Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: Resolution 6770: Single Resolution for Design Guidelines for All Five Homeowners' Association Areas • S . ' 001FOIN,r!\, CI r- �., , `ye F s, • �F :..,l5,3 e , Mtgl 1.lfq 0 ��a�e�or STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: December 6, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director3UL. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 11-03 TO CREATE A SINGLE RESOLUTION THAT CONTAINS DESIGN GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ALL FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AREAS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6770 SUMMARY 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 Homeowners' Association (HOA) resolutions into a new single resolution. The five City-designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the map attached at the back of Resolution No. 6770. 1) Arcadia Highlands 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 Development Services Department recommends approval of Resolution No. 6770. BACKGROUND 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 since that time. 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 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. On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed new resolution. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the joint resolution to the City Council. The City Council held study sessions on the joint resolution on July 19, September 20, and November 1. During the course of these three study sessions, the Council asked numerous questions and heard feedback from both HOA representatives and members of the local development community. The Council gave consideration to important aspects of the resolution such as the extent of authority granted to the HOAs, floor area, landscaping and hardscape, tree retention and removal, setbacks, notification of neighbors, and processing of design review cases. The new, consolidated joint Resolution No. 6770 is the result of nearly two years of collaboration and effort between the HOAs and City staff, and it incorporates direction from the Council received during the three study sessions held. DISCUSSION 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. Moreover, all five HOAs will now be operating under one set of guidelines and standards, which will be helpful to applicants, the staff, and the ARBs. It is important to note that the stated purpose of the Architectural Review Boards is the same as it has been since the 1980's, which is as follows: "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 there hereby is established the following regulations and procedures..." HOA Resolution No. 6770—Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 2 Despite the fact that the overall goals and purpose for the resolution has not changed, there are a number of areas where language has been updated and revised. Some of the major areas of change and/or discussion are as follows: 1. Site Planning and Streetscape (Sections 4A and B)—There is new language in the Resolution that relates to the consideration of site planning through the design review process and the preservation of the "Streetscape." The primary it these guidelines is to reinforce that the overall appearance p site d goal with can be as important as the actual architectural design of the home. With regard to site planning, the HOAs wish to ensure that natural features be taken into consideration in the design of new homes and additions and that the existing site and surroundings be considered as an integral part of design. scape guidelines spell out the importance of considering how all that is visiblerfrom the street, including fences, landscaping and hardscape, impacts the character of the street. 2. Privacy and Views (Section 4L) — 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 guideline 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. 3. Trees (Section 4M) — There was much discussion through the Council study sessions on whether the HOAs should protect more species of trees than the City and, if so, what types of trees should be protected at what size. The City currently has an Ordinance that requires a permit to remove an Oak tree. This is the only tree that requires this level of review by the City. Several of the HOAs currently have a list of protected trees other than oaks and, through this Resoluton, all five HOAs will continue to require review and approval of all oak, sycamore, magnolia, pine, and redwood trees that exceed 6" in diameter at breast height (DBH). At the Council's direction, staff contacted several arborists and several neighboring cities to see at what size various trees are protected. The most common size for protection proved to be 6", especially for oak trees. For other trees, an increase to 8" at DBH would also be appropriate, but staff recommends retaining the 6" limitation for consistency. 4. Notification Areas and Neighbor Sign-off (Section 5C.) — The HOAs had expressed some concerns about the limited 100-foot radius currently used to notify neighbors of projects. The new Resolution contains a notification area that focuses on the streetscape and those adjoining properties that could be impacted by the project. The notification area includes two parcels on either side of the subject parcel, five parcels across the street, and three parcels behind the subject parcel. The actual lots notified can vary based on topography or the unique conditions of the property in question. In addition, the new resolution will require notification of the residents within this area for all projects being completed through the administrative or "short form" process. However, an applicant will no longer need to obtain signatures of approval from his/her adjoining neighbors. This new notification HOA Resolution No. 6770 —Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 3 awrr, process will allow neighbors to voice concerns on both short and long review processes, but it does not require their sign off. Once the draft Resolution was released to the public, HOA representatives contacted staff to say that this notification process was not what was intended. As it is written, notification would be required for ALL short review projects, even small ones such as mechanical equipment or very minor additions. The HOAs reason that the 10 day timeframe for notice is too long and cumbersome for projects like this. In response to these concerns, we have attached two alternatives for the short review process for Council consideration. Attachment B is an alternative developed by staff that would make ALL short review projects administrative. We discussed this option at the final study session but it was not selected as the preferred option. This alternative would remove the need for notification for all projects that qualify as short review. However, the ARB Chair or designee would still have the ability to call a project up for a hearing with the ARB. Attachment C is a second alternative with language submitted by HOA representatives that provides a hybrid process. Notification would be required but the ARB Chair or designee would determine the "affected neighbors" on a case by case basis depending on the project. There would not be an established notification area for the short review. This alternative provides the applicant the option of obtaining signatures (the current practice) OR notifying the affected property owners and waiting the 10 day notification period. The HOA representatives support this alternative. Both of the alternatives will be discussed in greater detail at the hearing. 