Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1cSTAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: May 28, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 13 -01, MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MP 13 -06, AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. TRE 13 -27 TO RECONSIDER THE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF A NEW 5,159 SQUARE -FOOT, TWO- STORY, SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE, WHICH REQUIRES A ZONING MODIFICATION TO ALLOW A 20' -0" FRONT YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE 25' -0" REQUIREMENT, AND AN OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PROTECTED ZONES OF TWO OAK TREES AT 2081 CAROLWOOD DRIVE Recommended Action: Deny Appeal, and Approve Modification and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit SUMMARY This is an appeal by the Neighbors of 2081 Carolwood Drive, to request that the Planning Commission reconsider the Highlands Homeowners' Association's (HOA) Architectural Review Board's (ARB) approval of the design of a new 5,159 square -foot, two -story, single - family residence at 2081 Carolwood Drive — see the attached aerial photo, photos of the subject property, and the proposed plans (Exhibits A, B & C). Concurrently, the property owners are requesting a Zoning Modification for a 20 -foot front yard setback in lieu of the 25 -foot requirement (AMC Sec. 9252.2.2) and an Oak Tree Encroachment Permit to encroach into the protected zones of two oak trees. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 13 -01, and approve Modification Application No. MP 13 -06 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 13 -27 because the design is consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and the design guidelines set forth in City Council Resolution No. 6770, which establishes the standards for the City- designated Homeowners' Association areas, and because approval of the Zoning Modification and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANTS: Neighbors of 2081 Carolwood Drive See attached appeal letter (Exhibit E) APPLICANTS: Mr. Surendra Thakral and Mrs. Meenakshi Thakral (Property Owners) LOCATION: 2081 Carolwood Drive REQUESTS: The appellants are requesting reconsideration of the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board's approval of the architectural design of a new 5,159 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence. Concurrently, the homeowners are requesting an Oak Tree Encroachment Permit to allow the proposed new home and garden walls to encroach upon two oak trees, and a Zoning Modification to allow a 20' -0" front yard setback in lieu of the 25' -0" requirement (AMC Sec. 9251.2.3). SITE AREA: 15,960 square -feet (0.37 acre) FRONTAGES: 124.25 feet along Carolwood Drive and 87.77 feet along Canyon Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is improved with a 1,901 square -foot, one -story, single - family residence that was constructed in 1958. The property is zoned R- 1- 10,000 &D, Second One - Family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and an Architectural Design Overlay. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 15,960 square -foot lot zoned R -1- 10,000 &D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached (Exhibits A & B). The subject property is currently improved with a 1,901 square -foot, one -story residence with an attached two -car garage. On March 21, 2013, the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved the applicants' design concept plans for a new 5,484 square - foot, two -story residence. The design review was approved based on findings that the overall proposal meets the design requirements as stated in the attached City Council Resolution No. 6770 (Exhibit G) with a condition, "... that all Building Code and Zoning height and setbacks be complied with." On March 28, 2013, Ms. Karin Hanson, the owner of 2109 Canyon Road, filed an appeal of the ARB's approval of the new HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 2 of 8 residence. The attached appeal letter (Exhibit E) was signed by ten of the property owners in the neighborhood. Upon submittal of the plans to the City, the applicants were informed that the plans did not comply with the City's Zoning Code requirements for the front yard setback, and were informed that the neighbors had filed an appeal of the ARB's approval of their design. Therefore, the applicants withdrew the original submittal to try and comply with the front yard setback requirements, and to meet with their neighbors in an effort to revise plans to address their concerns. The plans were revised based on input from the neighbors and staff. Changes to the plans include the following: • Reduction of the living area from 5,484 square feet to 5,159 square feet • Reducing the overall building height from 29' -10" to 26' -8" • An additional 8' -0" recess of a second floor bedroom from the northeasterly property line • Reduction of the front yard setback encroachment by 3' -0" • Reducing the building envelope to comply with the 30- degree front setback angle. The revised plans were approved by the ARB on April 15, 2013; a copy of the ARB Findings and Action form is attached as Exhibit D. Subsequently, the following additional revisions were made: • Lowering of the first floor wall height from 12' -0" to 10' -0" • Reconfiguration of the roof to have a consistent slope • Redesign of the front entry to lower its height to match the roof line The ARB Chairperson, Mr. Ralph Bicker, approved these additional revisions on May 7, 2013. Two of the neighbors who initially signed the appeal letter, Ms. Jean Nash of 2058 Canyon Road, and Mr. and Mrs. Lavin of 2051 Canyon Road, have informed staff that they are satisfied with the revised design. And, according to the applicants, all of the neighbors who met with them after the initial submittal are also satisfied with the revised plans. However, not all of the neighbors who signed onto the appeal letter were able to participate in the meetings. The applicants' response to the appeal is attached as Exhibit F. HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 3 of 8 DISCUSSION The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing building and build a new 5,159 square -foot, two -story, single - family residence at 2081 Carolwood Drive. The residence will have four bedrooms, several ancillary rooms, and an attached two -car garage — see the attached plans (Exhibit C). The ARB approved the applicants' revised design concept plans based on findings that the