No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1d - 1800 Wilson Appealelu su.v'15., 19�i STAFF REPORT ��lUni[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 APPROVE SINGLE - FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 14 -26 AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. THE 14 -16 FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 1800 WILSON AVENUE 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 6,025 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence at 1800 Wilson Avenue. The subject property is located within the Highlands Homeowners' Association. However, the design review application was processed by the City because the Architectural Review Board did not have a Chairperson to process applications at the time. Planning Services approved Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26 on April 17, 2014, based on the determination that the proposal meets the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Due to a typographical error in the original approval letter, a revised approval letter was issued on May 27, 2014. The City received two letters of appeal on June 4, 2014. One was submitted by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan and the other letter was jointly filed by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Lori Gamez, to appeal 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, Mr. George Zordilla, Mr. Alan Stanchfield, Ms. Lori Gamez, and Ms. April A Seymour jointly filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approved the subject applications — see the attached appeal letter to the City Council. It is Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 2 of 8 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 City Council 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 -26 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -16 were initially submitted on February 13, 2014, and February 26, 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 Michelle Scatchard, Alan and Vonnie Stanchfield, Sheri and Carlos Bermejo, and Naneen Leavenworth related to privacy, the size of the proposed new house, and its compatibility with the neighborhood. These comments were considered, and on April 17, 2014, Planning Services conditionally approved Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26, based on staff's determination that the proposal would meet the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and be consistent with City Council Resolution No. 6770. A condition of approval was added to require that the stone veneer on the second floor above the front entry be removed and replaced with a stucco finish to match the rest of the residence. THE 14- 16 was approved on March 24, 2014. The approval letter for SFADR 14 -26 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, two appeals were filed with the City. One was filed by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan, and the other was jointly filed by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Lori Gamez. The Planning Commission, at its special meeting on July 29, 2014, considered the appeals at a public hearing and denied the appeals and approve the subject applications by a vote of 3 to 1, with one Commissioner absent. The Commissioners who voted to approve the project found the design to be consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 3 of 8 The Commissioner who voted to deny the project felt that the design review should be referred to the ARB for review and consideration. An excerpt of the minutes of the July 29, 2014, Planning Commission meeting is attached. On August 5, 2014, Mr. George Zordilla, Mr. Alan Stanchfield, Ms. Lori Gamez, 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 submitted to the Planning Commission, with additional information on the procedures, additional signatures of support, and photos. DISCUSSION The subject property is a 16,070 square -foot interior lot zoned R -1- 10,000 &D. An aerial photo of the area and photos of the subject property are attached. The subject property is currently improved with a 1,722 square -foot, one -story residence with an attached two -car garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and build a new 6,025 square -foot, two - story, single - family residence with three, attached garage spaces. The floor plan includes five (5) bedrooms, five (5) full bathrooms, a half bathroom, a library, a kitchen with a wok room, a dining room, a living room, a family room, and a home theater. The architectural style is Country French, featuring a smooth concrete tile roof, stone veneer, brick headers, stained -wood front door and garage doors, and smooth stucco finish, as shown on the attached plans. The plans are consistent with the R -1 Zoning Code, the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) and City Council Resolution No. 6770. Copies of the Guidelines and Resolution 6770 are included in the City Council's agenda packet. The proposal is a two -story house in an area that consists mostly of single -story homes. The adjacent home to the north is developed with a 3,959 square -foot, two -story residence. To the south of the subject property, the ARB recently approved a 5,526 - square -foot, single- story, single - family residence. The proposed house is appropriately modulated and articulated, with the second floor of the building recessed from the first floor on the front and side elevations. The overall building height is proposed at 28' -6" from the average existing grade, where a maximum of 30' -0" is permitted by Code. Staff found the stone veneer on the second floor to have a heavy appearance and imposed a condition to remove the stone veneer on the second floor above the front entry and have a stucco finish to be consistent with the rest of the residence. Appellants' Comments Two appeal letters were submitted to the Planning Commission on the subject proposal. The first appeal letter was submitted by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan, a developer who finds the approval of this project to be inconsistent with the ARB's denial of his single -story proposal with a steeply - pitched roof to the south of the subject property at 1760 Wilson Avenue. A revised design with a lower- pitched roof was subsequently approved by the ARB. Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 4 of 8 The second appeal letter was submitted by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Lori Gamez. The attached appeal letter to the Planning Commission pointed out procedural and design issues on this design review. On procedural issues, the appellants state that the City processed the design review when it should have gone to the HOA ARB for their review and consideration, and that the City did not follow the proper procedures when reviewing the plans. On design issues, the appellants pointed out size, height, bulk, entry, architectural style, landscaping, and obstruction of views to be of particular concern. The attached PowerPoint document was presented by the appellants to provide images of the surrounding neighborhood and highlight their perceived design issues. The appellants also presented an introductory PowerPoint document for all of the design review appeals, which is included in the agenda packet. The appeal letter includes specific comments on the height of the entry porch, emphasizing the verticality of the entry, stone veneer adding to the mass and bulk of the building, a roof that is higher than those of the surrounding homes, and that the overall building height of 28'- 6" creates too much height disparity from the other homes in the area. The appellants obtained signatures of support from 23 other neighbors within this area to oppose this project. A copy of the appeal letter to the Planning Commission, with the additional signatures, is attached. The appeal letter to the City Council was filed by Mr. George Zordilla, Mr. Alan Stanchfield, Ms. Lori Gamez, and Ms. April A Seymour. The appeal letter states additional issues with the procedures, issues with the City Attorney's advice to the Planning Commission to not consider the procedural issues, and Commissioner Chiao's misunderstanding of the Code's height requirements and the applicability of design review. A copy of the appeal letter to the City Council is attached. Staff's Response to Comments Mr. Chan's concern is with the consistency of the ARB's decisions and does not relate to any specific design concerns. Mr. Chan's proposal at 1760 Wilson Avenue was for a single -story design with a steeply - pitched roof and the denial was based on an alternative design sketch with a lower roof that was presented at the hearing. A revised design with a lower roof was subsequently approved by the ARB. In regards to the procedural issues, Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26 was initially submitted on February 13, 2014, when the ARB still did not have a Chairperson in place to process design review applications. If the City did not begin processing this application, this project could have been deemed approved by default after 30 working days (March 27, 2014) according to Section 5(E)(5) of Resolution No. 6770. In that case, neither the City nor the ARB would have had the opportunity to comment on the architectural design of the proposal. Staff had consulted with the City Attorney about the ARB not having a Chairperson and was advised that the City should process the design reviews through the City's design review process. Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 5 of 8 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. If they are considered relevant and appropriate, the comments are taken into account in formulating the decision, which is not made before the expiration of the comment period. Staff received the two attached comment letters and an email in response to the Notice of Pending Decision for the subject proposal. The neighbors expressed concerns about privacy, the size of the proposed home, and its incompatibility in that it is substantially larger than the existing homes. Staff invited the neighbors to review the plans of the proposal. One of the neighbors did review the plans at the counter, and commented that the design of the proposal was attractive. In response to the design issues, the proposal is adequately modulated and articulated with the second floor having significantly less floor area than the first floor, which provides a lighter appearance of the second floor. Staff concurred with the appellants' comment about the inconsistency of the roof pitch of the second floor area above the entry, and therefore recommended a condition of approval to reduce the roof pitch over this portion of the building to be consistent with the rest of the house. Staff presented the attached PowerPoint document to the Planning Commission that provided images of the proposed home and neighborhood and the appellants' issues and staff's findings. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing mature trees in the front yard area, which includes a 42" trunk diameter live oak tree, and an 18" trunk diameter sweet gum tree. The applicant is also proposing to plant two (2) 36" box London plane trees in the front yard area. Screening shrubs are also proposed along the side property lines to promote privacy. The screening shrubs will be approximately five to six feet tall when first planted, and should grow quickly to provide screening along the side property lines. The second floor windows facing the sides are smaller in size and are five feet above the finished floor to promote privacy for the adjoining neighbors. Included in the City Council's agenda packet are the correspondence (16 emails & one letter) that was submitted to the Planning Commission for the design review appeals. Oak Tree Encroachment The proposed development will encroach into the protected area of one oak tree in the front yard area, as shown on the attached Landscape Plan. Certified Arborist 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 this oak tree. The recommended tree protection measures are included as a condition of approval. Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 6 of 8 Based on the foregoing, the proposal was found to meet the City's Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 and approval of the proposed design and Oak Tree Encroachment was recommended to the Planning Commission with the following changes in response to the appellants' comments: 1. Recess the second floor area above the entry a minimum of 5' -0 ". 2. Lower the top plate height of the first and second floors from 10' -0" and 9' -0 ", to 9' -6" and 9' -0 ", respectively. 3. Remove the stone veneer on the first floor and replace with a stucco finish. 4. Reduce the pitch of the roof from 5:12 to 4:12. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated that they were agreeable to making these changes, and presented the attached PowerPoint document in response to the appellants' assertions. CONCLUSIONS The proposal, subject to the following conditions of approval, is consistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770: 1. The applicant/property owner shall follow all findings and recommendations as listed in the arborist report dated February 2014, and amended on March 28, 2014. 2. The proposed project shall be developed and maintained by the applicant/property owner in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and approved by SFADR 14 -26 and THE 14 -16, and shall include the following changes: a. Recess the second floor area above the entry a minimum of 5' -0 ". b. Lower the top plate height of the first and second floors from 10' -0" and 9' -0 ", to 9' -6" and 9' -0 ", respectively. C. Remove the stone veneer on both levels of the home and replace with a stucco finish. d. Reduce the pitch of the roof from 5:12 to 4:12 for the entire home. 3. 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 Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 7 of 8 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. 