Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - MC 15-02MC 15-02 April 28, 2015 Page 1 of 1 DATE: April 28, 2015 TO: Honorable Chairman and Modification Committee FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF MODIFICATION NO. MC 15-02 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR A ONE-STORY ADDITION AND A THIRD CAR GARAGE ADDITION, WITH MODIFICATIONS TO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AT 1125 DE ANZA PLACE The proposal is to allow several setback modifications for a 1,191 square foot, one story addition, and a third car garage addition, to an existing 1,620 square-foot, one-story, single-family residence with a two-car garage at 1125 De Anza Place. During the notification period, the Santa Anita Residents' Homeowners Association (Lower Rancho) Chair, Mr. Boehr, informed us that he was not in support of the subject modifications and the project that he approved was issued without knowledge of any setback non-conformity. Based on this information, staff is requesting that this item be continued to allow the applicant ample time to work with the ARB and to return with acceptable design alternative. A revised public hearing notice will be sent to all the affected property owners. Attachment: Email from Lower Rancho ARB Chair, dated April 24, 2015 April 24, 2015 Tom Li Associate Planner City of Arcadia Planning Department Re: 1125 De Anza Place Tom, As a follow up to our conversation yesterday, the Rancho Santa Anita HOA Architectural Review Board did approve a remodel at the above referenced address. You informed me, in a telephone call yesterday, of encroachments of setbacks, and whether these had been factored into the ARB decision to approve the project. It is the assumption of the ARB that the designer/architect/builder is aware of setback requirements and has taken same into consideration in the design of the project. Our board is focused on design esthetics and, though we should observe obvious issues, we are imperfect. As to the case in point, Mr. Samaan indicates that the side encroachments are minimal ( 1 ½” ). Were this the case, I would consider it a non-issue. According to your observations, the side encroachments are closer to 5’ and the front is 8’. If these observations are accurate, they are not modifications that we would have included in our approval. To that end, the ARB would not support the requested modification. We stand by our design and esthetics approval of the project, but would suggest that the responsibility of conformance to building and planning requirements rests on the designer. Trusting that this clarifies the position of the ARB in this matter, I am Very sincerely yours, Ernie Boehr ARB chair CC: ARB Mr. Nader Samaan