overall proposal meets the design requirements as stated in City Council Resolution No. 6770. According to the attached ARB Findings and Action Form (Exhibit D) the ARB found the proposal to be, "... larger than most of the other homes in the area, but otherwise architecturally well designed to be compatible with the other homes in the area." The ARB approval was conditioned upon City approval of a Zoning Modification for the front yard setback encroachment. City Council Resolution No. 6770 also sets forth that any body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: • 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. • 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. • 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. • A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. It is staff's opinion that the architectural design of the proposed residence is in conformance with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and the design standards in City Council Resolution No. 6770. Zoning Modification The subject property is a reverse corner lot, with its front property line along Canyon Road. By Code, the front yard setback requirement for the subject property is 25 feet. Concurrent with the appeal, the applicants are requesting a Zoning Modification to allow a 20 -foot front yard setback in lieu of the 25 -foot requirement (AMC Sec. 9251.2.3) for a HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 4 of 8 30' -6" wide portion of the first floor of the proposed new residence. The encroachment area consists of portions of an office, the living room, and the front entry porch. The subject property is a pie- shaped lot, with a grade elevation difference of 52 feet from the highest area at the rear of the lot to the lowest elevation at the street side property line. This sloping of the lot limits the buildable area to the front portion of the lot. To enable use of the rear yard area, retaining walls have been built to hold back the slopes. The applicants are requesting the five -foot front setback encroachment to have the space they desire in the affected areas of the home, and to have a substantive architectural projection at the front of the house. The standard encroachment allowed for architectural features at the front of a house is 30 inches. The home on the adjacent lot to the north has a front yard setback of approximately ten feet. This is due to the steep slope of that lot. The purpose of front yard setback requirements is to provide a buffer from the street and to provide for uniformity of development. The proposed encroachment will not adversely affect the streetscape along Canyon Road. It is staffs opinion that approval of the requested Modification will secure an appropriate improvement of the lot. Oak Tree Encroachment There are ten oak trees that are either located on or overhang into the subject property. The applicants are requesting to encroach upon two of the oak trees. Certified Arborists, Jeannine and Ted Lubeshkoff reviewed the subject proposal and recommend that protective measures be applied to ensure that the health of the oak trees will not be jeopardized. The four oak trees nearest to the proposed building areas are numbered as Trees #1 to #4 in the attached arborist report (Exhibit H) and Trees #1 and #3 will be encroached upon. Oak tree #1 is a Coast Live Oak tree located at the southwesterly portion of the subject property. It has a trunk diameter of 25 inches at four - and - one -half feet (4' -6 ") above the base of the tree. This tree is 35 feet tall and has a 30 -foot wide canopy. A block wall and the pool equipment area will encroach approximately 12 feet under the canopy of this tree. Oak tree #3 is a Coast Live Oak tree located near the southeasterly portion of the subject property. It measures 34 inches in diameter at 4' -6" above the base of the tree, and is 40 feet tall with a 40 -foot wide canopy. The proposed residence will encroach approximately nine feet under the canopy of this tree. The arborists' opinion is that the encroachments will not harm the trees if the protective measures outlined in their report are properly employed. Staff does not oppose the oak tree encroachments subject to the arborists' recommendations. Due to the development constraints of the subject property, the consistency of the proposed design with the City's and the Homeowners' Association's design guidelines, HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 5 of 8 and the limited encroachments upon the affected oak trees and front setback area, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and approve the proposed design. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) development of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notices of this Appeal, Modification Application, and Oak Tree Encroachment Application were mailed on May 16, 2013, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map (Exhibit I). Notices were also sent to the Highlands HOA President and ARB Chairman. Because this project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the notice was not published in a local newspaper. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Appeal No. HOA 13 -01 and uphold the ARB decision, and approve Modification Application No. MP 13 -06 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 13 -27. The following conditions of approval are recommended: 1. The applicant shall comply with all recommended protective measures outlined in the arborists' report dated May 1, 2013. A Certified Arborist shall provide a written follow -up report to Planning Services to verify the fulfillment of the protective measures prior to final inspection sign off of the project. 2. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by Modification No. MP 13 -06, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 13 -27. 3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & TRE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 6 of 8 attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 4. Approval of the proposed design, MP 13 -06 and TRE 13 -27 shall not take effect until the property owners, designer(s) and contractor(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form with the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and deny the proposed design, the Commission should move to approve Appeal No. HOA 13 -01, and deny Modification No. MP 13 -06 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 13 -27; and state that the project is not consistent with the City's design guidelines, nor City Council Resolution No. 6770; that the Oak Tree Encroachments are not acceptable; and /or that the requested Modification is not consistent with any of the purposes stated below; and move to deny the project. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal, uphold the ARB's approval of the design, and approve the project, the Commission should move to deny Appeal No. HOA 13 -01, approve Modification No. MP 13 -06 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 13 -27; and state that the project is consistent with the City's design guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, that the Oak Tree Encroachments are acceptable, and specify that the Modification satisfies at least one of the following purposes, and move to approve the project subject to the conditions set forth in this report, or as modified by the Commission: • That the Modification will secure an appropriate improvement, or • That the Modification will prevent an unreasonable hardship, or • That the Modification will promote uniformity of development. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the May 28, 2013 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447, or send an email to tli( ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Ji , asama ommunity Development Administrator HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 7 of 8 Attachments: Exhibit A — Aerial Photo of the Area Exhibit B — Photos of the Subject Property Exhibit C — Proposed Plans Exhibit D — ARB Findings and Action Report Exhibit E — Appeal Letter Exhibit F — Applicants' Response to the Appeal Letter Exhibit G — City Council Resolution No. 6770 Exhibit H — Arborists' Report Exhibit I — Notification Area Map HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06 & THE 13 -27 2081 Carolwood Drive May 28, 2013 — page 8 of 8 2081 Carolwood Drive HOA 13 -01, MP 13 -06, & THE 13 -27 View of the subject property at 2081 Carolwood Drive View of the subject property from the corner of Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road Exhibit B View of the subject property from Canyon Road View of the neighboring property to the north of the subject property — 2109 Canyon Road View of the neighboring property to the north of the subject property — 2109 Canyon Road View of the neighboring property to the south across Carolwood Drive — 2059 Carolwood Drive View of the neighboring property to the southeast of the subject property — 2064 Carolwood Drive View of the neighboring property to the west of the subject property — 2073 Carolwood Drive View of the neighboring property to the east of the subject property — 201 Carolwood Drive 9001693 'VIOY]NY OAI2IG QOOM'T02IV0 TSOZ INDEX OF DRAWINGS Exhibit C 90016 Y0 '1110V DUN 3AIZIO 0OOM'IO?IV3 T8O NVId 311S 90018 V3 'VI0V38V 1AI:IG QOON(JOHVD T908 SOlOHd ONV NVld 311S 3Sf1OH ONIISIX3 W w 0 >- C OP W I 4c-41 i '-__ I J SCALE: 1B'. 1'.O 90010 VO 'V1UVD IV 3AI2IQ QOOM'IO2IV0 T80Z z w CD J TILE ON CONCRETE CONCRETE PAVING SMALL FLOWER / BUSH SMALL FLOWERING TREE RETAINING WALLS SECTION AA / L RGE TREE / MAPLE NYld 3dVOSGNV1 LANDSCAPE PLAN CAROLWOOD DRIVE 90018 VD 'VIOV3 V 2AIRIQ 000M'IO2IV0 T903 NVld NOOId 1S2IId 900IB VD 'yIQv0W 3AI2IQ QOOI I08VD T802 NV1d 2i001J aN003S LL Y Q iu 7. O Q Z ce O Z0 E LL z cc 0 W Z to \\ \ LL 6 F- < F z 00 N 90018 03 .01RV300 HAIRIQ QOOM'IO2Id0 1902 SNOIIVA313 21011:I31X3 z 0 0 a W J W F 0 0) 0 0 0 0 z 0 Q W w 0 O z 0 z 0 7 Q 90018 V9 'VIUVoNV HAPIQ QOOM'IO21V0 T80? SNOIIVA313 IJON31X3 w 1- W z 0 w —J W S 0 Z SCALE: lid' = t'-0' 1 IL 90016 VD 'VIQV31V SNOIIVA313 L101?:131X3 RAI2iO QOOKI0e1V0 T802 L J SCALE: ¶/4 1'-0' 90016 93 'roam, 3AIZICI GOOICIO?IdD 18C2 SNOL1VA313 3A1103dS?:13d g i I 7 If 90018 V3 'VIUV31Y 2Aixa GOOKIOJVD 1 O SNOLLVA313 3AI133dS213d N 0 90016 63 '1,1a6DUV I U Goo to Va Goa go»o1VNom31110 VV N0193 «$ 1 (z 11 \) kz � R %111111E a a ) [ CAROLWOOD DRIVE - SECTION AA \ FIRST FLOOR CEILING HEIGHTS IT WITH 10' AT PERIMETER !1 90016 VD 'YUMMY 2AI JQ 000A'IO2IY0 i80Z S10211N00 lb'NOISN30110 99 NO1103S - - --- 991116990— aun ,99e1999- - 3911-69 AR-3S-4F — z 0 0 w 0, 0 Z 0 z 0 N U W V) FILE NO.: 40/3 — 0 0 qq DATE SUBMITTED: 4 /S- /3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: ''0c9% Cq, 1 wcro .> 0,e B. PROPERTY OWNER: Sv 2 EA/ /1P/4 r m, /2 "3 ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT): / 7 74 0R44'6E trio 0 0 G AC/6' 4c,.9Df4 C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check). 1. The proposed constructio ma ARE GI, ARE NOT CI co tible with the existing materials, because /V, 4 v. 4' l'0 A/ T/2(/CTI ID 2. The proposed materials WILL ❑, WILL NOT ❑ have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because /V(4 L NEW CO NS7J 3. The proposed project IS , MESEEEla significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of w a y , beca $ ,4 A �� -W ' - S T IZ� f�D/`?c- 0 4' A Cog A/ PRO PL 27}r , 4. The proposed project IS M1,3 Nf significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because SA/4 F ,4 s ..� .41,3o £' 5. The elements of the structure's design ARE ❑, ARE NOT ❑ consi tent with the existing building's design, because /V_ $ , ( /lie' W C b Al Sr 6. The proposed project IS '8, IS NOT ❑ in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because /7 /S L A R No sr a / r 0111411. h A/44 / V 7//E 4&51) 8v7 THE R. /5 d 4./ZCHtr4 CIO /zoL y y D c S1 G,u ED To fie C P r, ar 4' r.Q y" lie d 7 HG= a HeAte I N Mit , ;r 7. The Iocation of the proposed project WILL ❑, WILL NOT a be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because See 6 /+ -.130v 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO el, DO NOT ❑ provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because 9. OTHER FINDINGS: Exhibit D D. ACTION: ❑ APPROVAL ® APPROVAL subject to the following condition (s): (I) THAT THE BUILDING AND ZONING CODE HEIGHT AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS ALL BE COMPLIED WITH, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE MINOR ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SETBACKS AT THE SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE AND NEXT TO THE HILLSIDE RETAINING WALL, SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED PLAN, PROVIDED THAT THE CITY PROCESS AND APPROVES THE ENCROACHMENT BY A MODIFICATION PROCESS, AND (2) THAT THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARB FOR FINAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS ❑ DENIAL E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMM11'1`EE'S) ACTION: F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERIN THE ABOVE a ECISION: G. REPRESENTING THE ,ifs is N 1. R-Arp 5 Ff a /'+st'4 H. APPEALS ASSOCIATION. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has bee unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. March 26, 2013 Planning Department /City of Arcadia 240 Huntington Dr. Arcadia, Ca 91007 Gentlemen, MAR 2 8 2013 City Of A c .a,_i The purpose of this letter is to inform your department that the undersigned residents in the Highland Oaks area are formally requesting an immediate appeal of the proposal to demolish the existing single story home located at 2081 Carolwood Drive and replace it with a new two story (5,484 square feet) residence. The Arcadia Highlands' HOA Architectural Review Chairperson, Ralph Bicker, conducted a meeting on Thursday, March 21st on the property in question to review the plans for this home with residents living nearby. The Review Committee approved the plans at this meeting as submitted despite several concerns raised by the attendees. Our request for an appeal is based on the following: • As we understand it, the plan as it is now designed, requires a violation of the set back zoning regulations. These set back exceptions are located both at the front of the property and at the side of the property. This potential violation creates the appearance that the building takes up a majority and inordinate amount of the lot. This design is not consistent with the "look and feel" of the surrounding homes and area. The surrounding homes are all set back from the curb with only the garages positioned dose to the allowable setback. This gives them a much better "curb appeal." It is my understanding that the entry to the home will be on the corner of the lot and part of this set back issue. The lot sits on the corner of Carolwood and Canyon,‘,which makes it a very visible and prominent part of the neighborhood. To have such a large structure on the corner, so prominently placed in the neighborhood, (which looks quite different than the surrounding homes), negatively impacts the appearance and possibly the value of the neighborhood in general. • The house does not conform to the character and appearance of this attractive and established neighborhood, both from a size and feel perspective. As we understand it, most of the houses in this area average around 3000 square feet. No house on Carolwood is over 4000 square feet. This house is well over 5000 square feet. The height of the building is also not appropriate (although in compliance) for the street. We believe that is too high for the lot and location if allowed to be implemented. We ask that you reconsider this HOA approval and ask that the homeowners modify their plans accor. +ngly. R. Cornet 10 Cielo Place Canyon Ka M 2059 y Road ir��ng Ka in 3. Hanson 2109 Canyon Road C arlie Wang 2073 Carolwood Drive re/WL.--9 Exhibit E r 14414 /F 4,, LI \y 4 -Sinn 5a101-i,u. 21(2 �'art�l7n IRD a4 A Milton and Linda vin 2051 Canyon Rod Julie C. Friedberg 2024 Carolwood Nc- „9..;t3$ t4 h,10 -N:6 av Milton and Linda Mavin 2051 Canyon Rod Jul /C. riedb -r- 20 4 Carolwo•d Jean Nash 2060 Canyon May 14, 2013 Mr. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator City of Arcadia Development Services Department 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91086 Subject: 2081 Carolwood Drive New Construction- Response to the March 26, 2013 Appeal Dear Mr. Kasama, We are pleased to submit our response to March 26 appeal submitted by the neighbors. This response is organized in chronological order to make it easy for the Modification Committee to understand the developments. March 21, 2013 -The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of Highland Oak Home Owner Association (HOA), during a public hearing at the property site, unanimously approved the plans dated March 4, 2013. The key features of this version of plans included: • Total Living Area - 5484 sq. ft. (4148 sq. ft. first floor and 1336 sq. ft. second floor) including four bed rooms and home office • Two car garage, maximum structure height 29 feet and 10 inches • 40 degree angle compliance from Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road • 25 feet setback for both side frontage except 8 feet wide modification for living room, home office and garden tool area. • Front entry height 13 feet and 8 inches March 24, 2013 —The ARB approval letter and copy of the approved plans was submitted to your office. Mr. Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner immediately pointed out that we are not in compliance of 30- degree angle requirements from the Canyon Road side, the new house entry side. This was a bare mistake from our side. We decided to fix this issue and resubmit for approval. March 26, 2013 — Few neighbors filed the referred appeal on the March 21 decision of ARB. Ms. Karin Hanson, resident of 2019 Canyon Road is leading this appeal. April 1, 2013 — We withdrawn the plans approved by the ARB on March 21 considering its non - compliance with the 30- degree angle requirements on Canyon Road and some legitimate suggestions of the neighbors. March 26 to up to date Communications with Neighbors On March 26, we requested Ms. Hanson to meet with her and others to explain the details of our plan. She gracefully agreed to host a meeting with the neighbors at the convenient time at her house. Exhibit F Between March 28 and March 31, we personally met with the followings at their homes to explain our plan. All appreciated our efforts and agreed with our plans. 1. Ms. Julie C Friedberg, 2024 Carolwood Drive 2. Mr. & Mrs. Milton and Linda Mavin, 2051 Canyon Road 3. Ms. Jean Nash, 2058 Canyon Road On April 1, Ms. Hanson hosted a meeting at her house with interested neighbors. Followings were present in this meeting. 1. Ms. Karin Hanson, 2109, Canyon Road 2. Mr. Ka Ming Pang, 2059 Canyon Road 3. Mr. Charlie Wang, 2072 Carolwood Drive 4. Mr. Milton Mavin, 2051 Canyon Road 5. Ms. Jean Nash, 2058 Canyon 6. Ms. Debbi Dering, 2138 Highland Oaks Drive During the meeting of April 1, neighbors advised to reduce the height of building, facing bedroom towards the west so that Ms. Hanson can have better view of the second floor area as much as possible. April 12- We met again at the Ms. Hanson house. She again gracefully hosted this interested neighbors. Followings were present in this meeting. 