4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 5. Approval of SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after Planning Commission approval of these applications, the property owner and applicant have executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the development of a single - family residence is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on August 21, 2014, to the owners of those properties within the required notification area — see the attached notification area map — as well as to the applicant, appellants, the HOA President, and the previous and current ARB Chairpersons. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will have no significant fiscal impact on the City. Appeal — SFADR 14 -26 & THE 14 -16 1800 Wilson Avenue September 2, 2014 — Page 8 of 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and approve the proposed design, subject to the aforementioned conditions of approval. Approved: Dominic Lazzar City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photo Photos of the Subject Property Proposed Plans Appeal Letter to City Council Appeal Letter from Mr. Chan to Planning Commission Appeal Letter from Ms. Seymour & Ms. Gamez to Planning Commission Appellants' PowerPoint to Planning Commission Neighbors' Comment Letters and Email Arborist Report Minutes Excerpt of the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Staff's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Applicant's PowerPoint to Planning Commission Notification Area Map One copy of the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770 for the four appeals are included separately in the September 2, 2014 City Council agenda packet. Also included separately are copies of 16 emails in opposition to the proposed new homes, and one letter in support of the projects, and the Appellants' Introductory PowerPoint document. L J I � W M.1 Site Address: 1800 WILSON "E Property Owner(s): Bowden Development Inc. _ � •. � . � T r aim ti L10 +i N91JA104 L"f Property Characteristics Zoning: R -1 (10,000) General Plan: VLDR Lot Area (sq ft): 16,070 Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): 1,722 Year Built: 1950 Number of Units: 0 Overlays Parking Overlay: n/a Downtown Overlay: n/a Special Height Overlay: n/a Architectural Design Overlay: D 4 f ;LA ft he 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. i 5 y r R -1 IN i I i Selected parcel highlighted G os /E Parcel location within City of Arcadia" Report generated 22 -Jul -2014 Page 1 of 1 View of the neighboring property to the south at 1760 Wilson Avenue ' + u.toc � � lavrnxa am,-< rte- 1l °r,xx"u"<aen.cm. vn :ten Jo �. (rrva� tnw Nu IBB'03'43'YY iB0.74' _ nio- retm�i � n n f 1. NEWPOM&SPA M'FUER SEPARATE PERMIT) a• aul. P.ut �` M n�n..n mr, ar 1 6• q!ET.r PAIn m [ Ita[I. � a�a 5 x10io �LP4 m m .w o �� S _r -, ddd •Pa.•.w. PROJECT SUMMARY I11 �� 1�1'� ' �•f t>K 7� 1 R � i wn�i wvi mArxrt z • a 6m — } "I 4A s I L E -- - - - - -- s,wcnwknw i €t € • p� R' r�mMii N855T7Bw 170 01' Grp rd ffi� pr,E �3 l+rearsl <Pa rm l,r� l i twrr.= T rNNF 1 �' .-r. m.a -,� rc'rJr>•M. ma.] + m nm0fisa.: F169EP t 1 �.J �•�' '} sv'�icuc uvu PLMTLCCE0n _ SITE PLAN ''•°'��"' •1 �`� � staaa ra1Nt 4 yam � m�, $L>uJ:: ,.. ;p � — ''1 r. •+ ° ^-" SHEET INDEX - �2- F` mu wera tryalna rrauttt rmrmwn oFinar 3EItErW ilOtE& SINGLE & MULTI FAMILY DYIELLING5 tea .!w<ntrna a�naa ttnrntt of star xmax m trss .» tnxa�- rwte s i r ,na- ra ` a�`aO1t1Orn.�a. n°�i�r mot- �`i.srr F Lsi M SPIT co LER R i ! w • Y° W 1. W w+ a ow�.wz prow yp�yR� � pals r- °wLmte -' FIRf SPRINIQEA REQUTAEMEMS twf M PW, nawN . _ _ _ r�[� _ �r •14 �'k xSSOP,rrS r�- �� � -� atrytrpn t.]C f[UK ry( nop ri[ aanatn'r Isar �' R NMx9 m M rc.:p <p}ynOa Q- MOD.uI� mfr trot iw-,m w to ,t.n s.atM trrn.� o- M m T¢ n .s � .ri w:o w a owar °wmem.cpOLm°nwc w'm'.wc a .xexw•a ee=r wvo t va{- ww« .< �cawc. ra u mre r]+x ne tnr.n .°.o°.umY�at<.°'i'•`� ®w � wnt�w mn�rry 1 � —� ac ayws� m t..y ..> -ao.o � LL! >.R Y -v +�oim. Sw[- xo nn -rwa. arumiaa�c mr ac wMw.®Ciao =nm yam w is ru f 1 ~'•°- M wsm R�oaaetwc^ } o� n rw< omc u� x M.a� w nc �iea Is :wom iaa,a} ZO u Q rtr�- m�ia�aw��ic s,W� QP�R rar �_ p S oEFERRFO SUeMmA,s R GENERAL NOTES u w Q ui M•• rm to viaivim TT Nmf+OrNh�� `� - _�' ^~! __� WIOII:♦tMCN11ECt J o. wo].u� �a -aae� rt,<s,tt� a swvea T: w< n , t_, ,, i �_ E t•sr :,a-m. ° L7 O () owucl, a[ wa m rrtt, l.a�ta+ uoa tan mv- rn r �- -.vaa aR.al. � a ota.m tm x wm oR .a t.o n.., ra.�+on ran m,nn tmr ! •j ,,�' �i w,t US a' M Q MRwus,StMq<w.q��ammw i>�_Y 3l EE G r x awnsa Snv .mhm. 1 ; SEE t'l]1/1 [MI un nwt wK .Sewn WP �vP w� �tl. 1 � HA. m n a 4e/S0. pL ,pyq 1 _ sv.sastuuim= emu wa wit I S- _.-- _. - -`. -_ yT -1 $ FIRE DEPT. REQUIREMENT 7 AVE. FRONT BETHACI(75 Y $ MINI Y MAP § GONSU4TINO ENGHiEERNiG $ t i iTMii ur'�q.i] ES', I tY t1� R o v sl _csrsi t9 ' + u.toc � � lavrnxa am,-< rte- 1l °r,xx"u"<aen.cm. vn :ten Jo �. (rrva� tnw Nu IBB'03'43'YY iB0.74' _ nio- retm�i � n n f 1. NEWPOM&SPA M'FUER SEPARATE PERMIT) a• aul. P.ut �` M n�n..n mr, ar 1 6• q!ET.r PAIn m [ Ita[I. � a�a 5 x10io �LP4 m m .w o �� S _r -, ddd •Pa.•.w. PROJECT SUMMARY I11 �� 1�1'� ' �•f t>K 7� 1 R � i wn�i wvi mArxrt z • a 6m — } "I 4A s I L E -- - - - - -- s,wcnwknw i €t € • p� R' r�mMii N855T7Bw 170 01' Grp rd ffi� pr,E �3 l+rearsl <Pa rm l,r� l i twrr.= T rNNF 1 �' .-r. m.a -,� rc'rJr>•M. ma.] + m nm0fisa.: F169EP t 1 �.J �•�' '} sv'�icuc uvu PLMTLCCE0n _ SITE PLAN ''•°'��"' •1 �`� � staaa ra1Nt 4 yam � m�, $L>uJ:: ,.. ;p � — ''1 r. •+ ° ^-" SHEET INDEX - �2- F` mu wera tryalna rrauttt rmrmwn oFinar 3EItErW ilOtE& SINGLE & MULTI FAMILY DYIELLING5 tea .!w<ntrna a�naa ttnrntt of star xmax m trss .» tnxa�- rwte s i r ,na- ra ` a�`aO1t1Orn.�a. n°�i�r mot- �`i.srr F Lsi M SPIT co LER R i ! w • Y° W 1. W w+ a ow�.wz prow yp�yR� � pals r- °wLmte -' FIRf SPRINIQEA REQUTAEMEMS twf M PW, nawN . _ _ _ r�[� _ �r •14 �'k xSSOP,rrS r�- �� � -� atrytrpn t.]C f[UK ry( nop ri[ aanatn'r Isar �' R NMx9 m M rc.:p <p}ynOa Q- MOD.uI� mfr trot iw-,m w to ,t.n s.atM trrn.� o- M m T¢ n .s � .ri w:o w a owar °wmem.cpOLm°nwc w'm'.wc a .xexw•a ee=r wvo t va{- ww« .< �cawc. ra u mre r]+x ne tnr.n .°.o°.umY�at<.°'i'•`� ®w � wnt�w mn�rry 1 � —� ac ayws� m t..y ..> -ao.o � LL! >.R Y -v +�oim. Sw[- xo nn -rwa. arumiaa�c mr ac wMw.®Ciao =nm yam w is ru f 1 ~'•°- M wsm R�oaaetwc^ } o� n rw< omc u� x M.a� w nc �iea Is :wom iaa,a} ZO u Q rtr�- m�ia�aw��ic s,W� QP�R rar �_ p S oEFERRFO SUeMmA,s R GENERAL NOTES u w Q ui M•• rm to viaivim TT Nmf+OrNh�� `� - _�' ^~! __� WIOII:♦tMCN11ECt J o. wo].u� �a -aae� rt,<s,tt� a swvea T: w< n , t_, ,, i �_ E t•sr :,a-m. ° L7 O () owucl, a[ wa m rrtt, l.a�ta+ uoa tan mv- rn r �- -.vaa aR.al. � a ota.m tm x wm oR .a t.o n.., ra.�+on ran m,nn tmr ! •j ,,�' �i w,t US a' M Q MRwus,StMq<w.q��ammw i>�_Y 3l EE G r x awnsa Snv .mhm. 1 ; SEE t'l]1/1 [MI un nwt wK .Sewn WP �vP w� �tl. 1 � HA. m n a 4e/S0. pL ,pyq 1 _ sv.sastuuim= emu wa wit I S- _.-- _. - -`. -_ yT -1 $ FIRE DEPT. REQUIREMENT 7 AVE. FRONT BETHACI(75 Y $ MINI Y MAP § GONSU4TINO ENGHiEERNiG $ FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1-w. r w nsa we �rnlu . Vv .th h %rN iml ffi Ml � L4 YYL 0� • YY ..e NITER FFF WC V S CONSERVATIDN (] noon PI Lc"mo DENER N 7= nrMaN)Ne s..prar[ - mZ TE DA i ht - .�m•iiwvn O0•�°` u`w _ r�uoc`!.`o.0 1 _ _ a. rarer w .a°i . w ..<m 0a wu n.r �v aau+x .Q wa iu ww mr Y.b� nuYia wi a .rmr rassm ..o rn .L� •.1PSS w MM'mi ./twwl MnV nApswc�Y �w�x�1�.�% �Y n,.��11K mv.vM Rte olvAli VuaYY I.uRrts. @w. ..0 lYS . �v�.� Na P Lls IPb W 4 M�3 tcv - r1o�.F•.0 x.pr. Yu. nm W4 •.-fit' or .lna ue vm..ss idiom �...qM w� ��.- vfrW L rw'w. YIml1 nmu IYnM YA r .r.. onM �, ow••.L •lWt mntl .nn a.�u b�.��ti w.°�'n wi an nw ' r�ai w�j°i.�i°1q rd�','u°bnime rc�x. me .new eow � o, maa. seui �m.�.a %•n �^ . ��n, � YY.n�•�°w. ostaMOio. a�xna � ��� � �� warsRra � +"n z M :� �. man fill IT rY• �-� Ya.raa .w..x . rw. m �• noon p -� Y.E.O DM.kvO. Y . can . ne .rorta YL.gw. �� r"w.°aSio.cn e0j!i -Rj �.°A°°°v m'n° e°Ynsn""}a�. °�.>•ry :�.w..oronN '°�°`°'m`•e os. �.w.� � �` �j� � �` !�'��€ x. �b'ti -Nr -Nr t4io siv mr wa ��vLal� •rr�nvcru °r cn. s � �/>o/�wv. lLVK.te.c ✓C ron m mwLr nrn rnw [m YYM1S � .mc m arLr [oc .o. i i YLl m a wpcu¢r.�i�! w�tn .vuwtt¢_ f� .a.l�v a �i/.al Y ro ". ��r�. �Q w•.r..b� lo.c Q . x �.w .....e. ium u. c..¢t�•oe..wm N .w.w Y.. r ru.rum ...r vwar Y6 LU �M �a o� J S Z . 3 se cc A- ■ FAM SECOND FLOOR PLAN R 1,9250... ❑ aooR vuH,ECerw as Y4. gyp w ,Y brow TrIV- wvJ. �wv m.m tum abm,w i .�d ui w5 ,a ltN v pawn outwRwR rt. wV - p2 mw NM • OIMa) wa r.v .Y ww V wwawAi� MnY .,mc errs �n ari�ai�� �c,.nrs,sa vmc �n-»a. • .i�.so e� +�.i`ir� o. a ru . n �M'i4pwf mwa�'wIR � .d tt -.-, wmrc ,:, a rn ...a m �r «,� aava m. ww ono.® a.om .x ,ruv� nvn � ams w w..w m na res: 4 vA! W,bc v w. � m rmot wwm W lac w�vASt.•Ow-R5 .V uRVP�a vi+fA�Awla[t�m ,fie w•�Mfy `a',a�r.�gm u,p�sr . s_ -1.I1 -CV Pdt� .rv{ mu-CS s YL M1x awl. wlwlrwar v,w. u� Y atm wa. vama ao = �� e9wd�rw. s w�uar,m n �.o O o Q m� n ,cn�iian uw .ra Ron i1 4lii111 2 oil SECOND FLOOR PLAN R 1,9250... ❑ aooR vuH,ECerw as Y4. gyp w ,Y brow TrIV- wvJ. �wv m.m tum abm,w i .�d ui w5 ,a ltN v pawn outwRwR rt. wV - p2 mw NM • OIMa) wa r.v .Y ww V wwawAi� MnY .,mc errs �n ari�ai�� �c,.nrs,sa vmc �n-»a. • .i�.so e� +�.i`ir� o. a ru . n �M'i4pwf mwa�'wIR � .d tt -.-, wmrc ,:, a rn ...a m �r «,� aava m. ww ono.® a.om .x ,ruv� nvn � ams w w..w m na res: 4 vA! W,bc v w. � m rmot wwm W lac w�vASt.•Ow-R5 .V uRVP�a vi+fA�Awla[t�m ,fie w•�Mfy `a',a�r.�gm u,p�sr . s_ -1.I1 -CV Pdt� .rv{ mu-CS s YL M1x awl. wlwlrwar v,w. = Y atm wa. vama ao = �� e9wd�rw. s w�uar,m n �.o O m� n ,cn�iian uw .ra ��. ul UJ NmRi.n E Q a o " LL�a -w ul zmQ ..... I F-- -- L ROOF PLAN �1FNA.,�u.1rt.. CIF a1en 7`.tl -. OA71: NO Fw.l 1W Wd•snn•w meFiw W,rwlwn �vUmwq'G+9 Alm NBb M�AlT��M Oti Yi1r .yli 411i bfl �V Pb}�.btidlr� IYyj�baliYnwndM _ _� 1> yf W �°�0°° P16M/. �lnhon Tlwlq r � �s.Fr�w+s aewwfrrWsou...ea.. p.snn..bw �4fra � a FbM'tntibl EMlw,E earwewnFmw.u. F �� 3� Y,ei..,. iedipN M6r Fb bl. bYn d �3� F,PKX MaG!•AS4CAlIE �1 � R 6MMw1 ia,a�b .da• Q •I BuiuCWw gw�nurlalID ifMl n�lrt61.FI41R. N .i .. 4swlHAfwU rr. �ii E![� ttee55 (CLASS W) CONC. ROOF TILE WHCC #ESR -1990 1 Ell 9ti =yl�ts�F jj�'SS'[ ASNRAESWxbWy.2T. i., "° �rmsa2s • ° m. a "x~ x s x x x A 1 >6 x NL 'Af _ 11 N 1 �5 55 NI. 1(I. 125 93 W YMOLE- BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM DUCT SIRE 2 y .r ul Q � � U NOTES LL y __ Q Nra m.ww n. mar .•`..a�� `aa mwoat.+.ai =j �] J V1 r Q RGOF GALLS su ftm nNw 4a noor_�b wrtJ�v NA 261418 -> rt A -3 GENERAL NOTES 3 I I W�M"u V ,1v Yr�✓✓I cNle^'A` uNd, q N,T rs 4 psTa,.e,nrTr� Q ELEYATON KEY NOTES: 1. COW,R TE.EWITH ICCfBR 19W. PP.O911CT HaiAwx, L BT COBMOOTNFFBBN. BT'MELki'v A1B 1 B• NAU RODNO METAL RAIN GOTER(MVSFET BRGWNF 4 ]'B OOw116POlff WITR LEADER NTAO RNRKET BROWNI. 7 Ix WOOOENOWMTH BRD1 UVrL,CID O.G LACR_ R WOOD TMIIBOW nRIi ALUMOiIIY GU.OBING. GGLGR: BNONLE. 7. woOOBTAINORAOEFRONTDODR. WOW MAIN GRADE WIAO DOOK I. MERNIR LIGHTING FIXTVRE By TORT 1lG G• NAME OVILO HALL. 10 METALCNB/ME O (NVSNETBROWNy. 11, F ®en<a1de3 REINFORCED V-."7 CONCRETE PHvbL T-0 YAXIYVM WEIGHT I. LeAJ80.FT. "r NmUMING h }3' BILL of F' YWLDING xY GP W 1B' MOVLOMG+<GP IL WROVDNT IRON RAIL COLOR RUCK IA a ft FOAM COVERED WI RNGCO COLOII TO MATGN BVBLING, 14. M STAIN GRADE WGW pm BEAMB BRACE /5-- IT— VIMBkR--- I'— WA.CY4Y ,h Ovc".-q LFwAST.wL" 3/li[E �'2NY +N 1 A-14 n SIDE ELtyATION , aN � al-- z 4 8$y a � 9 a W d . Z OV LL J Z26 {/a w ot Wz a » G 8 a�CAUUx� YAO�.flRdrW 9�RAiG SUd E 1n aAL mlPACI �aeiAAe L4mn vm sACE �'. 'eAIa�AA Luc'. H fl j?; � fIIU- ONUNII 0.M Vk� � QIFAIIY biFnliD 11.6' � 'lA'r06FN -. 'PAm: LF Y4t99A: FTC. �L WIO.fXW MF 41T 9P. �jg � � i [.N1Mn CangaAAxa 1ti6aw.Y,p 1m1c'1 ©� �a 5 C41W CU1 A PmemN 1a •n a r.-a.] W. As s VNTAN,. tA us . ff L3 w °Y. 31 IS UAL IVAMfSE PUM]R v4a1¢3 6 rt®uxvYNU_f165. s PUp, R U'A F 0 ] �: 7�i t _ luou6lw�L tiwNU17 1.W W. a 'AM Ys (inc :. itwxos*orax LLNRRIUS) � rmsc•Lam, wNwcrlAL muss ce 16 UAL M�f IAIl L14iFILUTA vWInS/91mgFiLT 9yP1 � 11.N Sf m' lCS 1A](•II uA Lpl>n � �L�IY1/ (AUFm61 n'- %0 4 1LPAAYP7 AGAwC xJ.11, 4m RV W1 mtnb3. ]Pi S. S tlg'E wA 101 M V11trA UM I16q �'S xuma4c w FPnL1 »ETMEX [AUi Au+vAmk 5 J6' nU.A YuvUar rw¢ 1NFE' GN011P10 (XIVFR5 1.]69 S. drt a mlli lss. s, Snsl _ ' _c IvuTUafs AFrnuuAy d P�NUNL AY• WUIIfIL LU141t6 W 1 LA11ml A' I�.m°n s 1 m�" ,ac` O °�sxQ F �:x�,• € • +YLAr m sN4r. n1LF 11 BUt 'wvc YTAM (I.L4i1RUFMA A[ILA'1 � �rur J F165n1a oAK m¢ r6anGa � sLnvas n11rF[ rLmPlmc 11� e [AxO./ 41)1L 9IX ♦ARp Y41 'f.m1C Pow i HUNT PNKWAY m nF wlnanmw 0., Bmt '1115 m.u1 IlAUhx (:1Px[S6' i AAfPi N1 [GI: UIUCIIUN RMATN iaW�� sFyAexwPxs 'UMi iv66Y') ; EYISiAAU U.LI4 A{ m Pp,Law�\ ANern6TS N[fmLxnA31o1� e' 141. 4PF 4 PF11Fl r A16) Wn' IO 9E >'OCL � -FA �I(U Y xLOOi MML ROU- 'AA611 COI/WL'IF OESUNG IhILI! !IL Al ti MR OWN to �� -_� .6M � nr lEt��l� xm�l a ®t6.���. o Y� tit If\'4l.6l► � �>. •� . F, r6�,i W pra ;'fir.,..z 1 I �: s ti MR OWN to �� Oil NUlt�, nwwaTamaaYT.nl wu N: 19M.c rTgTap Nmp N9aa LRAOING N07E5 , GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN i i Y1n TU4 u19y aopr allGr� x,91 Tr ¢n vxeunN aaall 4r xau. dauvia N9NQ L ' �;,, d x � d NCM111YRk�EK.[ •� 4 N ,7JON NOTES G i = = ,a m M a1n d alaow u Ic,ulc ranN9l ■o ®li al¢w9m I � 6166fa! 91Nt ■ d9Y /a Ni10TIL Mo NIVILNTIS A A ■.aNN � us 4IY6mis.ei As rm uo-t ' 11 S S 94111 N9d®TOl xalrbxrsaeNlswwaN� nnvr .9r bTet lax,ax., Tkd0.O Vaar 4mY6 Mtl O a " Om°r°NTO,a,o «r vwm E E > > ■ cs4n�. Ku9s9cbl d x S.f aYa'd a.a+an OaINKN N1T4 >e., K aT9 enm Td NQ Tlr n.la ♦ x aT9INN49 alNl Nn r9m x m® ass a. r, 9maY¢ � �° Iarr w � ® ®a,rwra r v moa. r•,Ile 1,r rwrtc.rx awI LEGAL DESCRIPRhf N N Orl I SURVEY 9A515 . r 41r uuo®l 9 ®fa[[ STICMS aK aNOaC3® N.nit ma ze n u r� n. �Tem, /IM Laamtl01 xf 9Wl E NMMR, N9.10i1 W M AIQ991 d x 9N3 9af �� 11Ya AIG wL Lm aCOa01 � m ®m,. a r n¢ c�irl��i[ . vw.tb y rNlr To.caN. � Ip� .e Nam o:raor oDt r� Ae.ri[ h- x 19Na19Tm orr en ®� .marl[ Tr nutsvrT � �v p YL �NBpIl�� ® 4i �rc+rer as w y n. swr a�T. "r aonw ryu. w�al�r'� w fMkCl. 9WL ,r[ 1T9m.TK Namrs m e TT W GV3 ar Iara,411 w la9uealxi rr wr¢1os i er x 104 urT4r wNnc "al�i y! � loYas IW.r•p i�[ 6th ©�rw o•r• aar lw xlew a•�. , I. n.