Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1c - 1350 Highland Oaks AppealL� C NILA kv, Y�r I n..�rPnr ecA elu su.v'l' S. 19Pi STAFF REPORT ��1�ni[y oSl ;o 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 UPHOLD THE APPROVAL OF SINGLE - FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 14 -03 AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. THE 14 -06 FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1350 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE Recommendation: Deny Appeal and Uphold the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve the Design Review and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit SUMMARY The subject applications were submitted by project designer, Mr. Robert Tong of Sanyao International, Inc., to build a new 6,530 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence at 1350 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 14 -03 and THE 14 -06 on April 23, 2014, and March 25, 2014, respectively. The approval of the design review application was 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 was jointly filed by Ms. April A. Seymour, Ms. Carol Rosenthal, Ms. Shwujing Jessica Liu, and Ms. Christine Eng, of the City's approval of the subject applications. The Planning Commission, at a special meeting on July 29, 2014, denied the appeal and approved the subject applications, finding the design to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Shelley Chu, Ms. Faye Wang, and Ms. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 2 of 8 April A. Seymour jointly filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the subject applications — see the attached appeal letter to the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the subject design review and oak tree permit. 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. Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -03 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -06 were initially submitted on January 13, 2014, and February 6, 2014, respectively. Notice of the project was distributed to the immediate neighborhood as per the City's notification process. Comments were received during the notification period from April Seymour related to the design of the house and its compatibility with the neighborhood. These comments were considered, and on April 23, 2014, Planning Services approved Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -03, based on staff's determination that the proposal meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. THE 14- 06 was approved on March 25, 2014. The approval letter for SFADR 14 -03 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, Ms. Shwujing Jessica Liu, and Ms. Christine Eng, jointly filed an appeal of the City's approval of the subject design review and oak tree permit. The Planning Commission, at its special meeting on July 29, 2014, considered the appeal at a public hearing and denied the appeal by a vote of 3 to 1, with one Commissioner absent, to approve the subject applications. The Commissioners who voted to approve the project found the design of the proposal to be consistent with the Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 3 of 8 City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. The Commissioner who voted in favor of the appeal felt that the application should be referred to the ARB for review and consideration. A copy of the meeting minutes of the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting is attached. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Shelley Chu, Ms. Faye Wang, and Ms. April A. Seymour jointly filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the subject applications. The appeal letter is similar to the one previously submitted to the Planning Commission, with additional signatures of support and photo exhibits of the surrounding homes. DISCUSSION The subject property is a 20,470 square -foot interior lot zoned R -1- 12,500 &D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property is currently improved with a 2,685 square -foot, one -story residence with an attached two -car garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the residence and build a new 6,530 square - foot, two - story, single - family residence with an attached three -car garage. The floor plan includes six (6) bedrooms, six (6) full bathrooms, two (2) half bathrooms, a library, a kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, a living room, a family room, and a home theater. The architectural style Prairie, which typically consists of horizontal elements, grouped windows, and deep overhangs. The proposed building includes 30 -inch eave overhangs, with a smooth concrete tile roof, ledgestone veneer, smooth stucco finish, a front door with decorative wrought -iron, and aluminum- framed garage doors with obscured glass panels — see the attached plans. The plans are consistent with the R -1 Zoning Code and 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 mostly consists of single - story homes, except for the newly constructed 5,825 square -foot, two -story residence across the street at 1343 Highland Oaks Drive. The proposed building is effectively modulated and articulated to reduce its mass. Furthermore, the architectural style of the building emphasizes horizontal elements, including deep eaves, which de- emphasize the verticality of the building. The overall building height is proposed at 27'- 0" from the average existing grade, where a maximum of 30' -0" is permitted by Code. Appellants' Comments The 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 for their review and Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 4 of 8 approval, and that the City did not follow the proper procedures when reviewing the plans. The appellants also pointed out size, height, bulk, articulation, architectural style consistency, landscaping, fences and walls, and privacy issues. The letter includes specific comments on the height and bulk of the proposed two -story home, stating that top plate heights of 10' -0" on the first floor and 9' -6" on the second floor are much taller than the adjacent homes with 8' -0" plate heights; and the proposed home uses stone veneer that is inconsistent with the architectural style, where "skinny brick" is more appropriate. The attached PowerPoint document was provided to the Planning Commission by the appellants detailing the neighborhood appearance. The appeal letter to the City Council is almost identical to the previous appeal letter, with additional signatures of support from 15 other property owners in the neighborhood. Additional photo exhibits showing the neighboring homes are also included — see attached appeal letter to the City Council. Staff's Response to Comments Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -03 was initially submitted on January 13, 2014, 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 (February 24, 2014) according to 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 though the City's design review process. Under the City's design review process, staff sends a Notice of Pending Decision when it is determined that the design of the proposal meets the Guidelines and Zoning Code requirements. If any neighbor or other interested party submits comments, they are duly considered and forwarded to the applicant. The comments are then taken into account in formulating the decision, which is made following the expiration of the comment period. Ms. Seymour submitted the attached comments in response to the Notice of Pending Decision for the subject proposal, which requested a redesign of the subject proposal to a single- story, Ranch -style home that has the same appearance as the existing house, and the surrounding homes. The majority of the revisions requested by Ms. Seymour were determined to be in excess of the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, and staff did not impose the requested changes upon the applicant. In response to the design issues, the proposal is adequately modulated and articulated to minimize its mass. The deep eave overhangs and low- pitched roof and horizontally - laid ledgestone veneer all contribute to the Prairie architectural style's emphasis on horizontal lines. However, the appellant's comments related to thin or "skinny" brick is a Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 5 of 8 good comment and should be incorporated into the design. In addition, the overall plate heights can be dropped slightly to cut down on massing. Staff provided a PowerPoint (attached) to the Planning Commission that provided images of the neighborhood and proposed home. The applicant is proposing to maintain all existing mature trees in the front yard area, which includes a 36" trunk diameter sycamore tree, two oak trees with 20" and 30" trunk diameters, an 8" trunk diameter Chinese magnolia tree, and three Hackberry trees of varying sizes. The applicant is also proposing to plant a 60" box olive tree in the front yard area. This tree species is commonly used in new homes and will complement this style of architecture. Regarding privacy, the second floor windows facing the sides are smaller in size and elevated from the finished floor a minimum of 60" to help protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. Based on the foregoing, the subject proposal was found to meet the City's Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 and approval of the proposed design was recommended to the Planning Commission with the following changes in response to the appellants' comments: 1. Replace the stone veneer with a thin brick exterior finish. 2. Lower the top plate heights of the first and second floors from 10' -0" and 9' -6 ", to 9' -6" and 9' -0 ", respectively. Neither the applicant nor the Planning Commission acknowledged these as necessary changes and the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 with one member absent to deny the appeal and approve the design review and oak tree encroachment permit as proposed — see the attached Minutes of the July 29, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting. Staff continues to recommend that these two conditions be included in the decision on this case. On August 5, 2014, Ms. Shelley Chu, Ms. Faye Wang, and Ms. April A. Seymour jointly filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and uphold staff's decision to approve the subject applications. In addition, on August 21, 2014, the appellants submitted a "Supplement to the Planning Commission Appeal" that includes a list of proposed conditions for the project to achieve compatibility. This supplement includes recommendations to reduce the overall height to 23' for a two -story home, reduce the plate heights to 8' per floor and reduce door and window heights accordingly, maintain a 70' front setback to the second floor and a rear yard setback consistent with neighboring structures, and to move the garage to the rear of the home. With the exception of the plate reductions and material change mentioned above, these additional height restrictions and setback restrictions are not recommended. While requiring a front yard setback to be consistent with the adjacent homes is supported by the Code, designing rear yard setbacks to be consistent with adjacent houses is Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 6 of 8 unnecessarily restrictive. The proposed front yard setback of 59' 6" (65' to the second level) and the 62' rear yard setback are adequate. In addition, moving the garage to the rear of the home and filling the space in with living area is a design choice that was not desired by the applicant. Oak Tree Encroachment The proposed development will encroach into the protected areas of nine (9) oak trees, as shown on the attached Landscape Plan. Certified Arborist, Mr. Michael Crane reviewed the subject proposal and prepared the attached Arborist Report for this project. Mr. Crane finds that with protective measures, the proposed development will not adversely affect the health of these nine (9) oak trees. The recommended tree protection measures are included as a condition of approval. CONCLUSIONS The proposal is consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall follow all findings and recommendations as listed in the arborist report dated February 2014, and amended on March 28, 2014. 2. The proposed stone veneer shall be replaced with a thin brick exterior finish. 3. The top plate height of the first and second floor shall be no greater than 9'6" and 9'0" respectively. 4. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by SFADR 14 -03 and THE 14 -06. 5. 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. 6. 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 Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 7 of 8 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. 7. Approval of SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after City Council approval of these applications, the property owner and 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 COMMENTS /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 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. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. Appeal of Approval — SFADR 14 -03 & THE 14 -06 1350 Highland Oaks Drive September 2, 2014 — Page 8 of 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal of SFADR 14 -03 and THE 14- 06, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision, with the aforementioned conditions of approval. Approved: Dominic Lazzar City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photo Photos of the Subject Property and Neighboring Properties Proposed Plans Appeal Letter to the City Council Appeal Letter to the Planning Commission Appellant's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Neighbor's Comment Letter Arborist Report Minutes of the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Staff's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Notification Area Map Appellant's Supplement to the Planning Commission Appeal (August 21, 2014) 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. LAMBS ■ Site Address: 1350 HIGHLAND OAKS DR Property Owner(s): SHEN,WEN F Property Characteristics Zoning: R -1 (12,500) General Plan: VLDR Lot Area (sq ft): 20,470 Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): 2,685 Year Built: 1950 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 0 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Report generated 22 -Jul -2014 reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, page 1 of 1 or otherwise reliable. LD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d .4 r -- -- I --- L J 0 z 1.4 I' A CID E, -- NE 5IDrNCE 1 1 1 m I 6m Dift ----------- PtersrITW -------- -- ------- 'k ........ . ,,7 "1 LEGEND SITE PLAN SINGLE A MULTI FAMILY DWELLINGS FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS qk —2.1 U) ca z ms ru, mx= ---8 kz. M era DEFERRED SUBMWTALS T —I va x LD -j :r Z %mciwmmm T-1 GENERAL NOTES r1RE DEPT. REQUIREMENT 17 AVE. FRONT SETBACK 59--r 16 j EET INDEX 17 1 PROJECT SUMMARY v L o as. coo n,a - u -'"-' a wao•n. .,rr •urrc oar w+.*+ TI - .., n 1m6L ❑_ FLOGR ALAN LEGEND _ -N.-K mwe.. �L NQ S� oo.ec •uw x• iw z n vnw onw :.u�iu.: 4i vo �� _ uw �arrt •n ,rio -oh x. �a .�m�r°w •�ru .4 � n< '�+xx¢"�.` ,�Ow.o¢ �.va�u u� m �r 4,21 VINIEIt EFFlGIEHGI'i C016ErtVA110N w.�..,_u -� r,a amiTwm':s w � F M�� � ra �•osa om _..— _� �. •..�.� ...d.m . nom.. �. ,. �. u ,.� ,,,,..� �.a. •� :,r:E �K� .c u•s�w. � •smic .-,w, wm�r�.'.n.,.ed ' 4,yot1l,w�,r P ere��.'�� pig •� �M � a •..p Mme �.s°..�v��4�..� u� mx•w,.�ar .. rw� � � _ ' �orn�.r msm i�wo a1 a �xw� j e �sxw�in�M � xo se�iwx fos oal Yn -M M. rtili•�'� w[ xe vaR 1/a°w`!. fat -i Knn4 a .r off. !mc nw_t[ w"e Nw,Nnnvlvwiw n �o.Mk�lwn _a a �orK �ra e�i.Q win m tr.rm ��Sa YFrw .�' I�w�, o� ,mn, n�iorsmm, ulr'�'aum n m m�ia Ex aMe�W.�.p�svod K.rad rM nau. amm I ,�* �,. ❑ fir.... triifo � � ■ yy E O _7111Z�11i�, �� R ❑ �tltttt� �� 1�Fi711R� L o as. coo n,a - u -'"-' a wao•n. .,rr •urrc oar w+.*+ TI - .., n 1m6L ❑_ FLOGR ALAN LEGEND _ -N.-K mwe.. �L NQ S� oo.ec •uw x• iw z n vnw onw :.u�iu.: 4i vo �� _ uw �arrt •n ,rio -oh x. �a .�m�r°w •�ru .4 � n< '�+xx¢"�.` ,�Ow.o¢ �.va�u u� m �r 4,21 VINIEIt EFFlGIEHGI'i C016ErtVA110N w.�..,_u -� r,a amiTwm':s w � F M�� � ra �•osa om _..— _� �. •..�.� ...d.m . nom.. �. ,. �. u ,.� ,,,,..� �.a. •� :,r:E �K� .c u•s�w. � •smic .-,w, wm�r�.'.n.,.ed ' 4,yot1l,w�,r P ere��.'�� pig •� �M � a •..p Mme �.s°..�v��4�..� u� mx•w,.�ar .. rw� � � _ ' �orn�.r msm i�wo a1 a �xw� j e �sxw�in�M � xo se�iwx fos oal Yn -M M. rtili•�'� w[ xe vaR 1/a°w`!. fat -i Knn4 a .r off. !mc nw_t[ w"e Nw,Nnnvlvwiw n �o.Mk�lwn _a a �orK �ra e�i.Q win m tr.rm ��Sa YFrw .�' I�w�, o� ,mn, n�iorsmm, ulr'�'aum n m m�ia Ex aMe�W.�.p�svod K.rad rM nau. amm ,T.i -i xR ln,.w w wrwMv no nr.o o•" N w• yawn s . !® p/„wme a zt Z MttE w. ISM R wM,.. 01.0�`o norc�rt�° e�a�+x J g3� Z ji cc w ol 1 6m 1 11 M. �ipyYm a 4Nr��[o � r�z ABiRE1MSlrylB FpR E OOOR88 WMW W9_� FIRST FLOOR PLAN�� �r 4,21 VINIEIt EFFlGIEHGI'i C016ErtVA110N w.�..,_u -� r,a amiTwm':s w � F M�� � ra �•osa om _..— _� �rRwYl wu KlbGW_n[ryRmY 01.0�`o norc�rt�° e�a�+x J g3� Z ji cc w ol 1 6m 1 11 M. �ipyYm a 4Nr��[o � r�z ma am ..' • w"u�'� rte. �r�" v�aa.ul,.nt• lac = O �rRwYl wu KlbGW_n[ryRmY 3 I• V Y E'K rK iw,xl��fw,b Z r" +A& A -1 I MCt7 L SECOND FLOOR PLAN nman Z.3la-n. ❑FLOOR RAN LEGEND GENERAL NOSES: REVMK M oor, Ir . +rrc aver rlw amr #T[ Imw m.xt a..n+va. wma I�,� +a• +w . ,x° aa� a .+n . w +ao-�vnl � x m,e"�'Y � wno�`s rr°0i°� "",w,a• a° a�o.a'� m �vn .ro..n....� sa,m, � •� •�+"�'••'•i °arum, l.w ..,•ias .,.n I•�.a o�. «cvwon ,Q '. mo; ,��m°m�°u .r°amm�R'�,.d.�o,m n+e .r• ,r �. a.,a,l.a. 9w. a oF++l�V �� wo. axx ,1 Olmk a� io rmw ma Au .a rro �i ,�-I t�S ���^c m -nw. n •m.�°wnb w, . s.�rm u ra nm s m .e, '�j g xM °e,°rt_ ex0ia• U wal! lyxla x/r w1f�i K � Iq �. i*{ � � . .sYtu,e� m RL.mnrz nu �Klavxlf � mn VA1u�imi1O.m[a u.11 a u� aYWSe .K-4,m .ssvwR. v ,+.t � n♦x u �e as xaRl w iu >e ✓b4tR IW w BT�I n�Imxf,P 4, ,IXtf �A °V,.la IFM%. P .Ii aM Iem YItwS1 � � wp xTm� P RPw a° '� w' Ilyn,m,�pMl. ,mm �Y un W1l nm� m' V i u1°ti[ V � ead• f� � ��u,[°�m a�S.M a . 1,C61. x ,�Iy.O,p. FPSaI — �Y! g.mimY,o n.tR reiiY ° e �4'Pyw tY �'' ��- � -'i °4i.a In,Y °rRw a,m I.� ®a W � RY R aa��M � •p� �•5 mVm[ m[.. im R.91ux n•.rx � moom I,o,m n. �� ��FX t!` �t nna:°.m is "v''K rx.eKn,Kt C Cr; 5 {r! s. LL UJ PH uM(Rw aim. • Iw•r .as.. _ ¢iara Gv�i,R�,�al. �i� u1r.i��Pa �,�q�[,as..u.R BOA°• uwr rr. I+IiuRxs m m ,w +Rnm R .P.x ..wP M st�u a .A,P� 0#Wrl m1�R � .a,�iaoK- � s nL ws Y x I,mA,[ rla •w.0e mP w u..R n'o drams mr ,, � f W �aa°�',m d aY �•. x�.x �'� �cw�. u w � Hw •F � °riu ® °a �*� fey °,I. I^,..a¢m� mu � a.: xn-n m ' � �Id'�.:m""•..�.,,,`. x.a. a.aa rot Q Q .�x`..TI. °gym � � mrt� m'xnl R rra usa mus aW m 9.mrr tlota.Im su K ar°am w ' [1OOR4d NANOOM$ w�.wc�� �as Nest �°Yx °i � h Q ��` <"rroo °ni:l� iwa "ovens a.m .s Im„°u Rarrn w rK rr oa ruu,s,n � t- � �xt_ro,e nanerr�_ d v o toll I 4 E � A v Rwvr o _ �� m sarrw rrrtE � 7.1� w , L SECOND FLOOR PLAN nman Z.3la-n. ❑FLOOR RAN LEGEND GENERAL NOSES: REVMK M oor, Ir . +rrc aver rlw amr #T[ Imw m.xt a..n+va. wma I�,� +a• +w . ,x° aa� a .+n . w +ao-�vnl � x m,e"�'Y � wno�`s rr°0i°� "",w,a• a° a�o.a'� m �vn .ro..n....� sa,m, � •� •�+"�'••'•i °arum, l.w ..,•ias .,.n I•�.a o�. «cvwon ,Q '. mo; ,��m°m�°u .r°amm�R'�,.d.�o,m n+e .r• ,r �. a.,a,l.a. 9w. a oF++l�V �� wo. axx ,1 Olmk a� io rmw ma Au .a rro �i ,�-I t�S ���^c m -nw. n •m.�°wnb w, . s.�rm u ra nm s m .e, '�j g xM °e,°rt_ ex0ia• U wal! lyxla x/r w1f�i K � Iq �. i*{ � � . .sYtu,e� m RL.mnrz nu �Klavxlf � mn VA1u�imi1O.m[a u.11 a u� aYWSe .K-4,m .ssvwR. v ,+.t � n♦x u �e as xaRl w iu >e ✓b4tR IW w BT�I n�Imxf,P 4, ,IXtf �A °V,.la IFM%. P .Ii aM Iem YItwS1 � � wp xTm� P RPw a° '� w' Ilyn,m,�pMl. ,mm �Y un W1l nm� m' V i u1°ti[ V � ead• f� � ��u,[°�m a�S.M a . 1,C61. x ,�Iy.O,p. FPSaI — �Y! g.mimY,o n.tR reiiY ° e �4'Pyw tY �'' ��- � -'i °4i.a In,Y °rRw a,m I.� ®a W � RY R aa��M � •p� �•5 mVm[ m[.. im R.91ux n•.rx � moom I,o,m n. �� ��FX t!` �t nna:°.m is "v''K rx.eKn,Kt C Cr; 5 {r! s. LL UJ PH uM(Rw aim. • Iw•r .as.. _ ¢iara Gv�i,R�,�al. �i� u1r.i��Pa �,�q�[,as..u.R BOA°• uwr rr. I+IiuRxs m m ,w +Rnm R .P.x ..wP M st�u a .A,P� 0#Wrl m1�R � .a,�iaoK- � s nL ws Y x I,mA,[ rla •w.0e mP w u..R n'o drams mr ,, � f W �aa°�',m d aY �•. x�.x �'� �cw�. u w � Hw •F � °riu ® °a �*� fey °,I. I^,..a¢m� mu � a.: xn-n m ' � �Id'�.:m""•..�.,,,`. x.a. a.aa rot Q Q .�x`..TI. °gym � � mrt� m'xnl R rra usa mus aW m 9.mrr tlota.Im su K ar°am w ' [1OOR4d NANOOM$ w�.wc�� �as Nest �°Yx °i � h Q ��` <"rroo °ni:l� iwa "ovens a.m .s Im„°u Rarrn w rK rr oa ruu,s,n � t- � �xt_ro,e nanerr�_ L ROOF PLAN rt;K.:w - -rr IEGEfID NEIOIONO e �h MD 4�1 !u 1a.1ma sS W Ism. GM! _ �n•��vnwxx -VY. Y. aiv e e e�M1y NOTES r wAw .wr ix ram. 2 GENERAL NOTES RWOKDRr gcO�KCa � • � irod ufii- riursr m n. /ra - E � � fib. � �Kwwl• ��Wa1! - fA�1 m rr � u mW�noT. J�a..anrt O Po.MiNa.I� - ..11 W rt_ 3 n nso -urmrt .00r ven non : xo.m.x•.n .. n n n. �.. z ROOF AREA CALCULATIONS Z dSMR.1F Sbrkltl 6].2 rcls ).1 t6m am+,mA ow.Mr 9 iY f X IDS ]] S i f f�l��1f�I f !f I, A Sf D4 fA. l37 65 5 6 4�: SIL 12! Gf NL ML M 3N I ..u.xAa de. A.Nrrr�Irr Awx.•e�wrnrkrl WHOLE- BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM DUCT SIZE 13 EY W Ia N 7 !C oa x �a �z UJQ � cai �xQ J x Q Z 40 IL' ro :2 Q A -3 S11,,, V.:SIDE ELEVAYION z a F. ti• z z w 1�0!3t" 4-V-W 4~- U-N. W. �_.Jy;�, o r 'l- LL. -A-4' a,ny; ?�;? iy- r?��`.`Ss ■�� i1 r� 3 s c 1�I�f., 1ixa';v u,uux..iY _Y „n��, Q i !�� ���� �•aj-�Y� •. m � fst�o - ��: 6 IiFf'i�i• =� r�r ” rQ��r '■ i /�j��y - I `��L- a,..:.�~ • i it r a'. ?� -_— _ _ ..4 i �,iG -! r]�b4� l 1 7 i7�i��....�• . - F. rr)rir l d #�� =� � \l ©�� ■ ?'4,L_.�- 9 7 J^'.0 �Y —'�I �1S� � �����i2� � � ,I,yT� ,.src sEatasoo _oo_os�ra.�rs�ovvoivsna.�:b' i /Y..1SSUl,, A,m ,aRe ,f.[t•k ,a nVaP ON' io © Sso,u YWtlle 0.'wH' SOOVC,OO o �nnMCt+.a,s �l.ce nr�u�irw�x,rnw ��.rs Y>•m �w.t4�RVro Wd c.,�ia oR xoor in,ua orPx6 eo.snxcno,a dUDIIIS. nW ,ItClIpeI1L9 - L5F 11V V ?Otis NEX rl(,VtlCNI! role teaCa+e raanec..,. ra,� ewexu.L x we ,.ee a ewnr a cP},w.. b ARpsp xOpfi. V0 Od M0, GV, x06,5 ]- p�,[,e, OR L.Odot. rtO rlWllb A C,Ot1G49 A, PbJhBA` Srltictb _ o< xxx+ln� .rs ,uwm� Im�+�e R , � � r6 Ix�c, u11�aYflM1, �ltln w'41OY°. <x.nn :5 w.esaKV ro+uv�x M°Cn°iw � iHnL M !ptl ,g00.npx 9riTM h ld,rH.LG . _ _ _ Rum, ooe m x•uo rnx wr wp! �wwbtur e! vu- •a,.xL� PLANT LE6ENR .om wnal�nn ma�c� y-r� nwr RS. OP,4k4 ,4S tv, -,i, ,w.e 9fa pux,r,r (\ } � ,Wa w � elWv� b'en� ] IS�II ryes w.ee, uY 6»xxa. n¢e L � Insa,YS_ em4ev..4 x4� cdSS�x wf� Ya Pu�smr r� runs gee �w lJ.�.w,MGw V.'J•• -e�v1e Ss.L. rJ -1 –e u s+exOr✓ewS,+xM,Y6 YAesRYL � }t' GW S n!! es s ewl. ny >re w 4 Kn+s ealsP•dx ,� �. n.,11>. a xr, v RO aaE, Otlpu� ,o rm Q a,rm ariaaan ,r..,�,s.,oR ,� yep Oxstl ne rrn.�y y�•Ix,�rq. P6 b, W XRY W � O a M �i,Mr pn.�Lne Div �i� Jude, .�mll�oe �iY 4 F © © Sso,u YWtlle 0.'wH' SOOVC,OO o owls cPa na mSV ti,x ' r,l �^ I v� I I� CCNSTRUCTIDN NOTES: p Fnsm,o remin w ev ra�o OO uusrmu w.lxro eE ne.nveo wm,lrtv:aroars cam QQ e.ro,++a rv�t m ae I�uo+Eo Qi EF,Slllq YREE r0 BE 0.E'IM 40 G e„sn«<,ow,�w.r..vRO.�roeEnrNm�o pp wena+cr .ma,rrec,w.u.,wr, p. mxarAUCrcawcu,c v.weNr.rviceow.cor . w*eum. Q) w.w*mRrwwew.v.arrmuw rtxary sro. w,., Q ravl -.rA CUOrwr,wvAwnronaexsPPwc s,o.oms. vleuwe s w 9a, an un aev,Art�rer m •uaAww ® IlBT.,lr wcvm. fi3 mor.u.avc vmc ®� Ewoav��o9m �s avouln eEC c,en,o»�vaovne� Q wLL POO,moe waAn ac,nugeo •r. rwnwNlo®nla,r erLaw �awES r AU.n[.1EMf andNq ® caw,+wcr,r.lreor,aaessura e.s,wvA,x ra.�t a+ sonaw vm oer.e IfnEax L�41ia,er'�rN>���a�rt � CArG B.sN YmN GplNarlfl ® . P,aE ON AOPROVEhEW.L VnM 3%RM�e ® casnacrs.s.ssuw wvwarR OerAi we�aNOnAVavweo [ol,w ®wxe„m:r xAwt�oocw..L PENAat1MFL!{1RLL Pw. r� mNSrm,er.ewce vEx.vr,.,ccnw.rvux ® ma,wucrvnosrse w.0 ® [ON9TMiLT V "IOL KXSE9IUMR PER411 rOOT aFiOwr�E aarta.�i oF,IE Ftlo„M. vnebcVER l9 crnsurAx,s wreowln a. zau vcrs eevrure vEwar nRAT)TNC7 DRAINAGE PLAN i I 47- ..J sscna�� N THRU x 't VMON THRU B -B 4 iw :t S anoN THRU C -C OCION THRU B -U _ 1M0 SVYP PuWS CONTROL BD %� N avc v,, aw+Ls I PuNP aSE.scct �.ufrr��i,b�,rP I 1MREE Pl,�ra.SwP ua etu .um, a. oa vN+.rt oamrt _ Axgc ra, DUPLEX SUBMERSIBLE SUMP PUMP (RAINWATER) NOT M STILE i1 I I z' ©z T• 1 _ � vw�c`ri,vawe ®�,{�, GTpI BASIII "TAIL (TMCAL) • I i"� spx�cwnwa. � am a Wr� O? CIM a U �4 IC I August 5, 2014 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 RECENE ,4 AUG D 5 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Re: 1350 Highland Oaks Review No.: SFADR 14 -03 APPELLANTS: Shelley Chu Faye Wang April A. Seymour I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1350 Highland Oaks Drive faces west and is an approximately 20,521 sq. feet lot. The property backs up to Los Angeles County Public Works- Santa Anita Wash. The property is approximately 1/10 of a mild north of Sycamore Ave. Highland Oaks Dr. continues another mile before there is a break by another street on the east side. The property is primarily flat and rectangular shaped. The existing home is a very attractive, well- maintained Ranch home with cement board siding. The property to the north of 1350 is 1358 Highland Oaks. This property sits approximately 4' higher. The home at 1350 is a traditional Ranch that has been minimally altered with stacked veneer stonework that rises approximately 4' on the fagade. The height of the home is approximately 15' with an 8' plate. The property to the south of 1350 is 1342 Highland Oaks. It is a traditional Ranch house with nominal alterations. The fagade is painted brick. The height of the homes is approximately 15' with a 8' plate. 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 east side of Highland Oaks Dr., there are only about 6 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 east`°of these homes. Attached to this appeal are the following exhibits: A: 1350 Highland Oaks Drive B: 1358 Highland Oaks Drive C: 1321 Highland Oaks Drive D: 1327 Highland Oaks Drive E: 1332 Highland Oaks Drive F: 1335 Highland Oaks Drive G: 1342 Highland Oaks Drive H: 1343 Highland Oaks Drive I: View of 1343 Highland Oaks from backyard of 1342 Oakwood J: View from 1343 Highland Oaks balcony into 1342 Oakwood K: 1366 Highland Oaks Drive L: Map of Highland Oaks Drive II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. is located within the Highlands Homeowner's Association. Plans were submitted to the City for this proposed residence on 02/19/14. A decision letter was issued on 04/08/14. The Highlands Homeowners Association had an Architectural Review Board of at least 3 members as required by City of Arcadia Resolution 6770 at the time of this approval. 