it is correct from an engineering or stability standpoint. The following measures
are required:
Surface drainage runoff shall be controlled and directed to existing drainage facilities.
Debris fencing and sediment control along all lots is required during all phases of
construction.
All slope banks shall be planted to aid in erosion control and irrigated to maintain
growth.
Minimize the use of abrupt changes
in grade on the site and between
adjoining properties. A smooth
transition is preferred.
Cut and fill: Filling is discouraged; fill pads greater than two (2) feet above natural grade is prohibited.
Cutting more than three (3) feet into natural grade is prohibited except within the building footprint and
for the driveways, if there is no practical alternative.
Surface drainage of paved areas must be sloped at a minimum one half (1/2) percent for
concrete surfaces and two (2) percent for rough surfaces such as stone. Lots unable to meet
the minimum surface drainage requirements must use a subsurface drainage system with drain
inlets at adequate intervals. All above ground drainage devices must be colored to match the
existing soil, landscape or hardscape color.
Retaining & Foundation Walls
The use of retaining walls shall be in accordance with City standards. Materials used for retaining walls
shall be compatible with the architectural style and colors of the proposed residence.
Foundation walls within the building footprint may exceed three (3) feet if the exterior
exposure is not greater than three (3) feet, or permanently screened with architectural
materials that are compatible to those used in the residential project.
Item 10.b. - Page 19
9 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Retaining walls, not constructed by The Heights at Vista Del Mar tract improvements, may not exceed
four (4) feet in height; parallel retaining walls must provide a minimum two (2) foot landscape area
between walls. See illustration below.
Building Setbacks
When establishing setbacks and designing building footprints, applicants should provide ample space
for the implementation of creative and attractive landscaped areas. Building setbacks for all
structures shall adhere to the allowable building area delineated for each lot as shown on the Tract
Map. All front, side and rear yard building setbacks shall be as shown on the Tract 3048 Site Layout
Map (generally 25’ for the front and rear, and 15’ for the sides).
Building Height, Mass & Scale
The height, massing and scale of a house should be reflective of its site and the resources that
occur throughout it. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are to be restricted to the maximum heights as they pertain to
mean sea level (details below).
No structures shall be constructed consisting
of more than two (2) stories. Structures shall
be limited to a maximum height of thirty (30)
feet measured from the grade average finished
ground level to the highest point of the highest
gable of a pitch or hip roof, but exclusive of vents,
air conditioners, chimneys, or other such incidental
appurtenances.
Per Condition of Approval No. 53(k), the following height
restrictions shall apply to Lots 3 – 7:
Those portions of development on Lot 3 that are more
than 100 feet from Castillo Del Mar shall not exceed an
elevation of 25 feet above natural grade.
The top of any development on Lots 4 and 5 shall not
exceed an elevation of 290 feet above sea level.
The top of any development on Lots 6 and 7 shall not
exceed an elevation of 295 feet above sea level.
Item 10.b. - Page 20
10 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Privacy, Views, Light and Air
A sense of privacy and an attempt to locate buildings and massing so they will maintain views through
the site from other properties should be made utilizing the following standards:
Organize functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy for the site and for adjacent properties.
Position a building to screen active areas
of adjacent properties where feasible,
and locate windows and balconies such
that they avoid overlooking active
indoor and outdoor use area of adjacent
properties.
Preserve privacy by locating and screening patios, terraces and service areas from neighboring and
public
views.
Parking and Access
The space devoted to parking, it’s surfacing and the size and design of garages need to be related to their
visual impact, the use of exposed hard surfaces and the amount of dominance they contribute to the site
and building design. Parking drives and garages should not dominate the site or the design of the house.
Asphalt paving within lots is not allowed. Driveways and other flat paved areas shall be colored,
textured or stamped concrete, exposed aggregate concrete, paving blocks, natural stone or other similar
material. The use of permeable pavers or other permeable material is encouraged.
All garages shall be side loaded unless the size and dimensions of the lot will only accommodate a front
loading garage. Staggering garage doors, offsetting of the garage from the face of the house a minimum
of five (5) feet, or recessing the doors to provide relief are methods to soften the impact of the garage
door planes. Three (3) car garages (or larger) must apply one or more of these design techniques to one
or more of the garage bay doors.
Garages should be setback five (5’) feet from the front plane of the house structure except for side
loading garages or corner lots which may use the applicable minimum front yard setbacks. The
maximum width of a drive way at the street curb cut is eighteen (18) feet and may increase in width
to provide access to the garage entrances.
Item 10.b. - Page 21
11 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, motorcycles, trailers, etc., is not permitted, unless such
vehicles are stored in covered or enclosed structures, or located in yard areas screened from public
view.
Large expanses of paving are to be avoided and drives are required to introduce the use of paving
bands, paving tiles, color and texture to break up their visual impacts.
Game Courts
Game courts, if proposed, must adhere to all building setbacks for structures. Fencing for game courts
shall be black plastic coated mesh only and shall be located within building setbacks. Galvanized fencing
is not permitted. Windscreens for game courts shall be dark green. Fence height shall not exceed a
height of six (6) feet without either a City approved Minor Exception or Variance.
No basketball backboard or other fixed sports apparatus shall be constructed or maintained without
approval from the ARB. Basketball backboards are not permitted to be installed to garage structures.
Duplicate Building Plans
Duplicate building plans may be permitted if, in the opinion of the ARB, the proposed projects have
made adequate design alterations, such as changes in room plan, materials of construction, color
scheme, etc., so that the two finished products appears as two distinctly different structures. In
assessing duplicate plans, the ARB will also consider proximity of the proposed projects and adequacy of
conformance with all of the standards in the Design Guidelines.
Item 10.b. - Page 22
12 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Water Conservation
The use of water efficient plumbing fixtures, smart irrigation controllers, plumbing for grey water and
on-demand water heaters should be included in any residential building project proposal. The above is
by no means the only water conversation methods, but a few of note.
Stormwater Management
All proposals must comply with City Post Construction Stormwater requirements, and include
discussion of stormwater best management practices (BMPs), such as detention basins, bioretention
planter boxes, rain barrels, rain gardens, dry wells, disconnected downspouts, cistern water collection
and storage, etc.
Energy Efficiency
Homes must include energy efficient components, such as, but not limited to, the use of passive solar,
solar panels, high efficiency windows, solar water heaters (and water heating systems), compact
fluorescent lights (CFLs) for outdoor lighting, and energy efficient HVAC systems.
Urban Fire Interface
All outdoor space must provide defensible space and fire safe zones. Below are references:
San Luis Obispo County Fire Safe Council
o http://www.fscslo.org/
California’s Wildland-Urban Interface Code Information
o http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_codes
IV. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Architectural Character - Design Examples
The architectural character of The Heights at Vista Del Mar lots may utilize design styles and
architectural character found in a variety of different designs; however, the chosen design must
remain true to that style and include principal defining elements. The various designs and styles
typically emphasize architectural elements such as the building massing, composition of forms, window
proportions, doors, balconies, roof style, materials of construction and colors. The following are graphic
examples of several popular architectural styles with their principal design elements briefly described.
Note that bright white exterior body colors are not allowed for any of the below architectural styles. Per
Condition of Approval No. 53(n) for Tract 3048, building colors shall be similar to surrounding natural
colors and no brighter than 6 in chroma and value on the Munsell Color Scale. Roof colors shall be
limited to deep earth tones, deep muted reds, browns and grays. Shiny metal roofs, bright orange, red,
or blue is prohibited.
Item 10.b. - Page 23
13 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
CALIFORNIA MISSION
California Mission architecture typically features recessed arched window openings, one story
hip and/or gable roofs with a prominent two story element. The style is usually detailed with
porches and balconies and finished with stucco and stone.
Item 10.b. - Page 24
14 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
SPANISH COLONIAL
Spanish colonial architecture incorporates various elements of Mediterranean architecture.
Key features include using thick, stucco-clad walls; small, open windows; single-story design;
limited ornamentation; wooden support beams; and inner courtyards.
MODERN CRAFTSMAN
Modern Craftsman style of architecture is typically constructed with a rough finish, attention
to detail, using materials such as stone, rough- hewn wood, siding and stucco. It often
features wide front entry porches supported by columns, large gables and decorative brackets
or timber detailing.
Item 10.b. - Page 25
15 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
TUSCAN/MEDITERRANEAN
The Tuscan/Mediterranean design style uses extensive windows, stucco exterior, archways
and tile roofing, and often is detailed with entry courts, columns and balustrades.
Item 10.b. - Page 26
16 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
ITALIANATE
Italianate architecture utilizes an asymmetrical, vertical proportioned design with a pronounced
entry and distinctive use of loggias, balconies and eaves supported by corbels. Usually tall,
rounded windows and a smooth stucco finish are used to enhance this style.
RA NCH
Ranch style homes are typically constructed with moderate to wide overhangs, column
lined entry porches and dormers to introduce natural light into interior spaces. Generally
woo d sided with brick or stone accent areas are incorporated into the design.
Item 10.b. - Page 27
17 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
SPANISH
Spanish homes are usually designed with a low pitch tile roof and prominent entry, recessed
or detaining around window openings with stucco exteriors and exposed rafter tails.
Item 10.b. - Page 28
18 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Building Forms and Massing
Building forms, materials and details should be simple and visually restrained with architectural details
appearing to be authentic integral elements of the overall building design concept.
General Design Requirements
Forms, materials and details should not contrast strongly within a single building.
Building forms should be avoided that are monumental or out of scale with the rest of the building.
ENCOURAGED DISCOURAGED: OVERLY COMPLEX BUILDING FORM
Roof planes should reveal or express important rooms and elements of the residence by
changes in elevation or direction as demanded by the chosen architectural style.
Architectural detailing should be consistent throughout the structure and express the
architectural style of the building.
Materials should be limited in variety to avoid a busy appearance.
Design details and surface materials that are selected must be used throughout the full exterior of
the building to maintain consistency. The application of special materials or design treatments to
only the street façade is not permitted. All elevations are to be articulated equally.
Features such as chimneys, overhangs, windows, doors (including garage doors), dormers, porches,
entries and decks should be designed to (1) reduce massing and scale, (2) achieve a well-integrated
design with the building’s compositions, and (3) be authentic to the architecture of the building.
Making any of these elements oversized can exaggerate the building’s scale and should be avoided.
Item 10.b. - Page 29
19 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Exterior Elevations
Soften the overall building mass with architectural features such as garden walls, porches,
balconies, arbors and trellises. Details and elements that appear to be applied as
superficial elements should be avoided.
Overhangs and exposed under
floor walls are to be avoided.
The use of tall slender posts or columns with or without cross bracing is prohibited. Posts or columns
greater than four (4’) in height must be concealed or constructed with increased bulk and scale.
Windows on walls facing the street should convey a human scale, add visual interest and avoid
unrelieved building mass.
Avoid positioning windows along a side wall that would impact the privacy of an adjacent neighbor.
As noted under the Parking and Access section on page 10, all garages shall be side loaded unless the
size and dimensions of the lot will only accommodate a front-loading garage. Staggering garage doors,
offsetting of the garage from the face of the house a minimum of five feet, or recessing the doors to
provide relief are methods to soften the impact of the garage door planes. Three (3) car garages must
apply one or more of these design techniques to one or more of the garage door bays.
PREFERRED DISCOURAGED
Item 10.b. - Page 30
20 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Varying ridge heights and wall planes will provide a deliberate sense of proportion and scale to the
building; however no single vertical wall plane may exceed 16’ in height without at least one setback of
at least 8’ within any 16’ rise unless broken up with fenestration or other architectural element.
Roof Design Requirements
Roof overhangs and eaves must be carefully detailed.
Roof forms such as mansard roofs and A-frames are not permitted. All other roof forms must be
authentic to the chosen architectural style.
Gutters, Downspouts, Vents and Flashing
Gutters and downspouts should either be concealed or designed as a deliberate architectural feature.
Any exposed gutters and downspouts should be painted to match the surface to which they are
attached (unless material is copper or other architecturally desirable material).
All vents, pipe stacks, flashing and sheet metal are to be painted to match the surface which they are
attached.
All roof drainage shall be directed to appropriate storm drain discharge points including catchment
basins or other rain capture devices.
16’
Item 10.b. - Page 31
21 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Materials of Construction
Exterior Siding
Natural materials that complement the surrounding environment are encouraged.
Materials such brick, stone, wood, light textured stucco and split-face concrete block with veneer
are suitable when applied to various architectural styles.
PRIMARY MATERIALS:
Board and Batten Shingle Siding Stucco Siding
ACCENT MATERIALS:
Stucco Brick Stone
Synthetic siding or other synthetic materials are permitted if they convey scale and texture similar
to that of traditional materials.
Inappropriate materials include highly reflective or sleek surfaces, T-111 plywood siding,
precision block, metal or plastic siding and full dimensioned wood siding that has been stained
and/or sealed.
Large expansive areas of stucco or glazing is not permitted unless broken up with appropriate
architectural treatments.
Awnings, Patio Covers and Arbors
Metal awnings are not permitted. Fabric awnings, if used, must be compatible with the color
scheme of the residence.
Item 10.b. - Page 32
22 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Solar roof-mounted Equipment:
Skylights, if used, should be designed as an integral part of the roof with their form and color
blending into the building.
Permitted:
Skylights with clear or bronze glazing are encouraged. Plastic "bubble" type skylights are
prohibited.
NOT Permitted:
Roofing Materials
All roof materials must be non-combustible.
Permissible roofing materials include flat, unglazed concrete tile, clay roofing tiles, slate, dimensional
asphalt shingles, Mission or “S” shaped tiles and ridgeline tiles. Glazed tiles, metal shingles, metal
tiles and wood shingles are not permitted as roofing materials on the entire roof plane. Roof colors
shall be brown, slate, green, black, tans, creme, and slate greys.
Item 10.b. - Page 33
23 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Slate Mission “S” Tile Concrete Tile Dimensional Asphalt Shingle
Doors and Windows
Garage doors should be multi-paneled with subtle adornment detail to provide shadow and relief. The
use of windows in garage door panels is encouraged.
Multi-paned or French doors are encouraged.
Item 10.b. - Page 34
24 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
High quality stain grade hardwood doors are preferred.
True divided light glazing with exterior mullions are preferred over internal mullions at doors and
windows. Clad windows with divided lights and clear glazing are preferred.
Wood, vinyl, or painted metal window frames are most desirable. White vinyl clad window frames are
discouraged.