1. Ms. Karin Hanson, 2109, Canyon Road 2. Mr. Ka Ming Pang, 2059 Canyon Road 3. Mr. Milton Mavin, 2051 Canyon Road 4. Ms. Jean Nash, 2058 Canyon 5. Mrs. Patricia Aparicio, 201 Carolwood Drive move Canyon Road valley, and reduce meeting invited the Between April 1 and April 12, we diligently worked and developed revised plans, those we discussed in this meeting. The revised plans considered the following key adjustments: 1. Reduced overall living area from 5484 Sq. ft. to 5159 sq. feet (4051 first floor and 1114 second floor) 2. Canyon Road facing bedroom was pushed back towards west /hillside by 8 feet for better view for Ms. Hanson although City of Arcadia and ARB has no view related requirements. 3. Maximum height of the structure was reduced from 29 feet and 10 inches to 26 feet 8 inches 4. Offset modification required for living room and home office room reduced from 8 feet to 5 feet at the corner of Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road. 5. Complied with the City's angle requirements (3o degree from Canyon Road and 40 degree from Carolwood Road) associated with the offset etc. It required changes in the floor and roof plans. 6. Additional ornamental landscaping and trees to blend with the neighborhood. Neighbors presented at the April 12 meeting appreciated our sincere efforts to satisfy their concerns and all agreed in general with the revised plans. Mr. Milton Marvin suggested informing by letters or emails to all the others signed on the appeal but were not able to attend meetings. April 16 - We mailed letters to five residents who never attended any of the meetings at the Ms. Hansen house but signed on the Appeal of March 26. May 13 — we sent an email to Ms. Karin Hanson, Mr. KA Ming Pang and Mr. Charlie Wang requesting to meet again to discuss the May 7 plan submitted for approval by Modification Committee. We are waiting for response. Revised Plan of May 7 for Modification Committee Approval In addition to above, you reviewed the draft plans several times and suggested for the following additional improvements. 1. Lower the wall height to 10 feet from 12 feet to reduce the mass impact on Carolwood 2. Keep the same slope for first floor as well as second floor roof 3. Redo the entry and match it with the roof line with appropriate curve around the entry 4. Convert front little walls of balcony to nice grill with flower pots to give a better prospective 5. Lower the garden wall height to 9 inches on Carolwood Drive side 6. Keep the top plate height to 10 feet and 6 inches from the finish grade We incorporated all yours as well as neighbors suggestions and prepared revised plans. On May 7, the ARB approved these revised plans. Exhibit 1 of Appendix A summarizes all the improvements we made over the March 21 approved plan. Specific Response to the Issues of Appeal letter of March 26, 2013 Appendix A provides the more specific response to three issues raised by neighbors in the March 26, 2013 letter. In summary, we have done our best to satisfy neighbors by accepting their all the legitimate requests. We have maintained effective communication with them. We believe they are satisfied with our efforts and supporting our revised plans. If you need more information, please feel free to contact Surendra Thakral via email surendra.thakral(a)gmail.com or phone (626) 483 -3171. �With Best Re ards, Surendra Thakral, P.E, BCEE (Theevit Meenakshi Thakral Encl. Appendix A APPENDIX A RESPONSE TO THE THREE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL LETTER OF MARCH 26, 2013 • As we understand it, the plan as it is now designed, required violation of the setback zoning regulations. These setback exceptions are located both at the front of the property and at the side of the property. The potential violation creates the appearance that the building takes up a majority and inordinate amount of the lot. The design in not consistent with the "look and feel" of the surrounding homes and area. The surrounding homes are all set back from the curb with only the garages positioned close to the allowable setback. This gives them a much better "curb appeal ". It is my understanding that the entry to the home will be on the corner of the lot and part of this setback issue. This question is referred to March 4, 2013 plans approved by ARB on March 21, 2013. Significant improvements have been made since then at the advice of Mr. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator and Mr. Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner. Exhibit 1 provides the summary of major improvements made to the originally ARB approved plans. May 7, 2013 plan as submitted on May 11, 2013 for the Modification Committee approval are the latest improved plan. These plans meet the City's 30- degree and 40- degree angle requirements from Canyon Road and Carolwood Drive respectively. We are maintaining the 25 feet setback on 182 feet frontage on both sides except for 5 X15 feet modification on Carolwood for living room and 5X12 feet for living room, 5X11feet for home office and 5X7 feet for garden tool area along the Canyon Road. These minor modifications are required considering odd shape of the house and have a decent four -bed room house with all the modern amenities. The ARB has approved this modification on May 7. Entry and garage facing the Canyon Road will be at the 25 feet setback. The exterior architectural and landscape design of the proposed structure at 2081 Carolwood Drive is consistent with the exterior architectural and landscape design of 2133 Highland Oak home built in 2011 of almost of same size at the corner of Highland Oak and Highland Vista (Exhibit 2). The ARB very much likes the architect of 2133 Highland Oak house and they recommended us to follow the same concept for our home at 2091 Carolwood Drive. We followed the ARB suggestions; the exterior architectural and landscaping design is very much similar to the referred 2133 Highland Oak. We understand that architect of our house will be different from 1950s built ranch type homes, but it will be very similar to one of the architecturally best new homes being built in the Highland Oak area. According to ARB, our house is one of the smallest new homes being built in the Highland Oka area. As shown on the plans, our new home will provide a beautiful curb appeal with six oak trees in the front (two at the corner of Carolwood and Canyon and four at the westerly property line (two on our property and two on the 2073 Carolwood Drive) and proposed extensive landscaping through the frontage. The most homes on Carolwood Drive have 25 feet setback except few have more. However, all the adjacent homes on the Canyon Road have zero to 15 feet setback. Ms. Karin Hanson (2109 Canyon Road) and Mrs. Patricia Aparicio (201 Canyon Road) homes have about 10 feet and 15 feet setbacks respectively (Exhibit 3). Our house will have minimum 20 feet setback, which is more than all the