> <,aaaurosmas�amnne¢alardlnr�vrcun mx lari .nil �1�.4 �1 «r...w .r .a. NU.la u�'o..lw lmo`�°"e°�Il. �x�•6` Nn ��maTa[Ta Nn rnaOe>b ON MY 4VQ119tur n TTr 9aaAT¢NNmxmrulrx= NIM 111®116Y oust 9WL N: NIrNm rl wT9rC al a1Q OLNNa[ Yl x Nn a N94iTA 4 TTafICOat ®w Pi 4T r rr l.l.r ns u! 4T MNUFD YLTTa Taa9d, K ®1.0 .lN RNas tarrmla NIN'- Aai aC M 4 V` 11 (OD K pl r rYl n[ w r>1a Na[ rr EARTHWM aaullNS arz l.! !s>d n ar wT ,nl n wTr. M ilrl d Trt YlT6 C9agta4 x ON10.1CQ 9ULL rrt01T2 a � ni � OONr. ,-r rr,tt r relusa mr w! .rn oa as r. n a `MA91xan.9l��xaxOr�.n m.saNF1Q a"w v'�'�I. m"°OO.�LA41 mni s�lwc�o�so.��`�••,m,•+w °o. M badOlb 9rtlr06 Nf yrN1.10110,. w Nra9Qa116 Nr mro rfL�nt Tmlrre T6FNt� 114 n Ta[ rr K YyGIa4lr MT aT [1¢11rS y• ® arsso. etW rNl xlTNI9 toTkMlf aT91TVM.AlI 4G I®l p9d1® t� o loci t•� m�� Inlf Aw 1, MlattS /a.Fao'! ♦ N9 antic sou muu><.c anon unurlo 141ITm nN.r 4a loa,s I,c ®rxr ITaNr rarru s..sr. 13 pa0a9[C! Ylfll4¢IS 9.N9afY5 xmnlTlr 91sT fYFrlllro I r ' � YICINMY Q U- I ry z a .. O U c y J a �� rn3a � U z°�a wwc N/¢Ta xlon lxNmnrra>oac rr artlr aril I Mis�_:.fp ,¢ pppyrt N N1i ao N9i'm 91aL E l001� m K �� Orr rIu a41m1f 69a1[ r aoourNUa N91 ala9m 16 K.4 i w�10>r1Pr9� w1N INf6G41! IMn4T6l fal9aru Nns a¢ loK1 OYIQ tral w50 Y Ir11aBIN[ p OIY.YIII IVPI n4 m�.0 9Nm ex woo 1191aL.Oa! Nal Its m [Ir95 �Q e.I.4r s iorc. as r �Tn r w---I /wa uue w I a. n p � asmrT,� 0.e l91[BJ4[ W1i.ed 41S _ _ wTVr an noon �J1, 11. ".d �•u n ,d WiYr. 4[ W. N.rltNe n x 0.a0K I1r �:.+c.ri �mr u°w,'O'we wa. •d, �� � a SXCa N1OP Irr m nw aaam.�a+al m � r ! 1Y we OifA1® RIOT NM TIa CITarAlal d IafaT9l F4 Saa NlT4N015 ! PER111T6 i Ivvinn � �... u 6r S I IIi 1 f, r.O[ M �1d �fOYa@ 10 MdNdi 40 SIIl1Y W901 Irn m _ -- OrrblraObONOftl1BClbl ¢111(11 ¢OxwA, }C>fa/'ERIl91/3 � Tal Ir _110._ -_- '" 4,uvTT�r,amN w w ia1' r1lo�mx.Wilo.a ac- rnslsrcltaw asst sa rr. l .,d sn rc aan sc rc , .o1v m rr. w . q ..� nrt'nflC!! � - -I.° - --0P+51RK,IW 8399 SQ R I, ]YI 50. R. 0.N! Sa. R. a9 Gf1S i!. n >•r(t (nlr 11cJ (¢w .w) (o.0 ,1G] (41. IICJ tNl1t•1'RxrrON SEC110N [PIFrI.7'AA77bn DETAIL® SECTION A -A SECTION i►•n LEGEND n m n e.lr ry�ranlo araTN - _marG.ala p JNr 91N'Itl a� Gum� .ABLE GIIRVE PA9N5 LENGT4 M1 I C1 E 770,00-1 74.79 S'3f 40• 1 � N N' ,•a N86'OS43•W #9 4i 4 v 0 �q F OR 1 _ , Aa ,,IwL IXI9W1l NaryL ao,la NEW 9NCLE fAMILYi#dL1t1FE fF PAD 705.30 1 � 1 EX. HAVG. ELEY. 7 EX. 2B) 1 w NNEST : &705.79) n u� EX LO'(IE4TT )6r(704.76) A1A.a PM ]9Ap � •lN I 1 1m` AYFQ1 _Q`m� vI 11 ''�M1'r fV ll TW!/Iq/ai 110! u.1, taO.74' r - IYS+•a+ p. f[> rua. Ii>y e' -1 ' O 4w. 1 rs mo � ; YCa 1x•.1 3 r 1 0- ,x1a 0 w MMO B m,� z LU'„ IL z0 1 C 3 N zw mwgd i Hh 3'ry� ci ,dam,. t9 � g° C -1 I r ' � YICINMY Q U- I ry z a .. O U c y J a �� rn3a � U z°�a wwc N/¢Ta xlon lxNmnrra>oac rr artlr aril I Mis�_:.fp ,¢ pppyrt N N1i ao N9i'm 91aL E l001� m K �� Orr rIu a41m1f 69a1[ r aoourNUa N91 ala9m 16 K.4 i w�10>r1Pr9� w1N INf6G41! IMn4T6l fal9aru Nns a¢ loK1 OYIQ tral w50 Y Ir11aBIN[ p OIY.YIII IVPI n4 m�.0 9Nm ex woo 1191aL.Oa! Nal Its m [Ir95 �Q e.I.4r s iorc. as r �Tn r w---I /wa uue w I a. n p � asmrT,� 0.e l91[BJ4[ W1i.ed 41S _ _ wTVr an noon �J1, 11. ".d �•u n ,d WiYr. 4[ W. N.rltNe n x 0.a0K I1r �:.+c.ri �mr u°w,'O'we wa. •d, �� � a SXCa N1OP Irr m nw aaam.�a+al m � r ! 1Y we OifA1® RIOT NM TIa CITarAlal d IafaT9l F4 Saa NlT4N015 ! PER111T6 i Ivvinn � �... u 6r S I IIi 1 f, r.O[ M �1d �fOYa@ 10 MdNdi 40 SIIl1Y W901 Irn m _ -- OrrblraObONOftl1BClbl ¢111(11 ¢OxwA, }C>fa/'ERIl91/3 � Tal Ir _110._ -_- '" 4,uvTT�r,amN w w ia1' r1lo�mx.Wilo.a ac- rnslsrcltaw asst sa rr. l .,d sn rc aan sc rc , .o1v m rr. w . q ..� nrt'nflC!! � - -I.° - --0P+51RK,IW 8399 SQ R I, ]YI 50. R. 0.N! Sa. R. a9 Gf1S i!. n >•r(t (nlr 11cJ (¢w .w) (o.0 ,1G] (41. IICJ tNl1t•1'RxrrON SEC110N [PIFrI.7'AA77bn DETAIL® SECTION A -A SECTION i►•n LEGEND n m n e.lr ry�ranlo araTN - _marG.ala p JNr 91N'Itl a� Gum� .ABLE GIIRVE PA9N5 LENGT4 M1 I C1 E 770,00-1 74.79 S'3f 40• 1 � N N' ,•a N86'OS43•W #9 4i 4 v 0 �q F OR 1 _ , Aa ,,IwL IXI9W1l NaryL ao,la NEW 9NCLE fAMILYi#dL1t1FE fF PAD 705.30 1 � 1 EX. HAVG. ELEY. 7 EX. 2B) 1 w NNEST : &705.79) n u� EX LO'(IE4TT )6r(704.76) A1A.a PM ]9Ap � •lN I 1 1m` AYFQ1 _Q`m� vI 11 ''�M1'r fV ll TW!/Iq/ai 110! u.1, taO.74' r - IYS+•a+ p. f[> rua. Ii>y e' -1 ' O 4w. 1 rs mo � ; YCa 1x•.1 3 r 1 0- ,x1a 0 w MMO B m,� z LU'„ IL z0 1 C 3 N zw mwgd i Hh 3'ry� ci ,dam,. t9 � g° C -1 Q U- I ry z a .. O U c y J a �� rn3a � U z°�a wwc N/¢Ta xlon lxNmnrra>oac rr artlr aril I Mis�_:.fp ,¢ pppyrt N N1i ao N9i'm 91aL E l001� m K �� Orr rIu a41m1f 69a1[ r aoourNUa N91 ala9m 16 K.4 i w�10>r1Pr9� w1N INf6G41! IMn4T6l fal9aru Nns a¢ loK1 OYIQ tral w50 Y Ir11aBIN[ p OIY.YIII IVPI n4 m�.0 9Nm ex woo 1191aL.Oa! Nal Its m [Ir95 �Q e.I.4r s iorc. as r �Tn r w---I /wa uue w I a. n p � asmrT,� 0.e l91[BJ4[ W1i.ed 41S _ _ wTVr an noon �J1, 11. ".d �•u n ,d WiYr. 4[ W. N.rltNe n x 0.a0K I1r �:.+c.ri �mr u°w,'O'we wa. •d, �� � a SXCa N1OP Irr m nw aaam.�a+al m � r ! 1Y we OifA1® RIOT NM TIa CITarAlal d IafaT9l F4 Saa NlT4N015 ! PER111T6 i Ivvinn � �... u 6r S I IIi 1 f, r.O[ M �1d �fOYa@ 10 MdNdi 40 SIIl1Y W901 Irn m _ -- OrrblraObONOftl1BClbl ¢111(11 ¢OxwA, }C>fa/'ERIl91/3 � Tal Ir _110._ -_- '" 4,uvTT�r,amN w w ia1' r1lo�mx.Wilo.a ac- rnslsrcltaw asst sa rr. l .,d sn rc aan sc rc , .o1v m rr. w . q ..� nrt'nflC!! � - -I.° - --0P+51RK,IW 8399 SQ R I, ]YI 50. R. 0.N! Sa. R. a9 Gf1S i!. n >•r(t (nlr 11cJ (¢w .w) (o.0 ,1G] (41. IICJ tNl1t•1'RxrrON SEC110N [PIFrI.7'AA77bn DETAIL® SECTION A -A SECTION i►•n LEGEND n m n e.lr ry�ranlo araTN - _marG.ala p JNr 91N'Itl a� Gum� .ABLE GIIRVE PA9N5 LENGT4 M1 I C1 E 770,00-1 74.79 S'3f 40• 1 � N N' ,•a N86'OS43•W #9 4i 4 v 0 �q F OR 1 _ , Aa ,,IwL IXI9W1l NaryL ao,la NEW 9NCLE fAMILYi#dL1t1FE fF PAD 705.30 1 � 1 EX. HAVG. ELEY. 7 EX. 2B) 1 w NNEST : &705.79) n u� EX LO'(IE4TT )6r(704.76) A1A.a PM ]9Ap � •lN I 1 1m` AYFQ1 _Q`m� vI 11 ''�M1'r fV ll TW!/Iq/ai 110! u.1, taO.74' r - IYS+•a+ p. f[> rua. Ii>y e' -1 ' O 4w. 1 rs mo � ; YCa 1x•.1 3 r 1 0- ,x1a 0 w MMO B m,� z LU'„ IL z0 1 C 3 N zw mwgd i Hh 3'ry� ci ,dam,. t9 � g° C -1 ,,IwL IXI9W1l NaryL ao,la NEW 9NCLE fAMILYi#dL1t1FE fF PAD 705.30 1 � 1 EX. HAVG. ELEY. 7 EX. 2B) 1 w NNEST : &705.79) n u� EX LO'(IE4TT )6r(704.76) A1A.a PM ]9Ap � •lN I 1 1m` AYFQ1 _Q`m� vI 11 ''�M1'r fV ll TW!/Iq/ai 110! u.1, taO.74' r - IYS+•a+ p. f[> rua. Ii>y e' -1 ' O 4w. 1 rs mo � ; YCa 1x•.1 3 r 1 0- ,x1a 0 w MMO B m,� z LU'„ IL z0 1 C 3 N zw mwgd i Hh 3'ry� ci ,dam,. t9 � g° C -1 I 1 1m` AYFQ1 _Q`m� vI 11 ''�M1'r fV ll TW!/Iq/ai 110! u.1, taO.74' r - IYS+•a+ p. f[> rua. Ii>y e' -1 ' O 4w. 1 rs mo � ; YCa 1x•.1 3 r 1 0- ,x1a 0 w MMO B m,� z LU'„ IL z0 1 C 3 N zw mwgd i Hh 3'ry� ci ,dam,. t9 � g° C -1 August 4, 2014 .o City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Pit 0 E V AUG 0 5 2014 Planning Services City of Arcadia APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION RE 1800 WILSON AVENUE TO CITY COUNCIL Design Review No.: SFADR 14 -26 APPELLANTS: George Zordilla Alan Stanchfield Lori Gamez April A. Seymour The Planning Commission's decision should be overturned and the appeal should be approved for a number of reasons. First, the application should have been reviewed by the Highland Oaks' HOA's ARB. If it was proper for the City to take over the design review, it should have reviewed the applications under the ARB design review process, which requires a noticed, public hearing for all new construction, rather than the City's review process. Second, the City Attorney was incorrect in advising the Planning Commission to not consider the procedural issue of whether the ARB should have processed the design review application instead of the City. Third, Commissioner Chiao's misunderstanding of the Code as well as the requirements for approval of the application was erroneous. Lastly, the proposed project does not meet the Design Guidelines or Resolution No. 6770's requirement that any new construction be compatible with the neighborhood. For these reasons, Appellants urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the application. Alternatively, Appellants request that the application be remanded to the Highland Oaks HOA's ARB for a new design review. 1 FACTUAL SUMMARY On February 13, 2014, Mr. Robert Tong of Sanyao International, Inc. (hereafter "the applicant ") submitted an application to build a new 6,025 square -foot, two - story, Country French style, single - family house at 1800 Wilson Avenue. The property is located within the Highland Oaks Homeowners' Association (hereafter "HOA "). It is unclear if, at the time, the HOA's Architectural Review Board (hereafter "ARB ") had a chairperson.) Regardless, at the advice of the City Attorney, the City conducted the design review for this project. Rather than using the ARB design review process as outlined in Resolution No. 6770, Section 5(E), it used the City's design review process, which does not require a public, noticed hearing before building a new residence. On March 25, 2014, the Development Services Department of the City issued a Notice of Pending Decision to the applicant as well as to the neighbors within the notification area. Six neighbors within the notification area sent in letters opposing the proposed project. Nevertheless, on April 17, 2014, the application was approved on condition that the stone veneer on the second floor above the front entry be removed and replaced with a stucco finish to match the rest of the residence. The approval letter erroneously stated that the fee to appeal the decision was $540.00, instead of the correct fee of $210.00. Because of the high amount, none of the neighbors who opposed the plans appealed. Once the error was brought to its attention, the Development Services Department re- issued its approval letter on May 27, 2014. On June 4, 2014, two appeals were filed with the City. One was filed by Mr. Ming Cheng Chan. His letter will not be the subject of the current appeal. The other was filed by Ms. April A. Seymour and Ms. Lori Gamez, two of the named appellants in the current appeal. The latter appeal alleged procedural and design issues on the application. Regarding the procedural issues, the appellants asserted that the City should not have processed the application. Rather, they alleged that the HOA's ARB should have reviewed the plans. Furthermore, the appellants alleged that the City should As discussed in more depth in the discussion on page 7, the staff report for the appeal on the current application states that there was no chairperson at the time that this application was filed, i.e., on February 13, 2014. However, the staff report for the appeal on 1717 Alta Oaks states that there was an ARB chairperson in place by the time that appeal was filed, on February 11, 2014, which is two days before the time the application in this case was filed. 2 have provided a noticed, public�,hearing when conducting the design review process, and that it should have taken into consideration the objection letters that were submitted during the comment period. Regarding the design issues, the appellants specifically asserted that the incompatible size, height, bulk, massing, entry, architectural style, landscaping, and obstruction of views were reasons for denying the plans. The appeal letter was signed by 23 other neighbors within the area who opposed the project. On July 29, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public, noticed hearing to hear the appeals on five different projects. This appeal relates only to the proposed project at 1800 Wilson Avenue. Before the hearing commenced, 15 letters in support of the appeal were submitted to the City. One letter in opposition to the appeal was submitted by a resident living on Alta Oaks Drive. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1800 Wilson Avenue is a west facing lot approximately 16,162 square feet. The current house on the lot is a 1,722 square -foot, one -story house with an attached two -car garage. Wilson Avenue has a slight curve at the area of 1800 Wilson Avenue. The property to the north is 1810 Wilson Avenue, which sits approximately 8 feet higher than 1800 Wilson Avenue. 1810 Wilson Avenue became a two - story house after a noticed, public hearing about 20 years ago. It is two stories, approximately 25 feet high, and the architectural style is Ranch. The property to the south is 1760 Wilson Avenue, which is approximately 6 feet lower than 1800 Wilson Avenue. 1760 Wilson Avenue currently is a traditional one -story Ranch approximately 15 feet in height. The ARB recently approved a new one -story home to be built on that lot, with a height of 19 feet. Due to development of adjacent properties, a survey of additional homes is required to ascertain the character of the neighborhood. 1752 Wilson Avenue, 1753 Wilson Avenue, 1761 Wilson Avenue, 1800 Wilson Avenue, 1801 Wilson Avenue, 1811 Wilson Avenue, 1818 Wilson Avenue, 1819 Wilson Avenue, 1826 Wilson Avenue, and 1827 Wilson Avenue are all one - story, traditional Ranch style homes, not exceeding 15 feet in height. Wilson Avenue is a north /south street on a steep incline. These properties have mountain and valley views. Obstruction of these views will lead to decreased property values. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1752 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "B" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1753 Wilson Avenue. 