Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Study Session: Consolidation of Design Review Guidelines for all Five City Homeowners' Associations 03AFOI Z! , Ar/rZ rat �,A(ty ofd STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 20, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner a SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR STUDY SESSION — DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE A SINGLE RESOLUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES FOR ALL FIVE OF THE CITY-DESIGNATED HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS BACKGROUND At the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council held a study session to review and discuss a new Resolution that was proposed jointly by the five, City-designated homeowners' associations (HOAs). The new Resolution is to amend and consolidate the development standards, design guidelines and design review processes as described in the five current HOA Resolutions into one new Resolution to be utilized by all five HOAs. The amendments include changes to the design guidelines, development regulations, and processing procedures. The study session was held to provide the City Council with details of the proposed new Resolution and to address any concerns and questions. After receiving comments and discussing the proposal, the Council continued the study session, and asked staff for information on alternatives to the Floor Area "Guidance" aspect of the proposed amendment. In response to the concerns that the City Council expressed about certain aspects of the proposed new Resolution, the HOAs have submitted the attached revised Resolution — see Exhibit "A". Letters of support are also attached from each of the HOA's (Exhibit "B"). Subsequent to the July 19, 2011 study session, one of the development companies that was in attendance, Mur-Sol, submitted the attached letter (Exhibit "C"). Also attached for reference is the initial July 19, 2011 staff report (Exhibit "D") and the original proposed Resolution (Exhibit "E"). DISCUSSION Because the HOAs have revised their proposal (Exhibit "A") and eliminated the "Guidance" provisions, staff is not providing discussion points on that aspect. The attached revised draft Resolution No. 6770 shows the new added language in blue, proposed deletions with a " ", new footnotes and notes are shown in red, and yellow-highlighting for the reorganized/updated sections from the existing Resolutions. The following is a brief description of the changes in the HOAs proposal: Section 2. References to the General Plan and Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines have been added, and endnotes have been provided throughout the proposal to cite sources for various reviewing authority. Section 4. A Section is now titled, SITE PLANNING, and addresses the following: (1) Natural amenities (2) Location, configuration, size and design (3) Height and bulk (4) Varied open space DEFINED NEIGHBORHOOD has been removed as a concept to be used for comparison of a new home. The graphic has been moved to Section 6C and is to be used only for noticing purposes. FLOOR AREA has been revised to eliminate the "Guidance" provisions and reverts back to the current minimum floor area requirements. There is no new language proposed relative to a maximum guidance for square footage. GARAGES has been revised in regards to the proposed provisions for the Village and Lower Rancho areas: Rather than strongly discouraging front facing garages; garages are not to dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front facade or tucked into the back yard. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — the reference to side yard fences being subject to only City review has been moved to Section 6. TREES has been revised to utilize a list of trees (oaks, sycamores, liquidambars, magnolias, pines or redwoods) for all five HOAs rather than having all trees subject to approval for removal, and the professional standard of diameter measurement has been incorporated. Section 5. The requirement for approval to clear a lot has been removed, and new NOTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR REVIEW PROCESS have been added, which utilizes the former DEFINED NEIGHBORHOOD diagram rather than a 100-foot radius. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction. Approved By: Pam-Q�,•.r.l� Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Exhibit "B" — Letters from the five HOAs Exhibit "C" — Letter from Mur-Sol, dated July 25, 2011 Exhibit "D" — July 19, 2011 Staff Report Exhibit "E" — Original Draft Resolution No. 6770 HOA Reso. Study Session September 20, 2011 — Page 2 • Exhibit "A" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Exhibit "A" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 REVISED DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 6770 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution Nos. 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, and 5290 and Ordinance No. 1832, and adopts this Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 2285. SECTION 2. In accordance with the Arcadia General Plan directive' to protect and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, and to implement ttae Arcadia's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines feewiatsne applicable to the real property within the five Single-Family Homeowners Associationsii that are zoned, "D" as Architectural Design areas. Architectural Review Boards are established for each Association and are hereinafter referred to as the "ARBs". The five Homeowners'Associations and their Architectural Design Zones are: Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia— "Village" Rancho Santa Anita Residents'Association— "Lower Rancho" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association— "Upper Rancho" Highlands Home Owners Association— "Highlands" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association — "Oaks" The boundaries for each Association are depicted in Exhibit "A." The ARB for each area is governed by the corresponding Homeowners' Association Board for that area. SECTION 3. In order to promote and maintain the quality, single-family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 8 there are hereby Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 1 of 18 REVISED DRAFT established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 4. S. It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping and hardscapeiii on properties within each area should exhibit a consistent and cohesive architectural styleiv, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and setbacks in relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture, color and building materials. To promote harmony and compatibility of properties, the following standards and conditions are hereby imposed upon all properties within said areas pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in ownership or control of property within said areas, are subject to this Resolution. I ,. a- Street-► MEV j Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 2 of 18 REVISED DRAFT A. SE^ N-4. (new) SITE PLANNING V (1) Natural amenities such as views, trees and similar features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals (2) The location, configuration, size and design of the new buildings or structures, or the alteration or enlargement of existing structures should be visually harmonious with their sites and compatible with the character and quality of the surroundings. (3) The height and bulk of proposed dwellings and structures on the site should be in scale and proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites, or incorporate design measures to mitigate scale differences. (4) Varied open space — The design of a new house should provide effective and varied open space around the residence. B. STREETSCAPE (new)vi — The developed subject property, when viewed from the street, should blend and be harmonious with the other structures and landscaping on the street. This includes and is not limited to setbacks, structural mass and scale, height, roof forms, façades, entries, building materials and everything that can be seen from the street. Each neighborhood or street has an established streetscape that defines its character. The stronger the established pattern the more important it is to maintain its character and harmony. Front yards should promote a feeling of openness; fences, walls and hedges across the front of the yard are not permitted. C. FLOOR AREA (Copied From Existing Resolutions) The space contained within the boundaries of the property, including any open porch, open entry, balcony, covered patio, trellis, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall NOT be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the required minimum floor area of a dwelling. Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 3 of 18 REVISED DRAFT Village — 1,100 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height, or 1,300 square feet of floor area if two stories in height, at least 900 square feet of which must be on the ground floor. Lower Rancho — 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if 1-story and not less than 1,000 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2-story Upper Rancho — 2,500 square feet of ground floor area. Attached covered porch, balcony or garage shall be counted at .5. Highlands — 1,600 square feet if 1-story and not less than 1,200 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2-story. Oaks— 2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except 1,800 square feet in Tracts 14656, 13544 & 10617, in which no one-family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. elweitiogf D. FRONT YARD SETBACKS — If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of the subject property, the ARB shall have the authority to require a front yard setback for the subject property equal to at least an average of the two adjacent front yards. Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho (amended) — Minimum 50 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 4 of 18 REVISED DRAFT Oaks — Minimum sixty-five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 & 11013 shall not be less than fifty-five (55)feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. E. SIDE YARD SETBACKS Village — 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 5 feet. Lower Rancho — 10% of the lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet Upper Rancho — Minimum 18 feet. Highlands — 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 6 feet g Oaks— 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 10 feet. F. REAR YARD SETBACKS Village— Minimum 25 feet Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Minimum 40 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Oaks— Minimum 35 feet G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS Village— Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho— Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Underlying Zoning Highlands — Minimum 15 feet from side street for Tracts 10725, 13367, 14626, 15285 & 16920. Oaks — On a corner lot, any detached garage shall be located a minimum of twenty (20) feet, at any point, from the side street property line. H. FRONT OF DWELLING (new) — For all HOAs, any dwelling on the lot should face the front lot line. Exceptions for good cause may be granted through the review process. I. GARAGES — No carports-allowed. Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 5 of 18 REVISED DRAFT Village Famewideed) & Lower Rancho inew) (Revised) — . Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front façade or tucked into the back yard.VII Upper Rancho (amended) — No garage door shall be allowed to face the public right-of-way within the front 150 feet of the property. No garage door shall be closer to the street than the dwelling (Lots 1 through 20 of Tract No. 13184 shall be excepted). Corner lots shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Highlands (amended) — Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be one hundred forty (140) feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 & 13544 which shall be one hundred twenty-five (125) feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. Trees previously followed Garages, but now follows section.W `K' J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS (previously No. 6) — Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation, roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures.in the neighborhood. K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hadscape.viii Any fens Moved to Section 5. L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD (new)IX — The impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 6of18 REVISED DRAFT M. TREES x{eme (Revert to prior listing of trees & adopt DBH standard) — City Planning staff must approve the removal of any Oak Tree or construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees. No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, pine, or redwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at DBH (the standard arborist measure — 4% feet above ground on the high side), shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the ARB. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing.it. N. ANIMALS — Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. SECTION 5. APPROVAL OF ARB REQUIRED. (previously No. 8) No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the ARB. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the ARB. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the ARB; however, any fence or wall between adjacent properties not within the front building setback or street side setback area is subject only to review by the City. (new) We added wall. Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. (new) The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building that does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD — The ARB (acronym added) shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 7 of 18 REVISED DRAFT a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. b. The organization has by-laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. c. Said by-laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. d. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by-laws. e. A copy of the by-laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk. f. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, actions, and decisions of the ARB shall be maintained by the ARB, in accordance with the City's records retention policies. (Sections `h'through 'k'were previously sentences included under section 'g) h. The ARB's decision on a Regular Review Process shall be accompanied by specific findings, based upon a reference to supporting facts, setting forth the actions and decisions. i. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. j. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render the decision. k. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within seven (7)working days of the ARB's decision. I. (previously section h) All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: (sections revised according to conditions) Exhibit"0" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 8 of 18 REVISED DRAFT a. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, size, design and appearance of the proposed project (Section 4 — Site Planning, and Conditions A through L of Section 5). b. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks (Section 4 — Site Planning, and Conditions C through F of Section 5). c. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the neighborhood (Conditions G through J of Section 5). d. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties (Condition K of Section 5). e. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 'A' through 'L' of Section 5, may be made less restrictive by the ARB if the ARB determines that such action will foster the appropriate development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. f. The ARB shall have the power to establish requirements concerning project applications and procedures for review for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such requirements shall be kept on file with the Planning Department. C. NOTIFICATION STANDARDS FOR REVIEW PROCESS (new) — For the purpose of conducting design review, required notification shall be deemed to include at least the two parcels on each side of the parcel subject to plan approval (subject parcel), the five parcels facing the subject parcel, and the three parcels to the rear of the subject parcel. Unusually situated parcels, those where a second-story addition or modification is involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors, may require additional parcels to be part of the required parcels to be notified, and is to be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The required notification shall not include properties outside of the HOA or commercially-zoned properties. An example of the required area of notification is set forth below, although the required notification may vary case-by-case: Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 9 of 18 REVISED DRAFT 14- Street —� A j Subject Pa cel Street Required Notification Parcels included in "Required Notification"as related to Subject Parcel D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE(new section) a. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (1) the applicant has obtained the signatures of approval of the plans from all the owners in the required notification area, as determined by the ARB Chair or designee, or otherwise meets the notification requirements; (2) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and (3) where the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the neighborhood. Specific Short Review Process Items include but are not limited to: • Single-story remodels or additions • Detached accessory structures— new, additions to, and/or remodels • Fences and/or walls in and/or facing (i.e., visible from) front and street side yards • Hardscape and landscaping in front and street side yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, fountains and other water features • Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, sports courts or other significant paved features • Mechanical equipment • Removal of trees as listed in this Resolution • Roofing b. If a property owner in the required notification area cannot be reached after three attempts on three separate days, the applicant may submit evidence of efforts to Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 10 of 18 REVISED DRAFT contact the owner. The ARB may then determine, in its discretion, not to consider that owner as an opponent of the proposed project. A Short Review Application will not be considered complete until all such required documentation from all owners in the required notification area has been submitted by the applicant. c. