No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1b - 1203 Highland Oaks Drive AppealSTAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REFER SINGLE - FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 13- 140 TO THE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1203 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE Recommendation: Approve Appeal to Overturn the Planning Commission's Decision and Conditionally Approve the Design Review SUMMARY The subject application was submitted by project designer, Mr. Philip Chan of PDS Studio Inc., to build a new 7,096 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners' Association (HOA). However, the design review application was processed by the City because the Architectural Review Board (ARB) did not have a Chairperson to process applications at the time. Planning Services approved Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 on March 11, 2014, based on the determination that the proposal meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Due to a typographical error in the original approval letter, a revised approval letter was issued on May 27, 2014. On June 4, 2014, an appeal of the City's approval was jointly filed by Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, and Ms. Christine Eng. The Planning Commission, at a special meeting on July 29, 2014, referred this design review to the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board for further review and consideration. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Jack A. Fierstadt, filed the attached appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on August 5, 2014. It is recommended that the City Council approve the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, and conditionally approve the subject design review. Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND In mid - November 2013, Mr. Ralph Bicker retired as Chairperson of the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) after 35 years of service. The ARB was unable to find a replacement until mid - February, 2014, when Mr. Glenn Oyoung assumed the position. During the three months that the ARB did not have a Chairperson, the Development Services Department, with the City Attorney's advice, began to conduct design reviews for the projects within the Highlands HOA. It was critical for the City to process the design review applications because under Resolution No. 6770, "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." The Development Services Department had been contacted in late November and December by a number of applicants that were ready to submit projects to the Highlands ARB. Unless the City processed the design review applications, the projects would have been approved by default, and there would not be an opportunity to review the architectural design of these proposals. The applicant initially submitted Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 on December 16, 2013. Notice of the project was distributed to the immediate neighborhood as per the City's notification process and comments were received, which were considered and incorporated. On March 11, 2014, Planning Services approved Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 based on the applicant's revised plans, and on staff's determination that the proposal meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. The approval letter was re- issued on May 27, 2014, due to a typographical error that stated an appeal fee of $540.00, instead of the correct fee of $210.00. On June 4, 2014, Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, and Ms. Christine Eng, jointly filed an appeal of the City's approval of the subject design review. The Planning Commission, at its special meeting on July 29, 2014, considered the appeal at a public hearing and, by a vote of 3 to 1 with one Commissioner absent, referred the design review to the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board for further review and consideration. It was determined that the ARB should have an opportunity to review the project through its design review process. An excerpt of the minutes from the July 29, 2014, special meeting is attached. The applicant's attorney, Mr. Jack A. Fierstadt, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on August 5, 2014. In the attached appeal letter, he explained that the applicant attempted to submit the subject application to the ARB for review, but was unsuccessful due to the absence of an ARB Chairperson. Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 3 of 7 DISCUSSION The subject property is a 19,158 square -foot corner lot zoned R -1- 12,500 &D, at the northwest corner Highland Oaks Drive and Sycamore Avenue. An aerial photo of the area, and photos of the property are attached. The property is currently improved with a 1,716 square -foot, one -story residence with an attached, two -car garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and build a new 7,096 - square -foot, two -story, single - family residence with an attached three -car garage. The floor plan includes five (5) bedrooms, five (5) full bathrooms, a three - quarter bathroom, a half bathroom, a library, a kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, a living room, a family room, a gym, and a home theater. The architectural style is Spanish, featuring a curved concrete tile roof, open eaves with exposed rafters, window shutters, smooth stucco finish, wrought -iron accented front door, dark brown steel garage doors, decorative roof vents, and a Spanish rake finish along parts of the roof — see the attached plans. The plans are consistent with the R -1 Zoning Code, the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Copies of the Guidelines and Resolution are included in the City Council's agenda packet. The proposal is a two -story house within an area that still mostly consists of single -story homes, but the newest construction in the area is the 6,255 square -foot, two -story residence across the street at 1141 Highland Oaks Drive, which was also designed by the applicant, and approved by the Highlands ARB on April 12, 2013. The proposed building is appropriately modulated and articulated, with the architectural style effectively carried throughout the building. The overall building height is proposed at 27' -10" from the average existing grade, where a maximum of 30' -0" is permitted, and the overall lot coverage is 28 %, where a maximum of 35% is allowed. Protect Opponent's Comments Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, and Ms. Christine Eng appealed staff's decision to approve the proposed architectural design of the subject residence. The attached appeal letter to the Planning Commission pointed out procedural and design issues on this application. On procedural issues, the appellants state that the City processed the subject application when it should have gone to the HOA ARB, and that the City did not follow the proper procedures when conducting the design review. On design issues, the appellants pointed out size, height, bulk, entry height, articulation, architectural style consistency, landscaping, fences /walls, and privacy concerns. The attached PowerPoint document was presented by the appellants to provide images of the surrounding neighborhood and highlight their perceived design issues. The appellants also presented an introductory PowerPoint document for all the design review appeals, which is included in the agenda packet. The appeal letter includes specific comments regarding existing mature sycamore trees being removed, a 10' -0" first floor top plate, and a tall entry feature being out of scale with the neighboring Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 4 of 7 homes that have approximate top plate heights of 8' -0 ". Also, the front entry door and other design details, according to the appellants, appear too ornate, and they have concerns that the second floor balconies and windows will invade the privacy of the neighbors. The attached appeal letter includes additional neighbors' signatures. Staff's Response to Comments Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 was initially submitted on December 16, 2013, during the time period when the ARB did not have a Chairperson in place to process design review applications. If the City did not process this application, this project would have been approved by default after 30 working days (January 31, 2014) in accordance with Section 5(E)(5) of City Council Resolution No. 6770. In that case, neither the City, nor the ARB would have had the opportunity to comment on the architectural design of the proposal. Staff consulted with the City Attorney about this situation and was advised that in the absence of an ARB Chairperson, the City should process these applications through the City's design review process. Under the City's design review process, staff sends a Notice of Pending Decision when staff determines that the design of the proposal meets the Guidelines and Zoning Code requirements. If any neighbor or other interested party submits comments, they would be duly considered and forwarded to the applicant. If they are considered relevant and appropriate, the comments are taken into account in formulating the decision, which would not be made before the expiration of the comment period. Mr. John Uniack, the current ARB