3 Attached as Exhibit "C" to,,this Appeal is a photograph of 1760 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "D" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1761 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "E" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1800 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "F" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1801 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "G" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1810 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "H" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1811 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "I" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1818 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "J" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1819 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "K" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1826 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "L" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1827 Wilson Avenue. RELEVANT CODE, RESOLUTION AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Any proposed project for a new single- family residence within the City of Arcadia must go through the following mandatory procedures. First, if the proposed project falls within an area with a Homeowners' Association, the applicant must submit the plans to the relevant ARB for an architectural design review. City Council Resolution No. 6770 (hereafter "Resolution ") sets forth the design review regulations, procedures, and criteria for all five Homeowners' Associations. Second, in conjunction with the Resolution's requirements, the proposed project must also follow the Design Guidelines set forth by the City for all single - family residences within Arcadia. Lastly, the proposed plans must comply with the applicable zoning regulations. (See City of Arcadia's Architectural Review Board Information Packet for Regular Review Process, pp. 3, 4). Resolution No. 6770 states that the reason why the ARBs were established for each Homeowners' Association area was to "protect and preserve the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, and to implement Arcadia's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines...." (Resolution, Section 2). The ARB was granted the power to determine whether a proposed project is compatible and harmonious in relationship with the neighboring properties. Specifically, it was granted power to: 4 . o 1. Determine the compatibility with the neighborhood of the mass, scale, design and appearance of the proposed project. 2. Determine and approve appropriate setbacks. 3. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Determine the impact of the proposed project on adjacent properties. (Resolution, Section 5(B)). Section 4 of the Resolution states that each building within each area "should exhibit a consistent and cohesive architectural style, and be harmonious and compatible with other neighborhood structures in architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width and length, and setbacks in relationship to site contours and architectural elements such as texture, color and building materials." Although it is acknowledged that neighborhoods "evolve and change over time," the Resolution states that the "height and bulk of proposed dwellings ... on the site should be in scale and in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites. Alternatively, projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale differences." (Resolution, Section 4 and 4(A), No. 3). For new home construction such as the current project that is the subject of the appeal, the Resolution provides that the ARB "is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application." (Resolution, Section 5(E), emphasis added). That meeting shall be open to the public. (See Resolution, Section 5(A), No. 12 ( "All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act....") . The Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines, which also govern any new single - family residence, echoes the language in the Resolution regarding compatibility of the new residence in relationship to the neighborhood. It states that "new dwellings and additions should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features." (Design Guidelines, p. 9, emphasis added). Homes within the Highland Oaks HOA area fall within the R -1 Zoning regulations. The relevant zoning regulation for the proposed lot states that the dwelling height may not exceed 30 feet. (R -1 Zoning Regulations, 9252.2.1 Building Height). 5 STANDARD OF, REVIEW ON APPEAL In hearing this appeal, City Council should be guided by Section 6(A) of the Resolution. That section states that "any body" hearing an appeal from the ARB's decision shall be guided by the following principles: 1. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 2. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Resolution, Section 6(A), Nos. 1 -2). DISCUSSION The Planning Commission's decision should be overturned and the appeal should be approved for a number of reasons. First, the application should have been reviewed by the Highland Oafs' HOA's ARB. If it was proper for the City to take over the design review, it should have reviewed the applications under the ARB design review process, which requires a noticed, public hearing for all new construction, rather than the City's review process. Second, the City Attorney was incorrect in advising the Planning Commission to not consider the procedural issue of whether the ARB should have processed the design review application instead of the City. Third, Commissioner Chiao's misunderstanding of the Code as well as the requirements for approval of the application was erroneous. Lastly, the proposed project does not meet the Design Guidelines or Resolution No. 6770's requirement that any new construction be compatible with the neighborhood. For these reasons, Appellants urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the application.. Alternatively, Appellants request that the application be remanded to the Highland Oaks HOA's ARB for a new design review. 1. The Application Should Have Been Reviewed by the Highland Oaks HOA's ARE Using the ARB Design Review Process as Outlined in Resolution No. 5770, not the City's Design Review Process The ARB for the Highland Oaks' HOA should have reviewed the proposed plans for this project. There is persuasive evidence that the ARB had a chairperson at the time of the application. The application in this case was submitted on February 13, 2014. The Staff Report indicates that this application was processed by the City because there was no ARB Chairperson in place when the application was submitted. (See Staff Report, p. 4 (the application "was submitted on February 13, 2014, during the time period when the ARB did not have a chairperson in place to process design review applications. ")). However, this statement is in direct conflict with the same staff's statements in the application for new construction at 1717 Alta Oaks. In that application, the proposed plans were submitted 2 days earlier, on February 11, 2014, a time when, according to the Staff Report, "a new ARB Chairperson was already in place." (See Staff Report for Appeal No. HOA 14 -02, p. 2). For the Alta Oaks project, the City decided to allow the ARB to process the design review rather than completing the design review through the City's process. (See Staff Report for Appeal No. HOA 14 -02, p. 2). According to the foregoing evidence, the Highland Oaks HOA did have an ARB Chairperson in place at the time the subject application was filed. As such, this application should have been reviewed by the HOA's ARB rather than by the City. The City acted correctly on the Alta Oaks project in allowing the ARB to review the application. There was no rationale given for not doing the same for the Wilson Avenue project. Even assuming that the Highland Oaks HOA did not have an ARB Chairperson when this subject application was submitted- -which would raise a question as to why the Alta Oaks project was processed by the ARB, neither the City's Codes nor the Resolution provide for the City to take over the design review process in such a circumstance. Nor do they provide that if the City does take over the review process, that it should use the City's design review process rather than the ARB's design review process. Indeed, the staff report states that it was the City Attorney, and not any Code or Resolution, who advised that the City should process these applications under the City's design review process in the absence of an ARB Chairperson. (Staff Report, pp. 2, 4). The reason given by the Development Services Department's staff for why the City took over the design review was because under the Resolution, the project would have been deemed approved by default after 30 working days. A (Staff Report, p. 4, citing Resolution, Section 5(B)( "failure to take action in said time shall be deemed an approval of the plans, at the end of the 30 working -day period ")). Thus, the staff rationalized that "[u]nless 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." (Staff Report, p. 2). Although this explains why the City decided to take over the design reviews for the Highland Oaks area, it does not give the reason for why the City's design process was utilized rather than the ARB's design review process. The decision to utilize the City's design review process in favor of the ARB's design review process was a critical one and one that harmed the homeowners within the HOA. Under Section 5(H) of the Resolution, the ARB "is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process application" for "any new home construction." That meeting is also open to the public. (See Resolution, Section 5(A), No. 12 ( "All meetings of the ARB shall be open to the public in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.... "). During a public meeting, any concerned homeowner is able to attend the hearing, see the proposed plans, and make suggestions if necessary. Many times, both sides make concessions and a compromise is reached. In contrast, under the City's design review process, the City does not conduct a public, noticed hearing. Instead, the City sends out a Notice of Pending Decision after it has already determined that the proposed plans meet the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Code requirements. (See Staff Report, p. 4). A written comment period is provided by the City to the neighbors in the notification area, which consists of at least the five parcels facing the subject parcel, the two parcels on each side of the subject parcel, and the three parcels to the rear. (See Required Notification Area in City of Arcadia ARB Information Packet, p. 6). In this case, in response to the Notice letter, the City received written objections by six different people in four different homes. (See letters in opposition to proposed plans attached to Staff Report). The letters objected to the proposed project on grounds that the new house was incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood in size, scale and appearance. They also raised privacy concerns and complained about the appeal fee. (See letters in opposition to the application attached to Staff Report). The Staff Report states that the comments received would be taken into account in formulating the final decision. (Staff Report, p. 4). However, in statements made to one of the named Appellants, the staff stated that the written comment period was just a "courtesy" to the neighbors that a new home was being built since the reviewer had already made design changes to the plans. (See Appeal to the Planning Commission, p. 3). Indeed, rather than addressing the concerns of the neighbors, the only modification of the submitted plans that the reviewer made as a condition of approval was that the stone veneer on the second floor above the front entry was to be removed. (Approval letter dated April 17, 2014). Even if it was not erroneous for the City to review submitted plans under the City's design process, the staff still erred in his determination that the plans met the City's Design Guidelines. (See Staff Report, p. 1). The Design Guidelines state that new construction "should be visually harmonious with their sites and compatible with the character and quality of the surroundings." (Design Guidelines, p. 6). Furthermore, the "height and bulk of proposed dwellings and structures on the site should be in scale and in proportion with the height and bulk of dwellings and structures on surrounding sites. Alternatively, projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale differences." (Design Guidelines, p. 6). Moreover, the mass and scale of the new dwellings "should be compatible" to the "surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and with the natural site features." (Design Guidelines, p. 9). In this case, the reviewer did not physically inspect or investigate the character and quality of the neighborhood in which the proposed project was situated. It is unclear if he even looked at pictures or renderings of any of the adjacent properties in reaching his determination that the proposed project met. the Design Guidelines. Rather, the reviewer only looked at the plans that were submitted. At the Planning Commission hearing, he admitted that he did not know the heights of the houses surrounding the proposed project. A determination that the proposed project met the Design Guidelines cannot be supported when there is no evidence that the reviewer considered whether the proposed house's height, bulk, mass, and scale were compatible to the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. II. The City Attorney Incorrectly Advised the Planning Commission to Not Consider the Procedural Issue Three of the appeals heard at the July 29, 2014 Planning Commission hearing involved the situation in which the design review was conducted by the City using the City's design review rather than by the ARB using the ARB design review process. At the beginning of the proceedings for the appeal for 1203 Highland Oaks Drive, which was the first of these three appeals, the Commissioners asked the 9 City Attorney whether they had .the authority to consider the procedural issues raised before them, i.e., whether the ARE, and not the City, should have processed the design review applications. They asked whether remanding the application to the ARE was a possible action. The City Attorney stated that the Commissioners should determine the merits of whether the proposed plans met the Code and Design Guidelines. He stated, however, that the Commission could make a recommendation to City Council regarding whether the proposed plans should be remanded to the ARE for a design review, but that they should focus on determining whether the proposed plans met the Design Guidelines and the Resolution. At the conclusion of the proceedings for the appeal for 1203 Highland Oaks, three of the four Commissioners present decided to remand that application back to the ARE. The hearing then continued to the appeals for 1350 Highland Oaks Drive and 1800 Wilson Avenue.' A speaker in favor of the appeals rose up and stated that the decisions for these two appeals should be easy since a consistent adjudication would demand that the same result, i.e. a remand to the ARE, should apply in light of the same relevant facts. The City Attorney then spoke up and admonished the Commissioners to decide the appeal on the merits, i.e., whether the proposed project met the Design Guidelines, Code, and the Resolution. After the City Attorney spoke, two of the three Commissioners who had earlier voted to remand the application for 1203 Highland Oaks changed their positions and voted to deny the remaining two appeals. The City Attorney's advice to not consider the procedural issue was wrong and it was not harmless as the Planning Commission voted to deny the subject appeal 3 -1. The Planning Commission had the power to determine whether a procedural issue was properly before it. Instead, it believed it could not do so and considered only the merits of the appeal. 