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. d. The ARB Chair or another ARB member designated by the ARB Chair, to act in his/her absence, shall render a decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such completed application is filed with the ARB; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working-day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. e. If the ARB Chair or designee determines that the proposed project is not a cohesive design, not in harmony with the neighborhood, or might have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, he/she may require that the application be processed under the Regular Review Process procedure. E. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE(entire section amended) The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story, (3) any significant change in architectural style of an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not eligible to be processed by the above Short Form Review procedure as determined by the ARB Chair or designee. a. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. b. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. c. Notice of the ARB's meeting shall be deposited in the mail by the ARB Chair or designee, postage prepaid by the applicant, to the applicant and to all property owners within the required notification area of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 11 of 18 REVISED DRAFT d. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render such decision. e. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the thirty(30) working-day period. F. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL — If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and/or the installation of a new foundation and/or by installation of new materials or a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. (new) G. LIMIT ON ARB'S POWER— The ARB shall not have the power to modify any regulations in the Municipal Code. The ARB may, however, make a recommendation regarding modifying such regulations to the City staff, department, commission or board that will be considering any such modification request. SECTION 6. APPEAL. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of a completed appeal from the ARB's decision, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing. A. STANDARDS FOR ARB DECISIONS AND APPEALS — The ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the ARB's decision shall be guided by the following principles: Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 12 of 18 REVISED DRAFT a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood (Pertains to Section 4 - Site Planning, and Conditions A through M of Section 5 a of this Resolution - Streetscape, Floor Area, Setbacks, Front of Dwelling, Garages, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood, and Trees). Refers to new or revised Sections. a b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. Pertains to Section 4 - Site Planning, and Conditions A through M of Section 5 of this Resolution - Streetscape, Floor Area, Setbacks, Front of Dwelling, Garages, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood, and Trees). Refers to new or added Sections. • - - c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Section 4 - Site Planning, and Conditions A, G, H, 1, J, K, L, & M of this Resolution - Streetscape, Front of Dwelling, Garages, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood, and Trees). Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 13 of 18 REVISED DRAFT d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Section 4 — Site Planning, and Conditions A, C, F, G, H, 1, J, K, L, & M of this Resolution — Streetscape, Front Yard Setbacks, Corner Lot Setbacks, Front of Dwelling, Garages, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, & Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood, and Trees). &044 fird-Setlissidem-&-Meet-im+Adjaweat-PFepeftie91,49 SECTION 7. (previously section 4) The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness, all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related resolutions which pre-existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 8. (previously section 5) If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 14 of 18 REVISED DRAFT declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 9. (previously section 6) The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2011. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 15 of 18 REVISED DRAFT End Notes for Revised Joint Resolution General Plan, Land Use (LU) Element — GP-LU 2-3, Neighborhood Character— "The City Protects and preserves the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design..." (Emphasis added) ii Arcadia Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (DG)—DG page 3 Applicability—"In order to preserve the character of these neighborhoods and encourage high-quality residential design throughout the City, the City Council has adopted these Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines." "In the five Homeowners Associations (HOAs) recognized by City Council resolution, design review is conducted by each association's Architectural Review Board (ARB). However, these design guidelines apply to all single-family residences throughout the City." (Emphasis added) iii Prior Resolutions # 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289,5290 - Section 3 — "In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area ..." (Emphasis added) DG page 19 — Landscape & Hardscape — "For new residences and rebuilds, a conceptual landscape plan must be submitted during the design review process." Specific landscape & hardscape guidelines are listed on pages 19, 20, 21&22. (Emphasis added) Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance(WELO)- Documentation Package and Guidelines: WELO - page 1 — "Ordinance No. 2267 requires all projects that meet the following thresholds to comply with specific water conservation practices: (Emphasis added) • "A developer-installed residential project ... that includes a total area of 2,500 of more square feet of rehabilitated and/or new irrigated landscaping. • "An owner-builder residential project ... that includes a total area of 5,000 of more square feet of new irrigated landscaping." WELO - page 12 — "Landscaping should define a sense of space by making a statement, ensuring community continuity, complementing good architectural design, and creating a cohesive finished product." WELO-page 13—A Single-Family Residential Guidelines: 1. "Trees, shrubs, and groundcover shall be incorporated within single-family development projects to create a comfortable and aesthetically pleasing environment for residents and those viewing public areas. 3. "Front yard areas can be designed using landscape elements pertaining to the form, horizontal and vertical lines, hardscape and softscape, and ornate qualities that are compatible with the primary structure. Visual openness and water efficiency should be maintained." (Emphasis added) iv DG page 5 — Issues, #4 — Architectural style and design: Many new homes lack a coherent architectural style, attempt to combine many different styles, or have a style that is incompatible with the surrounding homes." v DG page 6—Site Planning— These 4 statements are taken directly from the Design Guidelines. vi DG page 5—issues: 1. "Mass and scale: Inappropriate massing and scale is a key issue..." Exhibit "D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 16 of 18 REVISED DRAFT 2. "Front entry: Excessively.tall or flat entry porches can have a towering or monumental appearance..." 3. "Garages: Street-facing garages tend to be uninviting and have the potential to dominate the front elevation..." 4. "Architectural style and design: Many new homes lack a coherent architectural style, attempt to combine too many styles, or have a style that is incompatible with the surrounding homes." 5. "Additions and accessory buildings: ... Poorly designed additions and accessory buildings can ruin the character of an existing home." 6. "Colors and materials: the use of bright or strong paint colors and/or unnatural building materials can result in a house that looks out-of-place..." 