Chairperson, submitted the attached comments in response to the Notice of Pending Decision for the subject proposal. He stated an objection to the size of the house and provided a list of floor- area - ratios of the homes in the area. The list provides a perspective on the size disparity between old and new homes. However, it also shows that the subject proposal is comparable to the other new homes that have been recently built in the area. The City does not have a floor - area -ratio limitation in place, but there is a maximum lot coverage limitation of 35% for two -story homes. The lot coverage of the proposed new home is 28 %. In response to the design issues, the proposal is adequately modulated and articulated to minimize its mass. There is a two -story element at the entry, but the recessed entry door, and the relatively narrow width of this element do not accentuate the mass of the building. This element is also offset by a wider first floor, and a front balcony to provide horizontal features for visual balance. Staff presented the attached PowerPoint document to the Planning Commission to highlight the appellant's issues and show additional images of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to maintain all existing mature trees in the front yard area, with the exception of two sycamore trees near the southeasterly portion of the proposed building. The removal of these two trees is being requested because the roots of these trees are very close to one another, and one of the trees is leaning at about a 20 degree angle across the front of the existing building. The proposed project will maintain a 20" Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 5 of 7 trunk diameter magnolia tree, a 20" trunk diameter sycamore tree, and two 12" trunk diameter sycamore trees in the front yard area, along with three City trees in the parkway area along Highland Oaks Drive and Sycamore Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to plant two 24" -box star magnolia trees and two 24" -box western redbud trees in the front yard area. There are also screening shrubs and trees proposed to be planted along the northerly side and the rear property lines to help protect the privacy of the neighbors. Included in the City Council's agenda packet are the correspondence (16 emails & one letter) that was submitted to the Planning Commission for the design review appeals. At the Planning Commission hearing, Staff recommended approval of the proposed design to the Planning Commission with the following changes in response to the appellants' comments: 1. Replace the wrought -iron accented front entry door with a wooden door, stained to match the color of the shutters. 2. Lower the top plate height of the first floor from 10' -0" to 9' -6 ". At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated that they were agreeable to making these changes. The Planning Commission felt that the ARB should have an opportunity to process this application through its design review procedures. Therefore, the Commission voted 3 to 1 to refer this project to the Highlands Homeowner's Association's Architectural Review Board for consideration. Based on all of the foregoing, the proposal, as modified, is consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and incorporates and addresses public comments on the proposal. Therefoe, it is recommended that the project be approved, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by SFADR 13 -140, and shall include the following changes: a. Replace the wrought iron front entry door with a wooden door, stained to match the color of the shutters. b. Lower the top plate height of the first floor from 10' -0" to 9' -6 ". 2. The applicant /property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right -of -way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director, or their respective designees. Compliance with these requirements is to Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 6 of 7 be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 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 attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 4. Approval of SFADR 13 -140 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after City Council approval of this application, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the development of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on August 21, 2014, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map, as well as to the applicant, appellants, the HOA President, and the previous and current ARB Chairpersons. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. Appeal — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 7 of 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council approve the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission decision, and approve the proposed design, subject to the aforementioned conditions of approval. Approved: Dominic Lazzar City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photo Photos of the Subject Property Proposed Plans Appeal Letter to City Council Appeal Letter to Planning Commission Appellants' PowerPoint to Planning Commission Mr. Uniack's Comment Letter Excerpt of Minutes of the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Staff's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Notification Area Map One copy of the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 for the four appeals are included separately in the September 2, 2014 City Council agenda packet. Also included separately are copies of 16 emails in opposition to the proposed new homes, and one letter in support of the projects, and the Appellants' Introductory PowerPoint document. L"17-1/11ribire R01171 Site Address: 1203 HIGHLAND OAKS DR Property Owner(s): LMV Assets, LLC Property Characteristics Zoning: R -1 (12,500) General Plan: VLDR Lot Area (sq ft): 19,158 Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): 1,716 Year Built: 1947 Number of Units: 1 Overlays Parking Overlay: n/a Downtown Overlay: n/a Special Height Overlay: n/a Architectural Design Overlay: D Selected parcel highlighted co Parcel location within City of Arcadia" This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Report generated 22 -3ul -2014 reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, page 1 of 1 or otherwise reliable. View of the subject property at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive y k'. w. ry F iyGf View of the neighboring property to the south at 1141 Highland Oaks Drive iEJIlSi1r1O rJipeiv pARAGE L%uIUC 1- 5ignv ROI/GL N95_59'10 "E 705.84 PROPERTY L NE I— . »..� ._.. _ —_ J_ —_. G1AL1PEp COHC. PATIO [ - .�[.'^�"� .• a 57 , 4 P irrte WiPRFly llp[.CT BEIuE - ��+- `1L =3E:,� �JYRSi!}Ili{ -- {1 g -�- - - - - rs -- - um ---------------I "t -- - m G4 1 Gw1i.nEA, GTAUPED C01lC. PATIO I 1 Cs)tORFUi Vlg.iry R£ .GE I 1 w $ NEW 2 -STORY i I I w 9 a I i SINGLE FAMILY - ¢ IL i HOME O CCIfSiPlJ. T6g � I � a - 1 r- - - - - -� E _ a 2 34AR CAI1A.r i I ib I - " I O Y• w= - 9 3 I I I i Z A- ' Al: - t GIAMPED ppelpPErE- - — - — , Si pOlpR ly lq RCYPEIGE — • —6 � ":_ _ICe_ I /� L = 31.64' - - - - -- - — - — - — - -- '�-- - ----• ----- - =t-_.--= }-- - =.� -- '�_ _ N89'59'10 "E _ - 160.95 - -- PROPERTY LINE ,1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 11,1" = 1''0" AROJHCT DESCRIPTION UNIT AREA SUMMAR'( - _ NOTES: SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: PRWCnT OLftese m4. a bsoLEEAMUV Iq ME - PnpJCClAObRESS t]T]I4IORLAIID OAkT bR I TAREA ryTA IJ]i [pVEPAGE GLluuilau I.ALi t1EW C01s]IRUCiE011 kLgt " REPi9EN1GLL r IPE 1 CO•dT11LCS xEYi onivEVfAYAVrwp,J�ry ARpADtA LA IICtI [RSSVr rPt u sPReukLEP ®. riRE DPP[t -EP pES3�N AVIf1 iF61Aw.ilgu PER GTY 5TAA11AAD 'pIZ[ Is,i]s sFrRAiI AC ACCEgugR RAPm NU to ET11J11[:J ca'ranc- v'nvuna. ..0 �..s' y o.i'w kw. IANIISCAPE ARGAl RELTVAEA GEIBACIf CALCIIIAIIOrI SHALLO EA- gwPJgLv- -0PlZ L- AND.LPpS APPARV aBV 112ARCADU TIAC DCPAHiL:EUf.PG!155RALLPC __ ] IiEYY STAW�Ep C1JLOA CakC. 2011',110 R.1 'otxA.um'..R W:.vn.aasm; 'uLP1AlS1LG pniECiLY iJ iIIE "FIRE DCPAAileetrt F9P pRFhYIAYRAM -JM£LA or si— 1 TCTALLJwmAAEAU IICYIEVf AVm FOn JnE RF'JUiRLO PEIILVi0 PRlpP 1p __ 1 LUIDSCARE ARLA AEL [111GIUW UMTI [OHSTRLL:II�g OA 1ua.F ^ „irguL "S” u�ARN MCI, OCCLPA1,Cr oROLP TYPE r f w x sa P. �.Ae :eu en uu.v. lw i.PLL COiJCRETE DS grJt 1YALLFEVSCE sIWLp £LSJLMInED COVICAEIEW AT ... Yf V,p Y -P FRTZU UCLE FwE GPRWSLEA: FSnLT SPRmrt11;R sx.nPeA r.n." �s u ]. FIEEYi1RL.i<IRP,AL RE PRC,FC1ED GLRp10 .: GIIAVFLJW G'YEEWWGN.vEE swwa.+w.,rct CG,uSTRl1CTi011. RENOUEMxo uAry nEupUTRFJ ALTM:iES. rYS R. HwPbsr/[PE ARG AT PEOUTAE05ET11ACx CA1LULATIOP y[GUENaLL BE PROVE]EO TppIRELT REDESTxeUVIlwFFle €CDI RCIIC3J060 ' u <u.unv.sC.,n-v atv wr COWAA051YNLR LCWPE V [OMN[D WALKiYAYE .MALL CgLlPLV Vlml LSC ­.T APLOO TER[AIlpOCAP[RO AL01@'a TIfE WDEA20 REAR - SR usiai ror..awvx�ernx wr v r.:.trA.vrn ss+AFCR rr PROPEP]. —i _sy1JALL EE iNSTALlEi3 FCL'fl5.11Vv CC AG'LETq }I At+ AFFkovAL Cf tR E..r LFGCTIUG �"`+ sun. uu u ere ,rle.v¢x.. IM PELTL']II c r LLI On Coto J O a] zU I LQ J od Z SITE KLAN Al eReulFrar ` p- I _ _ i 6YAWAYE Rif ` I- _ _ 1® I ' • pTZxEU I - v I Q I u /A - i FL- J J o ❑❑ `� I I - ��r PANfkT I I I I -- T I.rvum ap I I - I I POWbeR Ru �' I I I Icl 1 I I _ aFdYLYRN Y o Z {a] 1 I x,c.0 rCx -- g FOYER cl -, 9 LL Y [if Ca CD j1.