Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - MC 15-02MC 15-02 – 1125 De Anza Place May 12, 2015 Page 1 of 5 DATE: May 12, 2015 TO: Honorable Chairman and Modification Committee FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner SUBJECT: 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 Recommendation: Conditional approval of the requested side yard setbacks for the addition to the rear of the residence, and denial of the requested front and side yard setbacks for a garage addition BACKGROUND The subject property is a 10,820 square foot interior lot that is located within the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association (Lower Rancho) and zoned R-O&D – refer to Attachment No. 1 for an aerial photo with zoning information and photos of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property is currently improved with a 1,620 square-foot, one-story, single-family house that was built in 1951 with an attached two-car garage. The subject property is located in a cul-de-sac developed with four single-family homes, across from Hugo Reid Park. On January 11, 2015, the Lower Rancho Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chairperson, Mr. Ernie Boehr, approved the design of the subject proposal, which requires approval of Modifications for the side yard setbacks, and front yard setback. A Modification application was filed on January 21, 2015, and scheduled for the April 28, 2015, Modification Committee meeting. At the April 28, 2015 meeting, the Modification Committee continued the hearing to the May 12, 2015 meeting – see Attachment No. 3 for the April 28, 2015, staff report that included as an attachment the letter from Mr. Boehr, which states that he was not in support of the subject Modifications, and that he was unaware of the Code non- conformities. The applicant, Mr. Nader Samaan, wrote two rebuttal letters to Mr. Boehr’s letter - see Attachment No. 4. Mr. Samaan stated that the ARB should be reviewing the design only, and any Code issues should be considered by the City. Based on the letters submitted by Mr. Boehr and Mr. Samaan, staff recommended the MC 15-02 – 1125 De Anza Place May 12, 2015 Page 2 of 5 continuance of the hearing to provide time for Mr. Samaan to address the issues and see if Mr. Boehr would consider any revisions to the design. After further review of the plans, Mr. Boehr has modified his position, and submitted a new letter – see Attachment No. 5. Mr. Boehr indicates in this letter that his approval of this project was flawed. However, he is in support of the side yard setback Modifications, but he is deferring to the City on the front yard setback Modification. ANALYSIS The Applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to the existing 1,620 square-foot one-story, single-family residence with a 424 square foot attached two-car garage. The additions include a 1,191 square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the residence, and a 209 square foot, third car garage addition - refer to Attachment No. 4 for the proposed Architectural Plans. The addition to the rear will have a 45’-0” setback from the rear property line. The wall heights as measured to the top plate will be increased from 8’-6” to 10’-6” for the entire residence. The overall building height will be increased from 12’-3” to 20’-6”, as shown below. An existing 356 square-foot, covered patio, and a 160 square foot, detached pool utility building will be removed to accommodate the addition to the rear. The proposed project is subject to the following two Modifications: Request A would allow the 1,191 square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the residence to have northerly and southerly side yard setbacks of 5’-0” in lieu of the minimum requirement of 10’-0” to align with the existing house, and for the existing exterior walls with a non-conforming setback to increase in height by 2’-0”, for a top plate height of 10’-6”. MC 15-02 – 1125 De Anza Place May 12, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Request B would allow the new 209 square-foot, third car garage addition to have a 38’- 6” front yard setback in lieu of the required 45’-6”, which is the average front setback of the two adjacent properties on De Anza Place, and for the garage to maintain a southerly side yard setback of 5’-0” to align with the existing garage. The applicant submitted a list of his justifications for the front setback Modification – see Attachment No. 6. Mr. Samaan states that the subject proposal will not have a significant impact on the neighborhood, and that it is compatible with the surrounding development. FINDINGS Section 9292.1.4 of the Arcadia Municipal Code states that the purpose of the Modification procedures is for the following: 1. Secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship; or 3. Promote uniformity of development Modification Request A is for the side yard setbacks of the addition to align with the existing residence. The addition will replace a covered patio and a pool utility building, which have non-conforming setbacks. The proposed addition will be 8’-6” longer than the existing covered patio along the southerly portion of the building, and will be 1’-0” shorter than the pool utility building along the northerly portion. The proposed top plate height of the building will be increased by 2’-0” to 10’-6”. There is existing dense landscaping along the north and south side property lines that will be maintained to screen the building from the adjacent neighbors. Therefore, the visual impacts upon the neighbors will be minimal. Furthermore, the adjacent properties are developed with MC 15-02 – 1125 De Anza Place May 12, 2015 Page 4 of 5 deficient setbacks of approximately 5’-0”. Approval of Request A would secure an appropriate improvement based on the alignment with the existing building, and would promote uniformity of development since the addition will have similar setbacks as the neighboring properties. Request B for the proposed 38’-6” front yard setback for the third car garage addition will be compatible with the adjacent property to the south that has a 38’-0” front yard setback, but it will be much less than the northerly neighbor’s 53’-0” front yard setback. Also, the garage will maintain a 5’-0” southerly side yard setback