7. "Landform and tree preservation: Careless removal of mature trees and severe grading of hillside properties shows little regard for a site's natural attributes and degrades neighborhood character." DG page 6—Site Planning—see statements listed in Section 4—quoted from Design Guidelines DG page 9 — Massing, #1 — "New dwellings and additions should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features." DG page 17—Materials &Colors—"Materials and colors not only contribute to a building's architectural style, but can also help tie a new structure to its surroundings." General Plan, Land Use, Single-Family Residential Development — GOAL LU-3: Preservation and enhancement of Arcadia's single-family neighborhoods, which are an essential part of the city's core identity. Policy LU-3.1: "Protect the character of single-family residential neighborhoods through the preservation and improvement of their character defining features. Such features include but are not limited to tree-lined streets, building orientation, sidewalks, and architectural scale and quality." Policy LU-3.2: "Implement design guidelines to keep new homes and home additions consistent in scale, massing, and architectural quality with prevailing conditions in the neighborhood." Policy LU-3.3: "Encourage a variety of architectural styles for new and renovated structures that reflect local architectural characteristics." Policy LU-3.4: "Strengthen neighborhood identity with new development that is compatible with surrounding structures through scale, massing, and preferred architectural style." Policy LU-3.5: "Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale, and colors." Policy LU-3.6: "Encourage preservation of the natural topography of a site and existing mature trees." Policy LU-3.7: "Ensure that the design and scale of new and remodeled single-family residential buildings are appropriate to their context." General Plan, Land Use, Hillside Development — Policy LU-5.6: "Require hillside development to incorporate architecture, scale, massing, building form, building color, roof materials, and landscaping to reflect the natural hillside setting." vii DG page 5 — Issues #3 Garages: "Street-facing garages tend to be uninviting and have the potential to dominate the front elevation of a house." DG page 12—Façade Design,#4—"Garages should not dominate the street." Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 17 of 18 REVISED DRAFT viii Prior Resolutions # 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289,5290 - Section 3— "In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within said area be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed upon all property in said area ..." (Emphasis added) DG page 19 — Landscape & Hardscape - "For new residences and rebuilds, a conceptual landscape plan must be submitted during the design review process." Specific landscape & hardscape guidelines are listed on pages 19, 20, 21&22. (Emphasis added) ix DG page 6—Site Planning #1 —"Natural amenities such as views, trees and similar features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals." (Emphasis added) General Plan, Land Use, Hillside Development — Policy LU-5.1: "Maintain the visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the importance of the exposure of hillside development from off-site public views and the importance of providing panoramic views from and of the hillsides." (Emphasis added) x DG page 5—Issues#7—Landform and tree preservation: Careless removal of mature trees and severe grading of hillside properties shows little regard for a site's natural attributes and degrades neighborhood character. (Emphasis added) DG page 6— Site Planning #1 - "Natural amenities such as views, trees and similar features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals." (Emphasis added) Exhibit"D" Revised Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 18 of 18 Exhibit "B" Letters from the five HOAs Exhibit "B" Letters from the five HOAs RECEW*D JUL 1 22011 , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Highlands Home Owners Association The Honorable Mayor Gary Kovacic July 12, 2011 Members of the City Council Re: Text Amendment No. TA 11-03—Joint Resolution for HOAs Dear Sirs: Having reviewed the proposed Joint Resolution of the five Homeowners Associations, the Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board of the Highlands Homeowners Association of Arcadia would like to make the following recommendation. Currently, each of the five homeowners associations operates under separate, City approved, resolutions.The proposed new Joint Resolution consolidates those resolutions into a document that provides consistent guidelines across the associations. This not only provides simplicity of application for the associations but provides the City Council with universal benchmarks for mediating problems which may arise from time to time. Ralph Bicker, our ARB Chairman, has been involved in the resolution review process from the beginning, and, with the presidents and ARB chairpersons of each association has committed a significant amount of time developing a consistent,thorough document. At our quarterly association Board meeting, held July 6, 2011, our Board unanimously voted in favor of the Joint Resolution. We respectfully request that you review the proposed Joint Resolution with the knowledge that its preparation was done in a very deliberate manner. We urge you to vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution for the areas now covered by the current five Homeowners Associations. Sincerely, Lit;:g1-4 Robert G. Stover, President Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman « s, Pl) r . (��f fiCe 1.30:1 000).) 12 \ , L-n(10, � afiforilta 91060 RANCHO SANTAANITA RESIDENTS'ASSOCIATION " P.O.Box 662013 Arcadia,CA 91066 July 12, 2011 Mayor Gary Kovacic Members of City Council Members of the Planning Commission Dear Sirs: The Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board of the Ranch Santa Anita Residents' Association have helped author and review the proposed Joint Resolution of the five Homeowners Associations in the City of Arcadia. As a result we fully endorse and support the adoption of this Resolution. This topic remains the number one priority as identified by our homeowners. Over the past year, our HOA and ARB Boards have dedicated hundreds of man- hours meeting with our residents, the City and the other HOA and ARB Boards to help draft the proposed resolution. We look forward to reviewing the details of the Joint Resolution at the City Council Study Session scheduled for July 19th Respectfully, Kevin Tomkins President July 13, 2011 litttS A JUL 2011 CITY To: The Members of the Arcadia City Council � ' Re: Proposed Joint HOA Resolution - Single Family Residential Design Guidelines Please be advised that the Board of Directors of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association voted unanimously to accept the proposed Joint HOA Resolution which you will be discussing in your Study Session on July 19th at 5p.m. Our ARB led by Brad Koehler has also endorsed this Resolution. We hope that you will vote in the affirmative regarding the passage of the Resolution. Thank you, t tti; A Douglas McEachern, President Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association Brad Koehler, Chairman - Architectural Review Board Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association &Qata Quta ark Q7anteouvittwa el . '" * f ,Na T JUL 1 , 2911 The Honorable Mayor Gary Kovacic CITY COUNCIL Members of City Council RE: Text Amendment No. TA 11-03— Joint Resolution for HOA's Officers & Directors Mary Dougherty,President Dear Sirs: July 6, 2011 Richard Midgley,Vice President Jessica Louie,Treasurer The Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board of the Janet Chew,Secretary Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association have reviewed the Gail Alexander proposed Joint Resolution of the five Homeowners Associations in Ruth Bell the City of Arcadia. Larry Daines The proposed new Resolution combines the present five resolutions Nancy Dom of the associations into one that will be consistent for all. It is a well Chuck Duffy thought out document that includes updated concepts and guidelines. Sheryl Hunter The standards in relation to architectural design, mass, and Bob Jackson compatibility issues are made clear so as to avoid some of the Judy Kosobayashi problems reported to the City and our board in the past. It also Amy Pan provides clear guidance for homeowners and developers for the Gil Perez application procedures of proposed projects. Kamran Sarmadi Linda Semain This document represents a significant time commitment and Hank Voznick cooperative effort made by the Architectural Review Board Chairmen Vince Vargas of all five Associations. Their many meetings and thoughtful review of each aspect of the design review process has yielded a thorough ARB Members document on which they, and each of the five ARB Committees can base their findings and decisions, and which will continue to serve the Vince Vargas,Chairman needs of existing and future property owners. Tom Beck Loren Brodhead It is our desire to stimulate development that is harmonious and Gary Dom compatible with the neighborhood, and we feel that this document Rochelle Duffy supports that vision for the future. Jessica Louie Ray Riordan With unanimous support of both the Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board, we urge your review, support