Silver or gold metal frames and large expanses of glazing are prohibited. Dark, tinted or reflective glass
is discouraged and the use of architectural treatments such as roof extensions or extended overhangs is
preferred.
Windows should be appropriately trimmed throughout the full exterior and all sides of the building.
No reflective windows, roofs or wall materials are permitted, except for copper roof details.
Exterior Colors
The ARB shall approve all exterior colors and materials of construction. See the Appendix for an
example of the required color board to be submitted.
Each Color scheme should include a body color, trim color and an accent color to be used on windows,
doors, balustrades, trellises, shutters and fences. All homes shall be of subtle, warm, earthy tones, such
as tans, browns, greys and dark greens with complementary accents compatible with a tranquil, rustic
atmosphere. No bright white colors are permitted.
In general, the brighter a color, the more sparingly it should be used.
Lighting
Light fixture selections must be compatible with the architectural character of the building. Low
voltage lighting is encouraged wherever possible.
No lights are permitted on the top of any structure.
The color, size and number of fixtures should be selected to compliment the structure. Light
fixtures should be selected and arranged so that they illuminate downward and not into the sky
or onto adjacent properties.
Preferred Discouraged
Item 10.b. - Page 35
25 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Mechanical Equipment, Utilities, Trash Containers and Signs
All ducts, utility meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the
ground or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible to
the main structure. Gas and electric meters are to be completely screened from public view.
All mechanical equipment is to be located in such a manner that noise emanating from it will not be
perceptible at or beyond the property lines.
Swimming pool equipment must be fully enclosed with a solid wall and solid gate that match the color of
the residence. Landscape screens or wood fences cannot be used in place of solid walls. The top of such
equipment must be concealed from all views, including second floor neighboring properties. Swimming
pools are not permitted in the front yard.
Antennas are not permitted. Satellite dish antennas are prohibited in front setbacks; no dish may exceed
18” in diameter and must be screened so as not to be visible from public view or neighboring properties.
Solar water panels or photovoltaic panels are encouraged but must be located so as to not cause glare or
reflection onto neighboring properties.
Trash containers shall be screened from public view or located in areas not visible to the public.
Approval is required from the Postal Service to have individual mail boxes. It is anticipated that a
community mailbox station is required.
V. LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS
Landscape and hardscape improvements should be designed to complement neighboring development
landscape improvements and be compatible with the landscape materials found elsewhere in The
Heights at Vista Del Mar Development. The use of plant material, fencing and colors that are introduced
to private spaces on individual lots should complement the streetscape planting, the natural
surroundings and the architectural style of the structure.
Landscape improvements shall be installed in the front yard areas by property owners at the time a
certificate of occupancy permit is requested. Landscape improvements elsewhere on individual lots
may be phased over time, but must be installed within a one year period. An effective irrigation system
and continued maintenance of all landscaped areas is required. Drought tolerant/low-water use plants
should be used for all landscaping improvements, and the use of turf grass is highly discouraged. All
landscaping shall comply with State and City requirements for water efficient landscaping.
Item 10.b. - Page 36
26 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Planting Material
Noxious or invasive plants are not permitted, and the use of native California plants is encouraged. A
complete list of prohibited plants and trees and landscape materials, as well as a list of approved
landscape plants are contained in the Plant Palate located in the Appendix of these Design Guidelines.
Landscape plans should use native plants and other species accustomed to growing in the Central Coast
region of San Luis Obispo County and should be drought-tolerant in general.
Plant selections should be made to achieve several objectives, such as screening, filtering views,
accenting entries, erosion control and/or glare reduction while respecting and remaining subordinate to
the natural setting.
Plants should be located in relaxed, informal arrangements rather than in rigid, "soldier fashion".
All turf areas are not to exceed 25% of the total landscape area or 500 square feet, whichever is more
restrictive. All landscapes shall meet the requirements of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 16.84, and
the California Code of regulations Title 23 Waters, Division 2, Department of Water Resources, Chapter
2.7 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Sections 490 et. seq.
Selection and installation of plant materials should take maintenance into account. Plant design must
respect the varying irrigation requirements of plants.
Hardscape
Paving materials are encouraged that convey the colors and textures of native materials and that
will reduce runoff. The use of stone, brick, decomposed granite and earth-toned pavers are
appropriate. Paving materials should reinforce the architectural character of the house.
Brick Brick in Patterns Tile Slate
Scored Concrete Broom Finish Salt Finish Concrete with Tile
Exposed Aggregate Flagstone Gravel Turfblock
Item 10.b. - Page 37
27 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
The use of porous paving materials and “sand-set” versus “mortar-set” to permit percolation of water
and aeration in soils is encouraged.
Avoid large, continuous areas of paving. Walkways should be integrated into the driveways or separated
from it to keep the paved area from appearing wide and expansive.
Landscape Structures
Landscape structures include decks, trellises, arbors, gazebos, children’s play equipment (swing sets,
slides, tree-houses, sandboxes, gymnastic apparatus, etc.). Metal and plastics are prohibited as materials
for landscape structures, except for children’s play apparatus. Landscape structure must be approved by
the ARB.
Brightly colored children’s play apparatus shall be screened from view of public streets and neighboring
residences.
No covered or enclosed structure shall be allowed within the setbacks or open space areas.
Fencing and Garden Walls
Fencing along property lines is permitted. If proposed, fencing must adhere to the following
standards:
Fencing must not interfere with any easements as shown on the recorded map for Tract
3048.
Rear lot line fencing is allowed to install a gate in fenced areas. Lot line fencing may be
constructed of a solid board fence that must transition to The Heights at Vista Del Mar
wrought iron fence design within the twenty (20) foot rear property line.
Solid board fencing must be finished on both sides.
Item 10.b. - Page 38
28 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Fencing is not to exceed six feet (6’) in height unless it is integral to the structure and creates
courtyard or patio spaces. Any retaining wall with fencing on top cannot exceed six (6’) in height
without an approved City permit. A property owner can apply for a Minor Exception for a
wall/fence height up to eight feet (8’). An approved Variance is required for any wall/fence height
exceeding eight feet (8’).
Side yard fencing must be set back a minimum of five feet (5’) from th e nearest building face before
returning perpendicular to the building wall, except for fences along the same plane of a building
wall when the same building material is used on the fence and house (i.e. garden walls).
All designs and materials of other fencing and garden walls must be compatible with the
architectural style and materials of the home, neighboring lots and character of the surrounding
improvements.
Chain link, precision block and slump stone in particular are prohibited materials for fence or
retaining wall/garden walls.
Other fencing may be installed within the lot in order to create a more secluded area of privacy (spa
area, outdoor dining, play area, pet enclosure, etc.).
Per Condition of Approval No. 53(l)(ii) for Tract 3048, all fencing proposed for the area outside of
the building limit line for Lots 4 – 10 shall conform to the following:
1. No proposed fencing shall be constructed of solid, flat planes;
2. Fence colors shall be similar to surrounding natural colors; and
3. White paint or other white materials is prohibited.
VI. THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Overview
Architectural improvements proposed for all properties within The Heights at Vista Del Mar must be
approved by The Heights at Vista Del Mar Architectural Review Board and a building permit issued by
the City of Arroyo Grande Building Division prior to any development improvements on a property. Site
development and landscape improvements that do not require a permit from the City must still be
reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. The City requires an Architectural Review
Permit for any proposed new residence, to be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Committee
and approved by the Community Development Director.
Plan Preparation
The Design Guidelines are to be used in conjunction with the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions of The Heights at Vista Del Mar, as well as applicable planning and building
regulations of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo and the State of California that
govern improvements made at The Heights at Vista Del Mar. Property Owners and their design
consultants are responsible for reviewing these documents and developing compliance with the
City’s land use regulations, the conditions of development for The Heights at Vista Del Mar and the
requirements of the Design Guidelines.
For information of County and State regulations, contact the City of Arroyo Grande Community
Development Department at (805) 473-5420.
Item 10.b. - Page 39
29 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Pre-Application Meeting
Property Owners and/or their agents are encouraged to schedule one or more informal meetings
with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to discuss and present design concepts, clarify
requirements and procedures, and facilitate a clear understanding of the development expectations
at The Heights at Vista Del Mar.
Informal meetings or “courtesy reviews” of schematic design proposals do not requ ire a formal
application, advance noticing or specific plan format and are held the same day as regularl y
scheduled ARB meetings.
There are no fees charged for pre-application review meetings.
Design Submittal - Review and Procedures
Notification Required: For an item to be placed on the ARB’s agenda, Applicants must notify
the ARB by submitting Form A – Request for Design Review Hearing, located in the
Appendix of The Heights at Vista Del Mar Design Guidelines. This form may be mailed or
faxed to the ARB as described on the form. You may contact The Heights at Vista Del Mar
Sales Office to verify items scheduled for the forthcoming ARB Review hearings.
Architectural Review Procedures: The Architectural Review Board agenda and the
Architectural Design Review hearing will be coordinated by an ARB representative and attended
by the ARB and Applicant/Property Owner.
The Design Review hearing will evaluate the proposed project for compliance with the Design
Guidelines and (a) approve, (b) approve with conditions, (c) continue with redesign suggestions,
or (d) disapprove the application. Submittals with conditions are considered approved once
they meet the required conditions.
In the event that a Design Submittal is not approved, the ARB will clearly state the basis for the
disapproval. If the Applicant/Property Owner believes they cannot make revisions which will
satisfy the Committee, the Applicant/Property Owner may appeal the determination of the ARB
to the Board of Directors of The Heights at Vista Del Mar Homeowner’s Association.
Once the ARB has approved the Design Submittal, and the City has approved the Architectural
Review permit, the Applicant/Property Owner may proceed to the Construction Document
phase of the approval process. Construction documents must be stamped “Approved for
Construction” or an approval letter presented to the City with the construction document plan
package for a building permit to be issued by the City. The stamp can be obtained from the
Design Committee anytime following the approval of a project design at a Design Review
Hearing.
Design Application Materials Required
Design documents that are submitted for review by the ARB must include the following materials.
Failure to provide all of the required information will not enable any action to be taken on the project
and re-noticing, resubmittal and rescheduling will be necessary. Applications that are determined to be
incomplete may be reviewed by the ARB in the same way as Pre-application review items, but no action
will be taken.
Form B – Design Submittal (one copy @ 8 ½” x 11”) – Form B is located in the appendix of
the Design Guidelines.
Item 10.b. - Page 40
30 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
Form C – Construction Protocol Agreement (one copy @ 8 ½” x 11”) – Form C is located in
the Appendix of the Design Guidelines.
Filing Fee ($500.00); (Payee: _______________________). (Note: This fee does not apply to any
fees charged by the City of Arroyo Grande through their building and Architectural Review
permit process).
Design Plan Documents. One (1) complete plan set presented on 24” x 36” format. The title
block must identify the Property Owner, Designer and property description and plans must
contain all of the following:
Site Plan – accurately show existing vegetation, proposed building footprint with lot
lines and setbacks dimensioned, hardscape layout (driveway, walkways), utility line
connections, location of trash and mechanical equipment, preliminary
grading/drainage plan, conceptual landscape information, if known (proposed tree,
shrubbery, turf and fenced areas).
Any proposed tree removal requires an approved tree removal permit from the City.
Site Section (s) – with lot lines and building locations accurately shown, existing
proposed contour lines identified, finish floor elevations and height of structure
above grade shown. Several sections may be necessary to describe the building’s
location on the site.
Building Floor Plans – include overall dimensions with square footage summaries of
residential areas, garage, decks and covered porches.
Building Elevations – graphically describe each side of the structure with notes of
building height, roof pitches, and materials of construction, exterior light fixture
locations, finishes and assembly details.
Lighting Plan – include location and type of exterior fixtures with an 8 ½”x 11” copy
of manufacturer examples.
Color and Materials Board – identify all exterior colors and materials including paint,
wood, roofing, stucco, veneers, window trim colors, etc. Submit one 8 ½”x11” color
copy with the application package. See Appendix for an example of an acceptable
color board.
As stated above, the Architectural Review Board will evaluate the proposed project with
compliance with the Design Guidelines and (a) approve, (b) approve with conditions, (c)
continue with redesign suggestions, or (d) disapprove the application. Submittals with
conditions are considered approved once they meet the required conditions. Approved or
conditionally approved applications will be filed by lot number and kept in The Heights at
Vista Del Mar HOA storage. Approval by the ARB does not constitute an approval by the
City. A separate Architectural Review application process is required by the City before a
building permit can be issued. It is recommended that approval from the ARB be obtained
before applying for an Architectural Review permit with the City.
Construction Documents Submittal
When completed, the Construction Document plan package will be submitted by the Applicant/Property
owner to an Architectural Review Board representative for verification of substantial compliance with
the approved Design Submittal. If the Construction Document plan package complies with the approved
Item 10.b. - Page 41
31 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
design, the Architectural Review Board representative will stamp the Construction Document set as
“Approved for Construction” and the Applicant/Property Owner can then submit the Construction
Documents to the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department for plan check and
issuance of a City Building Permit. In lieu of a stamped plan set, the ARB approval letter may be
submitted with the plans.
If the Construction Document plan package is not in compliance or substantially deviates from the
approved Design Submittal that is on file, the project must again be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board, in the manner described above.
There will be a $500.00 fee charged for projects that must be reconsidered by the Architectural Review
Board. Minor and incidental changes, such as changes of Colors and materials, window types, minor
architectural details, etc., may be required to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board; however
the $500.00 reconsideration fee would not be charged. These minor and incidental changes could be
brought before the ARB without prior notice, much like Pre-Application Review items.
Landscape Plan Review
Landscape Plans may be submitted with the Construction Document plan package or they may be
submitted at a later day, but no less than sixty (60) days prior to the completion of the residence. However,
the City requires that a landscape plan be submitted as part of the Architectural Review permit process.
The Architectural Review Board representative shall review and provide the Applicant with a
determination within thirty (30) days of the submittal date.
If revisions are required, the Applicant shall resubmit the Plan within fifteen (15) days of the date the initial
determination was received and a decision on the revised plan shall be provided within fifteen (15) days of
the resubmitted date.
The following minimum information shall be provided:
All landscape plans are to be drawn to scale.
Include a plant list with both botanical and common names.
Include ground cover types, whether planting seed, mulch or other landscape surfaces.
Lawn areas are not to exceed 25% of the total landscape area or 500 square feet, whichever is
more restrictive.
Provide quantities of total areas of landscape surfaces (including lawns).