in lieu of 10’-0” required. There is dense landscaping along the front and side property lines so that the visual impact of the garage addition from the street will be minimal, and because the subject property is across from Hugo Reid Park, there are no impacts to residents across the street. However, these factors do not adequately mitigate all of the visual impact of this request. Additionally, staff finds this request to be unnecessary. A third car garage is not required for the subject proposal. Additional parking is not required for a remodel/addition, as opposed to a new house or rebuild where three garage parking spaces would be required for a residence with five or more bedrooms. Furthermore, the proposed garage addition will substantially change the layout of the building and alternatives should be considered that will comply with Code requirements. For Request B, staff finds that the proposal does not support any of the stated purposes for the approval of a Modification. It is recommended that Modification Request A be conditionally approved as the proposed addition to the rear will be an appropriate improvement to the lot, and promotes uniformity of development. It is recommended that Modification Request B be denied because the proposed design does not support any of the required purposes for the approval of a Modification. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public hearing notices were mailed on April 16, 2015, to the property owners within 100 feet of the subject site for the Modification Committee hearing on April 28, 2015. Because the item was continued to a date certain, no new notices were mailed for the May 12, 2015, meeting. Staff received two letters from the ARB Chairperson, Mr. Ernie Boehr, dated April 24, 2015 and May 3, 2015, and three letters/emails from the applicant, Mr. Nader Samaan, dated April 24, 2015, and May 5, 2015. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Modification Committee conditionally approve Request A, and deny Request B of Modification Application No. MC 15-02 and find that the project MC 15-02 – 1125 De Anza Place May 12, 2015 Page 5 of 5 is exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. 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, Modification Committee, 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. 2. Approval of Request A of MC 15-02 shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after the approval, the property owner/applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. Attachment No. 1: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Attachment No. 2: Architectural Plans Attachment No. 3: April 28, 2015 MC Staff Report (Continuance) Attachment No. 4: Letters from the Applicant, dated April 24, 2015 and May 5, 2015 Attachment No. 5: Letter from ARB Chairperson, dated May 3, 2015 Attachment No. 6: Applicant's Justifications      Attachment No. 1 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of ArcadiaD n/a n/a n/a Property Owner(s): Architectural Design Overlay: Downtown Overlay: Special Height Overlay: Parking Overlay: Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): General Plan: R-O (15,000) Number of Units: VLDR Zoning: Property Characteristics 1951 1,620 1 YOUNG,HARRY AND CHAYA Site Address: 1125 DE ANZA PL 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. Report generated22-Apr-2015 Page 1 of 1 Front view of the subject property at 1125 De Anza Place Front view of the adjacent property to the north at 1131 De Anza Place Front view of the neighboring property two doors north at 1135 De Anza Place Front view of the adjacent property to the south at 1121 De Anza Place View of Hugo Reid Park across from the subject property Attachment No. 2 Architectural Plans Attachment No. 3 April 28, 2015 MC Staff Report (Continuance) MC 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 Attachment No. 4 Letters from the Applicant, dated April 24, 2015 and May 5, 2015 April 24, 2015 Ernie Boehr ARB chair Re: 1125 Ce Anza Place Ernie, You have approved the design and esthetics of this project. You did not have any issues with the proposed setbacks concerning compatibility and harmony with the surrounding environment. Your approval of the architectural style, scale, visual massing, height, width, length and setback in relation to architectural elements; implies approval of the whereabouts of this addition. Adhering to invisible lines is immaterial to your finding that the project meets the visual esthetical standards. The City Modification Committee is entitled to handle adherence to applicable codes and insure compliance with all City regulations. There’s a comprehensive City process in place to obtain a setback modification approval. Going through the same approval process twice for the same purpose is unconstitutional and infringing on the home owner’s rights. Thank you Nader Samaan 626-716-2383 CC: Tom Lee April 24, 2015 Ernie Boehr ARB chair Re: 1125 Ce Anza Place Ernie, This’s to clarify the encroachment issue; I had received wrong information from the Planning Department indicating that the side setback encroachment modification which I should apply for is 1 ½”. I filled out the modification application based on this information (attached). I just learned yesterday from the Planning Department (after talking with you on the phone) that the correct encroachment is 5’ Thank you Nader Samaan 626-716-2383 CC: Tom Lee 1 Tom Li From:Samaanarchitect <samaanarchitect@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:11 PM To:Tom Li Cc:youngharry5@gmail.com Subject:Re: 1125 De Anza- L shaped houses Samaanarchitectsamaanarchitect@aol.com -----Original Message----- From: Samaanarchitect <samaanarchitect@aol.com> To: TLI <TLI@ci.arcadia.ca.us> Cc: youngharry5 <youngharry5@gmail.com> Sent: Tue, May 5, 2015 12:26 AM Subject: Fwd: 1125 De Anza- L shaped houses May 4, 2015 Re; 1125 De Anza Tom,   Regarding Ernie’s letter , please note that he erred again by claiming that the application should have gone  through the regular review process. He should be advised to review Ordinance 2285 and implement only its  decree which mandates that the short form shall be used to review a single story addition. However he was informed several times that the Architectural Review Board’s task is just that; architectural  review, irrespective of compliance with required setbacks or any other building and zoning codes; Ernie insists  to interfere with the City’s formal process through the Modification Committee.  