-------------- - - fi aE TER IIWreRI .. I ]LFR �OE .W. I I I _ = LI9RaRY I! ` I 1 eFIH 11MAlTEMI r - - -+ IST FLOOR PLAN CONCEPTUAL 1ST FLR PLAN a ; !, SCALE: I(d" - V -0- 1 ST FLR LIVING AREA: 4607 SIF A2 GARAGE AREA: 640SF IS 2ND FLR LIVING AREA: 2479SF BALCONY AREA: 247 SF I. AL CONCEPTUAL 2ND FLR PLAN SCALE: 14" = J.-D. 0, w 2 0 ❑ to m 1,0 J Om O Q3 < z L) U- < w () O z �5 2ND FLOOR PLAN A3 — s — ----- ... E t •i -- P EAST FRONT ELEVATION SCALE', 714 " =7' -0° nECGRATVE rsAfTER TAa GEr.n ELEVATIONS SCALE:11a " =1' -O" ELEVATION ALL'N!R h'9 AAE RLLE bib _aNC� TRGYTI<EUTERMAWN NOTES °uTE°° ° °urE W EoaBTOeeu5ED ESURET rbtltlRES L%!Si BECfAS '. ll°"MCGO'MArl -0A TORS ETHATU JIT WLL NGTafEGA� im rGAM THENFR".fl/On,^T IOR I VEAM 1(ML111U1lPTpu gxv 166G[Ctl1LF W.M. SE/1S1N:, wnu IANreRUI TO eE f:GEo e.'ERIOR LI WN .a. Stp]GrCp lx^Nali.5Y1 if 6]GECyr:'Wa I I!.11 ERaA GFCR Irn Gall +i8 aW,7 LIpd39, Lw..,". a Ix ED. 1 ' E :a NORTH ELEVATION `J SCALE If -V = V -p" o • E< w 00 _ �to o cx ZU 1, a L.L = w 2� nc7 Q V N 'Z LT! ELEVATIONS A7 nFl i, ME Mt, EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 114"= IW' ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4" =1' -0- ELEVATION US NOTES ="' � � I�TLO.LJTESW MtVRESLVTflEUF A STYLE n ECTED 00wmT­o 0 Q.F%IST.n FXTLR,oR U.W— wts .51 -11601mp-r. Itsil 9 — — — .. � ! III i�� )_ L SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 114" = l'-G" 0 p 40 Lu 00 U) ( c D :. X c� 0, 'c' n 15 :� LL Z: Q (D < Lu y C.) " < If O VI �2 ELEVATIONS A8 :g lo = a 1,tl a I FREE AREA -0.r t—L FgGLE RCUMPA.t-T. icsoEft om C PETE.O TU CGS. . F,AVGll T ­ AMF h85ZWMY StV-' BE LISTED RYAN AI . p MSi AGENCY I5,xR—M�E m 15 ILI T.= 1A :g lo = a 1,tl a I FREE AREA -0.r t—L FgGLE RCUMPA.t-T. icsoEft om C PETE.O TU CGS. . F,AVGll T ­ AMF h85ZWMY StV-' BE LISTED RYAN AI . p MSi AGENCY I5,xR—M�E m ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3110"= 1' 0" 0, tSS LLI cY Oo U3 LD 0 < o z L) LL 2 < w C) EL < Eli Z �5 ROOF PLAN A9 15 ILI ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3110"= 1' 0" 0, tSS LLI cY Oo U3 LD 0 < o z L) LL 2 < w C) EL < Eli Z �5 ROOF PLAN A9 PLANTLiJV.Jr ■L WE ]r.9. » h n.ur .y »rn n.xsr an �} 0 [] u.mun ,[,a,r aw.suw s cµ �yJ a cr [.ueus nom,s s.rrr a.. r: aw r r.rr [ — —A, umr� (1) NORTE I CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN u O ca q a� aCW q r. W V e 0 W � ZC � ; U W w � �UQ C 2875 rL— oIMY a acn ,s s.+•ra l © ® »rnlnurltc ».ma o.nr. ] o� .a vacua u r��y5 0— '�4.& A rr. j= l.w � � ».aou. srcw�. srur uwu�. �. em r r.[[ » C.:• ®�..1 � o,w.rn. uuu.r..r n.»om. rr�rt .' r O .mausnrs .ru.ry ro.c u.+[o rt rte_ .s v+.a u r�9 +.+++x —c- cmcn 0 »nr °i"' 'crtur ac �.00- rn.wa f wc. re vre,a . �5�� r❑' t.r:,.., a, wa:snra�. �rria. r.u,u. _ c._ s .r »..e l ((.°�.���� f-1 .asA }48[9c i'YOERG PWd s cu. it ;�r�B — —A, umr� (1) NORTE I CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN u O ca q a� aCW q r. W V e 0 W � ZC � ; U W w � �UQ C 2875 rL— August 4, 2014 .Q City of Arcadia City Council 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 CEVED AUG 0 5 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Split Decision to Overturn Planning Services Department Approval of Design Review Application No. SFADR 13- 140 For A New Residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. To: The Honorable Members of the Arcadia City Council This Applicant respectfully requests the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission with respect to Application No. SFADR 13 -140 and to adopt the recommendation of the Staff Report of the Development Services Department as detailed in their July 29, 2014 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (see attached). On December 16, 2013, project designer Philip Chan (Applicant) of PDS Studio Inc., submitted an application to the Department of Planning Services to build a new two- story, single- family home located at I203 Highland Oaks Drive. The proposed home would be 7096 square feet, sitting on a 19,158 square -foot lot zoned R- I- 12,500 &D. The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners' Association. Ordinarily a project such as the one proposed would have been submitted to the Highlands Homeowners' Association's (Highlands HOA) Architectural Review Board (ARB) as outlined in Resolution No.: 6770 of the Arcadia City Council. In fact, project designer Philip Chan submitted a similar project to the HHOA ARB for a proposed two- story, 6225 square foot home located at 1141 Highland Oaks Drive which is located across the street from the location of the subject property (FAR = 36.6 %). The Highlands ARB approved that application on April 12, 2013. Many comparable proposals and completed projects have been in the city of Arcadia for some time. Highlands ARB Effectively Defunct from mid - November 2013 through mid-FebruaLry 2014 From mid- November 2013 through mid - February 2014, the I-IHOA ARB did not have a Chairperson. This left the Highlands ARB effectively defiinct. Resolution No. 6770 E5 mandates that "[t]he 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; to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 30 day working -day period. With the City Attorney's advice, Development Services Department processed the design reviews for the HHOA ARB to prevent automatic approval. 1 Approval by Planning Services on 1Deceiffber 13, 2014 On March 11, 2014, Planning Services approved application No. SFADR I3 -140 for a new residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. In approving the application Planning Services reiterated that the proposal submitted by Mr. Chan met the city's Single - Family Residential Architectural Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770. The subject application was originally submitted by project designer, Philip Chan ofPDS Studio Inc., to build a new 7096 square -foot, two- story, single - family residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive on December 16, 2013. The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners' Association. This application would have ordinarily been processed by the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) but for the fact that the ARB lacked a chairperson to process the application for a period of three months, from mid- November 2013 through mid - February 2014, during which time the application was submitted by project manager Chan. Under Resolution No. 6770, "the ARB shall render its decision on a Regular Review Process 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." With a functional HOA ARB in place a decision on this application would have been rendered on January 31, 2014. To prevent a default approval of the application, the City of Arcadia processed the application vis a vis the City's design review process. On March 11, 2014, Planning Services approved Mr. Chan's amended application based on recommendations from the planning commission. The approval Ietter was again reissued on May 27, 2014, due to a typographical error (by the City). In approving the plan, the staff deemed the plans to be consistent with the R -1 Zoning Code, the City's Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines and the City Council Resolution No. 6770. On June 4, 2014, April Seymour, Carol Rosenthal, and Christine Eng filed an appeal. Plaiming Services recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and uphold the recommendation of Planning Services (see attached). On July 29, 2014 the planning conuiiission decided in favor of the appellants to overturn the approval made by planning services on March 11, 2014. The decision was not unanimous. This Applicant respectfully requests that the city council reverse the Planning Commission's decision and adopt the Staff Report recommendation of the Development Services Department. 2 DISCUSSION The application filed by the applicant, Mr. Chan on December 16, 2013 comports with all statutorily required processes, procedures and guidelines of both the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770. Furthermore, the scope and nature of the application is consistent with what has been approved in the recent past. The application originally filed by Mr. Chan was submitted in accordance with Resolution No. 6770, which governs the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners Association where the subject property is located. Resolution 6770 requires that applications for new horde construction be made within 30 working days from the date a complete application is filed with the ARB Chair or designee. Furthermore, "failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 30 day working -day period." Even more, Resolution 6770 states that "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. Having no ARB Chairperson in place, and under advice from the city attorney, Development Services Department correctly decided to begin reviewing applications to the Highlands ARB so as to prevent default approvals of said applications without review of the architectural design. Appellants To The Planning Commission Claims of Procedural Errors Are Incorrect Appellants contend that the City erred in following the advice of the city attorney and processing the subject application. The appellants further contend the city of Arcadia erred in advising Planning Services to process the application. Instead, the appellants contend, the subject application should have gone to the HOA ARB for their review and approval. However, this criticism is misguided for the reasons aforementioned. Resolution No. 6770 mandates that decisions for approval of new home constructions be made within 30 working days from the date of submission of a complete application. When this applicant attempted to submit the application for review, the Arcadia Highlands Homeowners' Association Architectural Review Board was in complete disarray. Most importantly, the Highlands ARB lacked a Chairperson at the time the application was submitted. Resolution 6770 requires that a Chairperson or designee receive the application. No chairperson was in place for three months. In the absence of a functional Highlands ARB, and with multiple applications for review of the Highlands ARB, Planning Services was correct to review the subject application to prevent a default approval of applications without review. In fact, the Planning Commission approved other plans from this HOA while the ARB was not functioning. Appellants Claims of Design Problems Appellants contend at length that the proposed project is out of character for the neighborhood due to its size. However, this too is untrue. The proposed design is not inconsistent with what has been approved by the Highlands ARB from submissions by the same applicant. On April 12, 3 2013, the Highlands ARB approved a design at 1141 Highland Oaks Drive for a 6,255 square - foot, two -story residence across the street from the subject property by the same applicant. Appellants further contend that the proposed design is significantly larger than existing homes in the area, except that appellants arbitrarily select homes built pre -2010 to compare to applicant's design. The appellants matter- of- factly declare that, "since 2010, a new, out -of- character type of house has been introduced into the neighborhood." Appellants are unable to articulate any violation of code but rely on arbitrary aesthetic standards with the implication that deviation from them is a deviation from applicable code. Appellants' objections also reference the potential for imaginary accidents on the subject construction site and also imply that sycamore trees will be illegally removed so as create more space to build. Appellants' objections to this project are not based on any credible articulations of violations of applicable code or resolutions passed by the City Council, Conclusion Therefore, this Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council adopt the recommendation of the Staff Report offered by Planning Services. 0 1343 Highland Oaks, Arcad Lot size: 18,574 Living Area: 5,825 FAR: 31.4% J 1141 Highland Oaks, Arcadia Lot size: 17,097 Living Area: 6,255 FAR: 36.6% 1134 Oakwood Dr, Arcadia Lot size: 16,848 Living Area: 6,151 FAR: 36.5% 0 1141 HIGHLAND OAKS DATE: July 29, 2014 STAFF REPORT Developn-ient Services Department TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission PROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF SINGLE- FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 13 -140 FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1203 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE. Recommended Action: Find that this project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, and Deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the design review. SUMMARY The subject application was submitted by project designer, Mr. Philip Chan of PDS Studio Inc., to build a new 7,096 square -foot, two -story, single - family residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners' Association. However, the design review application was processed by the City because the Architectural Review Board did not have a chairperson to process applications at the time. Planning Services approved Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 on March 11, 2014, based on the determination that the proposal meets the City's Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines and Resolution No, 6770. Due to a typographical error in the original approval letter, a revised approval letter was issued on May 27, 2014. On June 4, 2014, an appeal of the City's approval was jointly filed by Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, and Ms. Christine Eng. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal, and uphold staffs approval of the subject application. BACKGROUND In mid - November 2013, Mr. Ralph Bicker retired as Chairperson of the Highlands Homeowners' Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) after 35 years of service. The ARB was unable to find a replacement until mid - February, 2014, when Mr. Glenn Oyoung assumed the position. During the three months from November 2013 to February 2014, when the ARB did not have a chairperson, the Development Services Department, with the City Attorney's advice, began to conduct design reviews for the projects within the Highlands HOA. it was critical for the City to process the design review applications Because under Resolution No, 6770, "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." The Development Services Department had been contacted in late November and December by a number of applicants that were ready to submit projects to the Highlands ARB. Unless the City processed the design review applications, the projects would have been approved by default, and there would not be an opportunity to review the architectural design of these proposals. The applicant initially submitted Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 on December 16, 2013. On March 11, 2014, Planning Services approved the applicant's revised plans, based an staff's determination that the proposal meets the City's Single-Family Residential Architectural Design Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770. The approval letter was re- issued on May 27, 2014, due to a typographical error that stated an appeal fee of $540.00, instead of the correct fee of $210.00. On June 4, 2014, Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, and Ms. Christine Fng, jointly filed an appeal of the City's approval of the subject application. The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal, and the Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council, DISCUSSION The subject property is a 19,158 square -foot corner lot zoned R- 1- 12,500 &D, located at the northwest corner Highland Oaks Drive and Sycamore Avenue. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property is currently improved with a 1,716 square -foot, one -story residence with an attached two - car garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and build a new 7,096 - square- foot, two -story, single - family residence with an attached three -car garage. The floor plan includes five (5) bedrooms, five (5) full bathrooms, a three - quarter bathroom, a half bathroom, a library, kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, living room, family room, a gym, and a home theater. The architectural style is described as Spanish, featuring a curved concrete tile roof, open eaves with exposed rafters, window shutters, smooth stucco finish, wrought iron front door, dark brown steel garage doors, decorative roof vents, and a Spanish raise finish along parts of the roof — see the attached plans. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oal <s Drive July 29, 2014 -- page 2 of 6 Staff finds the plans to be consistent wifh the R -1 Zoning Code, the City's Single- Family Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Copies of the Guidelines and Resolution are included in the Planning Commission's agenda packet. The proposal is a two -story house within an area that mostly consists of single -story homes, except for the newly constructed 6,255 square -foot, two -story residence across the street at 1141 Highland Oaks Drive, which was also designed by the applicant and approved by the Highlands ARB on April 12, 2013. Staff finds the proposed building to be effectively modulated and articulated to reduce its mass. Furthermore, the architectural style is effectively carried throughout the building. The overall building height is proposed at 27' -10" from the average existing grade, where a maximum of 30' -0" is permitted by Code. APPELLANTS' COMMENTS The appeal letter pointed out procedural and design issues on this application. On procedural issues, the appellants state that the City processed the subject application when it should have gone to the HOA ARB for their review and approval, and that the City did not follow the proper procedures when reviewing the plans. On design issues, the appellant pointed out size, height, bulk, entry height, articulation, architectural style consistency, landscaping, fences/walls, and privacy concerns. The letter includes specific comments regarding existing mature sycamore trees being removed, a tall 10'- 0" first floor top plate, and a tall entry feature being out of scale with the neighboring homes that have approximate top plate heights of T-O ". The front entry door and other design details appear too ornate and the second floor balconies and windows will invade the privacy of the neighbors. A copy of the appeal letter, with additional neighbors' signatures, is attached. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 was initially submitted on December 16, 2013, during the time period when the ARB did not have a chairperson in place to process design review applications. if the City did not process this application, this project would have been approved by default after 30 working days (January 31, 2014) according to Section 5(E)(5) of Resolution No. 6770. In that case, neither the City, nor the ARB would have had the opportunity to comment on the architectural design of the proposal. Staff consulted with the City Attorney about this situation, and was advised that in the absence of an ARB Chairperson, the City should process these applications through the City's design review process. Under the City's design review process, staff sends a Notice of Pending Decision when staff determines that the design of the proposal meets the Guidelines and Zoning Code requirements. If any neighbor, or other interested party submits comments, they would be duly considered and forwarded to the applicant. If they are considered relevant and appropriate, the comments are to be taken into account in formulating the decision, which would not be made before the expiration of the comment period. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive July 29, 2014 — page 3 of 6 Mr. John Uniack, the current AR13 Chairperson, submitted the attached comments in response to the Notice of Pending Decision for the subject proposal. He stated an objection to the size of the house, and provided a list of floor - area - ratios of the homes in the area. The list provides a clear perspective on the size disparity between old and new homes_ However, it also shows that the subject proposal is comparable to the other new homes that have been recently built in the area. The City does not have a floor- area -ratio limitation in place, but there is a maximum lot coverage limitation of 35% by Code for two -story homes. The lot coverage of the proposed new home is 28 %. fn response to the design issues, staff finds the proposal to be adequately modulated and articulated to minimize its mass. There is a two -story element at the entry, but the recessed entry door, and the relatively narrow width of this element does not accentuate the mass of the building. This element is also offset by a wider first floor, and a front balcony to provide horizontal features for visual balance. The applicant is proposing to maintain all existing mature trees in the front yard area, with the exception of two sycamore trees near the southeasterly portion of the proposed building. The removal of these two trees are being requested because the roots of these trees are very close to one another, and one of the trees is leaning at about a 20 degree angle across the front of the existing building. The proposed project will maintain a 20" trunk diameter magnolia tree, a 20" trunk diameter sycamore tree, and two 12" trunk diameter sycamore trees in the front yard area, along with three City trees in the parkway area along Highlands Oaks Drive and Sycamore Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to plant two 24" box star magnolia trees, and two 24" box western redbud trees in the front yard area. There are also screening shrubs and trees proposed to be planted along the northerly side and the rear property lines to help protect the privacy of the neighbors. Staff finds that the subject proposal meets the City's Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770, and recommends approval of the proposed home as is. However, the Planning Commission may consider the following changes in response to the appellants' comments that may be more architecturally consistent with the stated architectural style; 1. Replace the wrought iron front entry door with a wooden door, stained to match the color of the shutters. 2. Lower the top plate height of the first floor from 10'-0" to 9' -6" ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) staff has determined that the development of a single- family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the Planning Commission is to consider approval of the appeal and the design review, the Commission should find that this application qualifies for the Categorical Exemption. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive July 29, 2014 — page 4 of 6 PUBLIC NOTICEiCOMMENTS Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on July 18, 2014, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map, as well as to the appellants, the HOA President, and the previous and current ARB Chairpersons. 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. An opposition letter to the appeal was submitted by Mr. McCallum, resident at 1730 Alta Oaks Drive. A copy of the letter is attached. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the approval of SFADR 13 -140, and uphold staff's decision. The following conditions of approval are recommended; 1. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by SFADR 13 --140. 2. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director, or their respective designees. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 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 56499.37 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 attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 4. Approval of SFADR 13 -140 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after Planning Commission approval of this application, the property owner /applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Appeal of Approval — SFADR 13 -140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive July 29, 2014 — page 5 of 6 Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. .. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval of Appeal and Denial of Design If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn staff's decision on the proposed design, the Commission should move to approve the appeal and deny Single- Family Architectural Design Review No, SFADR 13 -140, and state why the proposed design is not consistent with the City's design guidelines, and/or Resolution No. 6770. Denial of Appeal and Approval of Design If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold staffs approval of the design, the Commission should move to find that the subject application is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), state why the proposed design is consistent with the City's design guidelines and Resolution No. 6770, and deny the appeal and uphold the approval of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140, subject to the conditions scat forth in this report, or as modified by the Commission. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the July 29, 2014 public hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li by calling (626) 574 -5447, or send an email to tli(cbci.arcadia.c@.us. Approved by: Jim ma Co unity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo of the Area Photos of the Subject Property Proposed Plans Mr. Uniack's Comment Letter Appeal Letter Notification Area Map Letter from Mr. MCCallum One copy of the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 are included separately in the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission agenda packet. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 13 -'140 1203 Highland Oaks Drive July 29, 2014 — page 6 of 6 Site Address: 1203 HIGHLAND A ND ©AKS ©R Property Owner(s): LMV Assets, LLC Property Characteristics Zoning: R -1 (12,500) General plan: VLDR Lot Area (sq ft): 19,158 Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): 1,716 Year Built: 1947 Number of Units: 1 Overlays Parking overlay: n/a Downtown Overlay: n/a Spedai Height overlay: n/a Architectural Design overlay: D as L Parcel locadon widiln City of Arcadia 0 This map Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Report generated 22 -Jul -2034 reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Page r or 1 � � •- -' -r v-- u�w,.ur. _... I]rntaR to U- ��`.__. , I Y..I 1 5 NS •srto• 1 @5 R7 PRO_ - �77- � 1 ».we.e•r,.L.t .n. � ulCixv, r>e£1 -. �J0aT5r_., rae.�8"ir�. --.. cld".?;tEa sl S y - I h _. ... ..[r_F_ - - ' - - -_ -p e� ------- r L------ j In - .9 - .` _._—.f 2 L L^.Lt.V LY If.:•I[. tf CE I I I lA•Y0.141LA ' I . -A Q . VL Qi i NEW 2•STORY 0— a 2° SINGLE FAMILY f' i MOMS old — r LU Ig 1 ... I4 d. lM lAplA L_� _ co g r mr tl 0.151.¢.• ` 1 ••` — — — J .... - - --... a _ —_ —_ j. LD c ? 000'34'15• L =31.64' I00.05 - 1 ]er.., PR9PERTY LINE T`-- -- nbr- N•atar rw•.5 � ... _. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN � - �� SGSL[ to =1' -0' Prtn dPSCRta ---- -_ IIN7T AR. 3 MIAARY _- __- -- -- - -. -_- Im¢�[G ma'FrS A¢azrss e:aa leslax,assw ra uwr Alw l�rLnT£rlanEwLtna1r�11 .... ...._...— - - ._ ` .« �� Lar SS:C ��Y +G at_L ...rr � f.kl��`�r5]11uC1 011E •nL.M -.. -... `-.1�= ��:.., A:£L::Cn FUl14]n -'JpCa en1 -0re.CV] rn m arL RtLa;y.l w,FreW IALiAtl�� I - ¢tY1SraLC An YCVVar AFwrtlApi IkAa a�S.wcvlu•�ai.. r� w c•.la:,"rr. >v V C.IC]UnC./IG aroLplCAfJS¢Cry{,.r G4_Ixa4411 itR p-AI• CiF ¢CPARjLq,r�j aU't�5 :!fail [ IICYa>z ACC —•-^, 4.1 a +dn»Ca;,a. �i U CilT la rmc ,P.,apCM1W pitler T,r b a ^'...n.r•u.r... -w rre rr :YAtsirF➢ I•Anrvul 5Ci .. ...._., S] �PCVF1i0 _ 6p LCtlla]II r""".'r G••. rrn,.r >»,»tr.•a Rk:YW Ala itn al FR {CUACS FEn IaS: a,lU9110 ] l.Al7)gEYlI]I£. ... • -_• m•A• lraLrru.rr ceewa._ -r aacaal ,LZ:. F]nrnnLUSe >s, CrJ15143.�tCa1 tin uryF[C1C14- C�rgtqCl�StCgIYK •il. L�TN]L ». ].At4 Eit �a£tL'G➢CJt nAIlrC4Ci •.INL•6[tlALtnE4 51aE eFlMJtI,Ep >Ip,CY GRwtILN LS�vS1 wJ• rs w - f.'Ig4R lEPARaIE FCrICq; -! -_. t3apletE K'NaM1Y.Li —.