Provide irrigation plans that are drawn to scale.
Irrigation plans shall employ low water use technology.
Project Completion
At any time during the construction or upon completion of any construction or reconstruction, if the
Architectural Review Board, or its duly authorized representative, is made aware of and determines that
such construction, or installation was not done in substantial compliance with the approved Plans and
Specifications, it shall notify the Property Owner in writing of such non-compliance, specifying
particulars of non-compliance and shall require the Property Owner to remedy such non-compliance.
Item 10.b. - Page 42
32 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT 1 ·THE HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR WROUGHT IRON FENCE DESIGN
EXHIBIT 2 - COLOR & MATERIALS BOARD EXAMPLE
Roof Pioneer SL503 Cobblestone Green
Slate Profile
Fascia SW-2237
Corbels SW-2901
Windows Milgard Off-white or Beige
Main Body SW-2017
Bottom of Body SW-2076
Item 10.b. - Page 43
33 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
EXHIBIT 3 - LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & PLANT PALETTE
A. Prohibited Landscape Plants, Trees & Materials
All categories of invasive ground cover
Heavily reseeding plants
Spanish Broom (Spartium junceum)
Mexican Feather Grass
Pampas Grass
Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
Monterey Pines
Blue Gum Eucalyptus
Italian Cypress
Lava Rock and White Rock with sparkles
B. Suggested Landscape Plants & Trees
All plants on the following list are on the WUCOLS IV (Water Use Classification of Landscape
Species; website: http://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/) and are identified as being low water using
plants, except as marked with an asterisk. Asterisk denotes a medium water using plant. All plants
selected are known to be deer resistant, but deer do browse and the landscape architect cannot be
held responsible for their actions.
Trees
AESCULUS CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA BUCKEYE)
ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN (SILK TREE)
ARBUTUS MARINA (MARINA MADRONE)
ARBUTUS UNEDO (STRAWBERRY TREE)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS "LESTER ROWNTREE" (TREE MANZANITA)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA "DR. HURD" (COMMON MANZANITA)
CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS (INCENSE CEDAR)*
CEANOTHUS "LOUIS EDMUNDS" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CEANOTHUS "RAY HARTMAN" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (WERTERN REDBUD)
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS (DESERT WILLOW)
COTINUS COGGYGRIA "ROYAL PURPLE" (ROYAL PURPLE SMOKE TREE)
CUPRESSUS MACROCARPA (MONTEREY CYPRESS)
ERIOBOTYRA DEFLEXA (BRONZE LOQUAT)
FEIJOA SELLOWIANA (PINEAPPLE GUAVA)
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (TOYON)
LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (CRAPEMYRTLE)
LYONOTHMNUS FLORIBUNDUS ASPLENIFOLIUS (CATALINA IRONWOOD)
OLEA EUROPAEA "SWAN HILL" (FRUITLESS OLIVE)
PISTACHIA CHINENSIS (CHINESE PISTACHE)
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA (COAST LIVE OAK)
QUERCUS LOBATA (VALLEY OAK)
Shrubs
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS "SUNSET" (SUNSET MANZANITA)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS BAKERI “LOUIS EDMUNDS” (LOUIS EDMUNDS MANZANITA)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA "HOWARD McMINN (MANZANITA)
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA "SENTINEL" (SENTINAL MANZANITA)
Item 10.b. - Page 44
34 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
ARTEMISIA "POWIS CASTLE" (WORMWOOD)
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA "CANYON GRAY" (CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH)
BERBERIS THUNBERGII (JAPANESE BARBERRY)
CARISSA MACROCARPA (NATAL PLUM)
CEANOTHUS "CONCHA" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CEANOTHUS "DARK STAR" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CEANOTHUS "FROSTY BLUE" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CEANOTHUS BARKERI "LOUIS EDMUNDS" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
CEANOTHUS THYRSIFLORUS "SKYLARK" (MOUNTAIN LILAC)
DODONAEA VISCOSA (HOP SEED)
FREMONTODENDRON "CALIFORNIA GLORY" (FLANNEL BUSH)
GARRYA ELIPICA (FREMONT SILKTASSEL)
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA (TOYON)
HYPERICUM “HIDCOTE” (HIDCOT ST. JOHN'S WORT)
LANTANA CAMARA (LANTANA)
LAURUS NOBILIS (SWEET BAY)
Leucophyllum frutescens (Texas Sage)
MAHONIA PINATA "KEN HARTMAN" (CALIFORNIA HOLLY GRAPE)
MYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE
NANDINA DOMESTICA (HEAVENLY BAMBOO)
PLUMBAGO AURICULATA (CAPE PLUMBAGO)
PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA (HOLLYLEAF CHERRY)
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA (COFFEEBERRY)
RHAMNUS CROCEA (REDBERRY)
RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA (LEMONADE BERRY)
RHUS OVATA (SUGAR BUSH)
RIBES SANQUINEUM GLUTINOSUM (PINK WINTER CURRANT)
RIBES SPECIOSUM (FUCHSIA FLOWERED GOOSEBERRY)
ROSA CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE)
WESTRINGA FRUTICOSA (COAST ROSEMARY)
Vines
BOUGAINVILLEA SPECIES (BOUGAINVILLEA)
CAMPSIS TAGLIABUANA (TRUMPET CREEPER)
MACFADYENA UNGUIS-CATI (CAT'S CLAW)
ROSA BANKSIAE "LUTEA" (LADY BANKS' ROSE)
VITIS CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE)
Ground Covers, Perennials & Small Shrubs
ACACIA REDOLENS (Desert Carpet)
ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM (COMMON YARROW)
ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUS (KANAGAROO PAW)
AQUILEGIA FORMOSA (WESTERN COLUMBINE)
ARMERIA MARITIMA (SEA PINK)*
ARTEMISIA species (WORMWOOD)
ASCLEPIAS CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA MILKWEED)
ASTERISCUS MARITIMUS (GOLD COIN DAISY)
BACCHARIS PILULARIS "PIGEON POINT" (DWARF COYOTE BUSH)
BERBERIS THUNBERGII “CRIMSON PYGMY” (DWARF JAPANESE BARBERRY)
CALLISTEMON “LITTLE JOHN” (DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH)
CERATOSTIGMA PLUMBAGINOIDES (DWARF PLUMBAGO)
Item 10.b. - Page 45
35 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
CISTUS SPEICES (ROCKROSE)
CONVOLVULUS MAURITANICUS GROUND MORNING GLORY)
COPROSMA X KIRKII (CREEPING COPROSMA)
COTONEASTER SPECIES (COTONEASTER)
DIETES BICOLOR (FORTNIGHT LILY)
ERGERON GLAUCUS (SEASIDE DAISY)
ERIOGONUM SPECIES (BUCKWHEAT)
ERYSIMUM SPECIES (WALLFLOWER)
EURYOPS (EURYOPS DAISY)
GALVEZIA SPECIOSA (ISLAND BUSH SNAPDRAGON)
GELSEMIUM SEMPERVIRENS (YELLOW JESSAMINE)
HEUCHERA SPECIES (ALUM ROOT)
JUNIPERUS CONFERTA (SHORE JUNIPER)
KNIPHOFIA UVARIA (RED-HOT POKER)
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS (SPREADING LANTANA)
LAVANDULA SPECES (LAVANDER)
MAHONIA REPENS (CREEPING OREGON GRAPE)
MIMULUS AURANTIACUS (MONKEY FLOWER)
MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM (PROSTRATE MYOPORUM)
PENSTEMON CENTRANTHIFOLIUS (SCARLET BUGLER)
PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLLUS 'MARGARITA BOP' (BLUE BEDDER)
ROMNEYA COULTERI "WHITE CLOUD" (MATILIJA POPPY)
ROSEMARINUS "PROSTRATUS" (DWF. ROSEMARY)
SALVIA "POZO BLUE" (POZO BLUE SAGE)
SALVIA CLEVELANDII (CAL. BLUE SAGE)
SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA (PURPLE SAGE)
SALVIA MELLIFERA (BLACK SAGE)
SALVIA SPATHACEA (HUMMINGBIRD SAGE)
SATUREJA DOUGLASII (YERBA BUENA)
TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS (GERMANDER)
ZANTEDESCHIA (CALLA LILY)*
ZAUSCHNERIA SPECIES (CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA)
Ornamental Grasses
CALAMAGROSTIS SPECIES (REED GRASS)
CAREX SPECIES (SEDGE)*
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA FESCUE)
FESTUCA GLAUCA (BLUE FESCUE)
FESTUCA IDAHOENSIS FESTUCA MAIREI (ATLAS FESCUE)
FESTUCA MAIREI (ATLAS FESCUE)
HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERVIRENS (BLUE OAT GRASS)
JUNCUS EFFUSUS PACIFICUS (SOFT RUSH)
JUNCUS PATENS (WIRE GRASS)
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS "CANYON PRINCE" (LYME GRASS)
LEYMUS TRITICOIDES (CREEPING WILD RYE)
MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS (PINK MUHLY GRASS)
MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA (PINE MUHLY)
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS (DEER GRASS)
Cacti & Succulents
AGAVE AMERICANA (CENTURY PLANT)
Item 10.b. - Page 46
36 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
AGAVE ATTENUATA (FOX TAIL AGAVE)
AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' (BLUE GLOW AGAVE)
AGAVE OVATIFOLIA (WHALE'S TONGUE AGAVE)
AGAVE PARRYI (MESCAL AGAVE)
AGAVE VICTORIA-REGINAE (QUEEN VICTORIA AGAVE)
ALOE MACULATA (SOAP ALOE)
ALOE NOBILIS (GOLDEN TOOTHED ALOE)
ALOE STRIATA (CORAL ALOE)
DASYLIRION WHEERLERI (BLUE DESERT SPOON)
DELOSPERMA COOPERI (COOPER'S HARDY ICE PLANT)
DELOSPERMA NUBIGENUM (HARDY YELLOW ICE PLANT)
ECHEVERIA AGAVOIDES 'LIPSTICK' OR 'ROMEO' (CARPET ECHEVERIA)
ECHEVERIA IMBRICATA or ELEGANS (HEN AND CHICKS)
HESPEROYUCCA WHIPPLE (OUR LORD'S CANDLE)
NOLINA MICRODCARPA (BEAR GRASS)
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE (BLUE FINGER)
YUCCA BACCATA (BANANA YUCCA)
YUCCA FLACCIDA "VARIEGATA" (VARIEGATED YUCCA)
Item 10.b. - Page 47
37 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
VIII. FORMS
FORM A - REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW HEARING
RETURN FORM TO : The Heights at Vista Del Mar ARB
(Please print legibly; Mail or FAX as shown) PO Box 2331 Pismo Beach, CA 93448
APPLICATION TYPE {check all that apply}
__ New Construction Design Review Submittal
__ Reconsideration of Approved Design Submittal
__ Landscape Plan
__ Addition or Alteration of Existing Improvements
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Property Owner: _______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Daytime Phone:
FAX No:
E-Mail address:
Applicant Agent:
Mailing Address:
Daytime Phone: FAX No: E-Mail:
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address:
Assessor Parcel Number: Tract & Lot No:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Description of Proposed Improvements:
LEGAL DECLARATION
I, the Owner of record of this property, consent to the name Applicant/Agent to act on my behalf in connection with this matter. I have
completed this form accurately and declare that all statements here are true.
Property Owner signature: . . Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received: ARB Date/Representative:
Comment:
Item 10.b. - Page 48
38 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
FORM B - DESIGN SUBMITTAL
SUBMIT WITH PLAN DOCUMENTS TO:
(Please print legibly; Provide one set of plans,
application form, color board and protocol form)
The Heights at Vista Del Mar ARB
PO Box 2331 Pismo Beach, CA 93448
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN COMMITIEE RESPONSIBILITIES
Architectural improvements proposed for all properties within The Heights at Vista Del Mar must be approved
by The Heights at Vista Del Mar Architectural Review Board and a building permit issued by the City of Arroyo
Grande Building Division prior to any development improvements on a property. Site development and
landscape improvements that do not require a permit from the City must still be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMIITEE PROCEDURES
The Architectural Review Board agenda and the Architectural Review Hearing will be coordinated by an
Architectural Review Board representative and attended by the ARB and Applicant/Property Owner. The
Design Review hearing will evaluate the proposed project for compliance with the Design Guidelines, then (a)
approve (b) approved with conditions (c) continue with redesign suggestions or (d) disapprove the
application. Submittals with conditions are considered approved once they meet the required conditions.
APPLICATION TYPE (check all that apply)
__New Construction Design Review Submittal __Landscape Plan
__Reconsideration of Approved Design Submittal __Add-on or Alteration
__Improvements
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Property Owner:
Mailing Address :
Daytime Phone: FAX No: E-Mail:
Applicant I Agent :
Mailing Address:
Daytime Phone: FAX No: E-Mail: ..
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Property Address : _
Assessor Parcel Number: Tract & Lot No:
Item 10.b. - Page 49
39 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
DESIGN SUBMITTAL MATERIALS REQUIRED:
Design documents that are submitted for review by the Architectural Review Board must include the
following materials: Failure to provide any of the required information will not enable any action to be taken
on the project and re-noticing, resubmittal and rescheduling will be necessary. Applications that are
determined to be incomplete may be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board in the same way as Pre-
Application review items, no action will be taken.
1. Form B - Design Submittal (one copy @ 8 1/2" x 11") - Form B is located in the Appendix of the
Design Guidelines.
2. Form C - Construction Protocol Agreement (one copy @ 8 1/2" x 11") - Form C is located in the
Appendix of the Design Guidelines.
3. $500.00 Filing Fee (Payee: _____________________________________________). (Note: This fee does not
apply to any fees charged by the City of Arroyo Grande through their Architectural Review
and/or building permit process).
4. Design Plan Documents. One (1) complete plan set presented on 24' x 36" format. The title block
must identify the Property Owner, Designer and property description and the plans must contain
all of the following:
Site Plan – accurately show existing vegetation, proposed building footprint with lot lines and setbacks
dimensioned, hardscape layout (driveway, walkways), utility lines and setbacks dimensions, hardscape
layout (driveway, walkways, utility line connections, location of trash and mechanical equipment,
preliminary grading/drainage plan, conceptual landscape information, if known (proposed tree,
shrubbery, turf and fenced areas).
Site Section (s) – with lot lines and building locations accurately shown, existing and proposed contour
lines identified, finish floor elevations and height of structure above grade shown. Several sections may be
necessary to describe the building’s location on the site.