2 There is no transcript or recording to cite in support of the facts submitted in this section or the next as the clerk apparently forgot to record the proceedings for this appeal when it was before the Planning Commission. There were five appeals heard at the July 29, 2014, hearing in front of the Planning Commission. The hearing lasted from 6 p.m. until 11:40 p.m. There was a break around 9:00 p.m. The proceedings regarding the appeal for 1800 Wilson took place after the break. The clerk apparently forgot to turn on the recorder after the break. It is Appellants' understanding, however, that the clerk took notes and City Council could obtain a copy of those notes, as well as the minutes. 10 III. Commissioner Chiao Mi<qunderstood the Code's Height Requirement and Also Erred in Determining What Was Required for a Proper Design Review During the hearing before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Chiao asked what would happen if the ARB's decision conflicted with the City's height requirement found in the Zoning Regulations. He stated that the City allowed for new homes to be up to 30 feet in height. He observed that the objections raised by Appellants and many of the neighbors who spoke at the hearing were directed at the height disparity between the proposed home, which would be two - stories and 28 feet 6 inches, whereas the rest of the homes in this area on Wilson Avenue consisted mostly of 15 foot single -story homes. Commissioner Chiao questioned what would happen if the proposed plans were reviewed by the HOA's ARB and it found that the height was too tall and required the plans to be modified to a single -story home. He found that such a requirement would be in conflict with the Code, which allows up to a maximum of 30 feet. Citing Section 5(G) of the Resolution, he stated that such a requirement would be a "modification" of the Code's regulations, which the ARB did not have the power to do. (See Resolution, Section 5(G) "Limits on ARB's Power -The ARB shall not have the power to modify any regulations in the Municipal Code. ") Accordingly, Commissioner Chiao voted to approve the application on the merits because the proposed plans met the Code requirement of not exceeding 30 feet for height. Commissioners Beranek and Falzone followed his lead and also voted to approve the application. Commissioner Chiao's reasoning and subsequent conclusion were erroneous for two reasons. First, Commissioner Chiao misunderstood what it means to meet the Code's height requirement. The relevant Zoning Regulations state that the height for any building of a lot 75 feet or greater shall not exceed 30 feet in height. (9252.2.1 of the R -1 Zoning Regulations, emphasis added). Any finding by the ARB that the proposed building's height, even if under 30 feet, is not compatible or harmonious with the surrounding structures is not modifying the Code. The Code only specifies the maximum height that a building cannot pass. A building that meets the Code requirement of not more than 30 feet could still be incompatible with the neighboring homes. In contrast, if the ARB required that the height of a home be over 30 feet, that requirement would be in conflict with the Code and a modification of the Code. Commissioner Chiao also erred in his conclusion that the Code requirements were the only requirements that needed to be met for the application to be approved. To apply only Code requirements when processing a design review would make the ARB defunct and Resolution No. 6770 superfluous. If the Code requirements regarding 11 height, setbacks, etc. were the,only controlling factors, then the purpose of the ARB, which is to determine the compatibility of the proposed project with the neighborhood, would mean nothing. Indeed, when this was pointed out to Commissioner Chiao, he was troubled by it but ultimately determined that he must approve the application in his erroneous belief that only the Code requirements needed to be met. The Design Guidelines, Resolution, and Zoning Regulations should be read in correlation with one another. It is well - established that statutes should not be read to be in conflict with each other and that every effort should be made to give effect to both statutes if possible. (See San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Carlsbad (1998) 64 Cal. App. 4th 785, 793, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534 ( "Where there is an apparent conflict between two statutes, the courts will attempt to harmonize them by giving effect to both statutes if possible. "). Furthermore, "[i]t is an elementary rule of statutory construction that, if possible, every word and phrase of a statute should be given significance in order to effect the legislative intent." (Steinberg v. Amplica, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 1198, 1205, 233 Cal. Rptr. 249). The language in Resolution No. 6770 regarding harmony and compatibility has independent legal significance that must be read together with other requirements found in the Code. City Council did not involve itself in an idle acts when it enacted the Resolution. If the terms "harmony" and "compatibility" are to have any meaning at all, they must be terms of limitation on other rules or regulations, including Code requirements. Accordingly, Commissioner Chiao misunderstood what was required for a proper design review. TV. The Proposed Project Does Not Meet the Design Guidelines or Resolution No. 6770's Requirement That Any New Construction be Compatible With the Neighborhood 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 massing and scale of this home in combination with the home to the north and the proposed home to the south will cause excessive weight of this localized area of the street. 12 The three (3) homes in uni, §on will change the vary nature and character of the street. Combined, these homes will dwarf the other homes creating discord and inconsistency in the neighborhood. 2. The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and proportion with adjacent homes. The proposed building is 28'6" tall with a 10' top plate on the first floor. There is no mark identifying the height of the plate on the second floor. The other homes on the street have 8' top plates, are single story with a height not exceeding 15'. B. ENTRY: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Entry Guidelines based on: 1. The height of the entry porch is not in scale with the height and design of the building. The proposed entry is taller than its width creating verticality. The side view windows are tall and skinny adding visual height. 2. There is a cantilevered roof on the second floor directly above the entry repeating the vertical theme which is inconsistent with design guidelines. 3. The depth of the entry above does not create the appearance of shelter. 4. The roof pitch of the entry is 5:12, while the rest of the building's roof pitch is 5:12. 5. The arched window above the entry adds another element of verticality. C. MASSING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: 1. The second floor height creates massing which is disproportionate to other homes in the neighborhood. The height of the second floor creates a scale which dwarfs the other homes. The second floor appears as large as the first floor. The second floor room over the entry does not step back, thus adding to the vertical impact. 2. The use of stacked stone veneer adds to the massing creating additional weight to the size of the home. D. HEIGHT: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Height Guidelines based on: 13 Due to the recent developm,�nt and proposed new building to the south of 1800 Wilson Avenue, particular attention to the building's height needs to be made. The three (3) homes' heights need to be carefully varied and stepped in order to keep harmony and unity with the primarily dominant 15' high structures on the street. The transition must be carefully managed due to grade changes between the properties as this will visually create additional height in comparison to the southern most property in relation to 1810, 1800 and 1760 Wilson Avenue. The proposed 2816" will create too much visual disparity with existing homes. E. ROOF: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Roof Guidelines based on: 1. It is unclear what is the architectural style of this proposed building, therefore it is difficult to determine whether or not the roof is consistent. 2. The roof pitch is 5:12 while the other homes in the neighborhood are 4:12. This difference will be noticeable and adds to the verticality of the proposed new building. F. FAQADE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Facade Design Guidelines based on: 1. As the architectural design does not reflect any recognized type, it is unclear what design elements are consistent. 2. Some of the shutters are arched and some are squared creating inconsistencies making the facade appear to have no specific architectural style. 3. The stone veneer is not compatible or harmonious with other homes in the neighborhood. As exhibited in the attached photographs, there is no other use of such facade treatment on neighboring homes. G. DETAIL: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Detail Guidelines based on: As described above, the details of the shutters, stacked veneer stone and brick work make the building appear busy. The stacked veneer adds to massing and verticality. The bricks are used vertically also adding to the vertical theme of the design. H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Materials Guidelines based on: 14 The use of natural, earth toned colors appears to be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The inconsistency would lie with the lack of a defined architectural style. As noted above the stone veneer, brick and shutters appear busy. It is assumed the stacked stone veneer is multiple colors also adding to the appearance of a busy fagade. I. LANDSCAPE / HARDSCAPE: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Landscape / Handscape Guidelines based on: 1. The three (3) flowering trees along the pool on the north fence line are Crape Myrtles which will not provide adequate screening as they are deciduous. 2. The 15 gallon Japanese Privet and Carolina Laurel Cherry will not provide adequate screening. Due to the grade differences these traditional screens will be too short. They are typically 8- 10' tall however there is already an 8' grade difference between 1800 Wilson Avenue and 1810 Wilson Avenue. A plant material that will provide a taller screen is necessitated. 3. The front entry and driveway specifications are ambiguous. The rendering reflects some type of pattern, however the specification identifies an acid -wash driveway with paver /flagstone band. The patterned driveway appears busy and if it is a stamped concrete will have a fake appearance. The driveway should be all one consistent style to reduce the concrete massing. J. FENCES /WALLS: Consistent K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Affect on Adjacent Properties based on: 1. There are many full sized windows and doors on the south elevation. Due to the grade difference this may be visible to the home to the south. Careful consideration in relation to the proposed new home for 1760 Wilson Avenue will be needed to address privacy between the properties. 2. There is minimal articulation of the south side elevation creating a long flat wall. 3. There is a two story flat blank wall on the north elevation that creates a visual unappealing mass. 4. The proposed height of this home will obstruct mountain views to the north for the home to the south (1760 Wilson Avenue). 15 "I 5. The proposed height will obstruct valley views to the south for the home to the north (1810 Wilson Avenue). As shown by the analysis above, the proposed project is not compatible with the neighborhood in mass, scale, bulk, height, design, and appearance. It violates principles of harmony and compatibility as it relates to adjacent homes. It will create a visual "dwarfing" of adjacent homes. The application should be denied on the basis of incompatibility and lack of harmony with the neighborhood. 16 CONCLUSION . �o For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the applicant's Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26. DATED: August 4, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, 1-T BY Cc�� G e o � ge Zor ilia 1724 Wilson Ave. By Alan Stanchfield 1811 Wilson Ave. By jLoi ga mez IB27 Wilson Ave. U/ n' P'& i1 X. ymour I 14 Hig nd Oaks Dr. BY / /? V L_ajz&EZV ltan Leavenworth 1818 Wilson Ave. By / iLG Lily iY an 1801 ilson Ave. 7 Z r By _— a;rl Berrr4"j o Wilson Ave. (qob w'L'L spv, CONCLUSION . L• For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the applicant's Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26. DATED: August 4, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, By s���� A K A I i-!-Wilson Ave. By r % ," y Wilson Ave. ������ B y C��flG'(� A4QV 1 7§ 1 Wilson Ave. By /7/70 Wilson Ave. By 'GZ mac_ � j6j C� 1.L+ I 172,3 Wilson Ave. By L vt'I -t �1lUi L 177-,3 Wilson Ave. 1 By �n Wilsoia -Ave. Ii CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the applicant's Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14-2 for 1800 Wilson Avenue. DATED: August 4, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, By MS-3 Wilson Ave. BV 0, ( Wilson Ave. By I %d2 Q� moo Ave. C L-Al Z BEAD By Ave. By U�k E� Ave . r BY Z ucca�p Wt-rs o n Ave. By 1r 7 S/e v.