5. Short Review vs. Regular Review (Sections 5D and E) — 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 (following a notification of neighbors — see above for options) 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. A list of project types eligible for the Short Review process has been included in the proposed Resolution. The Regular Review process will still require a public hearing with notice sent to the owners of the properties in the new notification area, and is to include all new homes, second-story additions, and any project not eligible for the Short Review process. Both processes specify that decisions must be rendered only by the Chairperson, designee, 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 proposed Resolution standardizes the processes for all five HOAs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines as minor alterations in land use limitations. HOA Resolution No. 6770—Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 6770, creating a single resolution that contains design guidelines, development standards, and processing procedures for construction in all five single- family Homeowners Association areas. Approved By: -y,.4P Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment A: Resolution No. 6770, Map and Legal Descriptions Attachment B: Alternative to Short Review process (All administrative) Attachment C: Alternative to Short Review process (HOA proposal) HOA Resolution No. 6770—Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 5 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT— 11-23-11 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 Arcadia's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines applicable to the real property within the five Single-Family Homeowners' Associations that are zoned "D" as Architectural Design area, 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: Arcadia Highlands Home Owners Association —"Highlands" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association— "Upper Rancho" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association —"Oaks" Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association —"Lower Rancho" Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia— "Village" 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 Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 1 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 purposes set forth in Section 7 there are hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 4: 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 is not to promote sameness, uniformity, a specific architectural style, or a certain time period. It is acknowledged that architecture (and neighborhoods in general) evolve and change over time and this will be considered through the review process. 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. SITE PLANNING — 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, and design of new buildings and 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 in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites. Alternatively, projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale differences. 4. The design of a new house should provide effective and varied open space around the residence. B. STREETSCAPE — 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, Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 2 of 17 DRAFT-- 11-23-11 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. Streetscape characteristics should be considered by new projects. C. FLOOR AREA — 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 — 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story in height, or 1,300 square feet of floor area if 2 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 1'/ or 2 stories 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 1'/z or 2 stories. 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. 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— Minimum 50 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 3 of 17 a. DRAFT— 11-23-11 • 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 15 feet Highlands— 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 6 feet 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 (STREET SIDE) Villaae— 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 — 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. Villaae & Lower Rancho — Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front façade or located in the back yard. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 4 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Upper Rancho — 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— Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than 150 feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be 140 feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 & 13544 which shall be 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. J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS — Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation, roofing, and walls or fences greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with the materials of other structures on the same lot and with the other structures in the neighborhood. K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — The appearance of any structure, including roofs, walls or fences shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape. L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD — 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 — 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, magnolia, pine, or redwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than 6 inches, measured at DBH (the standard arborist measurement is taken 4%2 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. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 5 of 17 DRAFT- 11-23-11 N. ANIMALS — Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. SECTION 5. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 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. Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. 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 shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: 1. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. 2. The organization has by-laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. 3. Said by-laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. 4. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by-laws. 5. A copy of the by-laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 6 of 17 DRAFT 11-23-11 6. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. 10. 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. 11. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within 7 working days of the ARB's decision. 12. All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). All aspects of the Brown Act shall be adhered to by members of the ARB. This includes, but is not limited to proper posting of meeting agendas, noticing requirements, no discussion of matters outside of public meetings, etc. B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3 and Sections 4A through 4N, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: 1. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, design and appearance of the proposed project. 2. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks. 3. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. 5. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Sections 4A through 4N may be made less restrictive by the Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 7 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 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. 6. 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 — 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 this is to be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The required notification shall not include properties outside of the HOA area 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: f----Street mit Subject Parcel 4--- Street Required Notification Area % Parcels included in "Required Notification Area"as related to Subject Parcel Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 8 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (a) the applicant has notified all the owners in the required notification area, as determined by the ARB Chair or designee; (b) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and (c) 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. When the ARB deems the application complete, the ARB Chair or designee shall mail a notice of the application at least 10 working days prior to making a decision to all the property owners within the Required Notification Area, as specified in this Resolution. Comments may be received on the application by the ARB Chair or designee during this 10 working-day notification period. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision following the 10 working-day notification period, as stated in the notice. Failure of the ARB Chair or designee to take action in 21 calendar days from the completion date shall be deemed an approval of the plans. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 9 of 17 DRAFT — 11-23-11 3. 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 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. 1. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. 2. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. 3. 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 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. 4. 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. 5. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within 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 30 working-day period. F. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL— If for a period of 1 year from the 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) Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 10 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 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. 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. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within 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. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 11 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 3. 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. 4. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. SECTION 7. 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. 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 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, Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 12 of 17 DRAFT 11-23-11 subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 9. 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 Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 13 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Exhibit"A" Map and Descriptions Homeowners' Association Areas 1) Arcadia 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" )11 0 i; 14/ _ NV 1 Ills ;LIII . 'I le 1 I. eil g 1 �'LjIL -gas - I _ ,ett. ` A- i...MMI'� ..-U 111 01111411". 11=IN ' 1111111111111.0 11.1111114111.111111=11.11 Pi " IIIII -r Highlands The area north of the commercial properties fronting on Foothill Boulevard, south of the northerly City limit, east of Santa Anita Avenue, west of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District property, extending to the east end of Sycamore Avenue. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 14 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Excluding those properties located in Tract 15073 (1500 to 1538 & 1503 to 1537 Highland Oaks Drive) and 1501 Highland Oaks Drive and 307A, 307B, 307C & 307D East Foothill Boulevard. Upper Rancho The property bounded on the south by the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; on the west by the east line of Michillinda Avenue; on the east by the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; and on the north by the City limits. Oaks Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Baldwin Avenue and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence southerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive;thence westerly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence southerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Baldwin Avenue to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Oak Meadow Road and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence northerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence easterly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line a distance of 65 feet; thence easterly along a line parallel to the southerly property line of Lot 76 of Tract No. 11074 to its intersection-with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue a distance of 65 feet to the point of beginning. Lower Rancho Area#1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 15 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312;thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928; Area#2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786; Area#3 All properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. Santa Anita Village Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312;thence southerly along the easterly and northerly lines of Lots 11 through 19 of said tract to be northeast corner of said Lot 19; thence easterly along the easterly prolongation of said Lot 19 to its intersection with the northwesterly corner of lot 74, Tract No. 12786; thence easterly along the northerly line of said tract to the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of said Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive, thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract 12786; thence southerly along said easterly line and also the easterly line of Tract No. 12104 to the southeast corner of Lot 129 of said Tract 12104; thence westerly along the southerly lines of Tract No. 12104, Tract 11688, and Tract No. 11932 and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 16 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 of Cortez Road; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of distance a 150' more or less to a point; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of Portola Drive, said point being 140' westerly from the northwesterly corner of Portola Drive and Cortez Road, thence northerly to the southwest corner of Lot 28, Tract 11932; thence northerly along the westerly line of said tract and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Balboa Drive; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Sunset Boulevard; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT B D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where - - _ _ _ '__ _ _ - _ - - - _ • - ' • --, - e : - •••- •=e - ' • _ - - - : =-"e • =-; ab) where-the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and Ineighborhood; and (be) 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. When the ARB--deems—tie application complete, the ARB Chair or designee shall mail a - _- : - - _ _ '__ _ _ -- e - - - - - - - _ -- - - - - -'- - - •- - - - -- e - - - • . .