existing homes on the Canyon Road before the start of hills. • The lot sits on the Corner of Carolwood and Canyon, which makes it a very visible and prominent part of the neighborhood. To have such a large structure on the corner, so prominently placed in the neighborhood, (which looks quite different than the surrounding homes), negatively impacts the appearance and possibly the value of the neighborhood in general. The existing homes in the neighborhood are up to 4,500 square feet built in 1950s and our new home will be 5,159 square feet, which is not unusually large. The new corner lot homes are of either almost same size or bigger in the Highland Oak area. Over 45 homes in Highland Oak area have living area over 4,000 square feet and they blend with the neighborhood. Besides the above, we meet the City's angle requirements of 30 and 40 degree from Canyon Road and Carolwood Drive respectively. In addition, we pushed back second floor towards the hillside and reduced living area to about 1,100 square feet to provide additional valley view to Mr. Karin Hanson (2109 Canyon Road). • The house does not conform to the character and appearance of this attractive and established neighborhood, both from a size and fee prospective. As we understand it, most of the houses in this area average 3000 square feet. No House on Carolwood is over 4000 square feet. The house is well over 5000 square feet. The height of the building is also not appropriate (although in compliance) for the street. Wp believe that is too high for the lot and location if allowed to be implemented. See our response above. The improved plan has maximum height of 27 feet 9 inches, while the original plan had maximum height of 29 feet and 10 inches (refer Drawing No. A3). The highest point is behind the hill and camouflaged with the oak trees along the Carolwood Drive. In summary, this highest point is not in the view of anyone. We explained to Ms. Hanson during the meeting of April 1 at her house. Exhibit 1 Summary of Major Improvements made over the March 21, 2013 Plans Approved by ARB 1. Living area reduced from 5484 Sq. ft. to 5159 sq. feet primarily in the second floor to reduce the overall mass of the structure. 2. Canyon Road facing bedroom was pushed back towards west /hillside by 8 feet for better view for you although City of Arcadia and ARB has no view related requirements. 3. Maximum height of the structure was reduced from 29 feet and 10 inches to 27 feet 9 inches. 4. Offset modification required for living room and home office room reduced from 8 feet to 5 feet at the corner of Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road. 5. Complied with the City's angle requirements (3o degree from Canyon Road and 40 degree from Carolwood Road) associated with the offset etc. It required significant changes in the floor and roof plans facing Canyon Road. 6. Additional ornamental landscaping and trees were added to blend with the neighborhood. 7. Carolwood facing wall height (finished grade to the top plate) was reduced from 13 feet to 10 feet 6 inches to further reduce the building mass facing Carolwood. 8. House entry facing Carolwood was reduced from 13 feet 6 inches to 12 feet 1 inches. 9. Balcony pony walls were replaced by fancy grill with hanging flowerpots. 10. Roofline around the house was brought down to 10 feet height instead of ups and downs in the roof line. Please not that all these improvements were made internally without moving the new house footprint towards the west- Charlie's house. Exhibit 2 Exterior Photos of 2133 Highland Oak, Arcadia Home (An Example of Excellent Architect theme used for the development of plans for 2081 Carolwood Drive, Arcadia) $1:14.", r Exhibit 3 Photos of adjacent Homes on Canyon Road _,�+rwma. 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, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, 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. 1 Exhibit G SECTION 3. In order to promote and maintain the quality single - family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 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, and other features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals. 2 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, 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. 3 Lower Rancho — 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if 1 story and not Tess 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 Tess 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 Oaks — Minimum sixty -five (65) feet from the front property line, except that Tract 13544 shall be not Tess than sixty (60) feet, Tracts 13345 & 11013 shall not be Tess 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 4 Upper Rancho — Minimum 15 feet Hi hiands —10% of lot frontage, and not less than 6 feet Oaks —10% of lot frontage, and not Tess than 10 feet F. REAR YARD SETBACKS Village_ — Minimum 25 feet Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Minimum 40 feet Hi hiands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — Minimum 35 feet G. CORNER LOT SETBACKS STREET SIDE Viliacle — Underlying Zoning Lower Rancho — Underlying Zoning Upper Rancho — Underlying Zoning Hi hiands — 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. 1. GARAGES — No carports allowed. Vil(ag—e & Lower Rancho — Garages shall not dominate the front elevation, and should be set back from the front facade or located in the back yard. 5 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 Tots shall be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Highlands — Underlying Zoning Oaks — A detached garage shall not be located Tess 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. 6 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. 7 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. 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. 8 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 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 Tots 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 conceming 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. 9 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: r— Street --r Subject Parcel 11---- -- Street Required Notification Area Parcels included in 'Required Notification Area" as related to Subject Parcel D. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE 10 1. The Short Review Process may be used by the ARB for any sin - remodel or addition where (a) the design is compatible with the y gle story structures on the subject property and neighborhood; and design of existing with the streetscape of the neighborhood. The ARB Chair or designee shall have the authority to approve the following specific Short Review Process items: • Single -story remodels and additions • Detached accessory structures — new, additions to, and /or remodels • Fences and /or walls in and /or facing (Le., visible from) front and street sid yards e • Hardscape, landscaping and structural elements in front and street side yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, foyntains and other r water features • Fences, lights, and other features related to tennis courts, other significant paved features sports courts or • Mechanical equipment • Roofing 2. The ARB Is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for consideration of a Short Review Process application, g the 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. 11 4. The ARB Chair or designee shall render a decision on a Short Review Process Item within 10 working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB Chair or designee; failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 10 working -day period. E. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE The Regular Review Process shall be used by the ARB for review of (1) any new 3 any significant home construction, (2) any new or expansion of a second story, (3) e in architectural style of an existing building, and (4) all projects that are not change g 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. pp 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 12 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 on a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. 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 13 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. 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 14 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, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be declared invalid. 15 SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 3rd day of January, 2012. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4g4-4-6e Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 16 .444. . ArI:1 Jr� 41=yor'f the City of Arcadia Exhibit "A" Map and Descriptions Homeowners' Association Areas 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" 17 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. 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. 18 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 along the centerline of Santa Anita Avenue a distance of 65 feet o the point erly beginning. Lower Rancho Area #1 Beginning at a point on easterly Tine 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 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 Tine 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 19 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 � Colorado that Street bounded and the west south by Baldwin sout the north and east tract y boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318. Santa Anita Village Beginning at a point on easterly Tine 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 comer 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 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. 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6770 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of January, 2012 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Amundson, Segal and Kovacic NOES: Council Members Chandler and Harbicht ABSENT: None 21 ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia Timber. Jeannine Lubeshkoff, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #500 Ted Lubeshkoff, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #513 Oak Tree Permit for Encroachment into a Protected Zone Applicant and Property Owner: Surendra Thakral Project Address: 2081 Carolwood Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006 Date of Site and Tree Inspection: May 1, 2013 Proposed Project: Demolition of existing home and construction of new home On May 1, 2013, we inspected four coast live oaks, (Quercus agrifolia), at 2081 Carolwood Drive, Arcadia. Mr. Thakral plans to demolish the existing home and construct a new home. As part of the construction plan review process, the City of Arcadia requires that an evaluation of the oaks be done by a Certified Arborist due to potential impacts to the oaks by the proposed construction. p p d The four coast live oaks are numbered Tree #1 - Tree #4 on the Site Plan. The proposed osed new home construction will encroach approximately twelve feet into the dripline of Tree #1, with building of a six foot tall block wall and pool equipment area. The dripline of Tree #3 will be the be encroached upon by nine feet with the building of the proposed new house. There will be excavation of six inches within the dripline of Tree #3 due to the building of the "slab on ad " foundation. Because the trees are relatively young and in good condition, they should be able to e withstand the impacts of the encroachment into the driplines by the proposed construction providing the recommendations are followed. Observations Site Description The property is on the corner of Carolwood Drive and Canyon Road with an existing one - story single- family home (Photos 1 and 2). There are four oaks located on a slope in the front the backyard there is a natural oak grove separated by a retaining wall of varying height that w l not be impacted by the proposed construction (Photo 3). The four oaks have areas of mulch that will within their driplines ranging from six feet in diameter for Trees #1 and #2 to six to fifteen for Trees #3 and #4 (Photos 3 and 6). There are Amaryllis flowers along the perimeter feet areas of mulch. Lawn is growing throughout the yard and within the dripline of the There are two oaks off -site on the northwest neighboring property near Trees # 1 and #2 (Photo 2) t Plan). ) ( S e PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberlineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com Exhibit H Tree Descriptions Tree # 1 2 3 4 Off - Site 1 Off - Site 2 Name Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak, Quercus agrifolia Size DBH * *: 25" Height: 35' Width: 30' DBH: 26" Height: 35' Width: 30' DBH: 34" Height: 40' Width: 40' DBH: 29" Height: 25' Width: 25' DBH: 23" Height: 25' Width: 20' DBH: 18" Height: 35' Width: 20' Condition* Good Good Good Good Fair Fair * Each tree was evaluated and given one of four possible " Good - no apparent defects or problems where defects are weakness which can reduce the stability of the tree Fair - minor defects or