He delayed this project 5  months (he was supposed to take 10 days per ord. 2285) and now he’s trying to hinder or delay the approval  further more. Tom, please help me understand the logic behind a project that’s approved and deemed compatible and in  harmony with the architectural style of the neighborhood; and all of a sudden becomes not compatible  because it will go through a modification process to support what was approved and deemed compatible  architectural style by the ARB. We are talking about imaginary lines with no visual impact on the character of  the project. Anyway, I’ll discuss these issues with the City Council. Regarding the comment of Cathy (the neighbor at the kitty corner) who believes that the design is beautiful  but she’s concerned about the L shape that she didn’t see anywhere. Please see attached photos of some of  numerous L shaped houses in the surrounding neighborhood including De Anza. Also see photos of the subject property from the street vantage points (following email). Please note that the  house is totally screened from the public view. There’s no line up of buildings because of the irregular shape of  this short cul de sac. The average front setback is a mote point in this context  Attachment No. 5 ARB Chairperson Letter Dated May 3, 2015 May 3, 2015 Tom Li Associate Planner City of Arcadia Planning Department Re: 1125 De Anza Place Tom, Subsequent to the April 28 meeting of the modification committee, I submit the following as the ARB position on the above referenced project. First of all, this application should have gone through the regular review process. That it did not is my mistake. It seemed an innocent enough project and, in an effort to save time, ended up taking more time and delivered a flawed approval. Nonetheless, the ARB has given approval and we now move on. Upon reflection following the aforementioned meeting, the ARB would support the modification of setback as to the addition at the rear of the residence. As to the encroachment of the third car garage portion of the addition at the front of the property, the ARB will defer to Planning. The ARB did approve this application so, at this point, opposing the modification as to the front encroachment would perhaps send a message of inconsistency. Finally, to repeat a comment I made at the modification committee meeting, it is the reasonable assumption of the ARB that a designer has taken into consideration any and all city building regulations, including setback requirements and has taken same into consideration in the design of the project. Our board is focused on design esthetics and, though we attempt to observe obvious issues, we are imperfect. Very sincerely yours, Ernie Boehr ARB chair CC: ARB Mr. Nader Samaan Attachment No. 6 Applicant’s Justifications NADER SAMAAN ARCHITECT 1102 COLUMBIA RD. ARCADIA, CA 91007 Ph: 626-716-2383 Cell: 626-716-2383 Fax: 626-821-0601 email: samaanarchitect@aol.com - ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1125 De Anza FINDINGS OF MODIFICATION APPROVAL  The proposed addition will not present visibly excessive bulk from any vantage point near or far.  The location of the encroaching one-story additions in the front and sides would not result in any view blockage to adjacent neighbors or from the short cul-de- sac vantage point.  The proposed addition would not be highly visible from the street or adjacent properties due to existing landscaping and heavy vegetation.  The existing house on the adjacent North side is situated deep inside the lot due the irregular shaped parcel and the curvature of the street. Strict application of the average front setback standard results in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship because the substandard setback is directly related to the extreme configuration of this adjacent lot from which the requirement is derived.  No compatibility of front setback issue attributable to this addition given the marked contrast in the configuration of the site and adjacent properties to the North and the position of the neighboring homes on said properties. In other words; there are unique characteristics of the subject property and its location and surrounding which justify exceeding one of the provisions of the applicable standard and should be accommodated through the Setback Modification Process.  Considering the irregular street and parcel shape coupled with the substandard 25’AfrontAsetbackAofAtheAfourthAandAlastAhouse towards the North side; it would be pointless to attain the average front setback standard.  The proposed addition preserves the existing scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the front setback of the adjacent house on the south side  This relatively small single-story addition will not have any significant adverse effect on the surrounding area compared to the myriads of new large two-story homes throughout the city.  This addition is compatible with the orderly development and would be appropriately integrated with the character and side setback of the existing house.  The modification will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or to the use, enjoyment or valuation of properties located in theAvicinityAbecauseAtheAhome’sAproposedAfrontAsetbackAwouldAbeAproportionateA to the depth of the lot and would be masked by the existing vegetation screening, without a disruptive massing or crowding effect on the street setting.  The home owner is only applying for a humble addition to meet his family needs within his means. It would not be sensible to cause unnecessary hardship on an abiding resident of the City while granting privilege to a lot of developers imposing their enormous structures on this neighborhood.  This proposed addition went through lengthy scrutiny and examination by the architectural Review Board and achieved approval with no objection from the neighbors. It’sAtheAlongAstandingApolicyAofAtheAPlanningADepartmentAnotAtoA secondAguessAtheAapprovalsAofAtheA RB’s.AOtherwiseAitAwouldAbeAaAuselessAprocessA and a serious waste of time and resources and undermines the function and existence of these boards.