Building Floor Plans – include overall dimensions with square footage summaries of residential areas,
garage, decks and covered porches.
Building Elevations - graphically describe each side of the structure with notes of building height, roof
pitches, and materials of construction, exterior light fixture locations, finishes and assembly details.
Lighting Plan - include location and type of exterior fixtures with and 8 ½” x 11” copy of manufacturer
examples.
Color and Materials Board - identify all exterior colors and materials including paint, wood, roofing,
stucco, veneers, etc. Submit one (1) 8 ½” x 11” color copy with the application package. See Exhibit 2 of
the Appendix for an example of an acceptable color and materials board.
APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I certify that to the best of my knowledge that the information contained in this submittal is true and correct.
Property Owner / Agent name: Date:
Property Owner / Agent signature:
Item 10.b. - Page 50
40 | P a g e
The Heights at Vista Del Mar – Design Guidelines
FORM C - CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL
The Property Owner, as principal, shall be responsible for all activities or omissions of the assigned consultants,
contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and workmen. Each person or company who will be undertaking any
form of construction activity at The Heights at Vista Del Mar agrees to the following:
i. Construction activities shall be permitted between 7:00AM to 6:00PM, Monday through
Saturday and from 9:00AM to 4:00PM on Sunday.
ii. No loud radios or excessive construction noise will be allowed on the job site.
iii. No alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs shall be tolerated on the job site at any time.
iv. Dogs or other pets belonging to contractors, subcontractors and/or their employees are not
permitted on the job site at any time.
v. All building materials shall be stacked or stored on the lot owner’s specific lot and not on
an adjoining property or in the street or sidewalk, unless specific permission has been
obtained by said lot owner.
vi. There shall be no trespassing across the adjoining lots or common areas.
vii. Temporary portable toilet facilities shall be on the job site and properly maintained throughout
the duration of construction.
viii. A receptacle for trash accumulation and construction debris recycling along with a scheduled
weekly pick up shall be provided for the job site at all times.
ix. The owner and contractor shall assume full responsibility for clean-up or any windblown or
storm driven garbage, materials and refuse.
Buyer/Property Owner Date Contact
Buyer/Property Owner Date Contact
Item 10.b. - Page 51
ATTACHMENT 3
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017
ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
air Berlin called the Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2 :31 p.m .
City Staff Present:
3. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Chair Bruce Berlin and Committee Members Mary Hertel and
eith Storton were present. Chair Warren Hoag was absent
Planni Manager Matt Downing and Associate Planner Kelly
Heffernan re present.
Vice Chair Berlin led the Flag Salute .
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIO
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Keith Storton made a motion , seconded by Mary Hertel , to approve
2017 , as submitted .
The motion carried on a 3-0 voice vote , with Warren Hoag absent.
6. PROJECTS
6.a. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO. 16-009; CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW 12,730 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOTS 6 AND 7 OF TRACT 3048
(HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); LOCATION -TERMINUS OF CASTILLO DEL MAR
(APNs 075-002-006 AND 075-022-007); APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN
GROUP -RANDY RUSSOM (Heffernan)
Associate Planner Heffernan presented the staff report and responded to questions from the
Committee regarding the process of the architectural review , consideration of the
established neighborhood on Castillo Del Mar, how building height is measured and where it
is measured from on the specific project site.
In response to Committee Member questions regarding process without an applicant
representative present , Planning Manager Downing outlined the actions the Committee
could take on the item .
It was the consensus of the Committee to continue the item to a future meeting to allow
additional information to be provided by the applicant representative , including a straight
view storyboard of the project viewed from street level , a more formal landscape plan to
evaluate plant location and screening , methods to break up structure massing , and the
items indicated in the staff report .
Item 10.b. - Page 52
Minutes: ARC
Monda~May1 ,2017
PAGE2
Committee Member Hertel made a motion , seconded by Committee Member Storton , to
continue the item to a future date to allow the applicant representative to provide additional
information requested by staff and the Committee .
The motion passed on a 3-0 voice vote , with Chair Hoag absent.
None.
Planning Manager Downing provide update to the Committee regarding the current
Committee vacancy . Associate Planner He on provided an update on additional projects
recently considered by the Committee .
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m. to a meet ing on May 1 ,
MATTHEW DOWNING
PLANNING MANAGER
(Approved at ARC Mtg 05-15-2017)
WARREN HOAG, CHAIR
Item 10.b. - Page 53
ATTACHMENT 4
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017
ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
Chai arren Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at
2:30 p.m.
ARC Members :
City Staff Present:
3. FLAG SALUTE
Chair Warren Hoag , Vice Chair Bruce Berlin , and Committee
bers Mary Hertel and Keith Storton were present.
Planning anager Matt Downing , Associate Planner Kelly Heffernen ,
and Plannin echnician Sam Anderson were present.
Mary Hertel led the Flag Salute.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bruce Berlin made a motion , seconded by Keith Storton , to approve
2017 , with the correction of "measures" to "measured " in item 6 .a .
The motion carried on a 3-0-1 voice vote , with Warren Hoag abstaining .
6. PROJECTS
6.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO. 16-009;
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 12,730 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOTS 6
AND 7 OF TRACT 3048 (HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); LOCATION -TURMINUS OF
CASTILLO DEL MAR (APNs 075-022-006 AND 075-022-007);
APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN GROUP -RANDY RUSSOM
(Heffernen)
Associate Planner Heffernen presented the staff report and responded to questions from the
Committee regarding lot coverage , building envelopes , neighboring home sizes , and
necessary submittal requirements .
Randy Russom , representative , spoke in support of the project , and responded to questions
regarding rendering accuracy , retaining walls , pool screening , usage of the proposed
basketball court , building height from street grade , fencing , gutters , and trash enclosures .
Chair Hoag invited comments on the project from the public . Dan Ferreira , representative for
property owners at 7 41 Castillo Del Mar, read a letter in opposition of the project , stating that
the project in its current form would be out of scale with the neighborhood , and raised
concerns about possible illicit commercial uses of the proposed basketball court.
Item 10.b. - Page 54
Minutes: ARC
Monday, May 15, 2017
PAGE2
Dwight Beckstrand , real estate lawyer, asked for clarification of the term "program " in the
context of the project.
The Committee provided comments on the project , including concerns about the scale of the
structure , landscaping , neighborhood compatibility and character, and the intent of the
design guidelines . The Committee had concerns regarding the precedent setting nature of
the project due to the scale of the structure . The Committee a lso had concerns regarding
the fact that the project was proposed spanning two lots , and did not believe that the design
guidelines had been written with designs spanning two lots in mind.
Keith Storton made a motion , seconded by Mary Hertel , to recommend denial of
Architectural Review 16-009 to the Community Development Director due to the inability of
the Committee to make findings required to approve an Architectural Review , based upon
the concerns regarding scale and neighborhood character expressed by the Committee .
The motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote .
6 b. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-002; APPROXIMATELY
5, SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE ARROYO GRANDE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEP" TMENT; LOCATION -345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT -DIGNITY
HEALT , EPRESENTATIVE -TODD SMITH, CANNON (Downing)
Planning Mana r Downing presented the staff report and responded to questions from the
Committee regar emergency vehicle circulation , the temporary parking lot , the location
of the entry , and the tential for a parking structure .
Todd Smith , representat , Deb Woodle , architect , and Ken Dalebout , hospital
administrator, spoke in supp of the project and answered questions on the parking
impacts of the project , architec al elements , necessity of the project , roof equipment
screening , location alternatives , fea · ility of a parking structure , and the primary path of
travel for both patients and staff.
John Mack spoke in support of the project an ommented on existing parking issues.
The Committee provided comments on the project , eluding necessity of the expansion , the
architectural detailing , new and exist ing pedestrian flo , and compensation for the proposed
tree removals.
Bruce Berlin made a motion , seconded by Mary Hertel , recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit 17-002 to the Planning Comm ission as sub itted .
The motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote.
6.c. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17-001; ONE (
SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION -166 PINE STREET; APPLICAN
DOLLINGER; REPRESENTATIVE -CRISTI FRY-RICK ENGINEERING (Anderson
Planning Technician Anderson presented the staff report and responded to questions fro
the Committee ·regarding permitting , possible exceptions , and tree replacement.
Item 10.b. - Page 55
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017
ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
Ch · Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:53 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 5
Commissioners Terry Fowler-Payne , Lan George, John Mack,
Frank Schiro , and Glenn Martin were present.
Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Planning
Manager Matt Downing , Associate Planner Kelly Heffernen , and
Secretary Debbie We ichinger were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Fowler-Payne le
4. AGENDA REVIEW
None
5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGE
None
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.a. Consideration of Approval of Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Planm Commission Meeting of
June 6, 2017 as submitted.
Action: Commissioner George moved to approve the minutes of the anning Commission
Meeting of June 6 , 2017 . Commissioner Schiro seconded , and the mo · n passed on the
follow ing roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
George , Fowler-Payne , Mack , Martin
None
Schiro
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
9.a. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 17-003 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009;
MERGER OF TWO (2) LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 12, 730 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION -779 AND 759 CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 -
Item 10.b. - Page 56
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2017
PAGE 2
HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT -JAMES AND KATHY REDMOND;
REPRESENTATIVE-RRM DESIGN GROUP
Associate Planner Heffernan presented the staff report and stated the Architectural Review
Committee recommended the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Architectural
Review 16-009 and take no action on Lot Merger 17-003 . In response to Chair Martin's
question , Director McClish clarified to the Commission what actions were available to be taken.
Kathy Redmond , property owner, presented her proposed project to the Commission,
Randy Russom , architect , presented the proposed project to the Commission and stated the
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in support of the architecture. Mr. Russom
responded to questions, including the use of the basketball court, the overall length of the
building , and if the owners are flexible to building changes.
In response to Commissioner Schiro 's question , Director McClish stated the Development
Code does not limit the square footage of a home beyond being required to meet site
development standards .
Associate Planner Heffernan responded to questions on the proposed project , including
setbacks ; and stated the CC&R's refer to the Design Guidelines .
Randy Russom , architect , responded to further questions on the proposed project.
Chair Martin opened the meeting for public comment:
Daryl Berg, spoke against the project due to concerns regarding drainage .
John Cramer, Vista Del Mar, spoke against the project due to the size of the house.
Dr . James Redmond stated the proposal is a family project and not intended for public use.
Mr. Russom stated a storm w2ter plan is required ; no water will leave the site; and the house is
not visible from Highway 101 .
Chair Martin closed the public comment period .
Planning Manager Downing stated that ARC supported the massing of the home but had
concerns regarding its length .
Commissioner Schiro spoke in support of the proposed project and stated that the rules for the
developers need to be clear up front.
Commissioner George spoke in support of the project; stated the house will not be seen; and
she believes that General Plan Policy LU12 does not apply to this project.
Commissioner Fowler-Payne asked if there was consideration of putting the basketball court
underneath the house; the house will be visible from many vantage points; questioned what will
be done to keep the noise down from the basketball court and the pool; stated the project looks
Item 10.b. - Page 57
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2017
PAGE 3
commercial ; expressed concern with the basin; and concern that there is no privacy for the
pool.
Commissioner Mack spoke in opposition of the project , agreed with ARC members' comments
and concerns ; questioned what will happen to this large space in the future ; would like to see a
deed restriction that restricts the use ; and would like the neighborhood notified.
Cha ir Martin spoke in support of the project , stated the project is consistent with the lots below
in Vista Del Mar ; the home is in scale and scope w ith the neighborhood ; the pool and decking
will be high enough for privacy ; and the visibility is not an issue .
Action: Commissioner George made a motion directing staff to prepare a Resolution
approving Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009 and return to Planning
Commission at a future meeting following notification of the neighborhood. Director McClish
stated there will be a courtesy notice mailed to the neighborhood . Commissioner Schiro
seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following roll call vote :
George, Schiro , Fowler-Payne , Martin
Mack
None
, F ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JUNE 6 2017
This is a notice f administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals ,
den ials or referrals the Community Development Director . An administrative decision must
be a ealed or called for review b the Plannin Commission b a ma ·orit vote.
Case No. Address Description Action Planner
ARCH 17-002 5041de New 496 square foot A S. Anderson
accesso dwell in unit
PPR 17 -008 Michelle & Vern New Homestay A S. Anderson
Hoffecker venue
PPR 17-009 Ken & Pam Taylor Deer New Homestay A S. Anderson
Trai l le
ARCH 17-003 An il & Kam ina 704 Casti New 5 ,962 square foot A K. Heffernon
Pancha l De l Ma r in le-famil residence
In response to Commiss ioner George 's question regar · ARCH 17-003 , Associate Planner
Heffernen stated permits are not being issued unt il drainage oncerns are resolved .
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
In response to Commissioner Martin 's question , Community Deve
said there is underground utility pole work being done on the Fa ir Oaks
12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
ment Director McClish
dical office site .
Director McClish stated there will be no Planning Commission meeting on July 4 ,
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8 :44 p .m .
ATTEST:
Item 10.b. - Page 58
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017
ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
Cha· Martin called the Planning Commiss ion meeting to order at 6 :00 p .m .
ATIACHMENTG
Commiss ioners Terry Fowler-Payne , Frank Schiro, John Mack ,
and Glenn Martin were present. Commission Lan George was
absent.
Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish , Planning
3. FLAG SALUTE
Matt Downing , Associate Planner Kelly Heffernen ,
Technician Sam Anderson , and Secretary Debbie
Commissioner Mack led the flag salute .
4. AGENDA REVIEW
Randy Russom , representative for Item 8 .a . asked that id item be heard at this time as he is
requesting this item be continued .
Action: Commissioner Sch iro moved that Item 8 .a., be heard 15 ore Item 5 . Commissioner
Mack seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Schiro, Mack , Martin
Fowler-Payne
George
Chair Martin recused himself from the dais due to a conflict.
8.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 17-003 AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW 16-009; MERGER OF TWO (2) LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
12,730 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION -779 AND 759
CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 -HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT -
JAMES AND KATY REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE-RRM DESIGN GROUP
Associate Planner Heffernan stated the applicant is request ing that this item be continued to a
date certain of September 5 , 2017 . It was the consensus of the Commission that the public
hearing be opened .
Vice-Chair Mack opened the meeting to the public:
Ian Johnson said this is not the location for the large structu re and is opposed to the project.
Item 10.b. - Page 59
I
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2017
PAGE 2
Christina Slimack expressed concern with having public events in the home ; security; safety ;
parking issues, excessive noise , lighting ; feels this is more appropriate on five acres ; and said
if this is approved this may set a precedent.