and adoption of this proposed Joint Resolution for the areas covered by the five Homeowners Associations. Sincerely, Nfa.ry'-7jiughert ',`Presi e F� Vince argas,, RB Chairman 1 CI TIWASOK coe/ -}Zy nc,; ��� ,T w, L)r.d u JUL c! 2011 c•�►' �' CITY COUNCIL The Santa Anita Village e Community Homeowners' Association ARB Board Members The Honorable Mayor Gary Kovacic Laurie Thompson- Members of City Council President Kathy Cheng Steve Tsai Dear Sirs: July 11, 2011 Robert Perkins Jim Kelly The Architectural Review and Homeowners' Association Boards of NadarSamaan the Santa Anita Village Community Homeowners' Association unanimously urge your support of the proposed Joint Resolution. HOA Board Members Pamela Olender- President Over a year ago, at a regularly scheduled Homeowners' Eugenia Chang-Vice Association meeting, a spreadsheet comparing the resolutions of President all five Homeowners' Associations was produced. This evidenced Raub Mathias-Treasurer Maria Johnson Secretary that there were many similarities and few differences between the Associations. This prompted a year-long effort between all five Associations resulting in the proposed Joint Resolution before you. The City staff reviewed the resulting Joint Resolution for process and content. The Planning Commission approved the proposed Joint Resolution, without objection, after a review by the City Attorney. Providing one unifying resolution simplifies the process for the City of Arcadia staff, homeowners, and developers. Together the proposed Joint Resolution and Arcadia's Single Family Design Guidelines provide the tools for promoting harmony and compatibility amongst the Association neighborhoods. We urge approval of the proposed Joint Resolution as a step forward to unifying the Design Review process. Sincerely, �,c the e 1 ,• / • Pamela Olender, President Laurie Thompson, ARB Chairperson Exhibit "C" Letter from Mur-Sol, dated July 25, 2011 Exhibit "C" Letter from Mur-Sol RECEIVED CITY OF ARCADIA, July 25, 2011 AUG 01 2011 Attn: Distinguished Council Members CITY COUNCIL Re: Proposed ARB/HOA Resolution Distinguished Council Members, We are writing you regarding the pending HOA resolution dealing with attempts to ensure new construction that lends itself to being harmonious and compatible with the beautiful neighborhoods of Arcadia. We feel that these efforts are worthwhile and would like to offer our thoughts on a few components of the pending resolution. Currently the land value in North Arcadia is roughly valued at$60 per square foot. This is largely due to the potential for building new custom homes. New construction of well designed and constructed custom homes typically command between$450 and$600 per square foot. Effectively every 1,000 square feet represents $450,000 to $600,000 when a new well built home is sold. Given these economics one can clearly see the potential impact that size restrictions could have on the value of land in the impacted areas of Arcadia. If the proposal is adopted as it currently stands a significant number of properties will likely be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than they currently are today. Many of the recent home sales in Arcadia are"land value" sales. These homes typically are owned by life long Arcadia residents who are generally senior citizens. The three properties we currently own were acquired from this exact demographic. Two of the three homeowners are using some of the proceeds of the sale of their home to relocate to an assisted living facility. Imagine if this proposal inadvertently and disproportionately affected these three homeowners and their net proceeds were reduced by$300,000 to $500,000 respectively? The three projects we are currently working on are located in North Arcadia. Based upon the current maximum size guidelines in place we would be able to build considerably larger homes than the 3 that we have drawn for the lots we currently own. We too believe that size is far from the only important quality of creating harmonious and compatible architecture to blend in with neighbors near our properties. We, like you,have seen many of the stark and commercial like homes that exist in other areas of Arcadia. Many of the homes that have this feel are much smaller in size than they may appear,predominantly due to the way they were drawn and subsequently built. We believe that a larger home has the ability to blend in quite well with a particular neighborhood if a conscientious approach in choosing the right architectural style is achieved. A large home can be drawn with a layout that does not leave it looking stark 119 East St. Joseph Street Arcadia, California 91006 EXHIBIT "C" office: 626.447.0558 fax: 626.447.7002 and overwhelming in its appearance. We have built a significant number of homes in the City of Arcadia. We believe that, when we have had complete design control over a project, we have ultimately constructed homes that meet the desired goal of the current HOA proposal absent the size restrictions that are being considered Arbitrary size restrictions that penalize current home owners who may have the misfortune of being next to, or across from, older and subsequently smaller homes just doesn't seem to be the right solution.Nor does it seem to make sense for current home owners who may have the good fortune of being next to, or across from,newer and potentially larger homes to benefit disproportionately from a neighbor of his who may live as few as 5 or 6 doors down on the same street. The ambiguous nature of the new proposed formula will undoubtedly make it impossible for new home owners or developers to accurately value properties and close escrow in a typical timeframe. This will most certainly impact future property values. Additionally, those home owners who may be impacted negatively will, from a practical perspective, likely seek legal recourse which could unintentionally burden the City with unnecessary legal expenses. We feel that empowering the HOA's to govern the size of new construction based upon the proposed formula's would significantly impact, if not terminate all together, a rather harmonious working relationship that currently exists between developers and the HOA's. It would simply eliminate any give and take discussions about future construction. The proposed size formula will likely create a very combative tone moving forward finding home owners and developers at odds with the members of the HOA board. We believe the size formula would effectively set future developments up for failure before they get started. The idea that a 30,000 square foot lot could be approved for a maximum 3,000 square foot project on the same street that another 30,000 square foot lot could be approved for a 9,000 square foot project seems somewhat arbitrary and impractical. One other component of the new proposal that may create unintended consequences is the inclusion of garage and porch areas in the maximum size formula. If this were to pass it would undoubtedly trigger homeowners to build homes with smaller garages. A by product of this would be a much larger number of cars being parked in driveways and on surface streets which is most likely not something the members of the ARB would prefer. We truly believe that the objectives of the new HOA proposal can be met and achieved in the absence of the formula being proposed as it relates to size. We would like to continue being good partners with the City and with the community that many of us live and work in. We all have a common of objective of preserving the beauty and appeal of the neighborhoods in the City of Arcadia. We believe that we can accomplish this objective by continuing to work together in constructing well designed homes that will yield a finished product that is harmonious and compatible with the neighborhoods in which they are built.While the size component of the new ARB proposal is the most concerning 119 East St. Joseph Street Arcadia, California 91006 EXHIBIT "C" office: 626.447.0558 fax: 626.447.7002 A there are other, less significant, elements of the proposal that we would welcome the opportunity to participate in future discussions about. Respectfully, Josh Grohs Mur-Sol Development L /0„/ Supported and dor ed by Dexter Corporation—Charles Huang S.G.V. Property Fund, LLC—George Voigt 119 East St. Joseph Street Arcadia, California 91006 EXHIBIT "C" office: 626.447.0558 fax: 626.447.7002 Exhibit "D" July 19, 2011 Staff Report Exhibit "D" July 25, 2011 Staff Report • A ' 0„-oPO$i j.11,4 hill9",-'11 uc romd �' Ayntt flMl 4,00 4c 4 MEMORANDUM 4alty of� Development Services Department DATE: July 19, 2011 TO: Don Penman, City Manager FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director-Se-K. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner VA- SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - REPORT, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE A SINGLE RESO- LUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSES FOR ALL FIVE OF THE CITY- DESIGNATED HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION AREAS. SUMMARY On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed new resolution by the five single-family Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) in the City of Arcadia. The proposed text amendment is for a new Resolution that will consolidate the development standards, design guidelines and design review processes of all five of the current HOA Resolutions into a new single Resolution for all five HOA areas. The amendments include changes to the design guidelines, development regulations, and processing procedures. The five City-designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the attached map: 1) Highland Homeowners' Association - "Highlands" 2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association - "Upper Rancho" 3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association - "Oaks" 4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association -"Lower Rancho" 5) Santa Anita Village Community Association -"Village" The purpose of the study session is to provide the City Council with details of the proposed new Resolution and to address any issues, concerns, comments, or changes. Staff and representatives of the HOAs will be available to answer questions and discuss any portion of the proposed Resolution. DISCUSSION In 1971, the City Council adopted Ordinances and Resolutions to add the Architectural Design Overlay ("D") zoning to the five areas that had formed single-family homeowners' associations and to provide for design review in place of the conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding design guidelines that are separate from the City's regulations. The Resolutions governing the HOAs were last amended in 1986, and the regulations within those Resolutions have been successful in providing guidance for applicants and homeowners in the planning and development of new homes and additions. Each of the five HOAs is interested in the continued protection of the architectural character and quality of life within their respective neighborhoods, and the City enjoys an excellent relationship with the HOAs in the reviewing and processing of applications and projects. Each HOA has an Architectural Review Board (ARB) that is tasked with reviewing all proposals in accordance with their guidelines to ensure compatibility. These ARBs conduct the official design review for projects in the HOA areas with the City Planning Services being responsible for plan check review in regards to zoning code compliance. It has been apparent to all five HOAs for some time that their guidelines are in need of updating, and in reviewing the 1986 Resolutions, it was realized that there are many similarities in the five Resolutions. As a result, the five HOAs have agreed that it would be more efficient for all affected parties; the HOAs and ARBs, the homeowners, developers, and the City to have a single Resolution that contains the regulations and development standards for all five HOA areas, and a uniform set of design review processes. The new consolidated Resolution reorganizes the provisions of the five existing Resolutions, and includes revisions to the design guidelines. The HOAs identified areas within the text of their current Resolutions that needed to be updated, clarified, and/or made more specific to enable them to conduct their design reviews more efficiently. The attached draft Resolution No. 6770 includes yellow-highlighting to show the reorganized/updated sections and the new and amended language. Summaries of the major proposed changes are as follows and will be discussed at the study session: 1. Defined Neighborhood (Section 4.1.) — For neighborhood compatibility and to ensure that a new home or addition is designed to blend with the immediate neighborhood, a new section has been added, "Defined Neighborhood." This "Neighborhood" is to be comprised of the two properties on each side of the subject property, the three properties to the rear, and the five properties across the street that face the subject property — see the diagram on page 2 of the draft Resolution. The HOAs feel this new regulation is easier to understand than the current 100-foot radius, and is more relevant because it is not affected by the sizes of the properties involved. The existing 100-foot radius method occasionally excludes relevant properties in large lot areas. 2. Streetscape (Section 4.B.) — There is new language in the draft Resolution that relates to the preservation of the, "Streetscape." In their established neighborhoods, the HOAs wish to preserve the Streetscapes; not only in relation to structures, but also with regard to the openness among front yards that are not obstructed by fences, walls or dense landscaping. This new regulation is to ensure that any improvements visible from and along the streets, including fences, landscaping, and hardscape do not change the character of the "Streetscape." 3. Minimum and Maximum "Guidance" [Sections 4.C.(1) & (2)] — The term, "Guidance" is to be used in relation to the mass and scale of structures and is HOA Reso. Study Session July 19, 2011 — Page 2 } another term for floor-area-ratio (FAR). This new provision is intended to ensure that new developments are designed in a manner that is similar to existing structures in terms of mass and scale. The current Resolutions have minimum size requirements for new homes, but they do not provide any guidance about maximum sizes. All of the HOAs have experienced complaints from their residents about new homes being overwhelming or disproportionate in mass and scale for their neighborhoods. The HOAs intend to administer this new regulation by analyzing the other homes in the "Neighborhood" (as defined in Section 4.1) as to mass, size, scale, architectural character, and topography to see what affects the new house could have on the neighboring houses. Also, any livable areas that have a ceiling height of 15'-0" or higher will be doubled-counted towards the gross livable area in computing the total square footage to be allowed. 4. Privacy and Views (Section 4.L.) — A new home or addition should be carefully designed with respect for the affect on adjacent properties and the "Neighborhood," including impacts on privacy and views. This new regulation is to ensure that a new home or addition is designed so that certain elements, such as second-story windows and balconies will be situated so as to reasonably protect the privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. Staff has incorporated this type of review into the City's design review process, and the HOAs would like to add specific language for this in the new Resolution. 5. Short Review vs. Regular Review (Sections 5.C. & 5.D.) — The Short and Regular Review procedures have been amended to clearly define the different scopes of projects under each category. The Short Review will remain an administrative process in which the ARB Chairperson or designee reviews and acts on smaller projects, such as single-story remodels or additions, or other minor improvements to a property, provided that all of the owners of the "Neighborhood" properties sign off. A list of project types eligible for the Short Review process has been included in the draft Resolution. The Regular Review process will still require a public hearing with notice sent to the owners of the "Neighborhood" properties, and is to include all new homes, second-story additions, and any project not eligible for the Short Review process. Both processes have time limits for reviewing the applications for completeness (10 or 30 days) and it is specified that decisions must be rendered only by the Chairperson or those ARB members that considered the applications. The Planning Commission and City Council will continue to function as appellate bodies to the ARB decisions. The draft Resolution standardizes the processes for all five HOAs. RECOMMENDATION Provide comments and/or direction. Approved By: 3)(31'14-40 Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Map of HOA Areas Exhibit "A" — Draft Resolution No. 6770 HOA Reso. Study Session July 19, 2011 — Page 3 Homeowners' Association Areas 1) Highlands Home Owners' Association—"Highlands" 2) Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association—"Upper Rancho" • 3) Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association—"Oaks" 4) Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association —"Lower Rancho" 5) Santa Anita Village Community Association —"Village" (II Or a Grove Av. ■ Eil `1111-9 11 ■ Foothill 61. 1"r1 fir►—IS'w li ■17•..x► h _m .unto pr..vm ': 1■__. T Map of Homeowners' Association Areas Exhibit "E" Original Draft Resolution No. 6770 Exhibit "E" Original Draft Resolution No. 6770 BRAF 1 RESOLUTION NO. 6770 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution Nos. 