problems Poor - major defects or problems Dead - extreme defects or problems **DBH - Diameter of trunk measured at 4 '/2 feet above the base. * * *Dripline - The dripline is the edge of the canopy and represents where can be found,drip down to the ground and is an indicator of where the struc tural and lateral roots Comments There is proposed encroachment into the dripline***. There is mulch against the trunk. No proposed encroachment. No trunk flare. Poor pruning cuts. There is mulch against the trunk. There is proposed encroachment into the (hipline. There is mulch against the trunk. No proposed encroachment. The grade has been raised on the north side of the trunk. There is mulch against the trunk. No proposed encroachment. Ivy growing on trunk. No proposed encroachment. Ivy growing on trunk. Condition" ratings: internal or external points of Ttmberl;te - PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberlineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com Recommended Tree Protection Measures • Protective chain -link fencing, at least five feet tall, will be installed to limit the access to the area within the tree's dripline during construction as shown on the Site Plan. The approximate location of the protective fencing is shown on the Site Plan. The project arborist will determine the exact location of the protective fencing. The protective fencing will help reduce soil compaction of the tree's root zone and mechanical damage to the tree's roots, trunk, and canopy. No construction materials or debris will be stored within the fenced enclosure. • The areas of mulch will be increased throughout the driplines of the oaks within the fenced enclosure. A four to six inch layer of untreated organic mulch will be placed to protect any exposed roots and help reduce soil compaction and moisture loss. The mulch can remain in place to act as a ground cover instead of landscaping beneath the oaks. Three to six inches around the trunk should be left free of mulch. • If there is to be landscaping within the dripline of the oaks, the trees and plants shall have the same water requirements as the oaks as determined by a Certified Arborist. Coast live oaks are susceptible to root rot if overwatered, especially during the summer. • Except for the proposed construction within the driplines of Trees #1 and #3, no construction of retaining walls, concrete walkways, or other hardscape will take place within the dripline of the oaks. • Any excavation within the driplines of the oaks will be done using hand tools, not mechanical equipment. • The soil on the north side of Tree #4 will be removed and the grade returned to its natural level. • All utility trenching will take place outside the driplines of the oaks. • Any oak roots encountered will be cut cleanly using hand tools. If a root over two inches in diameter is encountered, consult the project arborist before cutting. • No additional pruning of the oaks is necessary for the proposed construction. If any pruning is needed, it will be conducted by an ISA Certified Arborist. All pruning will be in accordance with the most recent edition of the American National Standard Institute (ANSI), A300, for Tree Care Operations, Pruning. • The project arborist will be present when the protective fencing is installed, mulch is applied, and when any demolition, digging, excavation, or trenching occurs within or near the dripline of the protected oaks. Timberline "` PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberiineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com B0016 VD 'V11V3 V ZAIZIG QooMIo ivo TB oz Photos Tree #2 Tree #1 Photo 1, taken facing northwest, showing overview of property with Trees #1 and #2 to the west of the house and Trees #3 and #4 to the east of the house. Photo 2, taken facing north, showing off-site Trees #1 and #2. PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberfineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberlineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com Photo 3, taken facing west, showing the natural oak grove behind the house and above the retaining wall. Photo 4, taken facing west, showing Trees #1 and #2. Photo 5, taken facing east, showing Trees #3 and #4. Photo 6, taken facing south, showing Tree #3 with Amaryllis flowers planted along the perimeter of the mulch area and grass growing within the dripline of the oak. PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberlineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com Photo 7, taken facing southwest, showing Trees #3 and #4. Photo 8, taken facing south, showing the raised grade on north side of trunk of Tree #4. PO Box 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberlineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSearch.com We, Jeannine and Ted Lubeshkoff, certify: ✓ That we have personally inspected the tree(s) referred to in the report, and have stated our findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation is stated in the attached report; ✓ That we have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; ✓ That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are our own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts; ✓ That our analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboriculture practices; ✓ That no one provided significant professional assistance to us, except as indicated within the report; ✓ That our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results if the assignment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I, Jeannine Lubeshkoff, am Registered Consulting Arborist #500 with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and Certified Arborist WE -8445A with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the practice of arboricu care and study of trees for over 15 years. '+‘ \,' CONSULTING ARNOEISTI I further �c®�' rther certify that I, Ted Lubeshkoff, am Registered Consulting Arborist #513 with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and Certified Arborist WE -8446A with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the practice of arboriculture and the care and study of trees for over 25 years. Signed 7. Signed Date 57.7/.Q2C/ f Date r /._ /f iimbeiijne' eC>s` PO Sox 661960 • Arcadia, CA 91066 -1960 Phone (626) 447 -5690 • Fax (626) 445 -5707 info @TimberiineTreeSearch.com • www.TimberlineTreeSeerch.com AK[EICAN SOCIETY u/ CONSULTING AENOLISTS SIN N • 7671'004w 940340/20,00O0/-01 094. ewes -o��w h CO CO 01? tt dO \a 6fr TRAC ` NO. 1870 M.B. 590 -5-7 6/1‘ TRACTNO. 20211 M.B. 562 -43 -44 TIN.,R.II W. Exhibit 1