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 have harmonious and compatible design be determined by the neighbors. 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. 2 A noticed scheduled meeting is required pursuant to Paragraph E, deposited in the mail to app�°icant and all property owners within the required notification area not less than 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. Proper notice and public 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 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 observe personally 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 adjacent structures. IV. INCOMPATIBILITY A. SITE PLANNING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: 1. 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. 2. The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and proportion with adjacent homes. The proposed structure is 28' high, with a 10' top plate on the first floor. There is no mark identifying the height of the plate on the second floor. The adjacent homes have a top plate of approximately 8' and do not exceed 15' in height. The varying heights creates a visual discord attracting the eye to "jump up" in height. B. ENTRY: Consistent. 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 with no 3 setback along the front elevation. The second floor appears as large as the first floor. ° 2. The windows and doors along the front elevation emphasize a vertical line. They are all taller than their width. The adjacent homes have windows that are wider than they are tall. 3. The garage facing north creates a "dead" zone on the north side of the property that appears "off- balance ". D. HEIGHT: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Height Guidelines based on: The proposed home is 28'. Adjacent homes are no more than 15' high. This disparity of over 13' emphasizes the verticality of the proposed home, dwarfing adjacent homes. E. ROOF: Consistent. F. FAgADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade Design Guidelines based on: 1. The proposed plan's architectural style is "PRAIRIE." The fagade treatment relevant to this architectural style is inconsistent. "...on the exterior, Frank Lloyd Wright rejected traditional forms for simplified ahistoric lines and ornament, and an emphatic horizonality in broad eaves, dominant hipped roofs, and Roman Brick." Alan Hess. The Ranch House (Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 2004) at page 20. "Wright's 1503 Prairie style house... exemplified these radical concepts. A relatively small one -story home with a broad- hipped roof spreading its eaves widely over brick walls, it clung to the ground." Frank Lloyd Wright was quoted as saying "Houses should be married to the ground." Diane Maddex. Wright -Sized Houses (Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 2003) at page 24. "...he placed each house on a foundation - a platform - marked with a base course to emphasize where it began, wedding it to the Earth. Horizontal planes, which he called `the true earth -line of human life, indicative of freedom,' were stressed with bands of dark wood on light stucco or rows of siding parallel to the ground. Mortar between courses of brick was raked to emphasize the horizontal, and vertical joints were colored to match and troweled flush to minimize their importance." "The cantilever, an architectural projection reaching well beyond its base of support was Wright's chief tool for holding the horizontal line." Id at 27. The proposed home uses stacked stone veneer. This is inconsistent with prairie style. 4 G. DETAIL: Consistent. .`° H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Inconsistent. The proposed home uses stacked stone veneer. This is inconsistent with prairie style. I. LANDSCAPE / HARDSCAPE: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Landscape /Hardscape Guidelines based on: The proposed plan does not provide landscaping consistent with native plant species inherent with the architectural style of Prairie. The proposed plan introduces a non - native olive tree in the front yard that has a grey tone to it. This color clashes with the general color scheme of the prairie style which is natural and earth tones. French lavender repeats the grey and Mediterranean landscape which is inconsistent with Prairie. J. FENCES /WALLS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fences /Walls Guidelines based on: There is no indication of the style or color of the proposed new vinyl fencing. Although it conforms in height, white vinyl fencing would be inconsistent and create a visual disconnect in the color scheme of the proposed residence. K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS: There are many full -sized windows on both sides of the second - story of the proposed new home. There is a complete disregard for the privacy and views of the neighboring homes. The proposed home completely eliminates views of the mountains for 1342 Highland Oaks to the north. These views are highly valued in the Highlands and a main source of property value. V. CONCLUSION The proposed plan for 1350 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 discord will cause a decrease in property values. The proposed structure should be denied based on a lack of compatibility and harmony. This appeal is supported by the homeowner to the north of the subject property and to the south of the subject property. 5 Respectfully Submitted, By Apri A. Se "our 161 Highland Oaks B 4Daviland Oaks M Dofig Chang 1348 Oakw'o 1 Z-Z o M.D. Avenue Umlllc- HL;A ,V P�J-I �C5 PIK By 'i, t 14 oz � 5 By �40AI By 40 r BY Shelley hu 1342 Highland Oaks By Faye Wang �- 1358 Highland Oaks 0 �C BYE W DT- By B 54 lam J7- By By By By 0 xa Respectfully Submitted, By By April A. Seymour Shelley Chu 1614 Highland Oaks 1342 Highland Oaks By By David Arvizu Faye Wang 1321 Highland Oaks 1358 Highland Oaks By By Dong Chang, M. D. 134B Oakwood Avenue B By By By By By BY 7!'- By }= il•1�iC7 �.iP�r.1 71 H 16-4 L,&qj BY By By By 1350 MGHLAND OAKS DMVE - C ti 1 ++ ;'•�;' �..'V', : <r, iYv- rL,.' 1321 HIGHLAND OAKS DWVE EXHIBIT "C" .41 n a .. f 't S 46 1332 MGHLAND ®AKS DMVE E1MB II BlEff 1335 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE 1342 HGHLAN® OAKS ®MVE IC)(H0 a 'r/Gii c• a- I 1 i •W' 1 1343 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE EXHIBIT "fly" .i VIEW OF 1343 MGHLAN® OAKS DRIVE FROM BACKYARD OF 1342 OAKWOOD EXH0T Ifsl,p !/nEW FROM 1343 G GHLAND OAKS BALCONY INTO 1342 OAKWOOD EXHIMT II III 1366 HIGHLAND OAKS ®MVE EXHOT aixo, Orange Grove venue .a ~ j 1355 H -O. i?r�• 14, 574 sq. ft. 1-51 F'.a. DF-w -n .2.,1E+5 sq. ft- 22,551 sq. it 1350 N.O. Lrnve 2,699 s q . ft. 20,473 sq. ft. .L U'1 [�91 0 1-7,959 sq. ft. � I552 F.D. DriwE � 2y_ s sq. ft. r r' --ri MAP OF HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE EXHIBIT "L" 6,547 sq- PJ E S j . JUN �) � May 28, 2014 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPEAL Re: 1350 Highland Oaks Review No.: SFADR 14 -03 APPLICANTS: April A. Seymour Carol Rosenthal Shwujing Jessica Liu Christine Eng I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1350 Highland Oaks Drive faces west and is approximately 20,521 sq. feet. The property backs up to Los Angeles County Public Works - Santa Anita Wash. The property is approximately 1/10 of a mile north of Sycamore Ave. Highland Oaks Dr. continues another mile before there is a break by another street on the east side. The property is primarily flat and rectangular shaped. The existing home is a very attractive, well - maintained Ranch home with cement board siding. The property to the north of 1350 is 1358 Highland Oaks. This property sits approximately 4' higher. The home at 1350 is a traditional Ranch that has been minimally altered with stacked veneer stonework that rises approximately 4' on the fagade. The height of the home is approximately 151. The property to the south of 1350 is 1348 Highland Oaks. It is a traditional Ranch house with nominal alterations. The fagade is stucco with no veneers. 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 east side of Highland Oaks Dr., there are only about 6 homes that are taller than 15'. This conservative height of the homes was intentional as there are views of the mountains to the north and east of these homes. 1 Attached as Exhibit A to this appeal is a photo of 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Attached as Exhibit B to this appeal is a photo of 1358 Highland Oaks Dr. Attached as Exhibit C to this appeal is a photo of 1342 Highland Oaks Dr. II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. is located within the Highlands Homeowner's Association. Plans were submitted to the City for this proposed residence on 02/19/14. A decision letter was issued on 04/08/14. 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 and to protect property values. 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 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 2 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. 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. 2. The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and proportion with adjacent homes. The proposed structure is 28' high, with a 10' top plate on the first floor. There is no mark identifying the height of the plate on the second floor. The adjacent homes have a top plate of approximately 8' and do not exceed 15' in height. The varying heights creates a visual discord attracting the eye to the seemingly "jump up" in height. B. ENTRY: Consistent. 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 with no setback along the front elevation. The second floor appears as large as the first floor. 2. The windows and doors along the front elevation emphasize a vertical line. They are all taller than their width. 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: K The proposed home is 28'. Adjacent homes are no more than 15' high. This disparity of over 13' emphasizes the verticality of the proposed home, dwarfing adjacent homes. E. ROOF: Consistent. F. FAgADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade Design Guidelines based on: 1. The proposed plan's architectural style is "PRAIRIE." The fagade treatment relevant to this architectural style is inconsistent. "...on the exterior, Frank Lloyd Wright rejected traditional forms for simplified ahistoric lines and ornament, and an emphatic horizonality in broad eaves, dominant hipped roofs, and Roman Brick." Alan Hess. The Ranch House (Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 2004) at page 20. "Wright's 1903 Prairie style house... exemplified these radical concepts. A relatively small one -story home with a broad- hipped roof spreading its eaves widely over brick walls, it clung to the ground." Frank Lloyd Wright was quoted as saying "Houses should be married to the ground." Diane Maddex. Wright -Sized Houses (Harry N. Abrams, Inc. 2003) at page 24. "...he placed each house on a foundation - a platform - marked with a base course to emphasize where it began, wedding it to the Earth. Horizontal planes, which he called `the true earth -line of human life, indicative of freedom,' were stressed with bands of dark wood on light stucco or rows of siding parallel to the ground. Mortar between courses of brick was raked to emphasize the horizontal, and vertical joints were colored to match and troweled flush to minimize their importance." "The cantilever, an architectural projection reaching well beyond its base of support was Wright's chief tool for holding the horizontal line." Id at 27. The proposed home uses stacked stone veneer. This is wholly inconsistent with prairie style. A long, skinny brick should be used to emphasize a horizontal line. G. DETAIL: Consistent. H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: Consistent. I. LANDSCAPE /HARDSCAPE: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Landscape /Hardscape Guidelines based on: The proposed plan does not provide landscaping consistent with native plant species inherent with the architectural style of Prairie. The proposed plan introduces a non - native olive tree in the front yard that has a grey tone to it. This color clashes with the general color scheme of the prairie style which is natural and 4 earth tones. French lavender repeats the grey and Mediterranean landscape which is inconsistent with Prairie. J. FENCES /WALLS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fences /Walls Guidelines based on: There is no indication of the style or color of the proposed new vinyl fencing. Although it conforms in height, white vinyl fencing would be inconsistent and create a visual disconnect in the color scheme of the proposed residence. K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS: There are many full -sized windows on both sides of the second - story of the proposed new home. There is a complete disregard for the privacy and views of the neighboring homes. The proposed home completely eliminates views of the mountains for 1342 Highland Oaks to the north. These views are highly valued in the Highlands and a main source of property value. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed plan for 1350 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 discord will cause a decrease in property values. The proposed structure should be denied based on a lack of compatibility and harmony. Respectfully Submitted, !v!+d/�� By Aril A/ eymour 14 Hig Ian. Oa Dr. By `Name D L (1C C_ Addre s ss { L OM By Name YL�C/LC i t S S 412 C- U �� Address 5 EXffiBIT A •` - '.. � # 1x71 - ,Mow • 5 �.. � "� SW �i •1 f Y �°y ..�,� . �'� _ i •.r . � - .' y J i ��,� ��� . �;, ' . �� � � .rte - �y -r,. }, _ i,, .. �. ,�5�,'� _ ,,..1 . .. .. � ._ i� �� ' _ 7/29/2014 2 OWNER: MR, j;NRot4G StiEN 13W HIGHLAND OAKS OR. ARCADtA. CA 91008 PROJECT., NEW SINGLE FAMILY FIGUSE LOT S12E: 20.521.9+3 SO. FT. ZONING: R--1 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 /U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V/8 W /SPRINKLER LMNG AREA 1 ST FLOOR 4,220 SQ- FT - 2 TOTAL: 6,547 SO. FT. 3 —CAR GARAGE 662 SO- FF- FRONT PORCH. 116 SO. F, REAR PORCH: 30 SO. FT_ SIDE PORCH: 156 SO. FT. I OT COVERARE; (35%: MAX.) 4,220+662 +176+30+186 =5,184/20.521.94 2.5.287: (MAX_) FRONT YARD ARE4: 5,313.77 SO. FT. ROZOSCAPE /LANDSCAPE COVERAGE, (409 MAX.) DRIVEWAY do HARDSCAPE AREA. 1.664.55 SO. FT. 1,664,85 SO. FT. /. 5,313.77 SO. FT. + 31.33% < 4OX COQ. THE GOVERNING CODES FOR THIS PROJECT ARE: 2070 CALIFORNIA SUI�DING CODE (GBC). 2010 CALIFORNIA lRErEN BIJILONNG STANDARD CODE, 2010 CALIFORNIA RE I 1!! NTIAL CODE (CRC). 2010 CALIFORNIA ELECTR1cAL CnOE. (GEC). 20013 ENERGY, TITLE 4 (ENS), 2010 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), 2010 CALIFORNIA PLQ14E NNG CODE (CPC), VATI-i LOCAL AWENDMeNTS. 7/29/2014 3 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 1343 Highland Oaks � r ) . 5,897 home square footage 18,730 lot square footage 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 _ rw. View from 1342 Highland Oaks 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 10 14 Drive 2,,99 85 5 sq. k. w E > —<�— 22,350 sq. ft. I 1366 H.O. Drive S 61 E. Orange Grove 3,419 sq. ft. 2,411 sq. ft. 14,374 sq. ft. 19,560 sq. ft. 1358 H.O. Drive Orange Grove Avenue 2,196 sq. k. — — I I 22,551 sq. ft. 1343 H.O. Drive 5,897 sq, ft. 18,730 sq, ft. 1350 H.O. Drive propose I 2,685 sq. ft. 6,547 sq. 20,473 sq. ft. 1335 H.O. Drive 3,281 sq. ft. ; I s_ 18,295 sq. ft. � 1342 H.O. Drive Y 2,044 sq. ft. 1327 H.O. Drive m 17,859 sq. ft. > 2,682 sq. ft. 18,000 sq, ft. 0 C 1321 H.O. Drive 1332 H.O. Drive 1,178 sq. ft. 2,225 sq. ft. 14,D00 sq. ft. = 13,939 sq. ft. 7/29/2014 10 7/29/2014 11 1760 Wilson Ave ilk --- 6 FRONT ! 0 OryVNER: 1790 YrtLSON INVESTMENTS. LLC - IIOOI E. VALICY KLALI— S)'E . 301E EL MONFE. CA 917:!3 TEL.: (9261 864 -9648 PROJECT: NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE Z0N1NG¢ R--1 LOi SIZE: 15 ^54.9A 5q. FT. OCCUPANCY GR01)P- R3 /LJ TYPE or CONSTRUCTION; Y/B W /SPRINKLER Mw M01l% LMNC AREJu 1ST FLOOR - 5,526 SO. Fl. ATTACH GARAGE: 455 9O- FT. PORCH AREA (FRONT ENIRY) 49 So. FT. LOT COVERAGE: (45% LAMA.) 9.536 +455149 - 6,030PSAS4,9A - 39.03% FRONT YARD ARC F,Y,S AREA: 3.356,98 S.F. HAROSCAPE /LANOSCAPL D"rvEWAY AREA 719 S.F. HARDSCAPE CM4X. 40X1: WA WAY AREA: &00 S.F, 11.119 s -F, `I 1.119/3,356.96 33.33X CC E: 1HS ,Xr VA ING CODES FOR TNG PR(MI:CT ML 1013 CAUFORNN G,1EFN RL9LOING STMnARO CODE. 2013 fN1FO61N IIFSA96RNL CODE (CRC), 291; CN1FOf CI-[CTIMCK COOK (c[ ). ZU96 Em:RQ oam (Fw,), 7A1� rrue01611A ICCIIA4cm. CODE (CM0, 2013 cwwv aw P13ANRIO COOS (CPC). MIO 2013 CLL,F(M 111MD u Cott ACM), rn1 E0�� Ay(+1oNFHTG PROJECT SUMMARY 7/29/2014 12 PRIL A. VERLATO April 2, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF APRIL A. VERLATO 33 EAST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIAN CALIFORNIA 51006 1626) 445 -2411 FAX (626) 44S -8501 Thomas Li Associate Planner Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 RE: 1350 Hiqhland Oaks Drive Dear Mr. Li, MAILING ADDRE55 POST OFFICE BOX 660309 ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91066 -g3p9 The proposed Prairie Style single - family residence is architecturally inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. This neighborhood is primarily single -story Traditional Ranch homes and "Prairie Style" does not fit with the neighboring properties nor is it compatible. In addition the mass and scale of the proposed residence is not compatible with the existing residences in the neighborhood. The new residence across the street is grossly disproportionate to the neighboring properties but less offensive due to its position on a corner. I am requesting that the Architectural Review Board reject the proposed plan and request a design more consistent with the neighboring properties. AAV:ca Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF APRIL A. VERLATO Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, w° I cc Protection and Mitigation L ff � � Q V m S O W U- 1350 Highland Oaks Drive Arcadia 91006 Prepared For: Mr. Robert Tong Sanyao International, Inc. 255 E. Santa Clara Street, #200 Arcadia CA 91006 Tel: (626) 446 -8048 Fax: (626) 446 -7090 Email: Sanyao888 @aol.com Prepared By: Michael Crane Arbor Care, Inc. P.O. Box 51122 Pasadena, CA 91115 Tel: (626) 737 -4007 Fax: (626) 737 -4007 Email: info @arborcareinc.net January 2014 Epff /<F-�N -ter- 14--lm Table of Contents Summary of Data .................. ............................... 1 Background and Purpose of Report ... ............................... 1 Project Location and Description ...... ............................... 2 Observations & Analysis ............ ............................... 4 Tree Characteristics & Health Matrix ..................... 5 Construction Impact Matrix ............................. 6 Findings..... .................... ............................... 8 Further Recommendations ........................................... 8 i Appendix A - Photos ................ ............................... 9 Appendix B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines .............. 14 Author's Certifications .............. ............................... 20 Certification of Performance .......... ............................... 21 Topographic Site Plan ......... ............................... Pocket at back Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 SUMMARY OF DATA Total number of live Protected Trees on property including street trees located in the adjacent public right-of-way area ....................... 3 Total number of off -site Protected Trees with canopies (driplines) encroaching onto the property ....... ............................... 6 Total number of dead or nearly dead Protected Trees on site ............ 0 Total number of live Protected Trees to be preserved ................... 9 Total number of live Protected Trees to be removed .................... 0 Total number of Protected Trees to be relocated to on -site locations ....... 0 Total number of Protected Trees to be impacted by construction within dripline (encroached) .......................... 9 Total number of live Protected Trees with no dripMe encroachments ...... 0 Total number of proposed mitigation trees to be planted on site ........... 0 BACKGROUND & PURPOSE I was retained by the Project Manager, Mr. Robert Tong of Sanyao International, Inc. to be the consulting arborist for the planned redevelopment of the property located at 1350 Highland Oaks Dr., Arcadia. There are Protected Trees located on the property, in the public right -of -way adjacent to the property, and encroaching over the property from off -site. The proposed construction may impact these trees and this report will serve to both notify the City of Pasadena Planning Division of the extent of the potential impacts as well as to inform the builder of the proper protection measures which must be taken in order to preserve the trees. As part of my preparation for this report I made a site visit to the property on January 17, 2014. I met with Mr. Tong at that time to view and discuss the proposed construction plans as they relate to the preservation of the Protected Trees. Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 PROJECT LOCATION, DESCRIPTION & TREE ORDINANCE � at,l�'Eiair,r Q G 6l' Orange cr:nre Ave -NA � , ' WOW'�aCJr Q Cr�SCfr"D o <C Lhfie�9�ct1E .� !n" Yk Hi11U,�s: _ +.hSyCarnr;,�k;o � �5ycrN•'=SC+�ve � � ri m LIZ chi M 3i sa Div Foothill Blvd E FL'.RoNi BI'vo u Vv Flc4 Ave .. 1 FFoaAve ' :n va• s � "• "!+W 1 . =oca Avr a The property is located at 1350 Highland Oaks Dr., Arcadia; two blocks east of Santa Anita Ave. and two blocks north of Foothill Blvd. Above map courtesy of Mapquest. com. The property consists of a single - family residence that appears to be in fair condition. The home will be demolished and the entire property redeveloped into a single family home. The landscape in in good condition and appears to have been well maintained for many years. The Protected Oak Trees on and off -site appear to be in good health and condition. The trees will be incorporated into the new landscape 2 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr_ Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate boundary lines (orange). The majority of the canopy visible in the photo consists of Protected Oak Trees. City of Arcadia Tree Ordinance On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of oak trees. The regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code) provide that the following oak trees shall not be removed, relocated, damaged, or have their protected zones encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is granted: • Engelmann Oaks (Quercus engelmannii) or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which have a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one half (4 %2) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one half (4 1/2) feet above the crown root. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a point four and one half (4 1/2) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10) inches each or greater in diameter measured at a point four and one half (41/2) feet above the crown root. 3 i Protected Tree Deport: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 FIELD OBSERVATIONS & DESIGN ANALYSIS Refer to Site Plan located in pocket at back of this report, Tree Characteristics and Health Matrix on page 5, Construction Impacts Matrix on page 6 and Photos in Appendix A, page 8. The two Protected Trees on site are in good health and condition. They differ greatly in age. The street tree is very young and the oak tree in the front yard area is mature. No close -up inspection was done on the offsite tree, but it appears to be in good condition judging by its crown. Trees #1 & 42: Tree 41 is located a few feet off -site and Tree #2 in on the property line. They are in a landscaped area with no hardscape in their driplines. The new design is similar with no encroaching hardscape and an oak - friendly landscape. Tree #3: Located a few feet off -site. The existing landscape shrubs located on the property line will remain. The existing driveway that encroached the dripline will be removed and replaced in the same footprint. Tree #4: Located on the south property line, within ten feet of the corner of the existing home. The new home will be set further from the tree than the existing one so root zone impacts from excavation and compaction will be very minor. Tree #5: Located ten feet off -site. The existing property line fence will be replaced, but it will have a similar design that is set on posts with no continuous footing. A new pool will encroach. All required excavation is well outside the critical root zone. Trees #6 & #7: Located on the east property line that borders a wash and walking trail. The existing property line fence will be replaced, but it will have a similar design that is set on posts with no continuous footing. A new pool will slightly encroach Tree #6. All required excavation is well outside the critical root zone. Trees #8 & #9: Located just off -site on the property to the north. A concrete block wall with a continuous footing runs along the property line and this footing has acted as a good root barrier and will buffer the trees from construction impacts in their rootzones. The wall is planned to be removed and replaced with a fence set on posts spaced eight feet on center. The new home will be within the same footprint as the existing one. No pruning of the live crown will be required to accommodate the second story roofline. C! Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protectio- 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia. Michael Crane, RCA #440. January ..,,i4 OBSERVATIONS This chart includes all Protected Trees which are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides physical data collected from field observations. The trees have been surveyed and numbers correspond to the Site Plan included in this report. TREE CHARACTERISTICS & HEALTH MATRIX E CROWN AGE FOLIAGE SHOOT WOUND VIGOR SIZE FORM CLASS CLASS DENSITY GROWTH DEFENSE CLASS o A HH Uz H o Wx E- d U U W W W rW" Q Opp o 8 0 0 0 0 SPECIES O j O a A C7 z O A O 0 C7 O O v O z W Q R O 3 O Q o 0 w Q QQ x 1 Quercus a rifolia 24 35 30 X X X X X X X 2 Quercus a rifolia 20 35 20 X X X X X X X 3 Quercus a rifolia 30 40 40 X X X X X X X 4 Quercus a rifolia 30 40 35 X X X X X X X 5 Quercus a rifolia 34 40 45 X X X X X X X 6 Quercus agrifolia, 18 35 35 X X X X X X X 7 Quercus a rifolia 18 35 35 X X X X X X X 8 Quercus. a rifolia 15 35 35 X X X X X X X 9 Quercus a rifolia 12 35 35 X X X X X X X E Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr, Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440, January 2014 ANALYSIS This section includes all Protected Trees which are either located or encroaching on the property. It provides data collected from the analysis of construction plans. The tree has been surveyed and numbers correspond to the Site Plan included in this report. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MATRIX SIZE & REQUIRED PRUNING OF TREE SPECIES ROOTZONE IMPACTS CONDITION LIVE CROWN Fyi .Y U U > 3b _ .W o > 0 .� o W i en 0 U fn H Cn z 1 Quercus agrifolia 24 Good 1 N - Y <10 1 0 NIA 2 Quercus agrifolia 20 Good N - Y <10 0 N/A 3 Quercus agrifolia 30 Good S S Y <20 0 NIA 4 Quercus agrifolia 30 Good E E Y <20 0 N/A 5 Quercus agrifolia 34 Good N - Y <20 0 NIA Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection "'--I 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia Michael Crane, RCA #440. January ,.,,14 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MATRIX (continued) SIZE & REQUIRED PRUNING OF TREE SPECIES CONDITION ROOTZONE IMPACTS LIVE CROWN 0 CU W Z 3 ,[ Q o :3 Q a W Q Q N O (U •,� C M •� A O 0 6 O � c> O :b X a > 6 Quercus agrifolia 18 Good W - Y <10 0 NIA 7 Quercus agrifolia 18 Good - - Y <10 0 NIA 8 Quercus agrifolia 15 Good S S Y <10 0 NIA 9 Quercus agrifolia 12 Good S S Y <10 0 NIA Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 FINDINGS As with many construction projects, soil compaction is the most preventable impact that will need to be monitored in order to provide reliable protection and long -term preservation of the trees. To prevent unnecessary soil compaction a protective fence must be installed around the Protected Trees before any demolition occurs. The goal is to enclose the largest possible amount of space underneath the tree so that the heavy equipment required for demolition and construction can be routed away from root zones. The recommended fence placements are drawn in dashed lines on the Site Plan of this report. The main haul route for the demolition phase and into most of the construction phase shall be the existing driveway. The removal of the hardscape and existing plants near the Protected Trees shall be done by hand. No rototilling or other deep cultivation or grading shall occur within the driplines. Refer to the Construction Impact Guidelines in Appendix B for important general preservation measures concerning the different elements of this project. FURTHER RECOMIVffiNDATIONS • Prior to demolition the contractor and consulting arborist shall meet on site to make sure fences are properly placed and installed and to review the goals for the tree protection plan. The location of the protective fences are drawn with a dashed line on the Site Plan included in this report. • Tree Protection Zone fences shall be at least four feet tall and constructed of chain link fencing secured on metal posts. • The fenced protection zones may be altered during construction; however, any alterations of the fenced protection zones must be approved by the arborist of record. • Maintain the fence throughout the completion of the project. No staging of materials or equipment or washing -out is to occur within the fenced protected zone. • If any injury whatsoever should occur to any Protected or preserved tree, call the consulting arborist immediately. Timeliness is critical to being able to provide the best mitigation treatment for injuries. E Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 41006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 APPENDIX A — Photos ABOVE: Trees #I and #2 Taken facing east from the street. Landscape renovations will encroach on them. BELOW: Looking east at Tree #3 from the street. The driveway will be replaced in the same footprint. Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 PHOTO: Tree #4 is located on the property line. The foundation of the new home will be set further from the tree than the existing one. Photo taken facing south from the front yard. 10 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 PHOTO: Looking west at the existing house from the south property line. Tree #5 encroaches over. The fence along the property line will be replaced with a vinyl fence set on posts, similar to the design of the existing one. No pruning is required to complete the project. 11 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 �~ PHOTO: Looking east at Trees #6 and #7. They are located behind the fence on the property line. The area behind the fence is a wash and walking trail. The chain link fence will be replaced with a wrought iron fence with a similar design. 12 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA 4440. January 2014 ABOVE: Looking north at Trees #8 and #9 from the back yard. The trees are located off site. BELOW: A concrete wall with a continuous footing separates the trees from the property. The new home will be within the footprint of the existing one. The wall will be removed and replaced with a fence set on posts. 13 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 APPENDIX B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines Size and Distribution of Tree Roots — Taken from Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees Shrubs and Vines. Harris, R.W., Clark, J.W., Matheny N.P. Prentice Hall 2004. Roots of most plants, including large trees, grow primarily in the top meter (3 ft) of soil (see figure below). Most plants concentrate the majority of their small absorbing roots in the upper 150 mm (6 in.) of soil if the surface is protected by a mulch or forest litter. In the absence of a protective mulch, exposed bare soil can become so hot near the surface that roots do not grow in the upper 200 to 250 mm (8 to 10 in.). Under forest and many landscape situations, however, soil near the surface is most favorable for root growth. In addition, roots tend to grow at about the same soil depth regardless of the slope of the soil surface. Although root growth is greatly influenced by soil conditions, individual roots seem to have an inherent guidance mechanism. Large roots with vigorous tips usually grow horizontally. Similar roots lateral to the large roots grow at many angles to the vertical, and some grow up into the surface soil. However, few roots in a root system actually grow down. Depth I In meth 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 FIGURE In mature trees, the taproot is either lost or redid in size, The vast majority of the root system is composed of horizontally oriented lateral roots, 14 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #1440. January 2014 The importance of soil Soil supports and anchors tree roots and provides water, minerals and oxygen. Furthermore, soil is a habitat for soil microorganisms that enhance root function. A soil's ability to sustain tree growth is largely determined by its texture, structure (bulk density), organic matter, water and mineral content, salinity, aeration, and soil - microbe abundance and diversity. Soil physical properties Soil texture — the relative proportion of sand, silt and clay, is important because it affects water — and nutrient- holding capacity, drainage and aeration (gaseous diffusion). Soil structure is the arrangement of individual soil particles into clumps (aggregates). The net result is the formulation of larger voids between the aggregates which serve as channels for gaseous diffusion, movement of water and root penetration. Unfortunately, soil aggregates are readily destroyed by activities that compact the soil (increase bulk density). When this occurs, gaseous exchange, permeability, drainage and root growth are restricted. The influence of the organic matter content of soil properties is quiet significant. Its decomposition by soil organisms releases substances that bind soil particles into larger granules, which improves both soil aeration, and drainage. In essence, the breakdown of organic matter improves water — and nutrient - holding capacity and reduces bulk density. Furthermore, it is the primary source of nitrogen and a major source of nitrogen and a major source of phosphorus and sulfur. Without organic matter soil organisms could not survive and most biochemical processes in the soil would cease. Soil aeration, the movement and the availability of oxygen, is determined by both soil texture and structure. In general, compacted and finer soils, due to a higher proportion of small pore spaces (micropores), tend to drain slowly and hold less air than coarser, sandy, or well- structured find soils. Water retained in the small pores displaces oxygen and inhibits gaseous diffusion. The availability of soil water is largely determined by the size of the pore spaces between the soil particles and the larger aggregates in which water is held. Most of the water in the larger pore spaces drains readily due to gravitational forces. A relatively thin film of water, which is readily available to plant roots, remains following drainage. Much of water held within the smaller pore spaces resists uptake by plant roots because it is held tightly on the soil surfaces. Plant roots require an adequate supply of oxygen for development. Injury or dysfunction results when oxygen availability drops below a critical level. Root respiration is the first process to be restricted, followed by disruptions in growth, metabolism, nutrient and water uptake, and photosynthesis. Furthermore, the accumulation of high levels of i%I Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA 4440. January 2014 carbon dioxide, produced by the roots during respiration can also impair root function. Reduced soil aeration resulting from soil compaction, flooding, excess irrigation, or impervious pavement favors the development of crown rot (Phytophthora root disease). It also inhibits mycorrhizal fungi that enhance water and nutrient uptake and resist root pathogens. The forest floor under a canopy in most undeveloped forests and woodland settings is typically covered by a layer of fallen leaves and other woody debris. It is usually cool, shady, well- aerated, and relatively moist — conditions that favor normal root growth. When the natural leaf litter is removed and when a tree's lower canopy is pruned up to provide clearance, the absorbing roots in the upper few inches of the soil experience higher soil temperatures and increased desiccation due to direct exposure to sunlight. Minimizing the Effects of Construction and Development on Tree Root Systems Activities that injure roots or adversely affect the root zone should be avoided or kept as far from the trunk as possible. Design changes or alternative building practices that avoid or minimize construction - related impacts should be considered and proposed when applicable. Soil Compaction Soils are intentionally compacted under structures, sidewalks, reads, parking areas, and load- bearing fill to prevent subsidence, and to prevent soil movement on slopes. Although unintentional, soil within the root zone of trees is often compacted by unrestricted foot traffic, parking of vehicles, operation of heavy equipment, and during installation of fill. Compaction destroys the soil's natural porosity by eliminating much of the air space contained within it. It leaves the soil hardm impenetrable and largely unfavorable for root growth. The soil's natural porosity, which allows for water movement and storage, gaseous exchange, and root penetration, is greatly reduced. Consequently, root growth and tree health suffer. Soil compaction is best managed by preventing it. Bulk density is used to describe a soil's porosity, or the amount of space between soil particles and aggregates. High bulk densities indicate a low percentage of total pore space. Pavement Paving over the root systems of trees is another serious problem because it reduces the gaseous diffusion and soil moisture. Most paving materials are relatively impervious to water penetration and typically divert water away from a tree's root zone. Cracks and expansion joints do, though, allow for some water infiltration into the soil below. Of greater concern, is the loss of roots from excavation to achieve the required grade, and the necessary compaction to prevent subsidence. Once the soil surface is compacted, a I Cli Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 base material is then added and compacted as well. With that done, the surface can then be paved. Thus, pavement within the root zones of trees can damage roots and create unfavorable soil conditions. One alternative to minimize pavement impacts is to consider placing the pavement on the natural grade over a layer of minimally compacted base material. To reduce sub -grade compaction, consider using reinforced concrete or asphalt over a goetextile blanket to help stabilize the soil. On -grade patios or paving that covers more than one -third of the tree protection zone (TPZ) should be constructed using permeable materials that allow aeration and water penetration. Soil under permeable surfaces should not be compacted to more than 80 percent. Excavation and root pruning Excavation within the root zones of trees should be avoided as