•-e :e ∎ ' -- _ A - - -- - - - f' .. :lution. Comments may be reeeived on the application by the ARB Chair or designee-ellging this 10 working-dad-ae#j# en plans. 3. 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. ATTACHMENT C D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (_ - _- - "' ' ' - _esignee (ma) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; a -(cb) where the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the neighborhood; and (c) evidence that all affected property owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee have been notified is presented by either, or a combination of the following two methods: (1) The applicant has obtained the signatures of approval of the plans from all the affected owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee; or (2) The applicant has provided the ARB Chair a notification letter, addressed to all the affected owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee with postage prepaid, together with the proposed plans and allowing ten (10) days for response or objection. The ARB Chair or designee shall deposit those notifications in the mail. The application shall be deemed complete at the end of the 10-day notification period. 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. A Short Review Application shall not be considered complete until the applicant has submitted all required documentation and any required notification period has expired. 3. Processing the completed Short Review Application: a. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. a—b. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision on a Short Review Application within ten (10) working days from the date the application is deemed complete. Failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working-day period, be deemed approval of the plans. When - - ' - = - -= - - - - - -- - - - - ARB Chair or -designee shall---mall—a— notice of - - _ . _ •_. _ _ _ making--a decision to all the property owners --- -- - - - - - -- - - • - - - - -- - -- this-10 - - - - • -- - - = •- . - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - !-werk ing-day--notification-peried as stated in _ _ -_ • _ - _ . - _ _ - - = _ - - 4e-take action in 21 the-plan 34. 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. • I �tyi 1.Ifq Alty of IL" STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: December 6, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services DirectorSzK- Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 11-03 TO CREATE A SINGLE RESOLUTION THAT CONTAINS DESIGN GUIDELINES, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ALL FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AREAS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6770 SUMMARY 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 Homeowners' Association (HOA) resolutions into a new single resolution. The five City-designated HOA areas are as follows, and are depicted on the map attached at the back of Resolution No. 6770. 1) Arcadia Highlands 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 Development Services Department recommends approval of Resolution No. 6770. BACKGROUND 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 since that time. 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 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. On May 10, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed new resolution. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the joint resolution to the City Council. The City Council held study sessions on the joint resolution on July 19, September 20, and November 1. During the course of these three study sessions, the Council asked numerous questions and heard feedback from both HOA representatives and members of the local development community. The Council gave consideration to important aspects of the resolution such as the extent of authority granted to the HOAs, floor area, landscaping and hardscape, tree retention and removal, setbacks, notification of neighbors, and processing of design review cases. The new, consolidated joint Resolution No. 6770 is the result of nearly two years of collaboration and effort between the HOAs and City staff, and it incorporates direction from the Council received during the three study sessions held. DISCUSSION 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. Moreover, all five HOAs will now be operating under one set of guidelines and standards, which will be helpful to applicants, the staff, and the ARBs. It is important to note that the stated purpose of the Architectural Review Boards is the same as it has been since the 1980's, which is as follows: "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 there hereby is established the following regulations and procedures..." HOA Resolution No. 6770— Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 2 Despite the fact that the overall goals and purpose for the resolution has not changed, there are a number of areas where language has been updated and revised. Some of the major areas of change and/or discussion are as follows: 1. Site Planning and Streetscape (Sections 4A and B)—There is new language in the Resolution that relates to the consideration, p ." The primary site planning through the design review process and the preservation of the "Streetscape." p � ry goal with these guidelines is to reinforce that the overall appearance of the site and its context can be as important as the actual architectural design of the home. With regard to site planning, the HOAs wish to ensure that natural features be taken into consideration in the design of new homes and additions and that the existing site and surroundings be considered as an integral part of design. Streetscape guidelines spell out the importance of considering how all that is visible from the street, including fences, landscaping and hardscape, impacts the character of the street. 2. Privacy and Views (Section 4L) — 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 guideline 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. 3. Trees (Section 4M) — There was much discussion through the Council study sessions on whether the HOAs should protect more species of trees than the City and, if so, what types of trees should be protected at what size. The City currently has an Ordinance that requires a permit to remove an Oak tree. This is the only tree that requires this level of review by the City. Several of the HOAs currently have a list of protected trees other than oaks and, through this Resoluton, all five HOAs will continue to require review and approval of all oak, sycamore, redwood trees that exceed 6" in diameter at breast height (DBH). At the Council's direction, staff contacted several arborists and several neighboring cities to see at what size various trees are protected. The most common size for protection proved to be 6", especially for oak trees. For other trees, an increase to 8" at DBH would also be appropriate, but staff recommends retaining the 6" limitation for consistency. 