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, and 5290 and Ordinance No. 1832, and adopts this Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 2285. SECTION 2. To implement the Single-Family Residential Design regulations applicable to the real property within the five Single-Family Homeowners' Associations that are zoned, "D" as Architectural Design areas. Architectural Review Boards are established for each Association and are hereinafter referred to as the "ARBs". The five Homeowners'Associations and their Architectural Design Zones are: Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia — "Village" Rancho Santa Anita Residents'Association— "Lower Rancho" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association— "Upper Rancho" Highlands Home Owners Association— "Highlands" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association— "Oaks" The boundaries for each Association are depicted in Exhibit "A." The ARB for each area is governed by the corresponding Homeowners' Association Board for that area. SECTION 3. In order to promote and maintain the quality, single-family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 6, (previously section 4) there are hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 1of13 DRAFT SECTION 4. (amended) It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping and hardscape on properties within each area should exhibit a consistent and cohesive architectural style, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and setbacks in relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture, color and building materials. To promote harmony and compatibility of properties, the following standards and conditions are hereby imposed upon all properties within said areas pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all those in ownership or control of property within said areas, are subject to this Resolution. A. DEFINED NEIGHBORHOOD (new) — The "Defined Neighborhood" (Neighborhood) for the purpose of conducting design review shall be deemed to include at least the two properties on each side of the property subject to plan approval (subject property), the five properties facing the subject property, and the three properties to the rear of the subject property. Unusually situated properties, those where a second-story addition or modification is involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors, may require additional properties to be part of the defined neighborhood, and is to be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The Neighborhood shall not include properties outside of the HOA or commercially-zoned properties. An example of a Neighborhood is set forth below, although the neighborhood may vary case-by-case: <— Street--►- V/A WA j j j /j Subject Property Street j j j Defined Neighborhood v/7#i4 Properties included in "Defined Neighborhood"as related to Subject Property Exhibit "A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 2 of 13 DRAFt B. STREETSCAPE (new) — The developed subject property, when viewed from the street, should blend and be harmonious with the other structures and landscaping on the street. This includes and is not limited to setbacks, structural mass and scale, height, roof forms, facades, entries, building materials and everything that can be seen from the street. Each Neighborhood or street has an established streetscape that defines its character. The stronger the established pattern the more important it is to maintain its character and harmony. Front yards should promote a feeling of openness; fences, walls and hedges across the front of the yard are not permitted. C. FLOOR AREA (1) Minimum Guidance (new)—The space contained within the boundaries of the property, including any open porch, open entry, balcony, covered patio, trellis, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall NOT be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the required minimum floor area of a dwelling. Village & Lower Rancho — 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if 1-story and not less than 1,000 square feet on ground floor if 1% or 2-story Upper Rancho — 2,500 square feet of ground floor area. Attached covered porch, balcony or garage shall be counted at .5. Highlands — 1,600 square feet if 1-story and not less than 1,200 square feet on ground floor if 11/2 or 2-story Oaks—2,000 square feet of ground floor area, except 1,800 square feet in Tracts 14656, 13544 & 10617, in which no one-family dwelling shall be erected or permitted which contains less than 1,800 square feet of ground floor area. (2) Maximum Guidance (new) — Any open pordh, open entry, balcony, patio, or garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, shall be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such building as measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls in computing the maximum allowable floor area of a dwelling. Maximum guidance for each individual project shall be determined by analysis of the other homes in the Neighborhood. Determining factors shall include consideration Exhibit "A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 3 of 13 l)RAI=T of mass, size, scale, and character of a substantial majority of the Neighborhood. The slope of the site, and affect on neighboring houses shall also be considered. (3) Any livable areas with interior ceilings of 15 feet in height or higher shall be doubled as gross livable area in computing square footage. (new) D. FRONT YARD SETBACKS — If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of the subject property, the ARB shall have the authority to require a front yard setback for the subject property equal to at least an average of the two adjacent front yards. Village — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho— Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho (amended) — Minimum 50 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum sixty-five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not less than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 & 11013 shall not be less than fifty-five (55)feet, and Tract 14656 shall not be less than fifty (50)feet. E. SIDE YARD SETBACKS Village— 10% of yard frontage, and not less than 5 feet. Lower Rancho — a lot with a building or any part thereof within the front 100 feet shall have a side yard of at least 10 feet or 10% of the lot frontage, whichever is greater. Upper Rancho — Minimum 18 feet. Highlands — a lot with a building or any part thereof within the front 100 feet shall have a side yard of at least 6 feet or 10% of lot frontage, whichever is greater. Oaks— Minimum 10 feet or 10% of lot frontage, whichever is greater. F. REAR YARD SETBACKS Village— Minimum 25 feet Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Minimum 40 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum 35 feet G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS Village— Underlying Zoning Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 4 of 13 DR/F? Lower Rancho— Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho— Underlying Zoning Highlands — Minimum 15 feet from side street for Tracts 10725, 13367, 14626, 15285 & 16920. Oaks — On a corner lot, any detached garage shall be located a minimum of twenty(20)feet, at any point, from the side street property line. H. FRONT OF DWELLING (new) — For all HOAs, any dwelling on the lot should face the front lot line. Exceptions for good cause may be granted through the review Iprocess. I. GARAGES — No carports-allowed. Village (amended) & Lower Rancho (new) — Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. Upper Rancho (amended) — No garage door shall be allowed to face the public right-of-way within the front 150 feet of the property. No garage door shall be closer to the street than the dwelling (Lots 1 through 20 of Tract No. 13184 shall be excepted). Corner lots shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Highlands (amended) — Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be one hundred forty (140) feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 & 13544 which shall be one hundred twenty-five (125) feet, and in no case shall the garage be closer to the front property line than the main dwelling. Front facing garages are strongly discouraged. Trees previously followed Garages, but now follows section 'L' J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS (previously No. 6) — Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation, roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the Neighborhood. K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape. Any fence between Exhibit "A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 5 of 13 DRAFT adjacent properties not within the front building setback or street side setback area is subject only to review by the City. (new) L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD (new) — The impacts on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. M. TREES (amended)— City Planning staff must approve the removal of any Oak Tree or construction of any improvements under the drip line of Oak Trees. Village, Lower Rancho, Highlands & Oaks (amended) — No other living tree with a trunk diameter larger than 12" Diameter Breast Height ("DBH") shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the ARB. The ARB Chair or designee shall determine whether a certified Arborist's evaluation of the condition of the tree is required prior to removal. Upper Rancho — No living oak, sycamore, liquidambar, magnolia, pine, or redwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than six inches, measured at DBH, shall be cut down, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the ARB. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it. N. ANIMALS — Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. SECTION 5. APPROVAL OF ARB REQUIRED. (previously No. 8) No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or replaced unless approved by the ARt3. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the ARB. No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in exact conformance with the plans approved by the ARB. Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 6 of 13 DRAM No lot shall be cleared without advance approval of the ARB, whether or not a new structure is proposed for the subject property. (new) Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. (new) The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only of work inside a building that does not substantially change the external appearance of the building. A. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD — The ARB (acronym added) shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. b. The organization has by-laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. c. Said by-laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. d. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by-laws. e. A copy of the by-laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk. f. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, actions, and decisions of the ARB shall be maintained by the ARB, in accordance with the City's records retention policies. (Sections If through 'k' were previously sentences included under section `g) h. The ARB's decision on a Regular Review Process shall be accompanied by specific findings, based upon a reference to supporting facts, setting forth the actions and decisions. i. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. Exhibit "A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 7 of 13 • DRAFT j. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render the decision. k. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within seven (7) working days of the ARB's decision. I. (previously section h) All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: (sections revised according to conditions) a. Determine the compatibility with the Neighborhood of the mass, scale, size, design and appearance of the proposed project (Conditions A, B, C, & D) b. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks (Conditions D, E, F & G) c. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the Neighborhood (Conditions H, I, J, K & M) d. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. (Condition L) e. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 'A' through 'M' of Section 3, may be made less restrictive by the ARB if the ARB determines that such action will foster the appropriate development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent lots and the Neighborhood and would not be inconsistent with the provisions and intent of this Resolution. f. The ARB shall have the power to establish requirements concerning project applications and procedures for review for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such requirements shall be kept on file with the Planning Department. C. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE(new section) a. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (1) the applicant has obtained the signatures of approval of the plans from all the Neighborhood owners, as determined by the ARB Chair or Exhibit "A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 8 of 13 ORAF1 impact on the Neighborhood, he/she may require that the application be processed under the Regular Review Process procedure. D. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE (entire section amended) The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story, (3) any significant change in architectural style of an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not eligible to be processed by the above Short Form Review procedure as determined by the ARB Chair or designee. a. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. b. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. c. Notice of the ARB's meeting shall be deposited in the mail by the ARB Chair or designee, postage prepaid by the applicant, to the applicant and to all property owners within the Neighborhood of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. d. Any decision by the ARB shall be made by a majority of the entire membership of the ARB, and the ARB members who considered the application shall render such decision. e. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the thirty(30)working-day period. E. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL — If for a period of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and/or the installation of a new foundation and/or by installation of new materials or a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. (new) Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 10 of 13 0 RA F7 designee, or otherwise meets the notification requirements; (2) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and Neighborhood; and (3) where the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the Neighborhood. Specific Short Review Process Items include but are not limited to: • Single-story remodels or additions • Detached accessory structures— new, additions to, and/or remodels • Fences and/or walls in and/or facing (i.e., visible from) front and street side yards • Hardscape and landscaping in front and street side yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, fountains and other water features • Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, sports courts or other significant paved features • Mechanical equipment • Removal of trees as listed in this Resolution • Roofing b. If a property owner in the Neighborhood cannot be reached after three attempts on three separate days, the applicant may submit evidence of efforts to contact the owner. The ARB may then determine, in its discretion, not to consider that owner as an opponent of the proposed project. A Short Review Application will not be considered complete until all such required documentation from all owners in the Neighborhood has been submitted by the applicant. c. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. d. The ARB Chair or another ARB member designated by the ARB Chair, to act in his/her absence, shall render a decision on a Short Review Process application within ten (10) working days from the date such completed application is filed with the ARB; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working-day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. e. If the ARB Chair or designee determines that the proposed project is not a cohesive design, not in harmony with the neighborhood, or might have an adverse Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 9 of 13 DRAFT F. LIMIT ON ARB'S POWER— The ARB shall not have the power to modify any regulations in the Municipal Code. The ARB may, however, make a recommendation regarding modifying such regulations to the City staff, department, commission or board that will be considering any such modification request. SECTION 6. APPEAL. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt in proper form of a completed appeal from the ARB's decision, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing. A. STANDARDS FOR ARB DECISIONS AND APPEALS — The ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the ARB's decision shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, & M of Section 3 of this Resolution — Neighborhood, Streetscape, Setbacks, Front of Dwelling, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, and Trees). Refers to new or revised sections. b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions A, B, C, D, E, H, J, K & M of Section 3 of this Resolution —Neighborhood, Streetscape, Front of Dwelling, Floor Area, Front & Side Yard Setbacks, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, and Trees). Refers to new or added sections. Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 11 of 13 DRAFT c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions A, B, J, K & L Section 3 of this Resolution — Neighborhood, Streetscape, Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance, and Affect on Adjacent Properties). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Conditions B, D & L of Section 3 of this Resolution — Streetscape, Front Yard Setbacks &Affect on Adjacent Properties). SECTION 7. (previously section 4) The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration, blight, and unattractiveness, all of which can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living. All findings and statements of purpose in related resolutions which pre-existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference. SECTION 8. (previously section 5) If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 12 of 13 DR/-F-1 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it would have, adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 9. (previously section 6) The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2011. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney Exhibit"A" Draft Resolution No. 6770 Page 13 of 13