much as possible. The extent of root pruning (selective) or cutting (non - selective) should be based on the species growth characteristics and adaptive traits, environmental conditions, age, health, crown size, density, live crown ration and structural condition of the tree. The timing of the root pruning or cutting is another important consideration. Moderate to severe root loss during droughts or particularly hot periods can cause serious water - deficit injury or death. When root pruning/ cutting is unavoidable, roots should be pruned or cut as far from the trunk as possible. Cutting roots on more than one side of a tree should also be avoided. Root cutting extending more than half -way around a tree should generally be no closer than about 10 times the trunk diameter. Recommended distances range from as little as 6 times trunk diameter (DBH) for young trees to 12 times trunk diameter for mature trees. The size of the TPZ should, however, be increased for over mature and declining trees and species that are sensitive to root loss. The minimum distance from the trunk that roots can be cut on one side of the tree without destabilizing it, is a distance equal to about three times the diameter (DBH) of the trunk. Roots severed within that distance provide little or no structural support. Root pruning or cutting distances from the trunk should be greater for trees that lean and/ or those growing on shallow or wet soil. In cases where the proposed grading will adversely affect trees designated for retention, special attention should be given to proper root pruning and post - construction care for injured trees. Where structural footings are required for foundations, retaining walls, etc., and roots larger than 2 inches in diameter will be impacted, consider design changes or alternative building methods. When excavation within 5 times trunk diameter is unavoidable, roots greater than 1 '/x inches in diameter should be located prior to excavation and then pruned to avoid unnecessary damage. Hand - digging or use of a hydraulic or pneumatic soil excavation tool is the least disruptive way to locate roots for pruning. Although mechanical root pruners make clean cuts, they are non- selective. A backhoe bucket, dozer blade or 17 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 trencher will typically pull, rip or shatter the larger root, causing additional damage toward the tree. Once the roots that interfere with the structure being built, e.g., foundations, footings, retaining wall, curbs, etc., are exposed, they should then be cut perpendicular to their long axis using a hand -saw, `carbide- tipped chainsaw' or sharp ax, depending on size. Roots that are pruned in this manner typically regenerate new roots from near the cut. Roots exposed by excavation should be protected from exposure to sun and desiccation. Exposed roots that can not be covered with soil by the end of the day should be covered with moistened burlap or similar material. Roots can generally be cut in a non - selective manner when excavating near of beyond the dripline. Ripped, splintered or fractured portions of roots however, should be re -cut. The damaged portion should be removed using sharp tools. The cut should be flat across the root with the adjacent bark intact. Wound dressings should not be applied to pruned or damaged roots except when recommended for disease, insect or sprout control. The best approach to avoid water - deficit injury following root loss during the growing season is to provide ample irrigation. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Watering schedules should also consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species adaptability, extent of root pruning and tree health. If possible, irrigate the tree 7 to 10 days prior to excavation so that there is an adequate reservoir of soil water. Water can be delivered to large construction sites via water -tank trucks and applied directly to affected trees or stored nearby in plastic tanks. On relatively flat terrain, a 6 to 8 inch soil berm at the tree's dripline should be constructed to act as a watering basin. On steep terrain, soaker hoses should be used. They can be placed across the slope or spirally around the trunk, from about six feet away to the dripline. In addition, a two to four inch layer of wood chip mulch should be applied to as much of the root zone as possible to retard soil water loss. Pruning foliage to compensate for root loss is not supported by scientific research and likely to result in slower recovery. Fertilization to stimulate root growth is generally unwarranted and may be counterproductive. Trenching within the Tree Protection Zone Trenching for underground utilities should be routed around the TPZ. When this is unavoidable, trenching within the TPZ should be done by `hand' or using a pneumatic or hydraulic soil excavation tool, carefully working around larger roots. Roots larger than 1 '/Z inches in diameter should not be cut. Dig below these roots to route utilities or install drains. A combination of tools can also produce satisfactory results, for example, a skillful backhoe operator under the arborist's supervision can dig down several inches at a time and detect larger roots by `feel' (resistance). At that point, as assistant can expose the root and dig around it. In this manner, the backhoe can then continue extending the trench though the TPZ. Tunneling (boring) through the TPZ is the preferable alternative. For most large trees, tunneling depth should be at least 36 inches. Tunneling should begin at the edge of the TPZ, but no closer than a distance equal to one foot of clearance for each inch of tree DBH. Tunnels should also be offset to either side Protected Tree Report. Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440, January 2014 of the trunk. For trenching that extends only part way into TPZ, consider trenching radially to the tree trunk, as this is less harmful than tangential trenching. All trenches made within the TPZ should be backfilled as quickly as possible to prevent root and soil desiccation. Managing Root Injured Trees Root - pruned trees should be monitored for symptoms of water - deficit injury for a specified period following root pruning. Irrigation should be considered prior to, during, and after root pruning. Irrigation schedules should consider local soil conditions, climate, topography, time of year, species tolerance, extent of root pruning and tree health. Grade Change: Fill Soil Fill soil placed within the root zones of trees can have an adverse effect, particularly if the soil is compacted to support a structure or pavement. Soil compaction reduces aeration and water infiltration. Fill soil, die to textural changes, can also prevent water from penetrating the original soil layer below where the roots are. Furthermore, soil placed against the root crown and lower trunk can lead to root disease problems, especially if the soil near the trunk remains moist during the summer from irrigation. Alternatives to placing fills over roots zones shall be considered and proposed as appropriate. 19 u i International *oriety of Arboritufture" Tree Ri!gb 91wooment Qualification Michael J Crane HanngsilcwAJyy owpieied the requvementseslablMed by Ire cerwration Ward Of the Internali0031 Sooeq of Arbbncultur ft abet named k hereby recognised as hhldilg the ISA Lee Hick Asseswnerl ClAfration. Mtt � I pry tl/xknnvlwe I�ec�llb.� at,zole Ir4.I.ukdyl lk,gky tlA.krn:uNe DEPARTAIEN'roF rE.CTICIRE REGULAMN da r LII ENSINGIC'F.RTIFIC %T10N PROCRAM Y AGRI(I LI IIR U INF CON I ROL ADVNEK LICENSE 1) Al •=(4IssI F; VA1.IDTIIR01:GU 0110112013 1213112014 PCA 75893 ABCDEFG MICHAEL J CRANE PO BOX 51122 PASADENA CA 91115 Fill x. (I The Atner k 1111 Srrrien, of Conmillirrg Arbor°isis X. q,,,h-1, Ir t r•M,rha,ly 14a.Ircr uara'. Michael Craxxe, RCA #440 Jde�wt,r-d 1f5- i+rh:.Nhy. )lae w , asov Ww O cn C7 z n z y O R M rD O. b n t'' IL Ch a� �O > V aT �a N � � O_ A 05 17 �lnwnraati xw *oast, d ZIrb hint xre r. ` Jgoarb - Certifieb Anter grborizt hh 1�n ' ac rases � ¢ 1 l C jDabrag surresidullo completrb the Tequrremrats set 6v I* 20orlst Eernfiratiore �toarh o! for Smrrlmtlorlal 6'"' a! Arhorlrultorr. Ile abobr bamrh is btrebp reragnlfrb as en 300 Igoarb- Certibrh 9RasteT Arborrst 5' ik! 6YtIft4'l lnlr{Nr :I . �� $1 luans.aetlmirrytl Heaennteme .P' ti' ra' � WE4&e39 Nov B. 211945 Oer 31.2012 s Ww O cn C7 z n z y O R M rD O. b n t'' IL Ch a� �O > V aT �a N � � O_ A 05 17 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1350 Highland Oaks Dr. Arcadia 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. January 2014 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE I, Michael Crane, certify that: • I have personally inspected the tree(s) and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • 1 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. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party not upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of Horticulture in a full -time capacity for a period of more than 15 years. Signed: Registered Consulting Arborist #440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 6643B; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser 4AA08269 ;'#0 L ko `°,►:'w` *awn 21 Date: January 24, 2014 3kvoo IN orrn MW =x, LO' W 347.34' GENERAL NOTES RESIDENCE '! R 11 rtcE W mmn" d z 6m ----------- -- — ------- ------------- - --------- ---"_'° L. § —, gl� ----------- PLANT SITE PLAN LEMW lv— =n—k b06 the s C At E: r- I V-0 TOTAL Lkmbs . SINGLE MULTI FAIALy PRE SPRJNKLER REQUIREMENTS Lj w in --o= 4L� 0 x 0 DEFERRED SUOMMAU 3 wvn < VICINITY ~ � TA "4p GTR� k*om� to U = l. Ix !Z—PEA AMM.UGT Tr- WE PLAN HA 0.) SHEET T-1 8 FIRE DEPT. R MENT 7 AVE. FRONT SETBACK 59'-0" CONSULTING ENGINEERING 4 1 -2 1 PROJECT SU cr ivoR,yy ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 ��0oe lr oTH °�• -EXCERPT - 4. Appeal of the approval of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -03 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -06 with an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a new residence at 1350 Highland Oaks Drive. Appellants: April A. Seymour, Carol Rosenthal, Shwujing Jessica Liu, and Christine Eng Applicant: Sanyao International, Inc., Designer Recommended action: Find that this project qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from CEQA, Deny the appeal and uphold the Approval of the design review and approve the Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if the appellant would like to speak in favor of this appeal. Ms. April Seymour responded. Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. Mr. Robert Tong, the designer of the proposed home, responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the appeal. The following responded: Ms. Shelley Chu Mr. Edwin McLee Mr. George Ivea Mr. Dong Chan Mr. John Uniack Ms. Faye Wang Mr. Steve Chairman Beranek asked if anyone appeal. The following responded: Mr. Glenn Oyoung would like to speak in opposition to this Chairman Beranek asked if the appellant would like to speak in rebuttal. Ms. Seymour responded. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Chiao, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Chiao, to find that this project is exempt from CEQA, and that the design is consistent with the City's design guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and deny the appeal and uphold staff approvals of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -03 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit Application No. THE 14 -06. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Chiao, Falzone, and Beranek NOES: Commissioner Baerg ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 7/29/14 FJ a �� l ILI Adiacent Neighbor to the North at 11r l Adjacent Neighbo p w r to the South a? t4Y:1!��r�in"•:�i Panoramic View of the subject Property and the Adjacent Homes w w ■ 1■ !� • ■ ■ ■ ■ A i a /appellants' Main Issues Top plate heights are too tall at 10' -0" on the fig _. floor, and 9'-67' on the second floor, where neighbors have 8' -0" top plates. )�;. Stone veneer is inconsistent with the architectural "skinny brick" would be more appropriates Staff's Findings Staff finds the proposal to be adequately modulated and articulated to minimize mass. Prairie architectural style emphasizes horizontal elements with deep eaves, and not verticality. Ledgestone is common on Prairie style homes. Second floor windows are elevated 5 feet to help protect the privacy of the neighbors. Mature trees will be maintained and new landscape screening to help soften the appearance and provide privacy. Oak tree encroachments will not adversely affect the health of the oak trees. Recommendation Deny the appeal and uphold staff's approval of SFADR 14 -03 and THE 14 -06, subject to the conditions of approval on pages 5 & 6 of the staff report. City of Arcadia /6 /Z I -, 0- 0.1 0 0.06 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_We b_Mercator_Auxi liary_S phere © City of Arcadia Reported on 07/17/2014 04 :45 PM THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend -- Truck Routes 1: 3,602 Notes This map was automatically generated using Geocortex Essentials. SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Re: 1350 Highland Oaks Review No.: SFADR 14 -03 APPELLANTS: Shelley Chu Faye Wang April A. Seymour RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY IN THE HIGHLANDS ALIG 2 1 2014 A. Single story not to exceed 15' in height except fox that part which is in line with adjacent structures then not to exceed 19'. K' B. Two story with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the plate height on the I" floor to 8'. Reduce the plate height on the second floor to 8'. Reduce the overall height to 23. 