-Z o W-i-�n Ave. CONCLUSION �4 For all the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully urge City Council to approve the appeal and deny the applicant's Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -2 for 1800 Wilson Avenue_ DATED: August 4, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, By — �C C F7+.' Wilson Ave. B L �� �� '2 a f i�� L) n'LI � Wilson Ave. By ! �� ��. �. l Cat Or J Wilson Ave. By 41 fi�llkA_` /13W wilson Ave. B X� f���Wil�n� Ave, M _�_ G Wilson Ave. Wilson Ave. 1752 WILSON AVENUE EXHI T "A l 2753 WLSON AVENUE 1760 WILSON AVENUE 1761 WILSON AVENUE EM BIT d!®» !ll flil f I I 1800 WLSON AVENUE EXHO T "E" 19 1801 WILSON AVENUE E1tH IMT "E„ 10010 WLSON AVENUE EXHIBIT ""G" 1811 WILSON AVENUE 1818 WLSON AVENUE E3CHOT dl„ 1819 WILSON AVENUE E X ill II M p F!i 9i 10026 MLSON AVENUE 10027 WILSON AVENUE EXHIBIT "Ll' 7PA��.�1 L 7o f /y - G-�z Gf21 (9- To : CkT° ,al� AR --x LA �s : {boo W 05oq AvR x4RcApti A- 1 tit `Z, � l 1-5t f 45 CA &LkS S low 2. '3' Yk(o��A WA-5 \mu-5 ti 1 A- TIE�A� TtG R-o V4- a� I EC77-BV[r JUN 0 4 2014 Ws-o� ItNq L.L_C l rinnning s;?rvicess CRAW�� -� cc City of Arcadia qwk t(,(�Ll b-t� May 29, 2014 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 JUN 0 4 2014 Planning Services City of Aresidie ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPEAL Re: 1800 Wilson Ave. Review No.: SFADR 14 -26 APPLICANTS: April A. Seymour Lori Gamez I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1800 Wilson Avenue is a west facing lot approximately 16,162 sq. feet. Wilson Avenue has a slight curve at the area of 1800 Wilson Avenue. The property to the north is 1810 Wilson Ave. and sits approximately 8' higher than 1800 Wilson Avenue. It is two stories, approximately 28 feet high built approximately 20 years ago. The architectural style is Ranch. The property to the south is 1760 Wilson Avenue which is approximately 6 feet lower than 1800 Wilson Avenue 1760 Wilson Avenue currently is a traditional one story Ranch approximately 15, in height. 1760 Wilson Avenue is under architectural review for a new one story home. Due to development of adjacent properties, a survey of additional homes is required to ascertain the character of the neighborhood. 1746 Wilson. Avenue, 1752 Wilson Avenue, 1760 Wilson Avenue, 1761 Wilson Avenue, 1800 Wilson Avenue, 1811 Wilson Avenue, 1818 Wilson Avenue, 1819 Wilson Avenue, 1826 Wilson Avenue, 1827 Wilson Avenue, 1834 Wilson Avenue and 1891 Wilson Avenue are all one story traditional Ranch homes, not exceeding 15' in height. 1 Wilson Avenue is a north /south street on a steep incline. These properties have mountain and valley views. Obstruction of these views will lead to decreased property values. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1746 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "B" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1752 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "C" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1760 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "D" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1761 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "E" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1800 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "F" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1811 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "G" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1818 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "H" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1819 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "I" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1826 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "J" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1827 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "K" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1834 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "L" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1891 Wilson Avenue. Attached as Exhibit "M" to this Appeal is a photograph of 1810 Wilson Avenue. II. PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS 1800 Wilson Avenue is located within the Highlands Homeowner's Association. Plans were submitted to the City for this proposed residence on 02/13/14. 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 2 quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design and protect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments. III. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Pursuant to Resolution 6770, Section 5, Paragraph C, notification shall be deemed to include at least the two parcels on each side of the parcel subject to plan approval, the five parcels facing the subject parcel, and the three parcels to the rear of the subject parcel. Unusually situated parcels, those where a second - story addition or modification is involved, or where the slope of the terrain might impact additional neighbors, may require additional parcels to be part of the required parcels to be notified. A noticed scheduled meeting is required pursuant to Paragraph E, deposited in the mail to applicant and all property owners within required notification area not less than 10 calendar days before the date of such meeting. Proper notice and meeting was not provided by the architectural review conducted by the City. A written comment period was provided by the City to noticed neighbors. The City received written 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 after 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 massing and scale of this home in combination with the home to the 3 north and the proposed home to the south will cause excessive weight of this localized area of the street. The three (3) homes in unison will change the vary nature and character of the street. Combined, these homes will dwarf the other homes creating discord and inconsistency in the neighborhood. 2. The height and bulk of the proposed home is not in scale and proportion with adjacent homes. The proposed building is 2816" tall with a 10' top plate on the first floor. There is no mark identifying the height of the plate on the second floor. The other homes on the street have 8' top plates, are single story with a height not exceeding 151. B. ENTRY: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Entry Guidelines based on: 1. The height of the entry porch is not in scale with the height and design of the building. The proposed entry is taller than its width creating verticality. The side view windows are tall and skinny adding visual height. 2. There is a cantilevered roof on the second floor directly above the entry repeating the vertical theme which is inconsistent with design guidelines. 3. The depth of the entry above does not create the appearance of shelter. 4. The roof pitch of the entry is 6:12, while the rest of the building's roof pitch is 5:12. S. The arched window above the entry adds another element of verticality. C. MASSING: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: 1. The second floor height creates massing which is disproportionate to other homes in the neighborhood. The height of the second floor creates a scale which dwarfs the other homes. The second floor appears as large as the first floor. The second floor room over the entry does not step back, thus adding to the vertical impact. 2. The use of stacked stone veneer adds to the massing creating additional weight to the size of the home. 2 D. HEIGHT: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Height Guidelines based on: Due to the recent development and proposed new building to the south of 1800 Wilson Avenue, particular attention to the building's height needs to be made. The three (3) homes' heights need to be carefully varied and stepped in order to keep harmony and unity with the primarily dominant 15' high structures on the street. The transition must be carefully managed due to grade changes between the properties as this will visually create additional height in comparison to the southern most property in relation to 1810, 1800 and 1760 Wilson Avenue. The proposed 2816" will create too much visual disparity with existing homes. E. ROOF: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Roof Guidelines based on: 1. It is unclear what is the architectural style of this proposed building, therefore it is difficult to determine whether or not the roof is consistent. 2. The roof pitch is 5:12 while the other homes in the neighborhood are 4:12. This difference will be noticeable and adds to the verticality of the proposed new building. F. FAgA.DE DESIGN: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Fagade Design Guidelines based on: 1. As the architectural design does not reflect any recognized type, it is unclear what design elements are consistent. 2. Some of the shutters are arched and some are squared creating inconsistencies making the fagade appear to have no specific architectural style. 3. The stone veneer is not compatible or harmonious with other homes in the neighborhood. As exhibited in the attached photographs, there is no other use of such fagade treatment on neighboring homes. G. DETAIL: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Detail Guidelines based on: As described above, the details of the shutters, stacked veneer stone and brick work make the building appear busy. The stacked veneer adds to massing and verticality. The bricks are used vertically also adding to the vertical theme of the design. 5 H. MATERIALS AND COLORS: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Materials Guidelines based on: The use of natural, earth -toned colors appears to be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. The inconsistency would lie with the lack of a defined architectural style. As noted above the stone veneer, brick and shutters appear busy. It is assumed the stacked stone veneer is multiple colors also adding to the appearance of a busy fagade. I. LANDSCAPE /HARDSCAPE: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Landscape /Hardscape Guidelines based on: 1. The three (3) flowering trees along the pool on the north fence line are Crape Myrtles which will not provide adequate screening as they are deciduous. 2. The 15 gallon Japanese Privet and Carolina Laurel Cherry will not provide adequate screening. Due to the grade differences these traditional screens will be too short. They are typically 8- 10' tall however there is already an 8' grade difference between 1800 Wilson Avenue and 1810 Wilson Avenue. A plant material that will provide a taller screen is necessitated. 3. The front entry and driveway specifications are ambiguous. The rendering reflects some type of pattern, however the specification identifies an acid -wash driveway with paver /flagstone band. The patterned driveway appears busy and if it is a stamped concrete will have a fake appearance. The driveway should be all one consistent style to reduce the concrete massing. J. FENCES /WALLS: Consistent K. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed project is inconsistent with the Affect on Adjacent Properties based on: 1. There are many full sized windows and doors on the south elevation. Due to the grade difference this may be visible to the home to the south. Careful consideration in relation to the proposed new home for 1760 Wilson Avenue will be needed to address privacy between the properties. 2. There is minimal articulation of the south side elevation creating a long flat wall. 3. There is a two story flat blank wall on the north elevation that creates a visual unappealing mass. N 4' The proposed height of this home will obstruct mountain views to the north for the home to the south (1760 Wilson Avenue) 5. The proposed height will obstruct valley views to the south for the home to the north (1810 Wilson Avenue). IV. r'r1Nr1T.TTC'F M7 The proposed building for 1800 Wilson Avenue violates the principles of harmony and compatibility as it relates to adjacent homes. It will create a visual "dwarfing" of adjacent homes. This proposal will cause a decrease in property values to the neighborhood. This proposal should be declined based on a lack of compatibility and harmony with the neighborhood. -7 Respectfully Submitted, I�z� LJ��San A ��BY � � ri1 A. eymaur 614 Hii and Oaks Dr. J 41t Y .I��. 16 s By Name Address (�IZL'fJy�1�G1� Name Address L. CYC4tnd ✓e1J AVe. 7 ,-. The proposed height of this home will obstruct mountain views to the north for the home to the south (1760 Wilson Avenue). S. The proposed height will obstruct valley views to the south for the home to the north (1810 Wilson Avenue). IV. CONCLUSION 71e proposed building for 1800 Wilson Avenue violates the pri= =ciples of harmony and compatibility as it relates to adjacent hcmes. It will create a visual "dwarfing!*, of adjacent homes. This -Proposal will cause a decrease in property values to the n=eighborhood. This proposal should be declined based on a lack of ccmpatibility and harmony. Respectfully ,Submitted, c - C �J ] ,, By �64e-,, 4.fx��- �� �` WJSoZG April A. Seymour 1614 Highland Oaks Dr. AWL' Av4MLc.q_ By Name l�r'- V@ Address !! � By 76,,Csacr �wtyd C U6-Av ovl- �OQ� 0iZJ L42A RT, CKUJJ 1-72--3 w � as 7 :VL- tiU Nub ` ame T-- Address _,1. �3'• hh "K��. 1. ���y14 -' � J_ Noma IJ tl� I 1 {"' • •DIY 'Yt�:?n �. -_.... •fit' I. ,C�t.i ,� 1 1 IV IJ tl� I 1 {"' ii7k is►.�: EYffiBIT F � � Ff.__�_.1 ,.. -� � � � � IIIIIS _ .. A I ? . EXH'1�h3 AU! �f EXHIBIT H EXHIBiY il EXHIBIT7 K !1 �� � :x IT FT {, :., LXHIBIT M 7/29/2014 PROJECT: LOT SIZE: TONING: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONITRUCTION; LMNG AREA. IST FLOOR 2-D.._K N'LOOR-- _ TOTAL: - -..... 3- CAR GARAGE FRONT PORCH PATIO CD FAMILY RM. ROWDFN OF]1F-L OPMENI 212 W. FOOTHILL BLVD, MONROVIA, CA 91016 (626) 945-- -0344 NEW SINGL F FAMILY HOUSE 16,1 62.27 SR. Ft. R -1 R3 /U V/D W /SPRINKLER 4,140 SO. Fl. -- _1..8.2A_ `.A.$.. FT, 6.025 SO. FT. 846 SO. FT. 44 SO. FT. 77 SQ. FT. LOT COVERARE: (35% MAX.) 4,140+946. 