�• �`aa ].rECE�lnula LlulxcP rROr{ettnotaea,o !.r...._.aet�Pna: iiiic:ncii SITE PLAN .r,s...,•,.a„a.r...,,, .e:.: Ir tl t= .•.;n1Ct1¢II Itzra�pLwrs yo twzl =Tarr AC:wtrlea . __.... _.__ . .... •�� °w .,r�..t..l. 0011 r, ccllu..sa pr rn¢v�{o to o�E¢1Fm{ataw,maEn: 5A11., fun ZaF4 Pl!CA aTRECW[n .C7NCrtW:Y :q11 N¢RICRp NUIl Ra CC. .1PtCtt$]r{}A f�,A�• -CE "m" �SSf•u ..s»5+ata.l Ial a C- r•+GI£P WaIIM1'lAYS'vwLI FaANLt M51444G3:3iT _ ltl+.i.vr."LR� a! au �•Ln'�.�i>*roi+l�l>5n. at p 4aR10.1ElElIw:.:�a- +IKrllnli tl4 rw"'£Alid {ifiLn u+���> �i�.w �. r. ,Ln -�itn ...a. vv a - al4'IOCnn w�L1141 pL anrayCL9rC,.nYF� ro: I _ .. . I c.. »«-. ccn,]t:r>ru ul¢Arrnwu rf TlKarrw EUCtarr Al I • [H:�ECIq•11 AW- cf) r�i 00 En 0 IM 1 z u sc ❑ Q LLI !F! U m < STnual, CONCEPTUAL 1ST FLR PLAN j 1ST FLR LIVING AREA: 401 SF GARAGE AREA: 64Q51-- N ti 2ND FLR MING AREA: 2479SF BALCCNY AREA: 247 5F CONCEPTUAL 2ND FLR PLAN SCALE: W, m 1'.9" Zil Irlm NMI a 'FD _j 0 C3 < Z rj < -c LL. IS 0 is -r w L) —1 0-1 < 'IrA, 2ND rLa 0) R p PLAN A3 S ®® — i EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION SCA4E 114e= r -r C[CISVatiEnartcn raau `.� - E LE V ATIO S SCALES 114" =1'-0" ELEVATION •�:,•�,• µ•n - NOTES � w''en_ IKG 1r �� . _ eLYw 111: k6LSC ttxf =�JLr E`tlr��3�•.E �n[fi{'J V:rmq• n.w.1.u_n.1 w ` 19Vn CL1N- ISYIIVr6HaLlmigli]AIS(¢v aRLii 112.50 cCt'i1a ei.e,1 t.ew :... _._�+ t:aF:iV11,LSe.10+tRI: IiNYY'_`•IQAr r.RG[43fL IgSGn•If6nl [i'i� p,�[n�l,�im w�•��• RL'1 lxlf[n1r110 RC L.LS cXrcann vxl:.vi; c1�; 1]11i4l:i 1."Staet[ll t1.:f Cf.l l[IY. IL 6[! IStL.l C30 .i'A1a lr�. Im x131: VA;ri ['hXil iii 0 E.£ =)q; LLI a^ 00 Z � o O c`1 zU LL g C7 4 LU Q N [IJ ELEVATIONS UrA IF f I - - _- S ®® — i EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION SCA4E 114e= r -r C[CISVatiEnartcn raau `.� - E LE V ATIO S SCALES 114" =1'-0" ELEVATION •�:,•�,• µ•n - NOTES � w''en_ IKG 1r �� . _ eLYw 111: k6LSC ttxf =�JLr E`tlr��3�•.E �n[fi{'J V:rmq• n.w.1.u_n.1 w ` 19Vn CL1N- ISYIIVr6HaLlmigli]AIS(¢v aRLii 112.50 cCt'i1a ei.e,1 t.ew :... _._�+ t:aF:iV11,LSe.10+tRI: IiNYY'_`•IQAr r.RG[43fL IgSGn•If6nl [i'i� p,�[n�l,�im w�•��• RL'1 lxlf[n1r110 RC L.LS cXrcann vxl:.vi; c1�; 1]11i4l:i 1."Staet[ll t1.:f Cf.l l[IY. IL 6[! IStL.l C30 .i'A1a lr�. Im x131: VA;ri ['hXil iii 0 E.£ =)q; LLI a^ 00 Z � o O c`1 zU LL g C7 4 LU Q N [IJ ELEVATIONS UrA 2 114 1-f t 1 � IN WEST ELEVATION 5CALE: W". Y-0' C[Y.yMVr{rW lCll rxe nn.r. ELEVATIONS SCALE: 114 " =1' -0" waari� ^.�n+ : .uy Na(.'�IA.VIC n[ :L:;ca I+Y_rt: r�.sr rri(, EliiSaCWVwr NC)rE5 LIM l['J4Pw"1I ixlya[: v;r.l n Di A xrr.p rswrLia rsammena ra Gr;yA: Ilufr4- r�is!]lti tpr NfWfrrll 11i C =r a [R YfII[ rV.i1: r•arl�lr rluY.rart asf tC1- f.Y➢"LF 1t�1(=u wlM#cr vuu Lurtrnm m ar v:cn : v�rrn.`�_fil anuvo rx-rr rt sm �uH+t±i re rvr snx .L UC CE .... PTIi YY!"ri nr 0n C'oai3 W O� ul Ln Y O �CC'; D LLL. e11 Q LLJ 0 V O Q rV z ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: t1a°- 1',U' r A8 -11*—r IM lj�7v-Lmmq C-s A nnF"1�1 ROOF PLAN SCALE 3) lEr - 1••fr i .0- h Jj 6'S 00 LLJ L) -i CD z Ei5 ROOF PUM Ag cz� 7—SM =rc -11*—r IM lj�7v-Lmmq C-s A nnF"1�1 ROOF PLAN SCALE 3) lEr - 1••fr i .0- h Jj 6'S 00 LLJ L) -i CD z Ei5 ROOF PUM Ag +iwilan ww:s i 1p( ;TIE CONCEPTUAL PLANTING RLRN �, 1. I y=i O rn Ell C Q� Z tc fa fzu� lip. w �'n7J U u z in 4 V z 1� 0a u, L �U a�n C C '_H75 Kr- z�,+v, csu.: -rLan roe n• oul [ �u r ,�, /� O L.-a�K .tr1s .ln��.. .d•J MLf s.. a✓( un4[ L +' E:K i. YO •if 2 .,S L (— � 1-=: G+rl.gn. [M +in+:. fl�r w.�.�r _ cr. [ 1.+ tl.as v n[tin .[:,xwa t: x_+ x nt[ ,•�.A.• L7-j r+c sra Ls n t_-i L+.w x. Im. A vnvi. r.ne..v, 5,',j � •- �'•R;f W..l.s IS,.: SA�rS1 S) 4. ! ��i r " -"4 � �e�, «,en .m�.rs sw :x wm � � C cs:.L�... �.u�� s•:.:.a.. :u �. 5c• .L'7 _. i� ml.c xc .m a . sx a � � ❑T' �•n•a.l•...y:•.o. sty, s..na. . cL s ao-a s GL"-1 OKusgro�'.:t -vrllr tlr n hsW S Lw �i r .! 1 i 1p( ;TIE CONCEPTUAL PLANTING RLRN �, 1. I y=i O rn Ell C Q� Z tc fa fzu� lip. w �'n7J U u z in 4 V z 1� 0a u, L �U a�n C C '_H75 May 29, 2014 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 0 JUN 0 4 2014 p1aann 17 se j -,i °es ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPEAL Re: 1203 Highland Oaks Drive Review No.: SFADR 13 -140 APPLICANTS: April A. Seymour Carol Rosenthal Christine Eng T. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1203 Highland Oaks Drive faces east and is approximately 19,158 sq. feet. The property is on the northwest corner of Highland Oaks Dr. and Sycamore Ave. The existing home is a well- designed traditional Ranch home which is currently not being maintained since the current owner purchased the property in August of 2013. The property to the north of 1203 is 1211 Highland Oaks Dr. and is approximately 18,500 sq. feet with a home of approximately 2,242 sq. feet. This is a traditional Ranch home with little to no alterations of the front elevation. The property behind 1203 Highland Oaks Dr. is 1204 Oakwood Dr. This home is approximately 1,764 sq. feet and sits on a lot of approximately 19,158 sq. feet. This home is a very attractive, well - maintained traditional Ranch house with open fish- tail eaves and redwood siding. All properties appear to be at the same grade level, at the same height, approximately 151. The majority of the homes on Highland Oaks Dr. between Foothill Blvd. and Elkins Dr. are primarily traditional Ranch homes. Out of approximately 60 homes on the west side of Highland Oaks Dr., there are only about 12 homes that are taller than 15'. This conservative 1 height of the homes was intentional as there are views of the mountains to the north and to the west of these homes. Attached as Exhibit A to this appeal is a photo of 1203 Highland Oaks Dr. Attached as Exhibit B to this appeal is a photo of 1211 Highland Oaks Dr. Attached as Exhibit C to this appeal is a photo of 1204 Oakwood Dr. II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 1203 Highland Oaks Dr. is located within the Highlands Homeowner's Association. Plans were submitted to the City for this proposed residence on 01/29/14. A decision letter was issued on 03/05/14. The Highlands Homeowners Association has an Architectural Review Board of at least 3 members as required by City of Arcadia Resolution 6770. In violation of Resolution 6770, the plans for this structure were not approved by the Highlands Homeowners Association. The purpose of the Architectural Review Board for and by the Highlands Homeowners Association is to preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, to protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments. III. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to Resolution 6770, Section 5, Paragraph C, notification shall be deemed to include at least the two parcels on each side of the parcel subject to plan approval, 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. A noticed scheduled meeting is required pursuant to Paragraph E, deposited in the mail to applicant and all property owners within required notification area not less than 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. Proper notice and meeting was not provided by the architectural review conducted by the City. A written comment period was provided by the City to noticed neighbors. The City received written 2 objections to the proposed design. No action was taken by the City to address such written objections. In the words of the reviewer within City Planning, by the time the notice of written comment period was mailed out, the reviewer had already made design changes to the plans and there were no comments that could be made to overturn an approval of the plans. In the words of the reviewer, the written comment period was a "courtesy" to neighbors to provide notice that a new home was going up. The reviewer looked only at the plans submitted and did not physically inspect or investigate the character of the neighborhood in which the proposed home was going into. The reviewer saw no pictures or renderings of any of the adjacent properties to determine the compatibility and harmony with existing structures. IV. INCOMPATIBILITY A. SITE PLANNING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: 1. Natural amenities such as views and trees were not preserved and incorporated into the proposed development. The proposal includes removal of an elegant, mature sycamore tree which is in excess of 30" in diameter (represented on the plans as only 611) which would help screen and reduce the impact of a new larger structure being introduced on this block. The proposed rear elevation includes a large balcony facing west which may enhance views of sunsets however there are no mountains or valley vistas. 2. The size and design is not visually harmonious and compatible with the character and quality of the surroundings. The proposed home is visually a much greater mass and dwarfs the much smaller homes on either side, adjacent to the proposed home. 3. The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and proportion with adjacent homes. The proposed structure is 27110" high, with a 10' top plate on the first floor. The adjacent homes have a top plate of approximately 8' and do not exceed 15' in height. The proposed building will act like a skyscraper drawing attention to its size and scale in comparison to the adjacent properties. B. ENTRY: 1. The height of the entry is not in scale with the height and design of the building. The entry fagade is a flat plane approximately 20, high. The height of the entry plane is greater than its width creating verticality to the front entry. 