2. Only use stone or masonry on base of house (below windowsill) except on chimneys. Stone clad columns reinforce verticality. 3. No more than 10' side yard setback. Move the 3 car garage to the rear of the house thus allowing living area to fill side yard motor court. 4. Maintain a minimum rear yard set back for the second floor to a line equivalent to the rear yard set back of adjacent structures to mitigate invasion of privacy and views of neighbors on the north and south of the property. 5. Maintain a minimum front yard setback of the 2'"d floor of 70'. & Reduce height of doors appropriate with 8' plate. 7. Reduce height of windows appropriate with 8' plate. 8. Maintain elevation asymmetry. 4. 20' entry is non living space and adds unnecessary bulk to the massing, Respectfully Submitted, Shelley Chu, Appellant 1342 Highland Oaks Dr. aye an , Ap ant 358 Highland s Dr. V/01 WN ighland Oaks Dr. air 9. 20' entry is non living space and adds unnecessary bulk to the massing. Respectfully Submitted, Shelley Chu, Appellant 1342 Highland Oaks Dr. Faye Wang, Appellant 1358 Highland Oaks Dr, John Uniack, Highlands HOA ARB Chair 1220 Highland Oaks Dr. April A. Verlato 1614 Highland Oaks Dr. . 'n . ii... K — PLANT LEGEND msm >an ro w..n / . 1 rRR�nseR rNr nu .Rr ro E v"mrx,rR, 1 LUi /lL�i1 ✓�� D Lear ' RESICENCE L.. - any w 579•485VE 781.47 I jLERAL NOIEd w.eom R,w,.m mLPUNPLRM MIIk �F=/nEA xOIE artauEr sir aySr BEdw.6�tiFlmfRenLObMl sk ro["8. � �a.oGE� �r �utFXlEPopxppdi95rWyBENPIMV£C ev1WlRW5r�£ a yyw�p N,p—hw r.,>. �r� ,.���r,�PR�,r��„N�r�•rr�s>,E* � L�raM w+wrsArmearott <TwNlanr�rs,u,eEss rwxxe=wnrtES ,ECG .eeea`ik TREE PROT[f.OaN NDTLS: aid' n IRS -7 _mac pw�ro� w rRes<,or o�s,"crvr�w�wc. m.vrnu. a ,c. � �. Fb1[nko�R�on rw i�Rpofl�io, „e W,L.r1r >mrrrr en! M E OrA[ 5wrq w 5°M w�T W4nsa xi rt¢i1M! iExa -c Ao.R R ,pq fue m MYO Ern"HF1YnE n +ibMUl[ iw e[u"fror im; no ams rrva n,/+'coe'�°`P>ti.;ro, E w,..as ,.rsr.a rR, � m�wrx• ".rr.em z�"`"'"m.»,ro :,'�'. _ rtROrr T.owu1°ir99i ro n .o. s.000er sm a ou,n �rz.w.s emw Rrr owrt.�e`0°al� °""rO1 ..e m reuu``aR[,"� r GENERAL NOTES S1 rfextRy b. NFf� r Se�P� N015E 1�0 SITE PLAN scaLE, t• •tau „m.p en4 w SINGLE A MULTI FAMILY DWELLINGS sac. Pwe.rr.crxa wmenR� " oo.trrt,r�l p'°r'I't FIRE SPRIN,SLER REMIREIISENTS �ISw�. wnwSU n e ".inwr er ,.R r.ac .r �ennm B FfRE DEPT. REQUIREMENT Vn4•. wtr� a Rum "� hixm vRaec,: r,R"r wrs, SW<- R. ury REV1810NS GATE INO CONSULTING ENGINEERING 1 L- 1 i b C a � m WW FF _ - � RFAR vR.ilD 5lIWCrt - . 'n . ii... K — PLANT LEGEND msm >an ro w..n / . 1 rRR�nseR rNr nu .Rr ro E v"mrx,rR, 1 LUi /lL�i1 ✓�� D Lear ' RESICENCE L.. - any w 579•485VE 781.47 I jLERAL NOIEd w.eom R,w,.m mLPUNPLRM MIIk �F=/nEA xOIE artauEr sir aySr BEdw.6�tiFlmfRenLObMl sk ro["8. � �a.oGE� �r �utFXlEPopxppdi95rWyBENPIMV£C ev1WlRW5r�£ a yyw�p N,p—hw r.,>. �r� ,.���r,�PR�,r��„N�r�•rr�s>,E* � L�raM w+wrsArmearott <TwNlanr�rs,u,eEss rwxxe=wnrtES ,ECG .eeea`ik TREE PROT[f.OaN NDTLS: aid' n IRS -7 _mac pw�ro� w rRes<,or o�s,"crvr�w�wc. m.vrnu. a ,c. � �. Fb1[nko�R�on rw i�Rpofl�io, „e W,L.r1r >mrrrr en! M E OrA[ 5wrq w 5°M w�T W4nsa xi rt¢i1M! iExa -c Ao.R R ,pq fue m MYO Ern"HF1YnE n +ibMUl[ iw e[u"fror im; no ams rrva n,/+'coe'�°`P>ti.;ro, E w,..as ,.rsr.a rR, � m�wrx• ".rr.em z�"`"'"m.»,ro :,'�'. _ rtROrr T.owu1°ir99i ro n .o. s.000er sm a ou,n �rz.w.s emw Rrr owrt.�e`0°al� °""rO1 ..e m reuu``aR[,"� r GENERAL NOTES S1 rfextRy b. NFf� r Se�P� N015E 1�0 SITE PLAN scaLE, t• •tau „m.p en4 w SINGLE A MULTI FAMILY DWELLINGS sac. Pwe.rr.crxa wmenR� " oo.trrt,r�l p'°r'I't FIRE SPRIN,SLER REMIREIISENTS �ISw�. wnwSU n e ".inwr er ,.R r.ac .r �ennm B FfRE DEPT. REQUIREMENT Vn4•. wtr� a Rum "� hixm vRaec,: r,R"r wrs, SW<- R. ury REV1810NS GATE INO CONSULTING ENGINEERING yA, nmr = iaa"Ofi M n Me4 - SAN se. M WW ,mn rant PROJECT SUMMARY 1 Q txetxetlnu rcAe� ,AIOBNIMO RWI � z s cn E „R�RE� R�NR u �tT S-, � nrlN" rtiv i rA�►q.u�"is " ": — 6m 7 SHEET INDEX yaSB R je Lh r. CRRLL 1101u EN91NEER !tP P!Ah FELT fF�l.1111i MIN 7E,iVCTlIRA1. E3161xEER M/LCµasnA0.wmnewvE�irc !RN'r¢2� era�� Iael�Il�IIIIR's OSNR4 MWMlOrh RIGNQYFNP4.411bT lyl;yt�y °wilRRS nr trtc,w. R CONSULTING ENGINEERING WW Q VICINITY MAP x.Ta ® 4 Lh r. I I I OCglm 9rnri.R `� SEE PlAll Er�atc �I . r®were e.a A .'"`nett � m'rr ,'tlSrn.mx..nm rr rn�.'��`m E r zau rpawat *c o� ° r » u.o.c �tELLw� r `NJr �nm I I E� !1 �"• - -.. �, -11 _.,.i r� MR Mt�ta _ rw ao.rz. ra /bv� xTA '� T-1 7 DEFERRED SUOMITTALS AVE. FRONT SETBACK i naea�ae -' 'I FIRST FLOOR PLAN w«.rr 3,S05�a. n. .esa. 5.oiao�� WATER E"R:zNff&cOmSERyATmN WROtJJJOd1R&WINTERFACE ARaANOTES: utEYrFlRpR N91mON6 RR:NCN0M4$a_wIRt; PPORA AWSiBE WAC GL4TEp6 TFyPFHED �j f�04V__.._._.__� F+rFRIvYiDO0R3 SV41 BF nPVROUFn no w. +i r�91E[CMSIMICTIWE5T WIG]p ROirEby riMNls'61LIL�5 RNCM OR WISA FIRE R1o1EC11PV MTING OFeror>FSS RNN F��_la�'wni Ginn 'TTaiu rah .Yram a�mo M MtlllifES MM VIII u tmr.� k i REW g OATS 2 � �sJr S F u� a s -- = c e = s oil! a 9 ' 19 z a� L� _° J � LUD Q co r Q 1 - -- 201.13 A -1 D dATF k0 Xj z ---------- I ------------------- L WIC M, RPQ F- 6m ---------- MASTURSUME IN I'll BEMMMOO Vn , � - jt, OED"ROOM a, Lo" cn > U- F.. W -J -.1 < SECOND FLOOR PLAN DOORO&VONDOM ---------- 1,594- wl smpIAN KkR 'AnLj)LAND-URRAN NTrRFACE AREA NOTES! Uzi E-. ma 20-13 SLOMDD0 AWrkEpMGL4ZM � wav mmW�w.rsv]] � '� ]rrr� �• 5A _ cc MIX v _ fl � II .ran ma (CLASS'A') CONC. ROOF TILE WACC NESR -19pp j YPiER RMFA] Xl: I 1 I 2011 SO. FT. _ VWILA7�lOR fG14 SU4wRr I I ��� _ � I T\✓Y mM -� r3 mwws rr wa f]m - I+p]_Lh 40wEM {tptlFARE4 if: I J '. � •q 1,0�68¢FT. iii r� ROOF PLAN " ISOLATION STRIP LED DRYWALL 17 ROOF GALS �GFMA _ As]11LIESl� e?.1 Te/b 1.1 -]ttLSr •...x -- aaor =X0 ..d--, Iw In m In x. ]auv ion won.. 'i �N.w r��v • IPl] u. Y MOTES x x i T'ro x x 101 95 ! — ] 1. ays w xu�ir .n.. � M1 a IS Wu cur re nor "wM WMf . _ — d_a � .YJa].yo.�ar SAVE VENT 3 WHOLE - BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM DUCTS 2 O ELE) I(3N KEY NOTES_ 1. CONC, ROOT TILE W1T1i fCC.ESR.t S06 FYIOOVCT N0.:9GB86E2. 2. STUCCOSMOOT{I FINISH. BY -EXPO" 250 COLONNADE. ? S'HALF ROUNRMETAL MIN GUTTER IMUSKET RROWTII, A. 310 DOWNSPOUT WITH LEADERHEAO (MUSKET BROWN. S. BRICK VENEER (THIN BRICK( BY'ROBISON BRICK' THUNDERCLOUD, L WOOD WINUOW WRH ALUMINUM CLADING COLOR. RQQI T. WOOD STAIN GRADE FRCNTITUGR WITH TEMFOREDGU S. S. WOOD STUN GRADE GARAGE DOOR, S. EXTFRIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE BY "TORY LIGHTING' MME, HENRY STREET. 10- METALCHIMNEY CAP. 11. FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PER CAST CONCRETE PRODUCT WITH MAXIMl1M WEIGHT 151,mim. T. a)VSILL b)VTRIM oWRASE E(B'MOULDING (N _ n �Hr� M[kE11J � rlairr -.•- oM is I MOn �1!oP K y7yQ Ex �a Ve si In Ds sQ Q n V L6 F .Q J Q Q awn —A-4 a m.rn saw. �I N'. fhl FFFE 81� I 6' YtOLII WAµ` 8 g wa0. I Y• {� DECwmPleP Gawnc if,'rJ roDL eaAYHCr•1� Orvroe3e rr,.1 /1 2.5' a�acx w4A � s,axT xOtSE , /// OrA��Y�reE pFalU M•L T!Ql NLVIY',M rerF� F� Y Y� _ ,ryl I' Tr wNTI II / /AAII 1\ tic - { rxlnrt ,D u —� arc me>: laur Lre / /� MI,T N T p'— i EG y' � wnixEmrc,c�aixr.arwx, SC�•yj ouerx�.,.mE ra �.exvEO l.im P.a: ewen.e - — -- --•-' I �e row.+ar reDreu »•e rslcixE EkDILn I,r IN! *•„ a, I I lauexi•e +. ,um c.wE rw�yk ro •vao vhHrae m cwxcoe� oR RroT sra,rNn aW,�Nf canem,r -naN, OW.�x�,� RxG�IwE�D4 �}pTDaEH�„�.� ARDap R�TD. •!m APOTJ ]' hl•rL,CR a! ulTl. Tx iaeNW! •S xEGl59A14T�D FCLr'vPLP NEKTM' I C IQV IWAwA i! IMSaLtLp OAK MEE fZOTEGTIO;V� + en. a' �mr ,.e�..P..loPrtmT.�Imca.evA,,,,E. �x,RrPTPe �,.0 EwE.� ,.hr ,� I�aHEr NE.awEE AWE Ix rL.cD re r�vCxF rm nx ,td!! reel De91a CAiwMle, Nl:e A! rrmrECTep TP.r (wnppei5rl 4B+DaT THE rBK rp arM IRR ADTfCiM hlref eRO). iwW.n g'qr repo gneNR CD6E d nCC nl1R, HbT � Ix RSV'= /Ir .V.i. TIIO. e} I.f.T EC IG.'CD tlM�AngY r:I AiLC„ at wE�, Ca•CnaGnOx watc Ifur 1N41 Ix N, EK[ .,.E �wLY b ramlY,e. xo xapp' p¢ ciaOno'cTPM 4eipow. calirKTDN, Pn TTtl¢ +me.,n ErONBE or wti[eiALE E><cYor K /LIDHFP rrRA Mb.eCT EIWOA(IrCxF rCT•ir AiL ! ESSeRµP owNVPro w,wlN n! -STD EE en¢ w,w xAfq TODLy ✓pA •IbOrtISrP aLalRW5lpt �iL� r TRETI'f�iw ixPeLD EE DPllr 6'f x••o vYFw +elPewriG OR �RVM'AiC SpL lwGPV�TOw ,acLP uD e0o,E .� Mb f•In' ,xDIrtD y T 3!E (,,.. TDE HeA.nYNe> I.n" EG cawnxgGLr .x�p .,..Pm,DYT rDIIPT.,F.N,x. PLANTING PLAN SCALE: V- 10' -0" I� I� ,I.�r,•rY,k � a 1'IKftY (,1T1 I 1� III jl I ��nr:CH�Eawc I I fr�1 , , I `— PPUYlCT® DM TrJEG PLANT LEGEND Erma- oar Ye. earrxr4AL x,Na ce.rrx Nwre s,ie mux111Fr :+re n.ra wE C) o r I-Tr x.Y Rrr H y� OPSTP Sr eEa%O 7 �.G� ❑y iA BRAIp.ROR{ TL'dSr �..Fl !E' [mac S TtEE M 7..YAY"1 scmewl Gx•eH' 9pIS�x ��L 0 o ERNDG�� ] �w•T� r�w� �Px = a f H d o Jaerl� un EyNME P� ta SELL ! H (x [4Lf146NG' .lRErBI fp.4L sPafi /� � TlxArIN .eMOxeW wwirV reM, Ri B•L. el �IIY.9 H { ®] y� � R•W. 6PPtx ECWI� i! wL. V• S�¢m M XLJ � GI HLVnU.exref�♦ R0.:R I! BBL. i] SNeLB l O� LhVA�pEt• PGThrA r�Y 1- hVE19ER ! ®N.. 4 ]bh9 L ~• xAwnrRx 7, • TpSµ LVOYVVU AIT.•. byp E>•- roFµ TIV A L D.r Er tprLL flaw -w.u• µDh, a]H Er, rDT4 .4r�,x N¢PeEATOn A.ISh3 ]/Pp Pr. G�Clhu['n,;iw�O,l� wTtr ..]p FOIAV GEpG.,TC .D rmrL m/YBA,tn Lw+obC�P ✓MI!• !M� s.r. TPTµ xOn.lee•EA,gx L.aOECA]4.we.. Ip,A !.. ,� .�•., lmaPn E.. uaP�xb T'�b��p �KwiE M nvwx 3'W.L EE a•MSmw xa•rae+wc,ex ellADxes Nrxxx r w slexlc xa cvmkR a IR;uces Peen S• a^ ter. ANP xD Enu.+Ee aM� i¢al.} oa H..Pw,ln r Pxnla•a r�.as : PKene Ar Le•sr ]Ar � ma .�E+ Mwl pAlll6 [OfprgGrtgN ,D r,GP µM . tae la�eTxO D!+c rl�! Px LdTS ,D !E Ix\vrtLreD. e. r.✓.N, .tb. EkALL !C KErT ur�x up Y.rx ar —r,�.�E,r.�l, µ�TMANp lG.Tx3�rseH,IxTAII�ONIAEE.,F.m A sl!®D® faro cars r -!" f94+•4lID•in' aMlrG- ! IIK•e5 TUCK wx, wlrolEre MdL� ,wtvewn µy R}.iri>w .MIlD lrCtrT Ner /uC.. 9. TC W p1'oYD T — wm IAG�T4atl .eG• /iOE .DLa.R• WPIi YdR PF .rx w. Mreu�.e,nf L41rt.f.lke hwusi To EE ecrD.wR w m a. xl -.eE:o rhea+ rwaree,r ufes- ranrc � rtaw waWCa oe.r. AT ro].i aua!!{ rPR I.•eeNrl� oN Tle EreGrw xa•eol cr Pmeer need. liec.riw .ro srn5� I,DC•,lOx o. IeH s+.ev ,weE ro IX Pe.e..nam Ilr naK NnwKE INPrecTn. nrrmQZ= u r7. des T° �� 1 I A . 6'I{ 51•. 1iT191 IWbUV.Rr . ESa; El. !'f9os MALN Y'AT !6l 9P el {� illy lr D]EA SYW10. IT{l.I kD. EOirtuCCWl k4C caoGk xNE 91ZP GY4ertT FvrE MY9E le! oGF1I4A faaA aft nrrpyCUM TDf1�RA r. -un >r.• HIM IE 6µ. n sf.48 M Iw1uaF H6rAC owfse Jfa a .6/w•x,H6 hFUG.MIS EwWC Lev Or TE 9 6Ai D 3W19 H 0 WTEPCCwun r Yup 4n� �� D riEr ! Dom. {I sRCn H bPAk1E' I�r MLV�w 4kAa.IDE"P19[! Nllucw x... E•,QE E 6+xf_ 11 EHa@ L pj��)/j�JJ o PA ED AH S Y/ / %////�] ny �hwW f£LiwrJH IW prehµyH p,A3 p'P4 6RlMG H Vl!lLJlJ mlx � IY2v) ,2,E ElOrm.'mIw NtMygET•E 61LVO, cAIPET rLATS GeP,+O R a � i x � si! q � z �x� 0. d G! iS W C V H w� fr7 O rd Q ��n w o�� d<1C cS ry.,xrLw NLae 1 +Irr awl. U1 �! ° "Rol D D .•rl wrrr. ,u I' I IN OrA��Y�reE pFalU M•L T!Ql NLVIY',M rerF� F� Y Y� _ ,ryl I' Tr wNTI II / /AAII 1\ tic - { rxlnrt ,D u —� arc me>: laur Lre / /� MI,T N T p'— i EG y' � wnixEmrc,c�aixr.arwx, SC�•yj ouerx�.,.mE ra �.exvEO l.im P.a: ewen.e - — -- --•-' I �e row.+ar reDreu »•e rslcixE EkDILn I,r IN! *•„ a, I I lauexi•e +. ,um c.wE rw�yk ro •vao vhHrae m cwxcoe� oR RroT sra,rNn aW,�Nf canem,r -naN, OW.�x�,� RxG�IwE�D4 �}pTDaEH�„�.� ARDap R�TD. •!m APOTJ ]' hl•rL,CR a! ulTl. Tx iaeNW! •S xEGl59A14T�D FCLr'vPLP NEKTM' I C IQV IWAwA i! IMSaLtLp OAK MEE fZOTEGTIO;V� + en. a' �mr ,.e�..P..loPrtmT.�Imca.evA,,,,E. �x,RrPTPe �,.0 EwE.� ,.hr ,� I�aHEr NE.awEE AWE Ix rL.cD re r�vCxF rm nx ,td!! reel De91a CAiwMle, Nl:e A! rrmrECTep TP.r (wnppei5rl 4B+DaT THE rBK rp arM IRR ADTfCiM hlref eRO). iwW.n g'qr repo gneNR CD6E d nCC nl1R, HbT � Ix RSV'= /Ir .V.i. TIIO. e} I.f.T EC IG.'CD tlM�AngY r:I AiLC„ at wE�, Ca•CnaGnOx watc Ifur 1N41 Ix N, EK[ .,.E �wLY b ramlY,e. xo xapp' p¢ ciaOno'cTPM 4eipow. calirKTDN, Pn TTtl¢ +me.,n ErONBE or wti[eiALE E><cYor K /LIDHFP rrRA Mb.eCT EIWOA(IrCxF rCT•ir AiL ! ESSeRµP owNVPro w,wlN n! -STD EE en¢ w,w xAfq TODLy ✓pA •IbOrtISrP aLalRW5lpt �iL� r TRETI'f�iw ixPeLD EE DPllr 6'f x••o vYFw +elPewriG OR �RVM'AiC SpL lwGPV�TOw ,acLP uD e0o,E .� Mb f•In' ,xDIrtD y T 3!E (,,.. TDE HeA.nYNe> I.n" EG cawnxgGLr .x�p .,..Pm,DYT rDIIPT.,F.N,x. PLANTING PLAN SCALE: V- 10' -0" I� I� ,I.�r,•rY,k � a 1'IKftY (,1T1 I 1� III jl I ��nr:CH�Eawc I I fr�1 , , I `— PPUYlCT® DM TrJEG PLANT LEGEND Erma- oar Ye. earrxr4AL x,Na ce.rrx Nwre s,ie mux111Fr :+re n.ra wE C) o r I-Tr x.Y Rrr H y� OPSTP Sr eEa%O 7 �.G� ❑y iA BRAIp.ROR{ TL'dSr �..Fl !E' [mac S TtEE M 7..YAY"1 scmewl Gx•eH' 9pIS�x ��L 0 o ERNDG�� ] �w•T� r�w� �Px = a f H d o Jaerl� un EyNME P� ta SELL ! H (x [4Lf146NG' .lRErBI fp.4L sPafi /� � TlxArIN .eMOxeW wwirV reM, Ri B•L. el �IIY.9 H { ®] y� � R•W. 6PPtx ECWI� i! wL. V• S�¢m M XLJ � GI HLVnU.exref�♦ R0.:R I! BBL. i] SNeLB l O� LhVA�pEt• PGThrA r�Y 1- hVE19ER ! ®N.. 4 ]bh9 L ~• xAwnrRx 7, • TpSµ LVOYVVU AIT.•. byp E>•- roFµ TIV A L D.r Er tprLL flaw -w.u• µDh, a]H Er, rDT4 .4r�,x N¢PeEATOn A.ISh3 ]/Pp Pr. G�Clhu['n,;iw�O,l� wTtr ..]p FOIAV GEpG.,TC .D rmrL m/YBA,tn Lw+obC�P ✓MI!