1.44+77 ® 5.107/16,162.27 m 31.607 t 357. FRONT YARD AREA: 3,354 SQ, FT. HARDSCAPE/LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: (40% MAX.) HARDSCAPE WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK: 1.269 SO, FT. 1,269 SO. FT -/ 3,394 S4. FT. - 37.94% C 40% ccce- THE GOVERNINO CODES FOR THIS PROJECT ARE: 2013 CALIFORNIA 801LOFNG CODE (CBC), 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), 2013 CALF €ORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), 2005 ENERGY, TITL C 24 (ENS), 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC). 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC). WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS. 7/29/2014 u2 7/29/2014 3 11760 Wilson 1,696 homes uare footage 15,980 lot square t , tlilfY T 114 f4l"61 fMM ATMW tip. PLEVATj Nry r �ZL-- 1� QO x. 17 (1) (D SiDE.IRLEVATION O,: '� I -M SIDE ELEVATION 7/29/2014 4 DWNFR: t76o WR-,Wm HVEmE"Ts, Lic 11001 L VALLEY MKA- STE• 301C a 11owk1 CA 9t%]} TEl : (628) 884 -6610 FRONT YARD ARFA i.Y.S AREA: 3.358.96 S.F. MaX.C'r: Nny SM= FAMY HOUSE ty4p[ �aAC/L,ADipSC1.Pf DRIVMAY ARtA: 71B 6 F HM9".vCV1P6 l...v 4093)', 31.779 SX. TOKLMG- R-1 WALKWAY GR 400 9�F, k' LOT SLZE. 15AS419A so- FT. I.i 19�3.356.BB 33.3]7 OCPJPMICY GROUP. RSJU TYPE OF COti5TTwTt3mt V/8 * /SPRLNKUER ivw& P K= LN NG AREA. 1$T FLcKm - 5.526 SO. FT tY70Ec AVACH GARM.E- 459 so. FT. is:E G?FFNIFIC CGREE Fe TNLS A77AkolT ARE 2913 [ [SOfiNU. CRf.FN %JRIc SiANWWO CaOE, PORCH ARE& (rRW ENTRY) 49 SO- FT. 2L13 f,¢..D1W. AFSGA'M4�3, COLIC (tRG). ( 2013 CNJFORN�. ee cCrrorx cow ftXC�. LuT CWEJi.4E: lksx uAx -) � � '5.526 +456 +a9 �6,63o/t S,BG�.sa ..36.0]13 � I FRONT YARD ARFA i.Y.S AREA: 3.358.96 S.F. ty4p[ �aAC/L,ADipSC1.Pf DRIVMAY ARtA: 71B 6 F HM9".vCV1P6 l...v 4093)', 31.779 SX. WALKWAY GR 400 9�F, k' I.i 19�3.356.BB 33.3]7 a tY70Ec is:E G?FFNIFIC CGREE Fe TNLS A77AkolT ARE 2913 [ [SOfiNU. CRf.FN %JRIc SiANWWO CaOE, 2L13 f,¢..D1W. AFSGA'M4�3, COLIC (tRG). ( 2013 CNJFORN�. ee cCrrorx cow ftXC�. 2209 L N90[ L�151. t m 201. OI1YOMw MmW3fAi CmE !A►1C }. � }pts P-1WBM10 la C"Q-w. = . 1" X13 wvwr, tlurtanc 2093 Lmci. wTM Lux wtumNLx9s P UMMARY-I f i 7/29/2014 5 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 10 1835 Wilson 26266 sq.. 16,988 sq. ft. 1834 WYfson A 4,121 q. ft. W �'{ j�— F 15,250 sq. h. 4Y� 1826 Wilson S 1827 Wilson 2,819 sq. ft. 2,258 sq. ft 17,420 sq. ft. 16,770 sq. k. I 1818 Wilson 1819 Wilson 2,355 sq. ft. 1,819 sq. k. 16,750 sq. ft. I 17,390 sq. ft. 1810 Wilson I 3,959 sq. ft. 1811 Wilson 12,410 sq. ft. 2,735 sq. ft. 1950 14,920 sq. k. 1800 Wilson Propose : 1801 Wilson 1,722 sq. ft. 61025 sq. ft. 2,179 sq, ft- 16,070 sq, ft. 14,790 sq. ft . I 1760 Wilson 1761 Wilson Prq ose : 1,696 sq, ft. � 2,130 sq. ft. 11,290 sq, k. Q 15,980 sq. ft. 5,030 Sq. I1753 Wilson O V) 1752 Wilson 2,767 sq, ft. 3,254 sq. ft. 19,900 sq. ft. 24,980 sq. k. 7/29/2014 10 7/29/2014 11 7/29/2014 12 Apr 08 14 12:29p Joe Scatchard 6263559881 P1 izoiq f fj A i�,tOo AL(, 00 A 6L Lq jou'Ll A", c ry o ltk.t 1 U o JiL-i?- hr 01(v �/O L7 0 20 "z batlli, /I/ -A 0 'UVJ,�17�0 I- Affla t -PA Pw G�iV � ,/'L•''L �LLLtf`� L C� � (,��'`' � V` i• "��1.� 1r��1�rL �; � L LL .R ��.i&�, M�rV�•��'3'� - J�C ��r�}'�.L! .,i���� ✓�• l� LW �f�.�" L tjf/� (W{' 1r+ MAG'� Liif (�•� %� y�'Y.� � �'� C����nr �l �� `L rt� )AL/7 �F 4�+/ ,t r -mid fp-� C 16 z 0 & t s � �'�,l j '. _.. ,��� � ��;t �` ��CZ�t�l�.�j(C�GL� C� c.,�,.c,,, ��:f(�.L•, � (J� 1.�.� April 2, 2014 Dear Sirs: We are long time residents of the Highland Oaks area of Arcadia. For over 2S years we have felt that our neighborhood was safe and well protected by the HOA and the City's zoning standards. We live on Wilson Avenue and we are responding to the public notice about the 6,025 sq ft two -story home proposed for 1800 Wilson Ave. Everyone has the right to remodel and rebuild their home, but all this should occur in a way that preserves compatibility and community cohesion. The quiet and unique character of our neighborhood will be lost unless protective measures are adopted. We feel that new development should be compatible in size, scale and appearance with the existing beloved one -story California ranch style properties. We did an analysis of the average building size and floor area ratio (FAR) that exists on our block of Wilson Ave. Per LA County records, the average building size out of 34 lots is 2,630 sq ft. The average built FAR is 0.17:1, How can a City staff report suggest that a two -story 6,025 sq ft home is compatible with our neighborhood? The largest home on this block is 4,607 sq ft! We do not believe that that the proposed 6,025 sq ft family residence has any potential to increase property values in the neighborhood. It does have great potential to cause significant negative impact. Sincerely, Alan and Vonnie Stanchfield —1811 Wilson Avenue Sheri and Carlos Bermejo — 1819 Wilson Avenue From: Ivan <gramanandy@me.com> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:43 AM To; Tom Li Cc: Sheri Bermejo; Alan Stanchfield; Sheri Bermejo, James Esther MD; Michelle and Jay Schatchard; Michelle and Jay Schatchard Subject: 1800 wilson Ave Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mr Li, Why have we been given only 8 days to comment on this 6,025 square foot monster to be built at 1800 Wilson Ave? Why have the immediate residents not been informed of this prospect sooner? I have inserted an example of a Country French Style home which is a little less than 6 thousand square feet and we need to know if the plans are of this magnitude. The second is a smaller size of the description of Country French. We have heard that the owner of the property is a developer and it is my feeling that developers are only interested in making money. Years ago the developer of a home at 1700 Wilson Ave. worked with the neighbors, even met with us at the site. Since then, it seems they stay hidden from the public until it is too late. It has been difficult living with noise, dump trucks, cement trucks etc. and the lack of parking due to the same. I am also concerned with the privacy of surrounding back yards especially if large trees are cut down. The owner and good neighbor at 1810 Wilson Ave. conceded to no windows on the North and South side of the house. AND ! Since when does a concerned neighbor have to pay a fee for an appeal of an administrative decision? I am afraid the citizens of Arcadia no longer have any say about what happens in their neighborhood. with concern with our rights and privacy, Naneen Leavenworth 1818 Wilson Ave. 626 -355 -5151 Protected Tree Report: Tree Survey, Encroachment, Protection and Mitigation 1800 Wilson Avenue Arcadia, CA 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 February 2014 Table of Contents Summary of Data .................. ............................... 1 Background and Purpose of Report ... ............................... 1 Project Location, Description & Tree Ordinance ........................ 2 Observations & Analysis ............ ............................... 4 Tree Characteristics & Health Matrix ..................... S Construction Impact Matrix ............................. 6 Findings..... .................... ............................... 7 Further Recommendations .. .......... ............................... 7 Appendix A - Photos ................ ............................... 8 Appendix B - Protected Tree Construction Impact Guidelines .............. 10 Appendix C - Soil and Root Protection Within the TPZ ................... 16 Author's Certifications .............. ............................... 17 Certification of Performance .......... ............................... 18 Topographic Site Plan ......... ............................... Pocket at back Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA 4440. February 2014 SUMMARY OF DATA Total number of live Protected Trees on property including street trees located in the adjacent public right -of -way area ....................... 1 Total number of off -site Protected Trees with canopies (driplines) encroaching onto the property .......................... I ........... 0 Total number of dead or nearly dead Protected Trees on site ............ 0 Total number of live Protected Trees to be preserved ................... 1 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) .......................... 1 Total number of live Protected Trees with no dripline 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 1800 Wilson Ave., Arcadia. There is a Protected Trees located on the property. The proposed construction may impact this tree and this report will serve to both notify the City of Arcadia 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 it. As part of my preparation for this report I made a site visit to the property on 2014. 1 met with Mr. Tong at that time to view and discuss the proposed construction plans as they relate to the preservation of the Protected Tree. 1 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION F Grartzv inuv A v 0 e�+ M' 4 r, z � fir Lcrulvr? Di 15 Z. N Sierra M mire R 1, d The property is approximately five blocks east of Santa Anita; just south of Grandview. Above map courtesy of Mapquest. com. The property consists of a one story single - family residence that appears to be in fair condition. The home will be demolished and the property redeveloped into a two story single family home. The landscape is maintained and is in good condition. The trees on the property, including the Protected Trees appear to be in good health and structural conditions. The landscape will be renovated and the Protected Trees will be incorporated into the new design; with cultural improvements that will benefit the health of the Protected Oak Trees. .P 4 2 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 Al r This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate boundary lines (orange). The locations of the Protected Tree is numbered in yellow. 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 '/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 (4 '/2) feet above the crown root. 3 1 1,. x T 'Ar P 'Wi I .xs�isz Al r This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate boundary lines (orange). The locations of the Protected Tree is numbered in yellow. 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 '/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 (4 '/2) feet above the crown root. 3 1 1,. x Al r This aerial view (courtesy of Google Maps) has been illustrated to show the approximate boundary lines (orange). The locations of the Protected Tree is numbered in yellow. 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 '/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 (4 '/2) feet above the crown root. 3 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 Protected Tree is located in the front yard area, surrounded by a circular driveway. The driveway comes within two feet of the trunk on its north side. Under the dripline, besides the asphalt driveway surface, is turfgrass. Despite the turfgrass setting the tree appears to be in good health and condition. Tree #1— 40" coast live oak: The existing driveway will be replaced. It will be slightly relocated from it's existing location so that more space can be provided between the pavement and the trunk. The new driveway will not encroach any closer than ten feet from the trunk. The existing turf within the dripline will be removed and the landscape will be renovated with an oak - friendly design. The footprint of the new home will be located outside the dripline. This is a further setback than the existing house, so rootzone impacts from excavating and compacting the new foundation area will be minimal. No pruning of the live crown will be required to complete the project. 2 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Prot "Ian 1800 Wilson Ave. Area. )6 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February X014 OBSERVATIONS This chart includes all Protected Trees that 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 5 HEALTH SIZE FORM CROWN AGE FOLIAGE SHOOT VT�O CLASS CLASS DENSITY GROWTS U DEFENSE CLASS w �.. U U E" z z �4 v� w �w a C'w d A WW C7 a w x W C7� < ¢ o o U A o 0 SPECIES O w O A O p O O � a � p z a. O O p 1 Quercus agrifolia 42 40 60 X X X X X X X 5 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 41006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 .ANALYSIS This section includes all Protected Trees that 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. Those marked with an "os" indicate that the tree is located off -site but a portion of its dripline encroaches over the property. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS MATRIX TREE SPECIES SIZE & ROOTZONE IMPACTS REQUIRED PRUNING OF CONDITION LIVE CROWN H O 0'`T,' to E > Q �� acid orb o o ° 0 C w° rza Q O a� o .� o f a a 4., � a CMG (U ?� 'rs a� �. o 1 c> O V Ir ~ �+ iM W O •q7 •A IN ° un W W W A l Quercus agrifolia 42 Good N,S,E N,S,E Y 1 <20 0 N/A Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 Tree 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 zone. The recommended fence placement is 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 turfgrass near the Protected Tree shall be done by hand. No rototilling or other deep cultivation or grading shall occur within the dripline. The existing driveway surface located within the dripline can remain in place up until the time that the new driveway is built. The existing pavement will function as a protection against unnecessary soil compaction from vehicle and equipment traffic. In lieu of the existing driveway surface, a protective layer of mulch, gravel or road mats can be used for the haul route area within the dripline. Options for this is included in Appendix C Refer to the Construction Impact Guidelines in Appendix B for important general preservation measures concerning the different elements of this project. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS • 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 zone may be altered during construction; however, any alterations of the fenced protection zone must be approved by the arborist of record. • Maintain the fences 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. V1 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 APPENDIX A — Photos PHOTO: The Protected Oak Tree is located in the front yard and is surrounded by a circular driveway. The design of the new home will have a front setback that is further from the tree than the existing one, which will minimize rootzone encroachments. The footprint of the home will be outside of the dripline so no pruning will be required to accommodate the roofline. M. Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 uy 2014 ABOVE: The north entry of the circular driveway. The existing driveway will be replaced. It will be built further from the trunk. BELOW: The south half of the driveway is well clear of the trunk. The turf will be remc 0 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA 4440. February 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. D 1 z 3 4 6 In mdft 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 s FIGURE In mature trees, the taproot is either last or reduced in size. The vast majority of the root system is competed ofhorizaqally oriented lateral roots. 10 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 11 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 12 Protected Free Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson. Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 1/2 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 13 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 '/2 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 14 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 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 backf lled 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 Iower 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. 15 Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 APPENDIX C - Soil and Root Protection Within the TPZ If traffic cannot be kept outside of the TPZ for the entire duration of construction, actions can be taken to disperse the vehicular load and protect the roots, minimizing soil compaction and mechanical root damage. These include: 1) Applying 6 to 12 inches of wood chip mulch to the area. 2) Laying % -inch thick plywood or 4x4 inch wood beams over a 4+ inch thick layer of wood chip mulch. 3) Applying 4 to 6 inches of gravel over a taut, staked geotextile fabric. 4) Placing commercial logging or road mats on top of a mulch layer. Stone, geotextile, and mulch exceeding 4 inches thick will need to be removed from the TPZ once the threat of soil or root damage has passed. „ 6-12 mches of mtjlch r �a GeolexNe i f. Fabric. � 4 -6 Inches r Of gravel 'W }•. 16 14" Plywood i 4* inches or of rnulch 4N4" lumber t' 4 -6 mches Lagging or of mulch road mat ICI i International Aioeietp of grboriculture "` The Amerrc au Society qf'C opisulfing Ar bor lsis > �iree �i�b ���e��ment �ualifieation ., ., r•am:.er .N rrrlhfirve ,rr ; :. ,.ee rryrrircrvrvnra r:e KrKrn' IVi t •Hr'ffilNr( Ir'ile)!'rtl 5Yrr1lR, x O Michael J Crane »rr.r•ryn.r, 7d HawmgsticcessfuP+ mmaletedlheregnnemenlsastphishedbyftCerfikalionBardolth2trd ernalronal Michael Crane, RCA #440 Sonety of Aft [imrllure." the abure named is hereby r+.roagnized as hUdirlh me ISk Lea Fisk Assossmenl QuaGfcatian. l � Krge.r7o1es! M1irrvrhrerlrtla y r� .!arras/° i.% 21hffi Lj cbw. rrr��aywt r.mkrmra nerr Naba,rimrc r•.w�.,�,r Sor err or/�bon.rme as neca,nn. rat. ants - •, .... F.prwm Owe z y dat r LICENSING/ t6R`I'ItIC'AVION PROCItAM x{ AGRICULTURAL 1aFS-1 CON I K(W WN ISE R I.I{ E:15F• I) V11. OV I54I' L VALID T11RDUCH 81101/3013 1213112014 PCA 75893 ABCDEFG MICHAEL J CRANE PO BOX 51122 PASADENA CA 91115 R ri AitE1'1vt o" boUEtp of Zirbo lC[*w Jgoarb - Certifieb Anter Olrboriot ' Mic4ael e (fraw $sabhtg SIUM"l9llp rofneleteb the 04111 MIN eel by Iht 2Tberlat Cerfinration Vanrh of The 3rdtrnattanaF **virtp of Roaritim tte. Or abobe nabaeb re hereby reropnuth as an 362 Vearb - Cenlfieb 06isitr Arboriot 7is m. 6xnstne 1. tNEA8`11313 Nw B, 2006 D-31 2(112 O tb CL CD 0 Cn c C37 C d n� >57 A C •+ O CD F3 "M1 n 0 0 sn � N ... •A O Protected Tree Report: Survey Encroachment and Protection Plan 1800 Wilson Ave. Arcadia, 91006 Michael Crane, RCA #440. February 2014 CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE 1, 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. + I 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 20 years. Signed: Registered Consulting Arborist #440; American Society of Consulting Arborist Board Certified Master Arborist WE 664313; International Society of Arboriculture Licensed California Agricultural Pest Control Adviser #AA08269 C, 1iVV of G A gets s IV Date: February 14, 2014 cr ivoR,yy ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014 ��0oe lr oTH °�• -EXCERPT - 5. Appeal of the approval of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26, and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. THE 14 -16 with an Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a new residence at 1800 Wilson Avenue. Appellants: April A. Seymour and Lori Gamez 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 opposition to this appeal. Mr. Robert Tong responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the appeal. The following responded: Mr. Edward Wong Mr. George Zordilla Ms. Jane Chun Ms. Laurie Balas Ms. Clara Reed Mr. John Uniack Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal. The following responded: Mr. Todd Bowden Ms. Katie Allison Mr. Ash Rizk 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 Chiao, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to find that this project is exempt from CEQA, and that with concessions, the design is consistent with the City's design guidelines and deny the appeal and uphold the staff approvals of Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -26 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit Application No. THE 14 -16. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Chiao, NOES: Commissioner Baerg ABSENT: Commissioner Parrille Falzone, and Beranek Arcadia City Planning Commission 2 7/29/14 1800 Wilson Avenue Review Criteria )�. City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. Resolution No. 6770. Oak Tree Encroachment Permit. :imrm �.m�er:�:m: .-ML 1w �F:- mil Adjac he North at R m ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ di ■ Ai\ ■ ■ ■ Panoramic View of the Subject Property and the Adjacent Homes Panoramic View of the Homes Across the street Appellants'Main Issues )�. Mr. Chan: Denial of his single -story project at 1760 Wilson Avenue. )�, Ms. Seymour and Ms. Gamez: )�, Obstruction of views. The entry porch emphasizes the verticality of the entry. Roof pitch is higher than the neighboring homes. Stone veneer adds to the mass and bulk of the building. Building height dwarfs neighboring homes. Staff's Findings )�, The stone veneer is excessive and should be removed from the second floor. )�, The roof pitch of the second floor area above the front entry should be revised to 5:12. )�, The proposal is adequately modulated and articulated to minimize mass. )�, Second floor has a much smaller floor area than the first floor. )�, Oak tree encroachments will not adversely impact the health of the oak tree. �► IAh (7,41 ., I7fff FIV-1 r�f Deny the appeal and uphold staff's approval of SFADR 14 -26 and THE 14 -16, subject to the conditions of approval on pages 6 of the staff report. 7/29/2014 PROJECT: LOT SIZE: TONING: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONITRUCTION; LMNG AREA. IST FLOOR 2-D.._K N'LOOR-- _ TOTAL: - -..... 3- CAR GARAGE FRONT PORCH PATIO CD FAMILY RM. ROWDFN OF]1F-L OPMENI 212 W. FOOTHILL BLVD, MONROVIA, CA 91016 (626) 945-- -0344 NEW SINGL F FAMILY HOUSE 16,1 62.27 SR. Ft. R -1 R3 /U V/D W /SPRINKLER 4,140 SO. Fl. -- _1..8.2A_ `.A.$.. FT, 6.025 SO. FT. 846 SO. FT. 44 SO. FT. 77 SQ. FT. LOT COVERARE: (35% MAX.) 4,140+946. 1.44+77 ® 5.107/16,162.27 m 31.607 t 357. FRONT YARD AREA: 3,354 SQ, FT. HARDSCAPE/LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: (40% MAX.) HARDSCAPE WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK: 1.269 SO, FT. 1,269 SO. FT -/ 3,394 S4. FT. - 37.94% C 40% ccce- THE GOVERNINO CODES FOR THIS PROJECT ARE: 2013 CALIFORNIA 801LOFNG CODE (CBC), 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), 2013 CALF €ORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), 2005 ENERGY, TITL C 24 (ENS), 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC). 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC). WITH LOCAL AMENDMENTS. 7/29/2014 u2 7/29/2014 3 11760 Wilson 1,696 homes uare footage 15,980 lot square t , tlilfY T 114 f4l"61 fMM ATMW tip. PLEVATj Nry r �ZL-- 1� QO x. 17 (1) (D SiDE.IRLEVATION O,: '� I -M SIDE ELEVATION 7/29/2014 4 DWNFR: t76o WR-,Wm HVEmE"Ts, Lic 11001 L VALLEY MKA- STE• 301C a 11owk1 CA 9t%]} TEl : (628) 884 -6610 FRONT YARD ARFA i.Y.S AREA: 3.358.96 S.F. MaX.C'r: Nny SM= FAMY HOUSE ty4p[ �aAC/L,ADipSC1.Pf DRIVMAY ARtA: 71B 6 F HM9".vCV1P6 l...v 4093)', 31.779 SX. TOKLMG- R-1 WALKWAY GR 400 9�F, k' LOT SLZE. 15AS419A so- FT. I.i 19�3.356.BB 33.3]7 OCPJPMICY GROUP. RSJU TYPE OF COti5TTwTt3mt V/8 * /SPRLNKUER ivw& P K= LN NG AREA. 1$T FLcKm - 5.526 SO. FT tY70Ec AVACH GARM.E- 459 so. FT. is:E G?FFNIFIC CGREE Fe TNLS A77AkolT ARE 2913 [ [SOfiNU. CRf.FN %JRIc SiANWWO CaOE, PORCH ARE& (rRW ENTRY) 49 SO- FT. 2L13 f,¢..D1W. AFSGA'M4�3, COLIC (tRG). ( 2013 CNJFORN�. ee cCrrorx cow ftXC�. LuT CWEJi.4E: lksx uAx -) � � '5.526 +456 +a9 �6,63o/t S,BG�.sa ..36.0]13 � I FRONT YARD ARFA i.Y.S AREA: 3.358.96 S.F. ty4p[ �aAC/L,ADipSC1.Pf DRIVMAY ARtA: 71B 6 F HM9".vCV1P6 l...v 4093)', 31.779 SX. WALKWAY GR 400 9�F, k' I.i 19�3.356.BB 33.3]7 a tY70Ec is:E G?FFNIFIC CGREE Fe TNLS A77AkolT ARE 2913 [ [SOfiNU. CRf.FN %JRIc SiANWWO CaOE, 2L13 f,¢..D1W. AFSGA'M4�3, COLIC (tRG). ( 2013 CNJFORN�. ee cCrrorx cow ftXC�. 2209 L N90[ L�151. t m 201. OI1YOMw MmW3fAi CmE !A►1C }. � }pts P-1WBM10 la C"Q-w. = . 1" X13 wvwr, tlurtanc 2093 Lmci. wTM Lux wtumNLx9s P UMMARY-I f i 7/29/2014 5 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 7/29/2014 10 1835 Wilson 26266 sq.. 16,988 sq. ft. 1834 WYfson A 4,121 q. ft. W �'{ j�— F 15,250 sq. h. 4Y� 1826 Wilson S 1827 Wilson 2,819 sq. ft. 2,258 sq. ft 17,420 sq. ft. 16,770 sq. k. I 1818 Wilson 1819 Wilson 2,355 sq. ft. 1,819 sq. k. 16,750 sq. ft. I 17,390 sq. ft. 1810 Wilson I 3,959 sq. ft. 1811 Wilson 12,410 sq. ft. 2,735 sq. ft. 1950 14,920 sq. k. 1800 Wilson Propose : 1801 Wilson 1,722 sq. ft. 61025 sq. ft. 2,179 sq, ft- 16,070 sq, ft. 14,790 sq. ft . I 1760 Wilson 1761 Wilson Prq ose : 1,696 sq, ft. � 2,130 sq. ft. 11,290 sq, k. Q 15,980 sq. ft. 5,030 Sq. I1753 Wilson O V) 1752 Wilson 2,767 sq, ft. 3,254 sq. ft. 19,900 sq. ft. 24,980 sq. k. 7/29/2014 10 7/29/2014 11 7/29/2014 12 L % a Aoki ML M 4T, IT nol City of Arcadia 0.1 0 0.03 0.1 Miles Disclaimer: This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. WGS_1984_ Web _ Mercator_ Auxi liary_S phere © City of Arcadia Reported on 02/18/2014 12 50 PM THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Legend -- Truck Routes 1: 2,055 Notes This map was automatically generated using Geocortex Essentials. GPLIFOR�,j9'y�f F . «a A.sg— u�[ 5, MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: September 2, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR APPEALS IN THE HIGHLANDS AREA The attached material was submitted by Ms. April A. Seymour for the design review appeals in the Highlands area. These items were received too late to be included in the staff reports, but will be addressed at the meeting. m 0 1 /01 2006 F10: 01 6263557899 CTANCHFIELD PAGE 01 m fo 11 � k !NP MmM CONCLUSION F'or all the foregoing reasons, Appellants respectfully urge Cj,ty Council to approve the appeal and deny the applicant's Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14 -2 for 1800 Wilson Avenue. DATED: August 4, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, By CC- .J By '"��71✓ Ilan t �ve. By 17(p f Wilson Ave . i By IC ./ AUG 2 i 2014 By Planning Servk4P-s city Or A. °GL;Ilin y Wilson Ave. Wilson Ave. Wilson. Ave. Wilson Ave. SUPPLEMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL Re: 1800 Wilson Avenue Review No.: SFADR 14 -02 APPELLANTS: George Zordilla Alan Stanchfield Lori Gamez April A. Seymour RECOMMENDATIONS A. Single story not to exceed 21' in height. •' B. Two story with the following conditions: Reduce plate height on I" floor to 8' and plate height on 2" d floor to 8'. Overall height not to exceed 23'. This will reduce height disparity between this project and existing homes within notification area. 2. Reduce the pitch of the roof from 5:12 to 3.5:12. This will help to reduce the overall height of the proposed home and match the pitch of all the other homes on the street. A high pitch roof emphasizes verticality. 3. Eliminate all arched windows. Trabeated windows and doors only. This will mitigate the verticality and visually reduce the height of the proposed structure. Shutters should correspond and be louvered which will add to horizontality. 4. Reduce the amount of masonry on the facade of the structure. Masonry should be below the first floor windowsill only or on "special room" only asymmetrically placed. No brick lentils. Excessive masonry looks garish and when placed on the I" and 2 "d floor adds to the verticality of the home. 5. Maintain asymmetry . A hallmark of the homes in the Highlands is asymmetry. Asymmetry reduces the vertical and emphasizes horizontal lines. 6. Maintain no more than 9' side yard setback on either side of the proposed home. This will make the home appear more cohesive with adjacent homes and acid to the horizontality of the proposed home. 7. Maintain a 2 " floor front yard setback of 52' in order to mitigate the disproportionate height and massing of the structure. 1810 Wilson has a similar front yard setback for the second floor. Remove dormer over front door. 8. Cement -score driveway instead of interlocking pavers. The design as proposed is too busy. This will help to reduce the visual "difference" of the proposed project to the other homes on the street. 9. Maintain 3 car garage. 10. Maintain 35' rear yard setback. Respectfully Submitted, George Zordilla, A ellant 1724 Wilson Avenue Alan Stanchfield, Appellant 1811 Wilson Avenue Lori Gamez, Appellant 1827 Wilson Avenue 1 a- 4HighW ighlands I-IOA ARB Chair aks Drive 6;)z A(ikk� A) it A. Verlato 1614 Highland Oaks Drive RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2014 Planning 3brvit± -Ou City of Arcadia