Daryl Berg stated the EIR for the subdivision is being ignored ; homes in the area are between
3,000 -5 ,000 square feet ; expressed concern with flooding/infrastructure; and said the
drainage basins are not big enough.
Mike Daley attested to the flooding ; is opposed to the project ; expressed concern with traffic
flow around the high school ; the venue appears to be for entertaining a lot of people; and is not
appropriate for this neighborhood.
Jason Blankenship, representing the developer, said these are custom home lots and spoke in
support of the project.
George Beckey expressed concern with noise from use of proposed recreational facilities and
noise during construction; is opposed to the project ; said this will change the character of the
existing neighborhood ; traffic in the neighborhood; this structure will not look like a single family
home and will look like a commercial structure .
Hearing no further comments, Vice-Chair Mack closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Fowler-Payne , Planning Manager Downing stated that a public
notification will be sent to adjacent neighborhoods that this item is continued to September 5 ,
2017 , at the developer's expense . The same expanded notification list will be used.
Action: Commissioner Schiro moved to continue the Consideration of Lot Merger 17-003 and
Architectural Review 16-009 ; Merger of Two (2) Lots and Construction of a New 12 ,730 Square
Foot Single Family Home ; Location -779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (Tract 3048 -Heights at
Vista Del Mar to a date certain of the September 5 , 2017 Planning Commission meeting .
Commissioner Fowler-Payne seconded , and the motion passed on the following roll call vote :
AYES:
NOES:
Schiro, Fowler-Payne , Mack
None
ABSENT: George and Martin
Chair Martin returned to the dais.
y complained about the existing median island in front of Sesloc on East Grand
Avenue and water to the ocean that could be used as recycled water. Chair Martin said
his concerns will be passe the appropriate staff.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission received the following material after prep n of the agenda :
1. Two Memos dated August 1, 2017 from Associate Pia Kelly Heffernan regarding
Agenda Item 8.a. and a copy of Tract Map 3048 .
Item 10.b. - Page 60
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
ATTACHMENT 7
nning Manager Downing presented the staff report and recommended the Planning
ission adopt a Resolution approving the street names for Subarea 2 of the East Cherry
Specifi Plan . Mr . Downing responded to questions regarding Place versus Court and in
response Commissioner Fowler-Payne 's question , Fire and Police has reviewed the street
names and c cur .
he meeting for public comment:
Shirley Gibson , asked t Commission to conside r establ ishing historical street names in
Subarea 2 of the East Cher pecific Plan.
Chair Martin closed the public com ent period .
Planning Manager Downing responded to dditional questions regarding the street names .
Action: Commissioner Martin moved to adopt resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROYO GRANDE APPROVING STREET
NAMES FOR SUBAREA 2 OF THE EAST CHERR VENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AS RAINIER
PLACE, LARIAN COURT, BROOKS PLACE AND LA
seconded the motion .
The Commission and staff discussed the street names and t t staff will go back to the
development team for establishing historical street names .
The mot ion died on the following roll call vote :
AYES: None
NOES: Martin, Schiro , Fowler-Payne ,,George , Mack
ABSENT: None '
Chair Martin recused himself from the dais due to a conflict on Item 8.a ..
chaired the meeting.
8.a. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 17-003 AND ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW 16-009; MERGER OF TWO (2) LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
12,730 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION -779 AND 759
CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 -HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT -
JAMES AND KATY REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN GROUP
Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report and recommended the Planning
Commission adopt a Resolution approving Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009
as directed by the Commission.
Staff responded to questions from the Commission regarding City 's Conditions of Approval
versus County Conditions for approval ; Des ign Guidelines ; documents that talk about
neighborhood compatibility ; grading ; fencing around the pool ; if there are association fees for
each lot of the Tract; stormwater drainage ; and the average size of homes in the development.
Item 10.b. - Page 61
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
PAGE4
Randy Russom , applicant , presented the project and stated the elevation was addressed ; the
use of the facility is a residence ; the basketball court is for the owners ' personal use ; the project
meets all the Development Standards ; and responded to questions from the Commission
regarding the HOA fees ; basketball court ; and pool cover .
Katy Redmond , owner, Castillo Del Mar , stated they are not using their home for a profit ; all
rules have been followed ; one house on two lots will have less traffic , use less water ; and
responded to Commission questions .
Director McClish clarified that the City and the County of San Luis Obispo approved the project
and the rules of the City will govern since the land is in the City .
Vice-Chair Mack opened the meeting to the public :
George Bekey , S . Via Belmonte , expressed concern with being compatible with the rest of the
neighborhood and is opposed to the project.
Daryl Berg , expressed concern for the use of the basketball court; and stated the engineer said
the basin needs to be bigger.
James Redmond , stated the project follows every rule and standard and the project is
compatible with the neighborhood .
Frank Loversky , Vista Del Mar, expressed concern with the view corridor ; questioned the
building guidelines in the CC&R 's .
Kate Carson , N. Via Firenze Court , Real Estate Broker, stated she has three disclosures that
talk about noise , traffic , etc .
Leo Craven , Gonzalo Brintrup , and Sydney Craven spoke in support of the project and the
applicants.
Shirley Gibson , said approving the project could set a precedent.
Pashmina , Via Firenze Court , referred to a slide and pointed out the elevation of the home
versus the mobile home.
Christine Slimack , stated she was told by the developer that the homes were from 3,000 -
5 ,000 square feet and stated her, and others that left the meeting , are opposed to the project;
she expressed concern with noise and parking ; this will deterrent and impact tax base ; and
drainage is an issue .
Ian Johnson said the home is out of character ; the ARC expressed their concern ; and asked
the Commission to reject the proposal.
Denise Peterson , wants to make sure the Code applies correctly and what was presented to
the adjacent residents was 3 ,000 -5 ,000 square feet.
Item 10.b. - Page 62
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
PAGES
Jason Blankenship , representing the developer, spoke in support of the project ; said there is a
building set back and the heights have been studied.
Hearing no further comments , Vice-Chair Mack closed the public hearing .
The Commission voted unanimously to continue the meeting to 11 :00 p.m.
Staff responded to additional questions from the Commission , including if there were CC&R 's
for the development ; could the house be seen from the Highway; flooding issues; and average
lot width .
Commissioner Schiro spoke in support of the location and architecture , stated the large home
w ill not decrease neighboring values.
Commissioner Fowler-Payne stated when the Commission approves 12 ,000 square foot
homes , it is unknown what will come in next ; adjacent property owners have to be considered;
the size of house is out of range for that development ; should have a good neighborhood
policy ; and is not in favor the project.
Commissioner George stated the project only meets the Guidelines if the Lot Merger is
approved; the issue for these lots merging the highest point 40 ' tall 250 wide; understands the
concerns of the neighborhood ; with regard to setting a precedent , if this is approved tonight , the
guidelines are not being changed and a precedent would not be set ; her concern is with the
massing; and cannot support the project.
Commissioner Mack expressed concern with the scale ; believes there will be a precedent set if
the lot merger is done ; supports the ARC in the findings ; and feels the massing is too big .
Action : Commissioner Fowler-Payne moved to deny the resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT
MERGER 17-003 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009; LOCATION -779 AND 759
CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 -HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR); APPLICANT -
JAMES AND KATY REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN GROUP" .
Commissioner George seconded the motion .
Commission discussion included turning the home around on Lot 1; the scale is too big; not in
support of the Lot Merger; suggested to put the basketball court lower; and feels the project has
to be compatible and talked about the size of the house.
Planning Manager Downing stated he is hearing concerns from the Commission regarding lot
width , length of house to the street, and compatibility with the neighborhood .
Action : Commissioner Fowler-Payne amended her motion to adopt the resolution entitled "A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009; LOCATION -779
AND 759 CASTILLO DEL MAR (TRACT 3048 -HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR);
APPLICANT -JAMES AND KATY REDMOND; REPRESENTATIVE -RRM DESIGN
GROUP". Commissioner George seconded the motion .
Item 10.b. - Page 63
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Fowler-Payne , George , Mack
Schiro
Martin (recused)
Chair Martin returned to the dais .
PAGE 6
Commissioner Schiro made a motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes to 11 :30 pm . The
motion was seconded by Commissioner George . The motion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Schiro, George , Fowler-Payne, Mack , Martin
None
None
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to hear Item 8.b.
b. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CASE NO. 17-003;
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16.62 OF TITLE 16 AND CHAPTER 5.95 OF TITLE 5 OF
E ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MARIJUANA AND
MA JUANA DELIVERY SERVICES
Director Mc 'sh presented the staff report and recommended the Planning Commission adopt
a Resolution re mmending the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter
16.62 of Title 16 a d Chapter 5.95 of Title 5 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code relating to
marijuana and mariju a delivery services and responded to questions from the Commission ..
Commissioner Schiro made motion to extend the meeting for 30 minutes to 12 :00 a .m. The
motion was seconded by Co issioner Mack. The motion passed on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Schiro, Mack, Fowler-Pay , George , Martin
None
None
Director McClish continued to answer questions m the Commission regarding indoor or
outdoor.
Chair Martin opened the meeting for public comment.
Cynthia Gonzalez , ElitecareSF, explained the taxing process for de· ery of marijuana.
Chief of Police Pryor responded to questions regarding regulations and
for suspected drivers "under the influence ".
process for testing
Action: Commissioner Martin moved to adopt a resolution entitled "A RESOLUTIO OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDIN THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.62 OF TITLE 16 D
CHAPTER 5.95 OF TITLE 5 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING T
Item 10.b. - Page 64
ATTACHMENT 8
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Approve~y P }u V\ 11 \ tnJ C0w >(.\' fz o V\ on 'B eptl= S , 07() l]
Oat?
Reason fo r Appea l ]fig... feuiew1.-t J {h e prV'e"h ~ pla ~ n ll1 :7 ta 1&0n 11; IO Ytt V
JI flD/0-,1 rel o tAclt ~o Jrd 114 1 pe y W1;1711 f< h '" S , t1 e!M bev& nb f k r
( I ~ ~/__ ~ p la \11<1" j "Oll/ltl<IOtlaV\ d.15-)°"J ... d and ('HM cd J,: J1 (CC 0'1
1vi ~r 4:::iaLataY\ al rnv d1 VloL1C.6 avd L)Yt'V1 ou?/v aJJvr ovcd rl o:uwi,.,"1f '> I r ' ? I I
Jh:. f la~~ 1 "'7 Lc?WIMI 5100 I" f r cpc t h ~p f L c:d' at [ •p nv~ J
ul VI~ tr111 I~ .
Peed~)\ c;Youp
Mailing Address -070 5 5 • !-L7v<."'n1; <Sf t: IOL; 'Sovi lv>v <Jh1t7;00 1 (A 1~J'j():;(
Telephone ?a 5 -5 i 3 -I 7 J 4
Fee -$790.00 Receip t No . _____ _
oate '1/!3/u17
RECEIVED
SEP 1 3 201 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C ITY O F ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 65
ATTACHMENT 9
To: Members of the Planning Commission
This letter is in reference to the merger of two lots in the Heights of Del
Mar. My wife and I built our home in 2011 in Vista Del Mar with the
expectation that we would have a nice quiet neighborhood, I now find out
we are going to have to contend with more traffic and more noise that will
be generated because of this 12, 750 sq ft complex going in. This building
looks more like a commercial enterprise than a regular residence.
My wife and I strongly disagree with this project and I suspect most of our
neighbors do also. Please do not approve this project in this quiet
neighborhood.
Thank you,
g;;~X~er
~N. Via Belmonte Ct
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 66
Frank G.Loversky
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
300 West Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: The heights at Vista del Mar --a follow up letter
I have been advised that there are purportedly no height restrictions for housing in a Arroyo
Grande residential areas and yet if the 12,500 sq. ft. residence and gymnasium were in view of
the 101 highway corridor it could not be built.
So , planning commission members who want to approve the merger of two lots, please
explain tonight your rational for allowing this "12,500 sq. ft. commercial style three story
building" that will be blocking neighbor view corridors.
Also, please explain why you choose to override city architectural committee recommendations
that this combination of two lots for a 12,500 sq. ft. monstrous building that is 31 ft. tall is not
appropriate in this community setting. How was their conclusion flawed?
And further, I would also like to know how many of you have personally met with the architect
and/or developer to listen to their persuasive arguments versus personally meeting with
concerned neighbors. Tonight's forum is entirely different from friendly one on one meetings.
Incidentally, the city mandated that Vista del Mar CC& R's include language preserving views
and this Commission could end up violating that mandate with respect to an adjoining
development. Let's be honest, logically this proposal is simply out of line with respect to both
Vista del M~r and the soon to be neighbors at the Heights at Vista del Mar.
I look forward to hearing from those commissioners who approve of this merger of two lots and
a building of this size, with respect to the questions posed above.
septeVVlbev s,2oi_7 RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 67
··~;
::}~<::~ .... ~hi
September 5, 2017
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Department
Anthony and Fabbian Detweiler
£ Coast View Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
SUBJ: Sept. 5, 2017 Planning Dept. Meeting Regarding Large Home Proposal
On Two Lots in Heights at Vista Del Mar
To the Planning Dept:
My name is Anthony Detweiler and my wife is Fabbian. We have been residents of
Arroyo Grande since 1992, although we now live just outside the city limits in Falcon
Ridge Estates. My house looks directly over Tract 3048 which has been subdivided into
23 lots, 22 of which are buildable.
It has come to our attention that you will be considering approval of an approximate
12,000 square foot house on two lots in this subdivision. Since we look directly at the
proposed house, we would like to comment on the proposal. To start, we have described
the attachments:
1. We live at 2780 Coast View Drive -see attached copy of google download.
2. We had previously made an offer to buy a lot in the new subdivision and were
provided with the draft Architectural Guidelines and CC&R' s. We have attached
page 6 of the Guidelines and the accompanying Visual Impact Restrictions
affecting the lots on which the proposed house is to be built.
3. Finally, We have attached an Excel worksheet listing the a) Closest homes to tract
3048 in both Vista Del Mar and Falcon Ridge, and b) the Largest homes in each
respective development. ,
Here is our opinion of the proposed 12,000 square foot house:
1. It is too big to fulfill the Design Guidelines which state " ... all designs are
c9mplimentary( sic) to and enhances the community character established within
the development." ·
2. Note the Visual Impact Restrictions on building on the subject lots. Although the
total lot sizes of the combined 2 lots is 2.66 acres, more than HALF of those lots
are unbuildable. This will cram the 12,000 square foot home closer to the street
which will present ·an imposing structure next to its neighboring lots and the
homes yet to be built on them.