3 2. There is no roof or eaves providing any resemblance to shelter over the front door. 3. The doors themselves appear to be 10, in height creating a vertical element adding to the scale and massing of the entry. 4. The cantilever atop of the front entry fagade adds to the vertical theme of the front entry making the structure appear taller. C. MASSING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Massing Guidelines based on: 1. The front elevation lacks adequate articulation. The proposed second floor is directly above the first floor without adequate setback. The second floor appears as large as the first floor. 2. The windows and doors along the front elevation are taller than their width adding to the verticality of the proposed building. The adjacent homes have windows that are wider than they are tall. D. HEIGHT: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Height Guidelines based on: The proposed home is 27110 ". Adjacent homes are no more than 15, high. Particular attention needs to be addressed to height due to the home on the north side of 1211 Highland Oaks Dr. is approximately 25' tall. The proposed building at 1203 Highland Oaks Dr. and 1219 Highland Oaks Dr. will visually dwarf the home at 1211 Highland Oaks Dr. making it less desirable as it is sandwiched between two visually larger homes. Attached as Exhibit "D" is a photograph of 1219 Highland Oaks Drive. E. ROOF: Consistent. F. FAgADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade Design Guidelines based on: 1. The proposed plans architectural style is "Spanish." The front entry contains a large flat plane as described above under Entry. 2. The proposed building specifies "simulated divided lites windows to be used. This will create a "plastic" or fake appearance on a style of home that focuses on handcraftsmanship, wood detailing V and wrought iron. These simulated dividers are wholly inconsistent with the architecture of the proposed building. G. DETAIL: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Detail Guidelines based on: 1. The front doors appear ornate and incompatible with other building elements. The doors appear overly prominent both in height and design. 2. The design proposes the use of shutters. This design detail is wholly inconsistent with "Spanish" architecture. Patios or large porches are traditionally used to shade windows, not shutters. Please refer to page 15 of the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, photo F as an example. Attached as Exhibit "E" is 46 woodland Drive as an example of an appropriatly designed Spanish Style home. 3. The decorative vent makes the building look ornate and busy. H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Planning Guidelines based on: I. It is unclear from the design specifications whether the precast molds are made of foam or cement. Also there is no indication if the decorative corbels are made of wood. The use of synthetic materials will be noticeable and appear fake. I. LANDSCAPE /HARDSCAPE: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Landscape /Hardscape Guidelines based on: 1. The proposed landscape does not include native species consistent with the architectural style of Spanish. More appropriate choices would include foxtail agave, blueglow agave, aenonium, coast rosemary, ceanothus, California poppy, yarrow, manzanita, salvia spathacea and coral aloe . English lavender, heavenly bamboo and boxwood are inconsistent with Spanish architectural style, as these are "English." 2. The stamped concrete driveway and front entry will appear fake and busy. A more appropriate choice would be a diamond pattern as represented in the back patio but using cut lines instead of a stamp. The pattern should be a larger format in order to reduce the "busy" feel.. 5 J. FENCES /WALLS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fences /Walls Guidelines based on: There is no specification as to what type of wall is being erected on the front and side elevations. K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS: 1. The proposed second story incorporates several north facing windows which would invade the privacy of the home to the north. 2. The rear elevation incorporates a large balcony which looks into the property to the west. There is no indication of how far back the first floor and second floor are from the rear property line. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed building for 1203 Highland Oaks violates the principles of harmony and compatibility as it relates to adjacent homes. It will create a visual "dwarfing" of adjacent homes. This proposal will cause a decrease in property values. This proposed plan should be denied based on its lack of compatibility and harmony to the surrounding neighborhood. Res pe •t'11� Submitted, B Y pril`�A eymour 1614 HiQhla d Oaks Dr. Y Name Q /0 -ry Address �Ll- 4)1`� -"���� By ,k c,`7� tNCT acne Address t252,1 akwtmA ours 'k C1 B m EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT 7/29/2014 1 II�II r" �� ft`+�. �a *�, '� ,� �� � fin: � � �• '. + ,�ys;. 4 ��,. � 3a �'t rl °"+ %��` ' •' ,Fly `i ty 'i. n� � N.�.%�r 2. . li',_. �Iwo - _ 12 03 High land Oaks ..1,716 home square footage 19,158 lot square footage 7/29/2014 1 I I; ;. Y 10ALE FAKY� ROPE }��k - . Z ... .. CVf`AAA(1RC AVP :. CONCEPTUAL S17E PLAN g,NIT AREA SUMMARY PROAECTOFACCIUMM SE FAWQ NO'M uML PROACTAOORESS UNIT AREA DATA LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION LOT SQE. Lot W1 low # !7151H WM 4AREA km K R -1 F1aTTT411IRifmnAPa nal GARAUAV* W /T 1ANDSCAMIAMPAATREQUTAEOSETRACISCA MATION IECM RADA L7M4 ARM ir4 W GCRRTOPCPGN H :1 'J PULLYSPFUM LER TOTAL LWG AREA 'mm W OUT.i1L`q /RWlCtlar tl qi7 1111u TOTAL WASWC AT IEWAL0 IRORT 1T1T :T TOTAL RILOUEO:! IlICK ARTA 0711 SF :1muu�er re t+rc�wrruK�q M)tuo.WC FlN'JO11 FAQ •671 OR %G1% WIA •O G7 O4 li ii0l• W.1 GOW 1 i CO'/T7liOPb7Vt 7� J OtAOYAMtO.upo" a ET TOTAA LAWW"ARIA el" dT W03CAPE AREA AT AEQUIREO SET OACK CALCUMTION TulALVAZVMEARTAAT Eli) W IOTA WOXAREAT 1IM007110M T:T 1F KS FROM *AM IOTALMAA rMEAWAT 0S) V TOTALAitd:.J49IITTL,4:KARTA [0721 J KM FP07T TARO TOTALAfoLv 0LETEA:RA"A cut 1F Olt Og ti,U1 ws. PR9.JEgj DgECRIPTION PROAECTOFACCIUMM SE FAWQ NO'M uML PROACTAOORESS I7O11S MANOOAMOR AROAOIACA 11001 LOT SQE. 0,111SPTOA7IAC ACCIiSSOR PRAM NA MA 1 "11 -L 1401 ZON04. R -1 NU41BER OF STORY Z OFF wli ju ALL E%1STING UNIM OCCUPAMYOROUP. R1W CONSTRUMNTYPE -. V-0 FIRE SPRIN&M PULLYSPFUM LER GooC ?:i9 W)TpKt�RWMNiT[(•ACi 771e cwralwAUezncuE p:iq ))�e c.7:�an.1 n,7Am iaoe arr.: :1muu�er re t+rc�wrruK�q M)tuo.WC FlN'JO11 FAQ -)17Gl-u fiiECOSi)'CftS 7315 GLYO-AV f7.dCA7 Gddl� �d'A ll•iA)Y GN17 frFMICGI eL3NII :TFUI. Ofw dfEEll FriO••fi G7N.OtiAP UOiE AIA fAKIINTfLOC1LA9d1AYLfii 7/29/2014 2 7/29/2014 3 � '1i 16 Eif! MIiA _. _ . I Ai 1141 Highland Oaks 6,188 home square footage 16,720 lot square footage 7/29/2014 rd 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 1212 Highland Oaks -A'Wk OWE 1219 Highland Oaks ,545 home square footage or ",Z': - oo 3,780 home square footage 7,840 lot square footage Ko lot square footage 7/29/2014 7 1220 a Oaks 2,329 home square Mai 5,730 lot square footage 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 1219 H.O. Drive 1220 H.O. Drive 3,780 sq. ft. 2,329 sq, ft. W E 20,908 sq. ft. 18,730 sq. ft. S 1211 H.O. Drive 1 2,242 sq. ft. 1212 H.O. Drive 18,500 sq. ft. 1,545 sq, ft. 7,840 sq. ft. v � 1203 H.O. Drive O Y 1204 Oakwood roposed: 1,716 sq. ft. p 1200 H.O. Drive a 1,764 sq, ft. 7,006 sq. ft 19,158 sq, ft. 2oa4 sq. ft. 19,166 sq. ft. 4 L 7,410 sq. ft. m CO � to _ Sycamore Avenue _ 1142 H.O. Drive 1141 H.O. Drive 1,764 sq. ft. 6,188 sq. ft. l 111 11,800 sq, ft. 16,720 sq, ft. 1135 H.O. Drive I 1126 H.O. Drive 1,867 sq. ft. I 16,720 sq. ft. 2,361 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft. 7/29/2014 10 �Nw, .'� Al i x r ti � F�4 � ti, .. \ • ;° �yK' x.11., l ��� i'�.i '� a•, •�7 d R � k i 'I � `� +r. !*cif �. 