• !M� s.r. TPTµ xOn.lee•EA,gx L.aOECA]4.we.. Ip,A !.. ,� .�•., lmaPn E.. uaP�xb T'�b��p �KwiE M nvwx 3'W.L EE a•MSmw xa•rae+wc,ex ellADxes Nrxxx r w slexlc xa cvmkR a IR;uces Peen S• a^ ter. ANP xD Enu.+Ee aM� i¢al.} oa H..Pw,ln r Pxnla•a r�.as : PKene Ar Le•sr ]Ar � ma .�E+ Mwl pAlll6 [OfprgGrtgN ,D r,GP µM . tae la�eTxO D!+c rl�! Px LdTS ,D !E Ix\vrtLreD. e. r.✓.N, .tb. EkALL !C KErT ur�x up Y.rx ar —r,�.�E,r.�l, µ�TMANp lG.Tx3�rseH,IxTAII�ONIAEE.,F.m A sl!®D® faro cars r -!" f94+•4lID•in' aMlrG- ! IIK•e5 TUCK wx, wlrolEre MdL� ,wtvewn µy R}.iri>w .MIlD lrCtrT Ner /uC.. 9. TC W p1'oYD T — wm IAG�T4atl .eG• /iOE .DLa.R• WPIi YdR PF .rx w. Mreu�.e,nf L41rt.f.lke hwusi To EE ecrD.wR w m a. xl -.eE:o rhea+ rwaree,r ufes- ranrc � rtaw waWCa oe.r. AT ro].i aua!!{ rPR I.•eeNrl� oN Tle EreGrw xa•eol cr Pmeer need. liec.riw .ro srn5� I,DC•,lOx o. IeH s+.ev ,weE ro IX Pe.e..nam Ilr naK NnwKE INPrecTn. nrrmQZ= u r7. des T° �� 1 I A . 6'I{ 51•. 1iT191 IWbUV.Rr . ESa; El. !'f9os MALN Y'AT !6l 9P el {� illy lr D]EA SYW10. IT{l.I kD. EOirtuCCWl k4C caoGk xNE 91ZP GY4ertT FvrE MY9E le! oGF1I4A faaA aft nrrpyCUM TDf1�RA r. -un >r.• HIM IE 6µ. n sf.48 M Iw1uaF H6rAC owfse Jfa a .6/w•x,H6 hFUG.MIS EwWC Lev Or TE 9 6Ai D 3W19 H 0 WTEPCCwun r Yup 4n� �� D riEr ! Dom. {I sRCn H bPAk1E' I�r MLV�w 4kAa.IDE"P19[! Nllucw x... E•,QE E 6+xf_ 11 EHa@ L pj��)/j�JJ o PA ED AH S Y/ / %////�] ny �hwW f£LiwrJH IW prehµyH p,A3 p'P4 6RlMG H Vl!lLJlJ mlx � IY2v) ,2,E ElOrm.'mIw NtMygET•E 61LVO, cAIPET rLATS GeP,+O R a � i x � si! q � z �x� 0. d G! iS W C V H w� fr7 O rd Q ��n w o�� d<1C cS ry.,xrLw NLae 1 +Irr awl. U1 - { rxlnrt ,D u —� arc me>: laur Lre / /� MI,T N T p'— i EG y' � wnixEmrc,c�aixr.arwx, SC�•yj ouerx�.,.mE ra �.exvEO l.im P.a: ewen.e - — -- --•-' I �e row.+ar reDreu »•e rslcixE EkDILn I,r IN! *•„ a, I I lauexi•e +. ,um c.wE rw�yk ro •vao vhHrae m cwxcoe� oR RroT sra,rNn aW,�Nf canem,r -naN, OW.�x�,� RxG�IwE�D4 �}pTDaEH�„�.� ARDap R�TD. •!m APOTJ ]' hl•rL,CR a! ulTl. Tx iaeNW! •S xEGl59A14T�D FCLr'vPLP NEKTM' I C IQV IWAwA i! IMSaLtLp OAK MEE fZOTEGTIO;V� + en. a' �mr ,.e�..P..loPrtmT.�Imca.evA,,,,E. �x,RrPTPe �,.0 EwE.� ,.hr ,� I�aHEr NE.awEE AWE Ix rL.cD re r�vCxF rm nx ,td!! reel De91a CAiwMle, Nl:e A! rrmrECTep TP.r (wnppei5rl 4B+DaT THE rBK rp arM IRR ADTfCiM hlref eRO). iwW.n g'qr repo gneNR CD6E d nCC nl1R, HbT � Ix RSV'= /Ir .V.i. TIIO. e} I.f.T EC IG.'CD tlM�AngY r:I AiLC„ at wE�, Ca•CnaGnOx watc Ifur 1N41 Ix N, EK[ .,.E �wLY b ramlY,e. xo xapp' p¢ ciaOno'cTPM 4eipow. calirKTDN, Pn TTtl¢ +me.,n ErONBE or wti[eiALE E><cYor K /LIDHFP rrRA Mb.eCT EIWOA(IrCxF rCT•ir AiL ! ESSeRµP owNVPro w,wlN n! -STD EE en¢ w,w xAfq TODLy ✓pA •IbOrtISrP aLalRW5lpt �iL� r TRETI'f�iw ixPeLD EE DPllr 6'f x••o vYFw +elPewriG OR �RVM'AiC SpL lwGPV�TOw ,acLP uD e0o,E .� Mb f•In' ,xDIrtD y T 3!E (,,.. TDE HeA.nYNe> I.n" EG cawnxgGLr .x�p .,..Pm,DYT rDIIPT.,F.N,x. PLANTING PLAN SCALE: V- 10' -0" I� I� ,I.�r,•rY,k � a 1'IKftY (,1T1 I 1� III jl I ��nr:CH�Eawc I I fr�1 , , I `— PPUYlCT® DM TrJEG PLANT LEGEND Erma- oar Ye. earrxr4AL x,Na ce.rrx Nwre s,ie mux111Fr :+re n.ra wE C) o r I-Tr x.Y Rrr H y� OPSTP Sr eEa%O 7 �.G� ❑y iA BRAIp.ROR{ TL'dSr �..Fl !E' [mac S TtEE M 7..YAY"1 scmewl Gx•eH' 9pIS�x ��L 0 o ERNDG�� ] �w•T� r�w� �Px = a f H d o Jaerl� un EyNME P� ta SELL ! H (x [4Lf146NG' .lRErBI fp.4L sPafi /� � TlxArIN .eMOxeW wwirV reM, Ri B•L. el �IIY.9 H { ®] y� � R•W. 6PPtx ECWI� i! wL. V• S�¢m M XLJ � GI HLVnU.exref�♦ R0.:R I! BBL. i] SNeLB l O� LhVA�pEt• PGThrA r�Y 1- hVE19ER ! ®N.. 4 ]bh9 L ~• xAwnrRx 7, • TpSµ LVOYVVU AIT.•. byp E>•- roFµ TIV A L D.r Er tprLL flaw -w.u• µDh, a]H Er, rDT4 .4r�,x N¢PeEATOn A.ISh3 ]/Pp Pr. G�Clhu['n,;iw�O,l� wTtr ..]p FOIAV GEpG.,TC .D rmrL m/YBA,tn Lw+obC�P ✓MI!• !M� s.r. TPTµ xOn.lee•EA,gx L.aOECA]4.we.. Ip,A !.. ,� .�•., lmaPn E.. uaP�xb T'�b��p �KwiE M nvwx 3'W.L EE a•MSmw xa•rae+wc,ex ellADxes Nrxxx r w slexlc xa cvmkR a IR;uces Peen S• a^ ter. ANP xD Enu.+Ee aM� i¢al.} oa H..Pw,ln r Pxnla•a r�.as : PKene Ar Le•sr ]Ar � ma .�E+ Mwl pAlll6 [OfprgGrtgN ,D r,GP µM . tae la�eTxO D!+c rl�! Px LdTS ,D !E Ix\vrtLreD. e. r.✓.N, .tb. EkALL !C KErT ur�x up Y.rx ar —r,�.�E,r.�l, µ�TMANp lG.Tx3�rseH,IxTAII�ONIAEE.,F.m A sl!®D® faro cars r -!" f94+•4lID•in' aMlrG- ! IIK•e5 TUCK wx, wlrolEre MdL� ,wtvewn µy R}.iri>w .MIlD lrCtrT Ner /uC.. 9. TC W p1'oYD T — wm IAG�T4atl .eG• /iOE .DLa.R• WPIi YdR PF .rx w. Mreu�.e,nf L41rt.f.lke hwusi To EE ecrD.wR w m a. xl -.eE:o rhea+ rwaree,r ufes- ranrc � rtaw waWCa oe.r. AT ro].i aua!!{ rPR I.•eeNrl� oN Tle EreGrw xa•eol cr Pmeer need. liec.riw .ro srn5� I,DC•,lOx o. IeH s+.ev ,weE ro IX Pe.e..nam Ilr naK NnwKE INPrecTn. nrrmQZ= u r7. des T° �� 1 I A . 6'I{ 51•. 1iT191 IWbUV.Rr . ESa; El. !'f9os MALN Y'AT !6l 9P el {� illy lr D]EA SYW10. IT{l.I kD. EOirtuCCWl k4C caoGk xNE 91ZP GY4ertT FvrE MY9E le! oGF1I4A faaA aft nrrpyCUM TDf1�RA r. -un >r.• HIM IE 6µ. n sf.48 M Iw1uaF H6rAC owfse Jfa a .6/w•x,H6 hFUG.MIS EwWC Lev Or TE 9 6Ai D 3W19 H 0 WTEPCCwun r Yup 4n� �� D riEr ! Dom. {I sRCn H bPAk1E' I�r MLV�w 4kAa.IDE"P19[! Nllucw x... E•,QE E 6+xf_ 11 EHa@ L pj��)/j�JJ o PA ED AH S Y/ / %////�] ny �hwW f£LiwrJH IW prehµyH p,A3 p'P4 6RlMG H Vl!lLJlJ mlx � IY2v) ,2,E ElOrm.'mIw NtMygET•E 61LVO, cAIPET rLATS GeP,+O R a � i x � si! q � z �x� 0. d G! iS W C V H w� fr7 O rd Q ��n w o�� d<1C cS ry.,xrLw NLae 1 +Irr awl. U1 7, • TpSµ LVOYVVU AIT.•. byp E>•- roFµ TIV A L D.r Er tprLL flaw -w.u• µDh, a]H Er, rDT4 .4r�,x N¢PeEATOn A.ISh3 ]/Pp Pr. G�Clhu['n,;iw�O,l� wTtr ..]p FOIAV GEpG.,TC .D rmrL m/YBA,tn Lw+obC�P ✓MI!• !M� s.r. TPTµ xOn.lee•EA,gx L.aOECA]4.we.. Ip,A !.. ,� .�•., lmaPn E.. uaP�xb T'�b��p �KwiE M nvwx 3'W.L EE a•MSmw xa•rae+wc,ex ellADxes Nrxxx r w slexlc xa cvmkR a IR;uces Peen S• a^ ter. ANP xD Enu.+Ee aM� i¢al.} oa H..Pw,ln r Pxnla•a r�.as : PKene Ar Le•sr ]Ar � ma .�E+ Mwl pAlll6 [OfprgGrtgN ,D r,GP µM . tae la�eTxO D!+c rl�! Px LdTS ,D !E Ix\vrtLreD. e. r.✓.N, .tb. EkALL !C KErT ur�x up Y.rx ar —r,�.�E,r.�l, µ�TMANp lG.Tx3�rseH,IxTAII�ONIAEE.,F.m A sl!®D® faro cars r -!" f94+•4lID•in' aMlrG- ! IIK•e5 TUCK wx, wlrolEre MdL� ,wtvewn µy R}.iri>w .MIlD lrCtrT Ner /uC.. 9. TC W p1'oYD T — wm IAG�T4atl .eG• /iOE .DLa.R• WPIi YdR PF .rx w. Mreu�.e,nf L41rt.f.lke hwusi To EE ecrD.wR w m a. xl -.eE:o rhea+ rwaree,r ufes- ranrc � rtaw waWCa oe.r. AT ro].i aua!!{ rPR I.•eeNrl� oN Tle EreGrw xa•eol cr Pmeer need. liec.riw .ro srn5� I,DC•,lOx o. IeH s+.ev ,weE ro IX Pe.e..nam Ilr naK NnwKE INPrecTn. nrrmQZ= u r7. des T° �� 1 I A . 6'I{ 51•. 1iT191 IWbUV.Rr . ESa; El. !'f9os MALN Y'AT !6l 9P el {� illy lr D]EA SYW10. IT{l.I kD. EOirtuCCWl k4C caoGk xNE 91ZP GY4ertT FvrE MY9E le! oGF1I4A faaA aft nrrpyCUM TDf1�RA r. -un >r.• HIM IE 6µ. n sf.48 M Iw1uaF H6rAC owfse Jfa a .6/w•x,H6 hFUG.MIS EwWC Lev Or TE 9 6Ai D 3W19 H 0 WTEPCCwun r Yup 4n� �� D riEr ! Dom. {I sRCn H bPAk1E' I�r MLV�w 4kAa.IDE"P19[! Nllucw x... E•,QE E 6+xf_ 11 EHa@ L pj��)/j�JJ o PA ED AH S Y/ / %////�] ny �hwW f£LiwrJH IW prehµyH p,A3 p'P4 6RlMG H Vl!lLJlJ mlx � IY2v) ,2,E ElOrm.'mIw NtMygET•E 61LVO, cAIPET rLATS GeP,+O R a � i x � si! q � z �x� 0. d G! iS W C V H w� fr7 O rd Q ��n w o�� d<1C cS ry.,xrLw NLae 1 +Irr awl. U1 R a � i x � si! q � z �x� 0. d G! iS W C V H w� fr7 O rd Q ��n w o�� d<1C cS ry.,xrLw NLae 1 +Irr awl. U1 � c� *v nror�s I :. qi ape t txLn.ass4 na m �m � R K mtaa uq R Rl1uLxva T nnRl Nx M o 6%axS 9 a n! L Tas. wrr..� AA swt ss,os `}.L [ AYa�m IA1M NE 9x tp nE PaM19aCIaL a A[ 9R5 �4dd A A?w LNeOxL a ava um LRSRC ru ra mm® iuvw Bas sw. �Fxsgim 1P ➢N 551911:Aa 6 M 5v$ CWIQit % SOLT LVVIFR Sw11 .tle IuFC1 ¢[ NL� SvS xa wr u+101x I xmwrna 9.s. rl[r a vwx a +ux ut .,x >K soL.t tx�Rrrx� nwnoN4 xo rt mma%a x M eMS inwr 5 LA' � 9]15 941LL TALI Z s.a>m LO. uWa OLPIx v 6 AIDES. Ncwn m an6w Lm*ua aanw xc wrote m •r IL.vsr s I W� n.uorNSme ram l6 ss mo xwc rmL Iar7 a L6,rxxn mE¢mI .—L x L.6iYNe an r� *®a r PN sws ONIfFR a r w, uloeroml NwaRS¢ smlcnn5 K omxPtEa 6nA 7o9sleax nEr s5ru a[ aamem, aaa61r m 1K .rrora 6 u vs I fV4rp'A ILC M6C 6Pw11pI NraN ,FOfp]aW PFPat C6,LN[IV 91AF{ .=m= 50 =11=1 f - w or m Imes m rA xL �rN �,tax,.k„I. wY IAA a uNas 6 ftw� xxrm6 96u LL a ;r alit SIUY Y a•Inu1q gr NILgp a OIfQ .xsal0 u.91m TM]IR6x 1N RIVK Ao aul6xc 61LillaC61 a � ro�ea s,w1 v wr LusLx wu6vc,lo x mlAnc,a ssyL �SJe9, ns Rn NM mnnr.saa rs61 ns m Lxtm. ua :ns ooln. ' ur dfaNl6 aI0 9ARU41S N[ NaA10.t0 rroL v M 6Lii6Im P.H6 +,x � Tu1 !i[ Ilnlxl OPCll4 lua PN}rI.AT[It M%a Nu11 aL.Np. r & ®A4EV.lnY Snlu CGm1i NAM 61 *MWC 0.506'raL YO WIAl1xG + SNaRN Sl 114145 NxN b S1YII v aA: 1 W k^aR.'muN 14 4LGaP Lip �1VI sou x: +mm� T' M (LaJaffi 6 am{ x IilaaVa aM .°raa51U P[ TRO x5txw NAOIE wo[ 1�} 1 II. ,x vN.s aIw p sou +Lw s nsv15e1 m sm up 1EP[PI nor rN•A wreC5a1 x45 ®I tslla4 6r ANdx:0..tiRti !IA 16]145 i "fxaNwC u6m' U[ a xu naLdw Bur ux INL10 T Svtlt4 ,wAG uez 6rm x us u+o vlmsew, wouml 6n I !2 RSln1A5 6 fMLL wr wN1G w[ tp H Sa61wS !n H a1A4•C xO H SH!tt Rsva 1wR N RYlL 9EOIC u�[C1nL l5 �'I iS -WL4➢ mAbIC III% l� RF4rFM16 a11WIMY nll Se0 ' . xu:610 %9AAlR0 IO e[ WLIlC IW Sxta, RnfJd HLES b 'G:!S: 6 Ox.SLaA N]6 S,a rxOR v MLR ORSfs6116f>0101 14. r sa6 Cg1FfN4 5' a KiTGI Muir WO taS(a� S1 SL6[ x!f 10 ' ;- a wlm wM urcnlm xwn s,xaK .xo Ilpe[m .m ,Sa+L6,N +tam sgtp, :`: �4 ,ClANp1 K u£lurl,I 9u11 6 W[f a,xOVr x14 xerP,1 /n.P'N I'/ W, P/.'A�N1m rrxnm plus nX Nona A� OvII av M A1pF IFSiID wa4 ro rxrL IMSI xn %9111 avac a L1NlM Al �,•. Hl Na/15�Oktp� �ia6gl N�1RIr14NRVl YW trNN ju Iqq rtgr; mels v sxr 1¢caa5 Slrvx.n mNM N6 jarrrrn611 ngen w xomas wsx rx artwc [dAllfp sou xa6r sE Sm5 mdnx w cm M.x n x4 Iw snwl6 6 nt LOGttM 6 xtr s4s r2'SOStI mn wan. u61 xw6® wmL 9r4a axw t serlm, Lmm ws wnaow6 nNa A mnxn w ns roe weeps s6 m x xLasr mmr nw, A x.x a,arm nK rNS ro smsl,wtwll. ma6s¢ A sA5 Nrmr W II._6na`ti� ,LPs Ia za,. senna -rT.._ rinlLao n.s a1 ao o«ax, .IUa„l sxs ersNSx xxx .m _ seA u w u.� . �>,. R[ uev96en cx uaml � ! 14Vt9NL tta re>sq.0 R91LT61 x e®wa %N awxo L 6 rN lao arsaxe.l BxvA caoL IonLl RADING NOTES f L • wac �mlwr m was. K asrla 1 e%n ,. K.K.IIY xAR 6a6n5CIW aiY6$ �1L NAW NI9.RSm i }. i 14�u%M%,1 nLL 9O( A>� � u� IR1i416 wA1a M xO u I `IS'+laTlRA1L' �,P wE.rrn Axo�rvr l.Ln j u6iwA rvwau,n6OxNC- la ��'. taAw[�C�rv'.tt�tl. ui aM `E 6, wwrr rlal m,6+m wr aNm rw xl nx �G 9vKM� aMwfINO LL6NIOd xifiNS A M tl!M W eIIW o,Ne LN l�1 ' LViEL k qRt x fiY v.nvl AS nE E•,n q � uA1,a[ our K 9v5 E.60uA xM ,O IfSAYK' 11 of ML�wlswpT b�`i9u X- 2 ..uxaa sf..as ir+r0z "'x evmwe wpoulpn �wNx xm nx ra zsa, jj�a��rolm�r,L,N_aw�a ���rsne�s Pa �euawa"�`m`°nne.rx ��'au�r +tel,raorrs CONSTRUCTION NOTES �wr 1rs.�.lxarn aN -..e,. Q. mwT.x Lrix 6Nrz a.,,sx a mmnutw nn ®� wr.w n►� �a nv�'�`�'.aer�'"�"OA °O" •r,o a au .r no. o.o.� © mewxl x' nas � a,�r RV mmnia w (.7 rd%,wl r .0 „v..w foram A a s.a s,u o,r1 �m1o. m rs � wnsa. ® uxG' r.E N . ebx v r e,a tm�p puz v r na rarm(e.virx eunp. pqP . � mesr%+ 6Aa m Nr e»s ma o ta. p awuL .x re s. ,o wx �.n srM aa11. �wp1i� r.t N5 eLnw6 .rI „:s6L 1. m6wCr , %a Pro of A Lst fat a% ® oorewn r. am tw. ra nonna wxE rw La.eie Io.a, d msi '+'Fi Pa.M . aew417 INFILTRATION DETAIm �X' b INFILTRATION SECTFONI-I w.. ro A euluwN � i t SECTIO,ar m 4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN � o SCALE: o 2 � O yy Q m O Q _j a F � n a wcr I 4,reora r NEAaea3 Nm6a ■ aPU � , v� nllola � o L q w n a m � sk cfl 4N d �A ass •c0.`- f� `�° ,�, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN � o SCALE: o 2 � O yy Q m O Q _j a F � n a wcr I 4,reora r u—AL--- SECTION B -B 'L� M M11- SOIL (!_uR D_EFA�1La praN m xr-A16 r`am.1a 16fa'4I� �I� fi 760.017rw.� d� 6 Leo o� NEW SNGLE FA41LY HOUSE FF 682.00 rs eon ,.Q 36 PAD 681.50 S'SJ E71. AVG. ELEV =(583.96) roLrrw EM. HIGHEST ELEV.- (685.32) o E%. LOWEST ELEV.= (882-59) L-l.Me GMAx IT 687 60 , , -j .n PAO 88,.70 I `i 95' Le9�. � eai�� Iila SA � frx �w�i 1 t R. 44 NjNL.N) ��• PC.ulp° I r+ SL6ar.aAU[�e Lw LEGEND / 1La6Jia7up6heb -rxsw mnow R .6,v �41IA N�fllfm \j�_ - -_m YIILrsa 1�_rataa,v SF4 ' II ■ " R o� �.f NI,Nn t,� ytl��1 I �1} i ! I fiw.�aar 11l I I I d / a Owl I NEAaea3 Nm6a ■ aPU � , v� nllola (xN K1n @OW Mv•lU a g0.��n q as rsaPa isb N rt, aec %M ,v rt. u—AL--- SECTION B -B 'L� M M11- SOIL (!_uR D_EFA�1La praN m xr-A16 r`am.1a 16fa'4I� �I� fi 760.017rw.� d� 6 Leo o� NEW SNGLE FA41LY HOUSE FF 682.00 rs eon ,.Q 36 PAD 681.50 S'SJ E71. AVG. ELEV =(583.96) roLrrw EM. HIGHEST ELEV.- (685.32) o E%. LOWEST ELEV.= (882-59) L-l.Me GMAx IT 687 60 , , -j .n PAO 88,.70 I `i 95' Le9�. � eai�� Iila SA � frx �w�i 1 t R. 44 NjNL.N) ��• PC.ulp° I r+ SL6ar.aAU[�e Lw LEGEND / 1La6Jia7up6heb -rxsw mnow R .6,v �41IA N�fllfm \j�_ - -_m YIILrsa 1�_rataa,v SF4 ' II ■ " R o� �.f NI,Nn t,� ytl��1 I �1} i ! I fiw.�aar 11l I I I d / a Owl I i,Lk Ilt IG. FPIILW e"ma:r'nia5'Ar�ui s,, a of °+'�� le umrW sm �.iry 4 Pm�irr�iM.w � x,%e paw_ 611 -Ox' SURLY 8A51$ x,ALAlroOn d' 6rAY)gY �ee0M0.w rt w¢ w e,y t9e � a � er4 au L �4� EARTN= �� +LLEa +a'6ax[aor__ ma K6�Ll�ta swrleasx.rfa lxaws6nw xess see rfnerlvawe 1Nlrr ax5%� Ab N sme aN1c �kII I it ffws sN, lilt } it a� o - I � I • i II rPROJ SITE � - 1 (+A VICIhIITY MAP N.T.s i,Lk Ilt IG. FPIILW e"ma:r'nia5'Ar�ui s,, a of °+'�� le umrW sm �.iry 4 Pm�irr�iM.w � x,%e paw_ 611 -Ox' SURLY 8A51$ x,ALAlroOn d' 6rAY)gY �ee0M0.w rt w¢ w e,y t9e � a � er4 au L �4� EARTN= �� +LLEa +a'6ax[aor__ ma K6�Ll�ta swrleasx.rfa lxaws6nw xess see rfnerlvawe 1Nlrr ax5%� Ab N sme aN1c �kII I it ffws sN, lilt } it a� o - I � I • i II