Item 10.b. - Page 68
3. The Excel worksheet shows the largest homes in each of the neighboring
subdivisions to be 4,668 SF in Vista Del Mar and 7,897 SF in Falcon Ridge,
which has much larger lot sizes. Nothing is even close to 12,000 square feet.
4. When looking at the building size as a percent of lot size, the proposed home
occupies a hefty 10.36% of the total lot. But when measuring the amount of the
BUILDABLE lot, that number grows to 21.19%, far greater than any ratio in
either neighboring developments.
So, our recommendation is that the Planning Department disapproves the current
proposal and request that the owners submit a scaled down version of their dream home.
Thanks for your attention.
Item 10.b. - Page 69
Untitled Map Legend
~ 2780 Coast View Dr
~ Arroyo Grande, CA
Item 10.b. - Page 70
I. THE HEIGHTS AT VISTA· DEL MAR INTRODUCTION
The Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision, Tract 3048, is comprised of 22 custom residential lots located above an
existing home development, Vista Del Mar, which is within the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo.
Development of the property is governed by the City of Arroyo Grande's zoning ordinances, building codes, grading
codes and planning regulations. The Heights at Vista Del Mar development is also subject to the Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions of the subdivision as well as the Design Guidelines contained herein.
II. PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Design Guidelines for lots within Tract 3048 of The Heights at Vista Del Mar have been prepared by The
Heights at Vista Del Mar as a tool to implement certain design standards and development expectations on the
-Ll,_..,property and to insure a quality product. ~ected that all designs are complimentary to and enhances the
Y" community chara~established within the development These Guidelines are intended to provide site, landscape
aDCfaraiitectural guidance for residential development proposed within Tract 3048.
The Design Guidelines for the Heights at Vista Del Mar is a manual of design directives and approval procedures
for development within The Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision.. Property Owners and Applicants should
familiarize themselves with this document to ensure that their proposed project is in compliance with the design
standards and development expectations of The Heights at Vista Del Mar.
These Guidelines are a portion of a larger set of restrictive covenants governing development at The Heights at
Vista Del Mar, the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of The Heights at Vista Del Mar"
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Luis Obispo County on December 16, 2015.
Architectural Review Board
In Compliance with California Civil Code §1378, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has adopted the following
Architectural Review procedures. Any and all improvements with The Heights at Vista Del Mar, including initial
construction, or improvements and any change to the exterior of their unit, shall be subject to architectural approval
by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of The Heights at Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association (TH@VDMHOA) in
accordance with the provisions of The Heights at Vista Del Mar CC&Rs and these Design Guidelines.
The Architectural Review Board is comprised of volunteer citizens whose professional backgrounds are typically in
the fields of design; architecture and/or real estate development The ARB shall have the responsibility in determining
whether a project substantially complies with the Design Guidelines for Tract 3048. The ARB has considerable
discretion in. making that determination and can take into account special circumstances which may make the strict
application of the Guidelines impractical and/or suggest alternative methods to achieve the intent of a particular
Guideline standard. Grievances of decisions made by the Architectural Review Board may be appealed as described in
the CG&R's for The Heights at Vista Del Mar.
The ARB members shall not be liable for damages to any person submitting plans or specifications for approval. The
ARB members shall not be liable for damages to any owner by reason of mistakes in judgment, negligence or non-
feasibility, failure to approve or disapprove any such plans or_ specifications. Architectural and landscape plans for new
··-···-·--·····-·-····------~·--·----····---·----·· ·------·--------··--·------. ·--------···· -----···· ·-·-··------~·. ------------------·--· -------------·--··------·-------
6 IP age
The Heights at VJSta Del Mar -Design Guidelines
Item 10.b. - Page 71
// ,.... ... I .;, ,. I ( ..... ;., .......... ..
,..' '~ // / ·,·:·::···;···l·.·.-.J-.{.',:.:'·.:.:·.·.r~.i.1,'.::.·,·,:·:_'.·,·,·.· .. :·_~:·:·:.("·······-··· •. :<\ .. ·.;'..\ .. > .! ·· ..... '\..:·.'.~\().;· .... \,, 't:;·· ......
// / i) t; .. · .•. · .. r·,;~;l, );c:~~~:~.·1.·::::,:,:~~/: ... ·\ .......... "·
,;(' !o ~ \ J•'~ ) -. 1•" I.: '•,I \1 ,,! '• ,,-~· I \
/ • ---.....
1
., .... ·' ~ ', ,. ' • ·•' J '1 I ~ ~ I _, \ / \ ---..._ • t ,..,,I" i ' ' t. JI { .._..,,, r( _,...,. ' LOT 7 / \ , .... \ I ... i "-!.· ' , ..... " •, / .--'-..,, \ \ ) ' LOT6 I ., ___ • ....... , .. j'"\ , .. ·' "•'\ , .. ,; .. 1 -., \.~·~.·:·,·.
' '/· / \' ""'---\ / / \ ..... • , I "
. ". . ~ I LOT 8 I)\ ,,........ -----•::. I LOT 5 I ., . ""' ' '._~ (',' \;I;;
'• ! \ / --I,..,._ \ ~ / 'i~., .. t "1 ('I \ -.,,_ t' ""~;' ' ' ~.,,, y''-.,.., ...____ I \f vn111~ .. -·-·---·-·•• --·---;:;---'1..._.,lo r \ \ ? J', ('1 ~· ••,t · 'L ' 'c •.'' I I I I : ' ~ . .._ \ t, ' '"'' "' " 'I l /' "/ QT,10 '// : f . Ir ·, '/ : . : ' '· \,,,' /'---....... ; r,1'• '\,} CJ' ~~\ ,.,. ' •' ' •,, x I ~ I ' ' , ' -... I LOT 4 \ I l ' ' ,\ ' ' '"-., /~.-----', /,···. I::' i "'; !'-........ \ jt., .' ("•" (\I,'\ -·:.:.:r.;-·\,,..,,,
•/ v \ ' . I " " ' t ' ' I ' ' ' \ ' . " -----l,, ·•• r' r I \ I ""'-~:~,.-··-···--.··.·.1 ...... , .. , ~A .. ,,~~ ··l,., , '1 :, __ .-//' "°,.,L ... O':-r, 9. '.. r1 ·\. • , • I . \ \ r ,· '~......... . ...... ''· . .,.,,;:v~··' .... , {~ ..... . "". . ,
,.,, .. .,..., ·,• ·· ' · · ~· · · · 8 u '/i LOT7· ;· 'l-,, ; ---,·,, "0 1• ,·_ '--~· ..... . ' ' •, ..... . '" ' \ / ' . ' ---IJ. ' . • I I t "'-, \, / \ "\ ' • -I .. y~~<:>·, ,.,.-· /· ./ I _I : ; / r' ····: ,-P. {VG "· '.. . . LOT 6 . . , ,-.. ,....... \ LOT3 I ... c \ •,, .... ~-""'~
'··-:.. '-'· -<---... ·'·< · / J i .1 L·a·T ali;· f .... J.f./·1 " .. <_ .. · : · · -.... ""'---"' ,,, . .,, ·. I ' ............... ' ' ' • ' . ' ~·1 71 . I " l ... \ ) ' ' : \ . ·<> ... -.........~ ......... ." . j / /i / l ;, '1 , I l.1rv LOTS . \ , "'·~ ., .. _.\ -:.;\• ...... ~· ~ .. \
" ,. · ... .-.,'..._, ·. '-.::. " I /' ' ,. " I I · ~ ' ' ~·-._ .. «"· i ,. ··, r"" -• . \ ". ··-_'·,::::::::...:~:-~>--v ,. I ,/.'. tflliJJ' I . i1fMjf' ..... j ~LoT 4 ;; rs,· .. {<.. -, ,,.1..--~·l " ""·
' ' ' / .... ~:--:_", .,-..., ' . I ' : . 295' I . 't'! -. -~~~ ; ..... , I I \ i . : / ·:. :-.....:<"-·, ' ·1 · / 1 / • 295 , . ;v If/&/ 1 t ....... \· . 1 , LOT 2 / ,.. , .. ,,, ,, .. ' ./, ,·'· .. -......... -....:_,,'·,·;..,_' ii ,, D ' I " p, /ii .•.•.•. _{ ''"· ""'---"'··, f. I "· i
• / ,' '•,\ '\-','-.' ·"· ., I/ :I , ,: I I 295' . I. '/1 j ? ........ ,. ·"-:'.;-, I ". JU t,., ( i
. , . , . '', \ '"I",,'..._'--.'.:·-......'' \ ii , ' I , 290' U'f I r~nr.3·11 .,., ?) , ... '•. ' .... , '· .... ' I
/ ./ .... 1 ·. ··1.. ·"'-':-<· ~'<>·-.· · / '·"----"' '1t'i i.-=-==-1 / -, 290' 1
1 ,.IW-! · .J , i .>' ':.: ........ · \ · -\" .... -\ ,.-···· .... 1
\ ', ' 1 I \ -.,~ ~ ... , ........ ~ .......... _ ---\ JJ 1: ...... 'ff ' I I I ,• ( •, ' • \, j ~ /~ ·.' I I ' ' \' ·~-·· ~ ----·----·---.,. !... '/.~ ' I! ""'Iii' I '" . '· '[ .' "• .,,.. ';,,/ ,,· i-'..,.,,~"'· ..... i i ' j '.,. -~, /~·:.-:::~-----"'·'--'------~L.~::~---::··.::.._~ .. j I,; //J / '.:_, ... \ : .. : I ,_. '' ·1· '\ ' .. ·;·~_£;) ··<
(; ·--I.. : .. .....,; •• • • ! :/ • r---=:::::.:..:..-·===:::-:::::::-:.::::: --:-~__; " z:. I. (. ...... ;1 -?, '·, .. , I LOT 1 \ . '
\,·: ":!._. ·-· ·-1
-.....;_ _:-. ·.;, • 1, /{i r·--------. ", ... ""':. :~-::-.. ·.--~~:.:::·-.. -,-~===>:-......:. 4
1i / ~*' ·:.:-~.1 , LOT 2 / \)(.if'.~:~\" _)i ...
' • ' ~ : '-..~--' ' I ' I --" . \ -......... --.__. -..... • I '' ""\• '' --·" "' \ I·~,' , I /...... ' ..:i. I ' \ .. --··-... , JJ ._ .. -..... ... , ~~. 0 -... /·, l .i···,, Ii 1 '•,\""Kt' \\ i.;,~
\, .'-., • , ·; : -~ I ·, ' 1
.• _ • _, ///// .~---, .. ~-... / l,, ,I I · I ', .·'<;.~\ ,,
\ . \ I ·.,I< ~ f \ \ \ \. , : .... /,jl/j/,., ·' ... · ' )-....::.::<~ .-::--:...::::__::-·-... ·::··.. . ·! / / '• .. c•·r''"; . ., ,.-"· ...
\· ' I · I \ · • ·\ · I 'j/ ' ' I ~·-. · '·.'I .. '· . .. •• .,_,,. .. K..,_,-""• '• . ...... ...... -~\I "\1
• ... "i I : \ .\ \ " .. · ,\ / ///1/' I: \ ! . " :.. . ~:::.:_::. :-,-_-:-:.~~; -~ ..... : ··-LOT 1: >~...........__
: '. ) . i \ \ \ . \ \ / 0 l/, I :, ' I I : ! . . . -...::::_-.....__ ...... :::·-----..... )) \ ' "· . '· .~\ ~.. ~·"--· ' l )1 J 1 • \ \ .. / ,. /1n1 :/: I · 1 ~ f! .. 1 . · -.... ~.... ·') ·, · . "°;·· / \ ; \-" ~ I I '\ . I. ( I/ ;· 'f" I ... 7-;--: .... ---.----- . -' -~. ' I 'i y ·/~~~~~-~~--:~~:~'"/Jf;~-'/C~···r:~:·:~i /:-. ~'yt~1'~),; .· '~'l:.i \ / / / · · • .. /,///'/I/·; 1, J r /• 1 r .\, 1J :: 1.· ·~\, t~~ \ I / .. / / r,:,// ! ~-·1--~.t~.:..,' I /' ! , ••• ,,,. ' ••• 1 ~/. •.
.... ······"'
• .. , ......... ,
·1 ....
LEGEND THE HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR
NOTE: FOR ALL LOTS BUILDING HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO 35' MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ABOVE NATURAL GRADE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
(~~;-1) LOT NUMBER PERTENTATIVETRACT1789 ..... __ _
LOT1 NEW LOT NUMBER PER PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 3048
II!!!!-!!!!!!!! :_ __ J HEIGHT CANNOT EXCEED 295' ABOVE MSL
~ HEIGHT CANNOT EXCEED 290' ABOVE MSL
;~·;-::~-·:.ll
·•· .••. ·'ii HEIGHT CANNOT EXCEED 25' ABOVE NATURAL GRADE ~" ...... ~ ..... ,...'.}
Arroyo Grande, CA
VISUAL IMPACT RESTRICTIONS
CONDITIONS #27-H,l,J & L
GRAPHIC SCALE
200' O' 1 OD'. 200' ---1--
·--I SCALE 1" = 200' WALIACE GROUP
JUNE21,2013 Item 10.b. - Page 72
DATA FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PLANNING MEETING
House and Lot Sizes in Tracts
Surrounding The Heights At Vista Del Mar
Data Taken from Zillow.com
Tract Address
Falcon Ridge
Closest 2755 Coast View Drive
Closest 2765 Coast View Drive
Closest 2780 Coast View Drive
Closest 2775 Coast View Drive
Closest 2770 Coast View Drive
LARGEST 280 Falcon Crest Drive
Vista Del Mar
Closest 605 S. Via Belmonte Court
Closest 503 N. Via Belmonte Court
Closest 509 N Via Belmonte Court
Closest 615 S. Via Belmonte Court
LARGEST 637 S Via Belmonte Court
Heights at Vista Del Mar
PROPOSED New House as% of Total Lot
PROPOSED New House as% of Buildable Lot Portion
CC&R Min Minimum house size
Sq Feet BRs
6,015 6
5,100 5
5,400 4
5,794 4
3,756 3
7,897 3
3,730 4
'4,108 4
3,441 4
3,071 4
4,668 5
12,000 ?
12,000 ?