1 i 7/29/2014 10 March 5, 2014 City of Arcadia Planning Services Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Subject: Notice of Pending Decision of Single Family Design 1203 Highland Oaks Drive Review No. SFADR 13 -140 Dear Mr. Thomas Li and other members of the Planning Department, RECD DIED MAR - 5 2074 Planning Services City of Arcadia The Highlands neighborhood of Arcadia is a special older community that can best be identified by the abundance of single- story, low - slung, ranch style homes. It has a remarkably consistent housing stock that is greatly appreciated by the residents who live and have invested there. Since 2010, a new, out -of- character type of house has been introduced into the neighborhood. Typically these houses fill the maximum allowable building envelope as dictated by the Arcadia R -1 Zoning Code. The proposed development for 1203 Highland Oaks Drive fits within this category and is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The issue is that its size is much larger than the surrounding houses. This can be calculated by using Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a metric used by planners to measure development density, the amount of development on an individual lot. It also can statistically compare lot -to -lot development as opposed to the often ambiguous notion of massing. Attachment A is a table listing the parcels identified on the circumference map on the Notice of Pending Decision. Included are street addresses, lot area, floor area (not including garages) and the corresponding FAR (development area 1 floor area). The average FAR for houses built before 2010 is .16, with a range between .09 and .26. Indicated in gray are developments built after 2010, the range being .35 to .37. These new developments are two times the size of the average surrounding development. The FAR for the subject property proposal is .37, over four times the existing FAR. The proposed house (7,090 SF) is four times larger than the existing house (1,716 SF), and over twice as large as all of the adjacent pre -2010 houses. This type of development puts the consistency of the Highlands neighborhood housing stock in jeopardy. Large houses next to smaller houses create an unplanned, hodgepodge appearance that cannot be easily reversed. This unsuccessful type of planning and development is readily apparent in other parts of the city. The reason the original house was only 1,716 SF is that the subject project is a corner lot. With setback requirements of 60' front yard, 20' street side yard, 5' side yard and 35' back yard, only 6,750 SF of the lot is available to place 7,736 SF of building (see Attachment B, a site plan of the subject property and required setbacks). In this calculation, the garage is counted as it takes up space. To fit, a two -story structure is required, leaving little space for the appropriate architectural expression required. The result is a typical box -like building that is contorted to make its mass "appear smaller then some architectural pastiche is applied to call it a style; in this case, "Spanish" style. There are several fine examples of Spanish style homes in the Highlands (see Attachment C, a Spanish style house located one block away). Hallmarks of the style are a low building mass with deep recessed windows indicative of traditional masonry construction. Included would be courtyards, arcades, a tile roof and other specialized details. It is difficult to believe that a development of this size squeezed onto a small lot while claiming an architectural style that traditionally wants to spread out can successfully fit into this neighborhood context. Further constraining this site is the cluster of three mature Sycamore trees (see Attachment D, a photo of the aforementioned trees). It would be a tragedy to remove or molest these historic and protected specimens to make room for oversized development. Construction can be extremely stressful on trees and dubious "accidents" all too often happen, miraculously freeing -up more area to build. The monitoring of these and any other protected site trees by the city arborist during any construction on this site is imperative. As you can surmise, I am not in favor of the proposed project as detailed in the Notice of Pending Decision, chiefly for its size. Every property owner has the right to build their dream house, but every development needs review and discussion for neighborhood consistency and appropriateness. 1 request that the Planning Services Department consider the comments stated above as part of the decision- making process. The best development not only improves itself but becomes an asset of the community at large. I would like to be notified of any decision by the Planning Services Department regarding the project at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully, John Uniack Homeowner 1220 Highland Oaks Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 (626) 446 -8906 Attachments Attachment A Highland Oaks FAR Address Lot Area Residence FAR 1142 Highland Oaks 9,653 Floor Area n:1 1135 Highland Oaks 16,553 1,867 0.11 1136 Highland Oaks 9,452 1,960 0.21 1141 Highland Oaks 16,988 2,343 0.14 1141 Highland Oaks 16,988 6,000 0.35 1142 Highland Oaks 9,653 1,764 0.18 1200 Highland Oaks 10,890 2,044 0.19 1203 Highland Oaks 19,166 1,716 0.09 1203 Highland Oaks 19,166 7,090 0.37 1211 Highland Oaks 18,295 2,242 0.12 1212 Highland Oaks 10,890 1,545 0.14 1219 Highland Oaks 18,295 3,780 0.21 1220 Highland Oaks 18,731 2,329 0.12 1215 Oakglen 10,013 2,557 0.26 1223 Oal<glen 10,890 2,290 0.21 1134 Oakwood 17,424 6,151 0.35 1148 Oakwood 16,988 2,713 0.16 1204 Oakwood 19,166 1,764 0.09 1212 Oakwood 18,295 3,293 0.18 1220 Oakwood 18,295 2,305 0.13 Notes Previous residence FAR New residence currently under construction. Estimated area is derived from typical new development FAR. Existing residence FAR Proposed residence FAR Average FAR for subject and adjacent properties as originaly developed. FAR 0.16 range, .09 - .26 D pO F m ti I U i � ] 109 o ul '2 C ru r � ra I mS a L \S L L 5' Side Yard Setback Approximate Buildable Area (� [ 6,7050 5F Q ,til�/f ?0' Street Side Yard Setback 90' \ Ai N R A V I i i Attachment B Setbacks and Buildable Area i R-10 F S n f FI �` i 54'� • i Attachment C Highlands Spanish Style Residence - L-:1- �- - - -, iL uo A. Aw r Z*/illii AF *' { 7ww-­4�1 Tit y 4 '` � � iiA, ` •� L •fir S l - ; kY., � •s w _4 Attachment Property Sycamore cr ivoR,yy ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 ��0oe lr oTH °�• - EXCERPT- 3. Appeal of the approval of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 13 -140 with an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a new residence at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. Appellants: April A. Seymour, Carol Rosenthal, and Christine Eng. Applicant: PDS Studio, Inc., Designer Recommended action: Find that this project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, and Deny the appeal and uphold the Approval of the design review. Mr. Kasama introduced the appeal. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek asked if the appellant would like to speak. Ms. April Seymour responded. Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Philip Chan, PDS designer, responded. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this appeal. The following responded: Mr. Dong Chang Ms. Jane Chun Ms. Rosalind Barrie Mr. George Zordilla Mr. John Uniack Ms. Carolyn Papp Mr. Joe Baiunco Ms. Jennifer Duclett Ms. Laurie Thompson Mr. David Arvizu Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal. The following responded: Mr. Ash Rizk Mr. Jack Ferestad Chairman Beranek asked if the appellant would like to speak in rebuttal. Ms. Seymour responded. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Chaio, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to refer this project to the Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board for consideration. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Falzone, and Beranek NOES: Commissioner Chiao ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 7/29/14 L elence at Ji g� a -A, — - -- __ - ic. ,♦, - .yam - -y _�. � "`... - - _ _ ,_. Adjacent Neighbor to the South at /i ■ • Id EL ■ w Panoramic View of the Subject Property and the Adjacent Homes Panoramic View of the Homes Across the Street C a a Appellants' Main Issu Sycamore trees in the front yard should not be removed. 10' -0" top plate height where neighbors have 8' -0" to plates. Tall entry feature out of scale with the neighbors. Design details appear too ornate. Second floor balconies and windows will invade the privacy of neighbors. Staff's Findings > The two sycamores proposed for removal have intertwined roots and one is leaning at a 20 degree angle. Staff finds the proposal to be adequately modulated and articulated to minimize mass. > The entry feature is visually balanced by a wider first floor and balcony. Property has proper landscape screening to help soften the appearance and provide privacy. The colors and materials used are appropriate for the architectural style and compatible with the surrounding homes. Recommendation Deny the appeal and uphold staff's approval SFADR 13 -140, subject to the conditions of approval pages 5 & 6 of the staff report. of j A 4 City of Arcadia a 0 x b r7 E Sycamore Arne 1142 1141 1134 1135 1128 1120 1121 v 4 Q 12:0 1250 '11242 1240 1236 235 1 723 1215 'I z I 1209 1200 1 13 9 1 149 0.1 0 0.04 0.1 Miles Disclaimer: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. WGS_1984_ Web _ Mercator_ Auxi liary_S phere © City of Arcadia Reported on 07/17/2014 03 :25 PM THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend -- Truck Routes 1: 2,535 Notes This map was automatically generated using Geocortex Essentials. GPLIFOR�,j9'y�f F . «a A.sg— u�[ 5, MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR APPEALS IN THE HIGHLANDS AREA The attached material was submitted by Ms. April A. Seymour for the design review appeals in the Highlands area. These items were received too late to be included in the staff reports, but will be addressed at the meeting. 1 CEl V E AN 27 2014 August 25, 2014 Planning ServiceF OPPOSITION TO APPEAL OF 1203 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. SFADR 13 -140 TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: The following residents and members of the Arcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association by signing below are in opposition to the appeal of 1203 Highland Oaks Drive previously filed on August 5, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, W �+o Utz Zd d� So nksr. jJ �v 4z �f�p