4. Notification Areas and Neighbor Sign-off (Section 5C.) — The HOAs had expressed some concerns about the limited 100-foot radius currently used to notify neighbors of projects. The new Resolution contains a notification area that focuses on the streetscape and those adjoining properties that could be impacted by the project. The notification area includes two parcels on either side of the subject parcel, five parcels across the street, and three parcels behind the subject parcel. The actual lots notified can vary based on topography or the unique conditions of the property in question. In addition, the new resolution will require notification of the residents within this area for all projects being completed through the administrative or "short form" process. However, an applicant will no longer need to obtain signatures of approval from his/her adjoining neighbors. This new notification HOA Resolution No. 6770— Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 3 process will allow neighbors to voice concerns on both short and long review processes, but it does not require their sign off. Once the draft Resolution was released to the public, HOA representatives contacted staff to say that this notification process was not what was intended. As it is written, notification would be required for ALL short review projects, even small ones such as mechanical equipment or very minor additions. The HOAs reason that the 10 day timeframe for notice is too long and cumbersome for projects like this. In response to these concerns, we have attached two alternatives for the short review process for Council consideration. Attachment B is an alternative developed by staff that would make ALL short review projects administrative. We discussed this option at the final study session but it was not selected as the preferred option. This alternative would remove the need for notification for all projects that qualify as short review. However, the ARB Chair or designee would still have the ability to call a project up for a hearing with the ARB. Attachment C is a second alternative with language submitted by HOA representatives that provides a hybrid process. Notification would be required but the ARB Chair or designee would determine the "affected neighbors" on a case by case basis depending on the project. There would not be an established notification area for the short review. This alternative provides the applicant the option of obtaining signatures (the current practice) OR notifying the affected property owners and waiting the 10 day notification period. The HOA representatives support this alternative. Both of the alternatives will be discussed in greater detail at the hearing. 5. Short Review vs. Regular Review (Sections 5D and E) — 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 (following a notification of neighbors — see above for options) 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. A list of project types eligible for the Short Review process has been included in the proposed Resolution. The Regular Review process will still require a public hearing with notice sent to the owners of the properties in the new notification area, and is to include all new homes, second-story additions, and any project not eligible for the Short Review process. Both processes specify that decisions must be rendered only by the Chairperson, designee, 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 proposed Resolution standardizes the processes for all five HOAs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines as minor alterations in land use limitations. HOA Resolution No. 6770 — Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this Resolution. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 6770, creating a single resolution that contains design guidelines, development standards, and processing procedures for construction in all five single- family Homeowners Association areas. Approved By: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment A: Resolution No. 6770, Map and Legal Descriptions Attachment B: Alternative to Short Review process (All administrative) Attachment C: Alternative to Short Review process (HOA proposal) HOA Resolution No. 6770—Staff Report December 6, 2011 — Page 5 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT— 11-23-11 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 Arcadia's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines applicable to the real property within the five Single-Family Homeowners' Associations that are zoned "D" as Architectural Design area, 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: Arcadia Highlands Home Owners Association —"Highlands" Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association— "Upper Rancho" Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association —"Oaks" Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association —"Lower Rancho" Santa Anita Village Community Association of Arcadia—"Village" 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 Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 1 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 purposes set forth in Section 7 there are hereby established the following regulations and procedures in which said associations may exercise plan review authority. SECTION 4: 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 is not to promote sameness, uniformity, a specific architectural style, or a certain time period. It is acknowledged that architecture (and neighborhoods in general) evolve and change over time and this will be considered through the review process. 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. SITE PLANNING — 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, and design of new buildings and 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 in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites. Alternatively, projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale differences. 4. The design of a new house should provide effective and varied open space around the residence. B. STREETSCAPE — 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, Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 2 of 17 DRAFT- 11-23-11 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. Streetscape characteristics should be considered by new projects. C. FLOOR AREA — 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 — 1,200 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story in height, or 1,300 square feet of floor area if 2 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 stories 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 stories. 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. 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 — Minimum 50 feet Highlands— Underlying Zoning Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770- Final Page 3 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 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 15 feet Highlands — 10% of lot frontage, and not less than 6 feet 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 (STREET SIDE) 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 — 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. Village & Lower Rancho — Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front façade or located in the back yard. Staff Draft of Resolution No.6770— Final Page 4 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Upper Rancho — 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— Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located less than 150 feet from the front property line, except for Tract 11013 which shall be 140 feet and Tracts 13345, 14656 & 13544 which shall be 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. J. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS — Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including without limitation, roofing, and walls or fences greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with the materials of other structures on the same lot and with the other structures in the neighborhood. K. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE — The appearance of any structure, including roofs, walls or fences shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood, inclusive of landscape and hardscape. L. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD — 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 — 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, magnolia, pine, or redwood tree with a trunk diameter larger than 6 inches, measured at DBH (the standard arborist measurement is taken 41/2 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. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 5 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 N. ANIMALS — Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules, poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept. SECTION 5. No structure, roof, wall or fence greater than 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. Specific requirements of the ARB for proper consideration of an application are listed on the Short Review or Regular Review Applications. 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 shall be empowered to transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following requirements exist: 1. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in the applicable area described in Section 1. 2. The organization has by-laws adopted that authorize the establishment of the ARB. 3. Said by-laws provide that only property owners can be appointed to and serve on the ARB. 4. Owners have been appointed to the ARB in accordance with the by-laws. 5. A copy of the by-laws and any amendments thereto has been filed with the City Clerk. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 6 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 6. The ARB shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Only ARB members present at the meeting can participate in making the decision. 10. 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. 11. A copy of the ARB's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant within 7 working days of the ARB's decision. 12. All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law). All aspects of the Brown Act shall be adhered to by members of the ARB. This includes, but is not limited to proper posting of meeting agendas, noticing requirements, no discussion of matters outside of public meetings, etc. B. POWERS OF THE ARB — Pursuant to Section 3 and Sections 4A through 4N, and through the specified review process, the ARB shall have the power to: 1. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, design and appearance of the proposed project. 2. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks. 3. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. 5. Subject to compliance or consistency with the City's Municipal Code, any of the conditions set forth in Sections 4A through 4N may be made less restrictive by the Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 7 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 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. 6. 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 — 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 this is to be determined by the ARB Chair or designee. The required notification shall not include properties outside of the HOA area 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: f---Street j jInv i j Subject Parcel 41— Street j V V j j Required Notification Area Parcels included in "Required Notification Area"as related to Subject Parcel Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 8 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (a) the applicant has notified all the owners in the required notification area, as determined by the ARB Chair or designee; (b) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and (c) 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. When the ARB deems the application complete, the ARB Chair or designee shall mail a notice of the application at least 10 working days prior to making a decision to all the property owners within the Required Notification Area, as specified in this Resolution. Comments may be received on the application by the ARB Chair or designee during this 10 working-day notification period. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision following the 10 working-day notification period, as stated in the notice. Failure of the ARB Chair or designee to take action in 21 calendar days from the completion date shall be deemed an approval of the plans. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 9 of 17 DRAFT — 11-23-11 3. 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 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. 1. The ARB is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application. 2. The applicant shall provide to the ARB all documents required by the application. 3. 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 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. 4. 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. 5. The ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process application within 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 30 working-day period. F. EXPIRATION OF ARB'S APPROVAL— If for a period of 1 year from the 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) Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 10 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 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. 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. Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within 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. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 11 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 3. 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. 4. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. SECTION 7. 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. 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 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, Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 12 of 17 DRAFT 11-23-11 subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. SECTION 9. 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 Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 13 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Exhibit"A" Map and Descriptions Homeowners' Association Areas 1) Arcadia 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" i 0 NV i lipi ! , rt I i i OW ; ! AL ! 1 inin17011 r1"11111:I ! � . �r ter:: 4�'►, I ri. n'U :t t` iI =ill.. . '� ...'.. ,,-,1 GZ�►<< ..........raii .... ME vigor..411 fa ma"am /`■giriilalkwa+ill..... . T Highlands The area north of the commercial properties fronting on Foothill Boulevard, south of the northerly City limit, east of Santa Anita Avenue, west of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District property, extending to the east end of Sycamore Avenue. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 14 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 Excluding those properties located in Tract 15073 (1500 to 1538 & 1503 to 1537 Highland Oaks Drive) and 1501 Highland Oaks Drive and 307A, 307B, 307C & 307D East Foothill Boulevard. Upper Rancho The property bounded on the south by the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; on the west by the east line of Michillinda Avenue; on the east by the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; and on the north by the City limits. Oaks Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Baldwin Avenue and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence southerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive;thence westerly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence southerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of Baldwin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Baldwin Avenue to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Oak Meadow Road and the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of Orange Grove Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line to its intersection with the centerline of Foothill Boulevard; thence westerly along the centerline of Foothill Boulevard to its intersection with the centerline of San Carlos Road; thence northerly along the centerline of San Carlos Road to its intersection with the centerline of Hacienda Drive; thence easterly along the centerline of Hacienda Drive to its intersection with the centerline of Oak Meadow Road; thence northerly along the centerline of Oak Meadow Road to the point of beginning. Beginning at a point at the intersection of the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue and the easterly prolongation of the southerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and said southerly property line to its intersection with the westerly property line of Lot No. 76 of Tract No. 11074; thence southerly along the prolongation of said westerly property line a distance of 65 feet; thence easterly along a line parallel to the southerly property line of Lot 76 of Tract No. 11074 to its intersection•with the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue a distance of 65 feet to the point of beginning. Lower Rancho Area#1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770—Final Page 15 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312;thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No. 11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928; Area#2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786; Area#3 All properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue, on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. Santa Anita Village Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 13312; thence southerly along the easterly and northerly lines of Lots 11 through 19 of said tract to be northeast corner of said Lot 19; thence easterly along the easterly prolongation of said Lot 19 to its intersection with the northwesterly corner of lot 74, Tract No. 12786; thence easterly along the northerly line of said tract to the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of said Tract No. 12786; thence southerly along the westerly line of said lot and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive, thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the easterly line of Tract 12786; thence southerly along said easterly line and also the easterly line of Tract No. 12104 to the southeast corner of Lot 129 of said Tract 12104; thence westerly along the southerly lines of Tract No. 12104, Tract 11688, and Tract No. 11932 and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 16 of 17 DRAFT— 11-23-11 of Cortez Road; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of distance a 150' more or less to a point; thence northerly to a point on the northerly line of Portola Drive, said point being 140' westerly from the northwesterly corner of Portola Drive and Cortez Road, thence northerly to the southwest corner of Lot 28, Tract 11932; thence northerly along the westerly line of said tract and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the centerline of Balboa Drive; thence westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Sunset Boulevard; thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence northerly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928. Staff Draft of Resolution No. 6770— Final Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT B D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (a - - - _ _ '__ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ •. _ _ _ - • -- _ =-, - ' " - •' -- - - ' = - -' - - -- - --; ab) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and Ineighborhood; and (be) 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. When the --deem$ •-_ - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - -4e-all- e-pfep . , - -- _ ' - --- - ' - - - - - . .. . - •• -y be received • - - - - .-- - - "- ' ' = - - e = - -e --th .14)- -.day-notifisatler+ period. Tho ARB-Ghair or designee shall render a decisien-felewing gdp -- - - -=, - - - - - = - - - - - - *e - z- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - __ - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -tile 3. 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. ATTACHMENT C D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any single-story remodel or addition where (_ • ,-- .: - -, -- _ _ __ 'e e - - A . = - •-. - - - - -=; (ba) where the design is compatible with the design of existing structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and--(cb) where the design is in harmony with the streetscape of the neighborhood; and (c) evidence that all affected property owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee have been notified is presented by either, or a combination of the following two methods: (1) The applicant has obtained the signatures of approval of the plans from all the affected owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee; or (2) The applicant has provided the ARB Chair a notification letter, addressed to all the affected owners as determined by the ARB Chair or designee with postage prepaid, together with the proposed plans and allowing ten (10) days for response or objection. The ARB Chair or designee shall deposit those notifications in the mail. The application shall be deemed complete at the end of the 10-day notification period. 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, landscaping and structural elements 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 2. A Short Review Application shall not be considered complete until the applicant has submitted all required documentation and any required notification period has expired. 3. Processing the completed Short Review Application: a. The ARB is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Short Review Process application. a--b. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision on a Short Review Application within ten (10) working days from the date the application is deemed complete. Failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working-day period, be deemed approval of the plans. When fie- ' ' = - == - - - - - -- - -- - - -, - - e - '- - • - - - - • -- - - =- - - - - - - prior to making-a decision to all tho proporty owners , - - - - = - • - - ' =-- - - received on - - - - • -- - - • - ` ' = — - - - -- - - - - - :- 10 - - - - ' -- - • - - - -. - - • - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - e _ -as-sated- n - - - - - " _ - - - -- - - - action in 24 2 - 2 _ _ - - _ •• - - -- - - - • - - - - - - - - = - - -an the-plane: 34. 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.