2,800
Lot Size Building Ratio
Baths Acres Square Feet to Lot(%)
6 2.60 113,256 5.31%
3.5 2.58 112,385 4.54%
4.5 3.71 161,608 3.34%
4.5 3.49 152,024 3.81%
2.5 5.00 217,800 1.72%
5 2.51 109,336 7.22%
4 0.85 37,026 10.07%
2.5 0.65 28,314 14.51%
3.5 0.60 26,136 13.17%
2.5 0.48 20,909 14.69%
7.5 1.23 53,579 8.71%
? 2.66 115,870 10.36%
? 1.30 56,628 21.19%
1.00 43,560 6.43%
Item 10.b. - Page 73
Jon Cramer
~So. Via Avante
Arroyo Grande, Ca.
City of Arroyo Grande; Planning Commission
Re: Lot Merger of 779 I 759 Castillo Del Mar
James and Katy Redmond, Arroyo Grande
This is in response to the hearing Sept. 5, 2017 in regards to Lot merger at 779
and 759 Castillo Del Mar which has a Gymnasium included in its plan ..
In my opinion this plan of a gymnasium does not meet the general plan of
Arroyo Grande, because of its nature to have the possibility to be a public
facility in a residential neighborhood.
Basketball is made up of 5 players in which two teams play each other, with this
being said that is 10 players of which if it is children, or adults for that matter, the
possibility of spectators is evident to happen which then if parents, is another 20
people and with 2. coaches and 2 referees would be a total of 34 participants in
the event, this would then have a possibility of 12 vehicles on our street at one
home.
With this in mind, we also could have~ .tournament, just for fun, which normally
is 8 teams, which then would have 130 people and 48 vehicles on our street in a
residential neighborho,0d .
Because of my assessment, that it has the possibility of a public facility, I ask the
Planning. Commission to "Deny the Lot merger".
JonCrametc;1~ RECEIVED
AUG 3 i ··2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 74
August 29, 2017 RE: Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009
The Heights at Vista Del Mar-Tract 3048
Dear City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission;
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter to you & your commission. I want to be clear to each of
you that I am writing to you now as a 20+ year citizen of Arroyo Grande, and not as a representative of
the Architectural Review Commission, of which I am an active member. I have no vested interest or
direct or indirect involvement with the project.
This project, the 12,700 Sq. Foot residence proposed at759 and 779 Castillo Del Mar -part of the 22 lots
proposed as part of the Vista Del Mar Heights TRACT-is a project that presents some difficulty in
processing and consideration. I know thatthere are many factors in play-among them-people's
individual property rights and governments' regulatory role-which make it that much more difficult to
process.
I have heard several things from each of you during this review process-and I know the inherent
difficulty when you are being asked to look 'beyond" what the zoning standards call for and decide if a
new project actually "fits" within its surrounding neighborhood. Regardless of the fact the applicant
has bought 2 lots to spread their massive home over does not entitle them to not conform with the
surrounding home sizes & scale in the tract. They could build two 6,0.00 Square Foot homes adjacent to
each other and I would not find objection.
Though the Design Guidelines for this tract or any other guidance document or planning restriction
doesn't specifically define maximum and minimum .house sizes, the over-riding determinant becomes
does it fit-in and conform to the immediate neighborhood. Clearly, the sheer size of this house will
make it out-of-scale to the neighborhood.
As you know, The City of AG's ARC-voted unanimously-5-0 to deny the project based almost entirely
based on the mass of the building. The ARC liked the architecture, the design elements, the landsc::aping,
the layout-but could not accept this massive size of a house within a neighborhood. If the house was
outside of a tract-and on an individual lot-then fine. This house, while certainly beautiful, does not
meet the size nor scale of its surrounding neighborhood. The largest house of the 4 houses that have
thus far been approved by the ARC in the Heights at Vista Del Mar tract is approximately 5,900 Sq Ft.
This proposed house is more than double the largest approved house in the tract. It is also more than
double the size of any existing house in the adjacent Vista Del Mar tract. Yes-perhaps Falcon Ridge has
some huge houses, but that is not part of this configuration. This house is nearly as big as the South
County Community Center. Approaching 200 feet in length it is very, very long. It does not fit into this
primarily 1 acre lot neighborhood.
Some of the rationale I had heard some of you make in previous discussion, was that it meets the Floor
Area Ratio and the Lot Coverage allowances. Those numbers clearly do not work for this configuration
and consideration-because if you did allow those numbers to strictly guide you-then this developer
could submit a house as big as 40,000 to 50,000 Sq. Ft. on their now merged 2.66 Acres= 115,869 Sq Ft
lot. That is preposterous.
• Floor Area Ratio: 45% --= 52,141 Sq Ft
• Lot Coverage: 35%= 40,554 Sq. Ft.
Item 10.b. - Page 75
August 29, 2017 RE: Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009
The Heights at Vista Del Mar-Tract 3048
Furthermore-Robin Ventura may indeed have a 14,000-square foot house. I am sure there are other
extremely large houses we know of that exist here in SLO County or maybe even in the City of AG. But-
none of those enormous houses are part of atract or neighborhood. That is the difference.
The applicants, and the Architect-both respective members of our community, have done a fine job
designing this beautiful dream house. It is amazing. I truly hope they are able to someday build that
dream house. But not here. This is a tract, a neighborhood. A very beautiful and scenic neighborhood,
where all the houses are similar in size and scale. Don't approve this enormous house as part of the
tract. It would not be fair or justified to those other home owners in this tract.
I urge you to please re-look your position on this property and see the over-riding lack of compatibility
with its surroundings as the basis for denial of the project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully yours-
Bruce Berlin
Item 10.b. - Page 76
Frank G.Loversky
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
300 West Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Re: The Heights of Vista del Mar
The combining of two lots to build a 12,500 square foot complex is not in keeping
with a residential neighborhood. A huge gymnasium is out of place considering its
massive structure and height requirement; it would most certainly block views
from other lots in the development. Additionally, If the gym were to be used for
commercial purposes in a residential neighborhood it would most certainly
violate properly written CC& R's .
Every neighbor bordering the development on S. Via Belmonte Ct. has indicated
they do not want a huge blah structure hovering above them. It is not suitable in
our residential setting.
Additionally, because of the terracing of the Heights, at least one of our neighbors
yard is still subject to flooding during the rainy season. We can only assume the
roof runoff on such a large building will only exasperate the problem.
Some concepts seem good, but when explored for reasonableness simply do not
make sense. This is one of them.
August .23, 2017
RECEIVED
AUG 2 8 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 77
·July 31, 2017
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Commission
300 West Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
RE: Consideration of Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger of two lots
and construction of a new 12,730 sq. ft. home at 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (Tract
3048 -Heights at Vista Del Mar). ·
Dear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,
As homeowners within the adjacent Vista Del Mar neighborhood, this letter is respectfully
submitted to express our concerns regarding the proposed project referenced above that will be
considered at the Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday August 1, 2017. These concerns
include:
1. In general, the proposed structure I home does not conform to the existing residential
structures typical of the Vista Del Mar neighborhood or the type of residential
development described in the Environmental Impact Report associated with the Heights
at Vista Del Mar project. We believe the proposed structure would be highly visible,
aesthetically disconnected from the existing neighborhood, and would be more suitably
built on a sizable property outside of residential cluster developments.
2. It our understanding that the project proponents indicate the property is intended for
personal I residential use. However, in consideration of the size and facilities within the
proposed structure (basketball court, locker room, sky box, theater, etc.), the structure
appears to be designed with the intent to hold events I host large groups. To allow
comparison, the building footprint of the South County Regional Center on W. Branch
Street is 11,420 square feet. This makes the proposed project larger than the City's
biggest community center.
The potential for large events raises concerns related to parking, traffic, safety, and
noise for current and future neighbors within our residential developments. In the event
of an emergency, the ingress I egress routes for both Vista Del Mar and Heights at Vista
Del Mar neighborhoods are already limited, and are particularly strained during peak
high school traffic times. We are aware that there is also a possibility for another project
associated with the church on Orchard St., which may include housing and/or sports
facilities. We would strongly encourage the Planning Commission to consider the
current project along with any other projects that may be in early approval stages,
particularly in regard to traffic and safety impacts. ·
3. Should the proposed project be approved, we have concerns about what could happen
with such a large structure at a future time when the current owners choose to sell or no
longer own the property. Finding a suitable buyer for the sizable structure could be
proble-matic, leaving a large, empty, and possibly unmaintained property within the
neighborhood. Further, even if the current owners indicate personal use only, a future
owner may have the intent to utilize the property for large groups I events.
If the proposed project is approved, we would encourage the Planning Commission to
consider applying restrictions not only to the current project, but to the property itself that
Page 1 of 2
Item 10.b. - Page 78
would prohibit the structure from being used as an event facility. -This could possibly be
done by a deed or lot restriction, with the goal being to provide current and future
neighbors assurance, in perpetuity, that the structure will only be utilized for residential
purposes and not as an events facility.
We urge the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission to fully consider the various, and potentially
negative impacts, that the proposed lot merger and site construction may have on the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our
comments and concerns.
Respectfully,
Marcie and Jeff Merksamer
Vista Del Mar Homeowners
-S. Via Belmonte Ct.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Page 2 of 2
Item 10.b. - Page 79
VISTA DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
-Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo CA 93405
Ace; J
July 28, 2011
RE: Consideration of Lot merger l 7=003 and Architectural review 16-009;
Merger of two lots and construction ofa new 12,730 sq. ft. home at
779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar {Tract 3048 -Heights at Vista Del Mar).
Dear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,
t
the Board of Directors of Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association is opposed to the above
referenced consideration oflot merger. Many, if not all, of the homeowners within Vista Del Mar
Homeowners Association also oppose this project. We have requested their individual signatures
via email and have attached them to this letter .
. W J:Jeel this project does not meet with existing home plans of The Heights at Vista Del Mar, or
the homes within Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association. This type of structure either belongs
in a commercial zone, or on a sizable property away from planned development. In comparison
the building footprint of the South County Regional Center on W. Branch Street is 11,420 sq. ft.
making the proposed home larger than the City's biggest community center. There are additional
concerns in regards to the intended usage of the project and the potential to hold large events on
site which could create significant safety, traffic, and noise related issues for the surrounding
ileighborhood(s).
F:or these reasons we urge the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission to reject this
... :1·1·.
coilsid(!ration of lot merger.
· .. ! ~ ~ \. I
' ..
Sincerely,
Vista Del Mar Homeowners
RECEIVED
JUL 3 12017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Item 10.b. - Page 80
Cory Bauer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
To Whom It May Concern,
(
Cindy Fowler >
Saturday, July 29, 2017 11:11 PM
Cory Bauer·
Re: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Follow up
Flagged
ihave ma'ny concerns regarding the proposed property in question. At this moment In time, I am completely
opposed to this project. I feel there is not enough transparency regarding the plans for the property. We have
liJO IDEA if it is for a single family and their usage, or is it going to be used as a church with many followers,
6r as a sports complex for large groups of people and team sports, or for large parties/events??? ... it would be
~ice to know what the intentions are.
f~ los'.~rl~~,~\.~1; houses like this are being used as Party Houses. They are owned by someone who then leases
it out to Event Planners for large, uncontrollable parties, where there is alcohol, loud music, massive amounts
of people and cars, that have NO RESPECT for any of the surrounding neighbors. Look it up. My own sister has
a frienc! who is in this line of business, and they don't tell surrounding homeowners their intentions before the
c;lty signs off on their proposed building plans. They make large amounts of money from these parties/events
and do not care about the aftermath.
b
My major:concem regarding this proposed property is the impact it will have on MY property value when I am
ready to. sell my home. If there are large events with noise and crowds/traffic, who would want to buy my
House??. Even when Castillo Del Mar was a dead end road, there were already issues with sex, drugs and
lpiterin.g. With The Heights becoming a gated community, I feel we will have all of their overflow traffic right
butsid·e:my kitchen door. I already feel like I have no privacy, and I know this will bring more shady individuals
::-·.·,.
Into MY. multi-million dollar neighborhood.
l'
I: propose that Vista Del Mar become a gated community as well, to protect and give us a say into who enters
qur neighborhood. Fair is fair!!!
r
Thank you,
the Fowler Family -N Via:.Belmonte Ct. -formerly the very top of the hill
\ . ~ . . ~
'. ·~ • : : f '
,, ________________________________________ _
.·
from: ,___ ------------
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:40 AM
:
' 1
ii
~~
'
Item 10.b. - Page 81
Cory Bauer
From:
______ _...,,.
Sent
To:
Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:11 AM
Cory Bauer
Subject Re: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Jon and Susan Cramer at-So. Via Avante, Arroyo Grande Ca. Of Visa Del Mar homeowner's support the
letter to Arroyo Grande Planning Commission in urging the commission to reject the lot merger.
'-· --4.\, ,;.:>
Jon.and Susan Cramer ...
5 . ·t:
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphonc
F U
f------Original message ------
From:~ ........ ~-~Date: 7/28/17 10:40 AM (GMT-08:00)
To:····-----
$.ubject: ~roposed Lot Merger -The Heights
. ... .
Dear VistaDel·Mar Homeowner,
1.\.s you are most likely aware the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Tuesday
August 1st at 6:00pm to continue consideration of Lot merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger
of two lots and construction of a new 12,730 square foot home; location 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (The
Heights) ..
We hope that you will all be able to attend the hearing and have your voice heard in regards to the project. In
kidition· \6 attending, we plan to submit the attached letter to the Planning Commission in advance of the
iheeting. Please take a moment to respond to this email with your support. All replies will be submitted along
,~ith the letter to the Planning Commission. Please respond no later than 12:00pm on Tuesday August l st.
On Bel;alf ofthe Board of Directors,
Cory Ba tier,· CCAM® I Community Association Manager
The Management Trust
,_Madonna Road • San Luis Obispo, California 93405
1 Item 10.b. - Page 82
Cory Bauer
from:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Cory,
Saturday, July 29, 2017 7:14 AM
Cory Bauer
Re: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Follow up
Flagged
~}eve amHare very much opposed to the plans to build the large home with commercial features in our small quiet
mighborhood. We support the Board's position on this matter. We are unfortunately unable to attend the Planning
f.pmmission meeting. We would appreciate the Board representing us in this matter at the meeting.
j5ind Regards,
~teven & Karen Ruhl
~ S Via Firenze Ct.
AG
F J;;,
f; -~l tr.1~;
~,On Jul:28, 2017, at 10:44, ............. .
~:Dear Vilsta-Del Mar Homeowner,
:a -_;. ,,
~ As you,are most likely aware the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Tuesday August
q.st at 6:00pm to continue consideration of Lot merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger of two lots and
c:onstruction of a new 12,730 square foot home; location 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (The Heights).
>
? We hope that you will all be able to attend the hearing and have your voice heard in regards to the project. In addition
tc;> attendi!'lg, we plan to submit the attached letter to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. Please take a
moment to respond to this email with your support. All replies will be submitted along with the letter to the Planning
Commission. Please respond no later than 12:00pm on Tuesday August 1st.
;> :-_. t : -·~. ·• ·: ..
~-On Behalf of the Board of Directors,
> ··-"'!."
>Cory Bauer, CCAM 19 I Community Association Manager The Management Trust
>. -Madonna Road • San Luis Obispo, California 93405
~ ....
~<Planning Commission Reject Lot Merger 2017-07.pdf>
:;..
l Item 10.b. - Page 83
Cory Bauer
from:
Sent
To:
Friday, July 28, 2017 12:32 PM
Cory Bauer
S.ubject: Re: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
I offer my support.
( z ,!
Follow up
Flagged
"Also, I anrnot sure if you have George and Shirley Be key on your email list. They both are in support of this response
~~ainst the lot merge. The Bekey's live at •s Via Belmonte Ct.
s
f?,a~I Berg
5, <t:
F1 , Up i ·-.
F. ~,;_,_5
>On Jul 28, 2017, at 10:40 AM,
>
----~
:> Dear Vista Del Mar Homeowner,
wrote:
:> ,. '
?::As yo_u;are most likely aware the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Tuesday August
~~tat G:OQpm to continue consideration of Lot merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger of two lots and
~_onstruction of a new 12, 730 square foot home; location 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (The Heights).
~i. ·'''.,
~ We hope that you will all be able to attend the hearing and have your voice he1ird in regards to the project. In addition
fo attending, we plan to submit the attached letter to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. Please take a
momenUo respond to this email with your support. All replies will be submitted along with the letter to the Planning
f .,,.,_.\
~ommiss_ir;m. Please respond no later than 12:00pm on Tuesday August 1st.
> : :.· ~
>On Behalf of the Board of Directors,
:>
;-. Cory Bau~r, CCAM® I Community Association Manager The Management Trust
-~:_..Madonna Road • San Luis Obispo, California 93405
!?,F9'1 I . • ••• , ., ••••
~«Phmning· Commission Reject Lot Merger 2017-07.pdf>
.,. ..
~,
u:
··'
1 Item 10.b. - Page 84
Cory Bauer
From:
Sent
To:
Friday, July 28, 201711:05 AM
Cory Bauer
Subject: Re: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
We are opposed to the referenced project at the Heights above Vista Del Mar. We feel it is
ibappfbpr.iate in size for our type of community. We are concerned about additional traffic, noise
~ . ,;~":;.~--~~~ -: ¥.. •
and the non conforming nature of the project. _
f• ~
"' EJob and Carolyn Larson
}'ista del Mar homeowners
Carolyn
n ,1tus
dn FriJ;iy,iJ~ryjg:·20J7, 10:40:33 AM PDT, <a•• ii ~ ·~ ··\;~~~H-::.·2· ~ < •
.rotN~ . : ... ~-:~ .. ·;,.:,:-:-..-,t. • a : .~: ~ L. :· '
pear Vista Del Mar Homeowner,
•••••••>wrote:
ks you are' most likely aware the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Tuesday August 1st at 6:00pm
~Q continue consideration of Lot merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger of two lots and construction of a new
1'2,730 square foot home; location 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (The Heights).
We hope that you will all be able to attend the hearing and have your voice heard in regards to the project. In addition to attending, we
plan to submit the attached letter to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. Please take a moment to respond to this
email with your support. All replies will be submitted along with the letter to the Planning Commission. Please respond no later than
I 2:00pm on Tuesday August 1st.
On Behal{of·tbe :Board of Directors,
<~· ..... :!~ .. =. ': .:··.: .
-C:;ory Ba.uer;:tcAM® I Community Association Manager
The Management Trust
~Mad~nna Road• San Luis Obispo, California 93405
.;. . '
1 Item 10.b. - Page 85
Cory Bauer
From: ................ >
Sent:
To:
Friday, July 28, 2017 10:48 AM
Cory Bauer
Cc:
Subject: RE: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
tii Corey, -'
Follow up
Flagged
Ed Cox and Susan Cox at•s. Via Avante agree with your letter. We are Opposed to the lot merger proposal in Tract
'' g048.
T
E-d Cox
f .J. . . '
f:p's \¥.e~ttf;?:JClick Here)
Niew my;profile
-----Original Message--·
From:••••••••••••
-Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:40 AM fo:·-------~ubject: Proposed Lot Merger -The Heights
Dear Vista Del Mar Homeowner,
'· §; _,_;)[L-".H'.•?·
As yi:>IJ ~.r.~irn9St :likely aware the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on Tuesday August 1st
~t 6:00pi,r;i~o continue consideration of Lot merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; Merger of two lots and
construc;ti.o.n·of a new 12, 730 square foot home; location 779 and 759 Castillo Del Mar (The Heights).
We hope that you will all be able to attend the hearing and have your voice heard in regards to the project. In addition
to attending, we plan to submit the attached letter to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. Please take a
momentto respond to this email with your support. All replies will be submitted along with the letter to the Planning
f:ommis~iqn. Please respond no later than 12:00pm on Tuesday August 1st.
bn Behalf of the Board of Directors,
Cory Bauer; CCAM® I Community Association Manager The Management Trust
... Madonna Road • San Luis Obispo, ,California 93405 _.
: t·
1 Item 10.b. - Page 86
July 27, 2017
Jon and Susan Cramer
~Scl.Via Avante Ct.
Arroyo Grande, ·ca. 93420
Home Owner Vista Del Mar
To: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
Re: Consideration of Lot merger 17=003 and Architectural review 16-009;
And merger of two lots and construction of a new 12,730 sq. ft. home at779 and
759 Castillo Del Mar {Tract 3048 -Heights at Vista Del Mar).
We agree completely with the attached letter, from our concerned neighbor,
being against the above consideration of lot merger.
---------.
We feel this project does not meet with existing home plans of The Heights at
Vista Del Mar, or the homes already existing at Vista Del Mar. This type of
structure either belongs in a commercial zone, or on a sizable property away from
planned development.
We-urge the Arroyo Grande Planning Commission to
l .
"REJECT THIS CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER"
""··~·.-· ' -..
REGEN.ED
JUL 2 7 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Item 10.b. - Page 87
Dear Neighbor,
I
You may k~ow th t there is a new development in your neighborhood. There is a proposed project (home) in that new
neighborlipod th t could seriously jeopardize the character of your existing neighborhood in important ways, and most
importantly unde mine your safety and security. Someone from outside the Arroyo Grande area has purchased two lots in the
Heights atlVista d I Mar tha_t he plans to combine into one, and develop a gigantic 12,000 square foot home and sports
, •. ·complex1:1?at will eemingly also hold seve:ral functions, similar to a Community Center in a quiet residential area.
(rhis image,shows e basketball =urt on the right (indoor, with outdoor "stadium" seating} and a "skybox" similar to a scorekeeper's box or
press box i1side ad cent to the court. The house plans call for" commercial" doors throughout the house.)
As planne~, this 12,000 square foot structure will not only be extremely out of character for your neighborhood, but would
cause serif us tra 1c, safety and noise issues. The entertaining areas of this home, which include a commercial size indoor
basketballlcourt, ith a viewing skybox and several commercial size doors flowing out from it onto a roughly so· foot outside
stadium seiating, nd outdoor pool, which occupy the front of the home and face out to the street, wiU bring many non-
re_sidents ir. and ut of this quiet neighborhood, causing noise and parking issues, not to mention security conc~ms. These
plans are qlearly ot neighborhood compatible to the existing Vista Del Mar development or the new Heights of Vista Del Mar
neighborhpod, w ich thus far has three submitted plans of three homes all ranging from 4000 to 5000 square feet, not 12,000
feet. For these r asons, this proposed home plan was rejected not once, but twice by the ARC (Architectural Review Board of
I
Arroyo Grande). The However, the. outsider continues to push for variances for what amounts to a Commercial structure in a
residential! neigh orhood. He has now appealed to the Planning Commission for approval, seeking exceptions to longstanding
I
standards fhat ha e been valued by you, and give our neighborhood its warm and friendly character. The ARC's official
recomme~dation o the Planning Commission is to outright reject this proposed home project of 12,000 square feet. The
Planning Gomm is ion met in June and tabled their decision, calling for a public hearing and notification to all of you, the
I
existing residents for their next meeting on Tuesday, August 1, at 6:00 pm, where they will make a final decision as to whether
they apprJve or r ject this home's proposed plans.
I
We are all,in favo of a vibrant and beautiful development of our community as long as it complies with long standing zoning,
neighborhpod co patibility, safety, and security standards of our neighborhood. But we are not in favor of building what
amounts tb the si e of a Commercial structure that requires numerous zoning variances in our beautiful neighborhood.
If you are Lnce ed about how this over-developed home could affect your family's comfort, safety, and security, please
attend th1 Planni g Commission meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 6:00 pm! The meeting will be held at
qity Co ncil Chambers
2115 E. ranch Street
/11.rroyo rande, CA 93420
I The greater pres nee we, the ·people of our lovely community that we all cherish, make at this upcom_ing meeting, the greater
the influe1ce we ave to prevent this home's plans from being approved and prevent our neighborhood from being
jeopardizld bys fety, security and noise issues.
I
Sincerely, I
A Conce~ed Citi en
I
I
l
I
Item 10.b. - Page 88
July 17, 2017
TO: ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DR. & MRS. NICHOLAS SLIMACK
SUBJ: LOT MERGER AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OF.LOTS 6 & 7 AT HEIGHTS AT VISTA DEL MAR.
We would like to reiterate our opposition to the merger of two lots for the development of a large
house and sports facilities on the property.
As stated in the June 20, 2017 memorandum from Teresa McClish, Community Development Director of
Arroyo Grande on behalf of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), the ARC recommends that the
Planning Commission Deny the plan as submitted, and take no action on the Lot Merger. This action
was taken after first reviewing the project on May 1, 2017, and subseq·uently on May 15, 2017 after
considering additional information.
In their findings, the Commission stated specifically that the size of the construction 12, 730 Sq. Ft. was
certainly not in compliance with the scale and neighborhood character. That it "resembles a hotel or
conference center rather than a single-family residence", including such amenities as sky boxes and
stadium seating. They cite specific General Plan Policies of the Commission such as LU11, LU 11-2,
LUll-2.2, LU12, LU12-2, LU12-9, and LU12-10, all relating to "Arroyo Grande's small-town charact~r,
rural setting, and custom home atmosphere".
Finally, the ARC cites its concern "about the potential of precedent setting action outside the burview of
the ARC by-laws for potential policy-making action"
Our family settled here in Arroyo Grande specifically for its small-town chara·cter. We chose Vista Del
Mar because it celebrated just such an atmosphere in the marketing material. We have no doubt that
the owners of the proposed development also seek to enjoy their property in their o':"'n way. As you
know, there are many alternate sites in and around Arroyo Grande where they can find acreage that will
easily accommodate their plans, while at the same time not changing the character of the neighborhood
and the safety, security, and comfort of neighbors.
Yours truly,
. /} I ·~o~
Dr. and Mrs. Nicholas Slim a ck
Item 10.b. - Page 89
From: Christina
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:42 AM
To: Kelly Heffernan
Subject: Letter for Today's ARC Meeting at 2:30 for Lots 6&7
To the members of the Architectural Review Committee of Arroyo Grande,
. .
This letter is in regards to the proposed home for Lots 6 & 7 of The Heights at Vista Del Mar. It
has been brought to our attention that this proposed home includes an indoor basketball court
that the owner intends to use to conduct community basketball clinics for teenage boys. We are
shocked and concerned by this new information. This development is intended to be a quiet
residential neighborhood and conducting any kind of Comm~rcial activity under the guise of a
personal home is illegal and should not be permitted. This new neighborhood, and the existing
Vista Del Mar neighborhood, consist of many families with young children. Ensuring the safety
of these children is imperative. Having unfamiliar non-residents frequenting this neighborhood
could have an effect on such safety and security.
This proposed C01mnercial Venture in a residential neighborhood is of great concern to us. We
are in the process of building our new home on the lot adjacent to this proposed venture, and
worry about the safety and security of our two young children, not to mention the c01mnercial
traffic, noise, etc. that such a venture would bring.
In addition, the size and scale ofthis home is also of great concern. The proposed home plan of
12,000 square feet is certainly not "neighborhood compatible" as the average home is intended to
be between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet, on lots ranging from 1 to 1 Yz acres. Having a home of
more than double the size of all of the surrounding homes makes for anything but neighborhood
compatibility.
We hope that you will take our concerns into consideration.
Yours Truly,
Dr. and Mrs. Nicholas Slimack
Item 10.b. - Page 90
To Whom it May Concern:
It has cbme to· our attention that there have· been-some misconceptions.-about the intended use
for the· home we are ·designing for the fats that will:be located in The Heights,at Vista dei Mar. We are,
in fact,. planning an indoor basketbart court but its. intended use is for oi:l.r fa.mil'/ and friehd~ .. We iiaV.e·
two boys, ages 6 & 9, who love to play basketball with their dad (who plays 3 days a weekcurrentlyj, <i!S
well as nieces and nephews who all love to·get together·and play as welt We art!. hoping thatthiS·toott~
as we·l1 ·as this house, is somewhere where our family and frien·ds feel comfortable getting. together to
sp·encl time together. Dn no way are· there any ptans to hofd clinks, rentals, on~pen gym. We:hope:this
letter serves to quash any, c;;urrent an\:l f\;lf.:ur¢ ru.mof.s.•.a:bti.'ut'why w~. are: b.ui!dif,ig·tf;iis horrie. It is ·designed
to be our family home, lf\lhere we ¢an enjoy beihgto~~th~r ahct doJng.sorn~ of the thin~ that we love,
We Jove· being a part of the Arroyo Grande cotnmuiiitY aha o·ur children are thriving here. We hope,to
remain a part .ofthis community foryea·rs-to· ci::ntie.
Sincerely,
Jim & Katy Redmond
Item 10.b. - Page 91
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 10.b. - Page 92