Loading...
PC 2017-09-05_8a MER 17-003 ARCH 16-009 Castillo Del MarMEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: ~I KELLY HEFFERNON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: 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 DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Lot Merger (MER) 17-003 and Architectural Review (ARCH) 16-009 based on previous Planning Commission direction. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approve permits for a Lot Merger and Architectural Review to allow construction of a 12, 730 square foot single-family residence on Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. BACKGROUND: Location: PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MER 17-003 AND ARCH 16-009 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 2 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. 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; refer to Guidelines included with the June 20, 2017 Planning Commission staff report). To protect the upland slope area, a "no build zone" line has been delineated for Lots 2-10. The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered this project on May 1, 2017 and continued the item to a future meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional information, including: • A preliminary landscape and irrigation plan consistent with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; • Detailed information regarding proposed retaining walls, lighting fixtures, fencing, and screening of swimming pool equipment; and • A perspective of the project viewed from street level. 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 Attachments 2 and 3 for ARC meeting minutes). On June 20, 2017 the Planning Commission considered the project 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 gym, long term use of the house, and parking (see Attachment 4 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 and was continued per the applicant's request after receiving public testimony (see Attachment 5 for Draft Meeting Minutes). The applicant paid the Request for Meeting Continuance fee of $314, and the surrounding neighbors were re-noticed for tonight's meeting. No changes have been made to the project plans since the Planning Commission considered the project on June 20, 2017. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MER 17-003 AND ARCH 16-009 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 3 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The pending Architectural Review permit cannot be approved without first approving a Lot Merger. Although the Community Development Director determines the approval or denial of all Architectural Review permits, due to concurrent processing and the unique nature of the project, Planning Commission action is required. Per Planning Commission direction, a Resolution approving Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009 is included with this staff report. For reference, see Attachment 6 for the Resolution of denial originally included with the June 20, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. 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 application would need to 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 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 La out Plan Maximum lot covera e Maximum Floor Area Ratio Maximum height for buildings Requirement 25' 15' Building limit line varies er lot. 35% 0.45 Development Code: 30' or 2 stories, whichever is less. Tract Conditions: No higher than 295' above sea level. Proposed 50.6' 22' and 38' Notes Consistent with Site La out Plan. Consistent with Site La out Plan. 42' from building limit Consistent with Site line. La out Plan. 8% Consistent with Code. 0.1 O Consistent with Code. 30', 2 stories. Consistent with Code. As conditioned, consistent with Conditions of Approval for Tract 3048 PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MER 17-003 AND ARCH 16-009 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE4 pment Standard Minimum distance between buildin s Parking Requirements 20' 2 spaces within an enclosed garage and 1 space for the guest suite. Architectural Character NIA 3 spaces within an enclosed garage. Notes N/A Consistent with Code. 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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MER 17-003 AND ARCH 16-009 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 5 General Plan Policies The following General Plan policies could be used in making findings for the proposed project: • 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. At the June 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting, a majority of the Commission believed that the design of the home was consistent with these policies. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Commission's consideration: • Adopt a Resolution approving Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16- 009; • Modify and adopt a Resolution approving Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009; • Adopt a Resolution denying Architectural Review 16-009 and take no action on Lot Merger 17-003 (see Attachment 6); • Modify and adopt a Resolution denying Architectural Review 16-009 and take no action on Lot Merger 17-003; 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. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MER 17-003 AND ARCH 16-009 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 PAGE 6 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. Therefore, approving 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 statutorily exempt per Section 15268 of the Guidelines regarding ministerial projects. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A public hearing notice was 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, 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 three (3) letters since the August 1, 2017 Planning Commission meeting (see Attachment 7). Attachments: 1. Tract 3048 Site Layout Plan 2. May 1, 2017 ARC Meeting Minutes 3. May 15, 2017 ARC Meeting Minutes 4. June 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. August 1, 2017 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. Draft Resolution of Denial 7. Comment Letters 8. Project Plans (see Exhibits 81 -813 of the attached Resolution of Approval for reduced size plans; full size plans were previously distributed to the Planning Commission) RESOLUTION NO. 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 WHEREAS, the 2.66-acre project site consists of Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048 and is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Merger 17-003 to merge Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048 and Architectural Review 16-009 to construct a 12,730 square foot single-family residence on the merged lots; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the proposed development 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 proposed Lot Merger and Architectural Review on June 20, 2017 and September 5, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this 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 statutorily exempt per Section 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding ministerial projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study and deliberation, that the merger is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study and deliberation that the following circumstances exist: 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 consistent with the Heights at Vista Del Mar Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines"). The Modern Craftsman design is listed as a preferred architectural style in the Guidelines and the home is well-articulated using high quality materials. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE2 2. The proposal is consistent with the text and maps of the Arroyo Grande general plan and this title. The proposed development is consistent with the Lot Layout Map for Tract 3048, and meets Development Code requirements for minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratio, maximum height and parking requirements of the Residential Hillside zoning district. 3. 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 would not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing in the Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision because the home will be constructed to meet California Building Code standards and post construction stormwater requirements, and meets Development Code requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, height, and floor area ratio. 4. The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Although large in scale, the general appearance of the home is well articulated and the massing has been broken up with a variety of roof heights, decks and both large and small windows to create an interesting street view of the home. 5. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city. Although large in scale, the single-family residence will occupy two merged lots, which will have a reduced traffic impact than two separate single-family residences. 6. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The proposal will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood because the architectural style of the home is consistent with the Guidelines, the design of the home is well articulated, and the materials selected are of high quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby approves Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009 as set forth in Exhibits "81 -813", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorpomted herein by this reference. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 On motion by Commissioner ___ , seconded by Commissioner ___ , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of September, 2017. JOHN MACK, VICE CHAIR ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: TERESA MCCLISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOT MERGER 17-003 AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 16-009 LOCATION -779 AND 759 CASTILLO DEL MAR This approval authorizes the merger of Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048 and construction of a 12, 730 square foot home on the merged lots. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Lot Merger 17-003 and Architectural Review 16-009. 3. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission on the meeting of September 5, 2017. 4. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 5. This approval shall automatically expire on August 5, 2019 unless the merger is recorded and a building permit is issued or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140 of the Municipal Code. 6. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Municipal Code Section 16.20.150. 7. The applicant shall pay all applicable fees at the time they are due. 8. A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to checking the final Lot Merger documents. 9. It is the City's preference that the Notice of Merger be recorded via map but can also be recorded via a certificate of compliance in compliance with the Subdivision RESOLUTION NO. PAGES Map Act. All pertinent conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. If the merger is recorded via a map, the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. If the merger is recorded via a certificate of compliance, information from the tax collector's office shall be provided to show that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. 11. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations and landscape plan. 12. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, "Fences, Walls and Hedges"; 16.48.120, "Performance Standards"; and 16.48.130 "Screening Requirements". 13. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions. 14. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, "Parking and Loading Requirements". 15. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water and energy usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 16. The final landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance). Special Condition 17. Per Condition of Approval No. 53(k)(iii) for Tract 3048, the top of structures shall not exceed an elevation of 295 feet above sea level (based on contour maps used in the Final Environmental Impact Report). Building Division Conditions 18. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Codes including the specifically adopted City of Arroyo Grande. 19. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to any construction. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE6 Engineering Conditions 20. Applicant shall provide a grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer before issuance of a building permit. 21. The project shall conform to the City's post construction requirements. ..-! I co !:: co :I: x u.: I / // /; / / LOTS LOT7 U.S. HIGHWAY iOl N8;-"'.)()'QOWl43A.·f "19TJ0'07"'WO<litJ' TRACT3048 35 MAPS 65-71 OPf:NSP;.._CE Ei!SE.MEM I --........ ____ ~ y·..-:-rr·· BU1LDINGUMffUNr-fERT'' -~ / .__ ' .,-.CT3048 ---f., I :t-l---~ 1f1 -.._ r? -~~---~ 1..oi6 ! LOT5 ! ! f · · 'AlK ·-~ r ~~w ' -·~·"•" , n_ '~', ' ~ , ·~""'"' -. . "" ' --' '.""' ~ --, ----\,____ --> " " • , ---, ""\\ ___ -,,,,,,,=• Y: L.~,, ~-:..: ,-, I j ~----'""-\\ ·--C"""'." " "~ " !':::~ """'• " "•--;____ I "--< ' --J~ -• I ·-=-· ,, ·-,,~-= ~------I , ~-1~-~-WM ' _)_ ________ ""___ '-, """"'"I ) I "'-. ) ---. ' "" y -------NY£R,~")AP,4· < /---..__ DRIVEWAY -----cue•.Gurr;e_/ DRh-EWA CAs.,. ----~-~ . ---.._ , ----~-------&stoM,\J, ~,, 1ILLODEL/t,;J ----..___ f i I -----AR "h.___ ) \ "> I "• ! /"<: ~----'---, / ! I .id , ,c, / , '"' "§c~, f" I 1J'/ rrmdesign group ::i:&S:S.1-ligwlOS .S~.102•Sonld<OO!.<po CA?'.>LOl p;Jao~J!i.!3-!"~~-r:{t-0$1~ www.rrmdesign~com I / ,1 PRELIMINARY LOT MERGER MAY2017 PREF'AR:ED AT THE REQUESr OFJIM /\l'lL' Kt.f~ 2EDMC't.i0 SURVEYORS STATEMENT 1HJ$ M,",f Wf'-.$ PREPA-.Rl':D SY ME OR l!t<DER.Nd SUPENtSiOM. ,.,,...-_..;:?~<2 /.P;?-"1?~.:,.--,s..2..i~17 BRIAN 5, SORU.'.-1 LS D . .o. TE S~E INFORMATION OWllER'.~~M & ]".t,f"I P..tor..~OND APN: 075-022-06 & 07 ZO~!tl-3: RESIOGlilr,LESiATE BENCH MARK: fQUl··D ALUMINUM DISK "CA DEPT RESSM niry_ ASSUt-i.E!J !?:LEVATirn..J ""30? .. BCr BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BA.SIS OF BEARINGS FO~ !!-<!$SUP.VEY 88NG RCCORD DA!A OP LQTS 6S.7 OF RACT /lo. YJ.48, r!LLEDlt1 BOOK 3.50rMAPS AT PAGES6ST!IROUGfl7l 1HlHEO;:;RCfOF Tl m: COUNTY RECORCER. COUNTY OF $AN LUIS OBISPO, Sl"AT~ OF CA.LJfORHL.o.. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: AU. uEJ,f\ING/·,ND !)1$T/\NCES ~110 1/-1 H[J\E0r>S ARE RKOPD PE?, TRACi 3048 -351"-<\APS 65 I SCAlel""' ..f•J 40' ao· RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE THE REDMOND RESIDENCE PROJECT INFORMATION ADD RES~: OWNERS: LOT 6 &7 ATT!iE HBGHTS ATV\STA DEL M\R ARRO'l'O GRANDE.. CA 93420 J1.".o\ ANO KATY REDMOND 612 CASTILLO Os. MAR ARROYO GRANDE. CA 93420 PHONE: 81 ()-772-9030 ARCHITECT: RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 Sourn H1GUE:A Srnea, Surre 102 SAN LutS Oarsro, CA 93401 CoNTAcr. RANDY RUSSOM PHONE: 805-543-1794 LANDSCAPE: RRM DE.SIGN GROUP CoNTACT: We AR.OLA PHONE: 805-543-1794 PROJECT DESCRIPnoN: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 5 BFDROOMS. 6 BATHROOMS. ANO 2 HAlf BATHS. THIS CON:CMPO!?ARY CRAfTSMAN HOUSE Will 8E ON A SITT' CRfATfD BY THE MFRGFR Of LOTS 6 AND 7, TME HOU:iE W'll INCL'0€ AN lNOOOR BASKEIBAl: COURT, FAMll 'f 1/'.1t~G S?ACf:S AND AN OtTDOOR lJVlN(; AREA C(N'l'B< AROUND THE POOL-PROJECT DATA APN: ZoNJNG: RS LorS1zE: 115,835 Sf (2.66 AC) Sm: SmAcKS: FRONT /ROAD-SIDE: BU!lDINGAREA: 30FT l5Ff GROUND fLOOR 9 ,200 Sf SECOND Ftoo~ 3 ~ forAL LMNG 12,730 SF GARAGE; p AVED SURFACE AREA: lANOSCAPE AREA: flooR AREA RATION: {10,175 SF/l 15,835 SF) 975 Sf I0,825SF 94,$35SF [2.15 AC) .087 SHEET INDEX Ai TrrLESHm LI UJ...iOSCAPE Pl.AN L2 PROP:JSED Mti..TEi?!AlS L3 PROPOSED TREES l4 PROPOSED PLANTING LS PROPOS2) PLANTING Cl C!Vll Sm: PLAN A2 ARCHITECTJ!lAt SITE PtAN A3 SITE SECTIONS A4 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A5 $R;OND ftOOR PIAN --~~--A6 ExrERtOR faevATIONS Al ExrERJoR fa;:y A TIONS A8 COLORS AND MATERIALS A9 STREETPERSf'ECllVE AIO FRONT ENTRY PERSPECTIVE All PooL DECi;: PERS?f.CTM= Al2 liv1NG RooM. PERSPECTIVE m >< ::::c OJ =i OJ N 0 ;n §I \ I \ \ I I \)~ ' \)----\.w1 ' -;;. ' \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ I \ 1 \ I I l I ,I ,\ \ {:,) I ,/ \ \ EXHIBIT B-3 \ ;' \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ :D'fROMAVEi?AGE~ PROPfITTYL:Nf~ NATURAL GRADE HE!GHfl!Mff ---. -· . ·-~ I Mae SITE SECTION 1 SITE SECTION 2 ~ iN SCAr.i' 111)~·--.-SITE SECTION 3 ;;JYfROMAVEiCAGE~ NATURAL GRADE HrlGHTlJ~,1~ _ -_ ---_ -_ --------. -----------. SITE SECTION 4 m >< ::r: OJ -I OJ .f::i. ;;~ i 1:: =='J__ __ :_:_:~~ L.bJ. ::I :ii :r;i ::1 ~"-"-' ro~' ::::· AREA m x :c CJ =i CJ I U"I GROUND FLOOR 4.900 Sf SECOND FLOOR 3 530 .st TOTAL 8,430 SF BASKETBALL COURT GARAGE 4.300 Sf 975 Sf o~==1~ iN SCALE: 1/6"~1' AREA GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR TOTAL BASKEfBALL COURT GARAGE 4.900 Sf 3.530 Sf 8.430 SF 4.300 Sf 975 SF m x :::c °' =i °' I en EXHIBIT B-7 EXHIBIT B -8 ~ :... ... '""' :..~ iqJ., I~ ~'Tu ~~~.:~ ~b ~~ 8-· 0:0 --~-ft_ o, § (;· I i 1. SMOOTH FINISH STUCCO: LIGHT TAN COLOR 2. DARK WOOD SIDING 3. STONE VENEER SIDING: ELDORADO STONE ROUGHCUT IN AUTUMN LEAF 4. WOOD STAIN: SHERWIN WILLIAMS EXTERIOR STAIN CHESTNUT SW3524 5. FIBER SHINGLE ROOFING: CERTAINTEED PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE IN CLASSIC WEATHERED WOOD 6. GUITERS AND DOWNSPOUTS: DARK BRONZE TO MATCH WINDOW TRIM m x ::c o:> =i o:> I ID EXHIBIT B-10 EXHIBIT B-11 EXHIBIT 8-12 EXHIBIT B-13 n l>I> l>I> [>[> ~ I 0 ; I !;; -~ ~ REDMOND RESIDENCE 0 6: ' "' I "I PLANTING PLAN I I I 11 i .I! I! "/I Ii / / // ~// ; / I I I I i \_ " \ \ \ \ \ I I I I \ \ \ \ REVISIONS \ \ / ' I ;< '~ / . ' I \;(' "-' \ . ·----, ~ ~~"" " / \,~ ' =GNffi i;y, I ~;;YIN BY: RECOMMENDE~ ~ 7 I ,-.f·•<" ENGIN!:ERING f STREETS / UTll.ffiES ~-· 5-IS-/5 ::JHOi_?t--~_·_____ .J..J-MATT HORN. CITY tNGMITFI ~ MATIBEWW. PRIESS-RCE-#69213 RCE.636)1 I, LID DESIGN @ GRASSYSWALE "t~F-D m•-·rr~n ··~~~ J @ DETENTION/RETENTION Tli\STN ~ : CONCRETE METERING BOX OR 4' DIAMETER MANHOLE -BUTT DING SETBA(;K 20' 20' ,,. ,,. 6" CURB & 18" GUTTER ?ER AG STANDARDS 7" CLASS II AGG BASE" {MIN) 3" AC PAVING (MIN) DEL SUR SECTION (fRACT 3048 ONSITE) 10"PUE 52' PUBLIC R/W 20· 20' DEL MAR SECTION (fRACT 3048 ONSITE) 52' PUBLIC R 20' 20' 6' 3" AC PA\'l~G (MIN) CASTILLO SECTION (fRACT 3048 ONSITE) 10· PUE 10'PU€ CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TRACT 3048 SITE LAYOUT WORKS 5/6/2015 O> )> ---! ---! )> n :I: ~ m z ---! 1-\ ATTACHMENT 2 ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017 ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA ·~,:-...CALL TO ORDER Vice'$ air Berlin called the Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:31 p.m. Vice Chair Bruce Berlin and Committee Members Mary Hertel and eith Storton were present. Chair Warren Hoag was absent City Staff Present: Planni Manager Matt Downing and Associate Planner Kelly Heffernan re present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Vice Chair Berlin led the Flag Salute. 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTION 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 minutes of April 17, 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. Minutes: ARC Monday, May 1, 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. 8. COMMITT None. 9. STAFF COMMUNICATI Planning Manager Downing prov1 d an update to the Committee regarding the current Committee vacancy. Associate Planner effernon provided an update on additional projects recently considered by the Committee. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m. to a meeting on MATTHEW DOWNING PLANNING MANAGER (Approved at ARC Mtg 05-15-2017) 15, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. ATTACHMENT 3 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, MAY 15, 2017 ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1': .. CALL TO ORDER Cha'l'F'Warren Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALC ARC Members: Chair Warren Hoag, Vice Chair Bruce Berlin, and Committee ~~rs Mary Hertel and Keith Storton were present. City Staff Present: Plannin9'~ger Matt Downing, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernen, and Planning ~~chnician Sam Anderson were present. ,, 3. FLAG SALUTE ',, Mary Hertel led the Flag Salute. ,,, ,, ,,, 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS',,~ "~ None. '',," ~""'-,, ""'' 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES '"''·,, Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Keith Storton, to approve'{~ minutes of May 1, 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. 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 also 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 5,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE ARROYO GRANDE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPA MENT; LOCATION -345 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT -DIGNITY HEAL TH; EPRESENTATIVE -TODD SMITH, CANNON (Downing) Planning Mana r Downing presented the staff report and responded to questions from the Committee regard1 emergency vehicle circulation, the temporary parking lot, the location of the entry, and the p tential for a parking structure. Todd Smith, representa e, 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 ral elements, necessity of the project, roof equipment screening, location alternatives, fe ibility of a parking structure, and the primary path of travel for both patients and staff. John Mack spoke in support of the project a commented on existing parking issues. The Committee provided comments on the projec, including necessity of the expansion, the architectural detailing, new and existing pedestrian , and compensation for the proposed tree removals. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Mary Herte , to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 17-002 to the Planning Commission as bmitted. The motion passed on a 4-0 voice vote. 6.c. CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17-001; ON (1) EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME; LOCATION -166 PINE STREET; APPLIC ~T -JOHN DOLLINGER; REPRESENTATIVE -CRISTI FRY-RICK ENGINEERING (Ande)~) Planning Technician Anderson presented the staff report and responded to questio~rom the Committee regarding permitting, possible exceptions, and tree replacement. ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT 4 CH ir Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:53 p.m. Staff Present: 3. FLAG SALUTE Commissioners Terry Fowler-Payne, Lan George, John Mack, Frank Schiro, and Glenn Martin were present. Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Planning Manager Matt Downing, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernon, and Secretary Debbie Weicllinger were present. Commissioner Fowler-Payne ed the flag salute. 4. AGENDA REVIEW None 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SU ESTIONS None V "'\ 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.a. Consideration of Approval of Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the sning Commission Meeting of June 6, 2017 as submitted. Action: Commissioner George moved to approve the minutes o ~he Planning Commission Meeting of June 6, 2017. Commissioner Schiro seconded, and th motion passed on the following 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 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2017 PAGE2 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 water 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 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. Chair 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 with 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: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: George, Schiro, Mack, Martin Fowler-Payne None '1-0. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JUNE 6 2017 Th=tice of administrative decision for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals, denials r referrals by the Community Development Director. An administrative dec1s1on must be appeale or called up for review bv the Plannin ~Commission by a ma·ority vote. Case No~ Applicant Address Description Action Planner ARCH 17-002 ~,~avid lwerks 5041de New 496 square foot A S. Anderson Street accessory dwelling unit PPR 17-008 Miene~~ & Vern 225 Stanley New Homestay A S. Anderson Hoff eek er Avenue PPR 17-009 Ken & Pamt'a~ 144 Deer New Homestay A S. Anderson Trail Circle ARCH 17-003 Anil & Kamina ~704 Castillo New 5,962 square foot A K. Heffernan Panchal 1;>~1 Mar single-family residence ' ~' In response to Comm1ss1oner Georges questm~ regarding ARCH 17-003, Associate Planner Heffernon stated permits are not being issued until'Gl~inage concerns are resolved. '•", 11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS ,,, In response to Commissioner Martin's question, Communil~,,pevelopment Director McClish said there is underground utility pole work being done on the Fai~Qaks Medical office site. ' ',,, 12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS '",, Director McClish stated there will be no Planning Commission meeting on.Jl.:l.ly 4, 2017. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. ATTEST: ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2017 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA Cti ·r Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ATTACHMENT 5 Commissioners 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 ager Matt Downing, Associate Planner Kelly Heffernan, Plan · g Technician Sam Anderson, and Secretary Debbie Weich in r were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Mack led the flag salute. 4. AGENDA REVIEW Randy Russom, representative for Item 8.a. asked that s requesting this item be continued. Action: Commissioner Schiro moved that Item 8.a., be heard be re 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 requesting 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 structure and is opposed to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2017 PAGE2 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 exp.ense. 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: ABSENT: Schiro, Fowler-Payne, Mack None George and Martin Chair Martin returned to the dais. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS John Wysong, complained about the existing median island in front of Sesloc on East Grand Avenue and water going to the ocean that could be used as recycled water. Chair Martin said his concerns will be passed on to the appropriate staff. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Commission received the following material after preparation of the agenda: 1. Two Memos dated August 1, 2017 from Associate Planner Kelly Heffernan regarding Agenda Item 8.a. and a copy of Tract Map 3048. ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 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 and is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Architectural Review 16-009 for a minor use permit (Architectural Review permit) to construct a 12, 730 square foot single-family residence on Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 3048; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) considered the proposed 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 proposed project on June 20, 2017 and September 5, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this 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 statutorily exempt per Section 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding ministerial projects; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 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 envisioned development of the Heights at Vista Del Mar subdivision and with the adjacent Vista Del Mar neighborhood. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 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 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. In addition, because this is the first Architectural Review considered for the subdivision, the proposal is setting a precedent that is a-typical of the desired development as outlined in the Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Architectural Review permit 16-009 based on the above findings. On motion by Commissioner ___ , seconded by Commissioner ___ , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 5th day of September, 2017. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 JOHN MACK, VICE CHAIR ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: TERESA MCCLISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR August 29, 2017 ATTACHMENT 7 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 Commisc;ion, 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 that there 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 6,000 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 landscaping, 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. 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 a tract 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- B. ruce B.e rLLvv Bruce Berlin Frank G. Loversky City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 300 West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Re: The Heights of Vista del Mar 632 S. Via Belmonte Ct., Arroyo Grande CA 93420 Phone and fax: 805 474-8487 Email: franklyng1711@att.net 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. Jon Cramer 600 So. Via Avante Arroyo Grande, Ca. City of Arroyo Grande; Planning Commission Re: Lot Merger of 779 / 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 a tournament, just for fun, which normally is 8 teams, which then would have 130 people and 48 vehicles on our street in a residential neighborhood . Because of my assessment, that it has the possibility of a public facility, I ask the Planning Commission to "Deny the Lot merger". RECEIVED AUG 3 I 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE