HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 -Appeal SFADR 14-89DATE: November 10, 2015
TO:Honorable Chairman andPlanning Commission
FROM:Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Tim Schwehr,Management Analyst
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF SINGLE-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 14-89FORA PROPOSED 3,939
SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITHA 2,557 SQUARE-
FOOT BASEMENT, AN ATTACHED 433 SQUARE-FOOT TWO-CAR
GARAGE, AND AN ATTACHED 245 SQUARE-FOOT ONE-CAR
GARAGE AT 1734 CLARIDGE STREET
Recommendation: Deny Appeal
SUMMARY
The applicant, Mr. Sidney Changof CT Max,on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Yan
T. Tan, is appealingthe Development Services Department’s denial of thearchitectural
design review for a proposed 3,939 square-foot, two-story residence with a 2,557
basement, an attached 433 square-foot two-car garage, and an attached 245 square-
foot one-car garage at 1734 Claridge Street-see Attachment No. 2 for the Current
Submittal of Architectural Plans.It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny
the appeal.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 11,026 square-feet in area, zoned R-1-7,500, and is currently
developed with a 1,868 square-foot, one-story residence with an attached two-car
garage constructed in 1952. The property is located on Claridge Street, which isacul-
de-sac in the northern part of the City. Thecross street to the southisSierra Madre
Boulevard.The street and properties slopemoderately from north to south. Including
the two corner lots, thereare 18 properties on the street-see Attachment No. 1 for an
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity. The
properties are currently improved as follows:
x Thirteenone-story homesoriginally constructed in the 1950s, ranging from
1,300 square-feet to 2,988square-feet in size;
x One1½-storyhomeof2,871 square-feet in size at1743 ClaridgeStreet,
constructed in 1950 with major additionscompleted in 1994 and 2010;
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 2of 7
x Four,two-story homesconsisting of:
x A4,829square-foot, two-story residence at 1742 Claridge Street, constructed
in 2013(immediately north of the subject property);
x A 3,689 square-foot, two-story residenceat 1718 Claridge St. (two properties
to the south of subject site),originally constructed in 1949 with additions
completed in 1994 and 2001;
x A4,232 square-foot, two-story residenceat 1759 Claridge Street, constructed
in 1997(end of cul-de-sac);and
x A2,487 square-foot, two-story residence at 155 Sierra Madre Boulevard
(corner property), originally constructed in 1950 with anaddition completedin
2006.
Thepropertiesimmediately aroundthe subjectpropertyconsist ofthe following:
x North:4,829 square-foot, two-story residence constructed in 2013.
x South:1,332 square-foot, one-story residence constructed in 1950.
x West:One-story residences of1,665 square-feet and 2,988 square-feet,
originally constructed in 1950.
x East:4,947 square-foot, two-storyresidenceconstructed in1962 with a
major addition completed in 2004.
The applicant, Mr. Sidney Chang of CT Max, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Yan
T. Tan, submitted Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14-89 on July
18, 2014. The original submittal was for a 4,717 square-foot, two-story residence, with
a 3,039 square-foot basement, and a 637 square-foot three-car garage –see
Attachment No. 3showing the FirstsubmittalofArchitectural Plans. Planning Services
found that this proposal did not meet the City’s Single-Family Residential Design
Guidelines (SFRDG), and issued an incompletion letter on August 18, 2014. Among the
items identified as incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and inconsistent
with the City’s SFRDG were the architectural style, massing, and site planning of the
proposed residence –see Attachment No. 4 for the Incompletion & Denial Letters. Two
additional design submittals followed on October 22, 2014, and on January 28, 2015, in
which both showed relatively minor changes to the design of the proposed home.
Staff’s responses to both submittals were that further revisions were needed to improve
the architectural style and to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure –see
Attachment No. 4.In response to the January 28, 2015submittal,staff noted in the
March 26, 2015,incompletion letter that failure to address the outstanding items with
the next submittal would result in a denial of the design review.
The fourth submittal was received on July 24, 2015. Over the course of the three
revised submittals, the design has been altered as follows:
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 3of 7
x Revised the architecture to a more coherent Tuscan architectural style;
x Set back the second-story of the residence an additional 2’-0” from the front
property line;
x Increasedthe second-story setback from the south property line (adjacent to
one-story residence) from the minimum 22’-0” required by the Zoning Codeto
32’-6”. Set back the rear corner of thesecond-story an additional 4’-0” from the
south property line to 36’-6”;
x Lowered the top-plate heights from 10’-0” to 9’-0” for the first and second floors;
x Reduced theoverall height of the house from 27’-5” to24’-9” (maximum 30’-0”
allowed by the Zoning Code);
x Revised the front facing three-car garage to a side-facing one-car garage and
front-facing two-car garage. The two-car garage was also setback an additional
13-feet further from the front property line;
x Reduced the total livable areafrom 4,717square-feet to 3,939 square-feet;and
x Reduced the size of thebasementfrom 3,039 square-feet to 2,557 square-feet.
ANotice of Pending Decision was mailed on July 31, 2015,to the property owners and
residents in the design review notification area –see mapon page 5.In response to this
notice,staff received three letters/emails ofoppositionto the projectfrom residents in
the surrounding neighborhood. Staff also received a petition in opposition to the project
signed by the residents of ten of the properties within the immediate vicinity-see
Attachment No. 6for thePublic Commentsof Opposition andPetition. The
letters/emails and petition state opposition to the project based on compatibility
concerns with the Tuscan architectural style,the large basement,and the overall sizeof
the proposed home in relationto the neighborhood.In addition, the petition questions
whether the project complies with several Arcadia Municipal Code Sections,and
whether the project isexempt from CEQA. Staff has reviewed the Code Sections
referenced in the petition and has confirmed that the project complies with allArcadia
Municipal Code requirements.The development of one,single-family residence
qualifies as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per the 2015 State of California CEQA
Statutes and Guidelines.
Because of the significant neighborhood opposition to the project,staff suggested to the
applicant that prior to the Development Services Department taking action on the
application, theapplicant should reach out to thoseresidents and property owners in the
surrounding neighborhood in opposition to the project to discuss what changes could be
made to address their concerns. In response to this suggestion, the applicant noted
that the proposed design has already been reduced in size, mass, and volume from the
original submittal, and thereforeno further reductions in the square-footage of the
design would beacceptableto the property owner.Furthermore, the applicant indicated
his convictionthatit would beunfair to the property ownerto deny the projectbased
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 4of 7
solely on neighborhood opposition.Therefore, the applicant chose not to meet with the
surrounding neighbors or makefurther changes to the design,and requested that staff
proceed with issuing a decision on the proposed design.
On September 29, 2015, the Development Services Department issued a denial letter
(see Attachment No. 4) for the project, based on a determination thatfurther reductions
in the massand volume of the proposed residence are needed for the design to be
deemed compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City’s
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines.On October 2, 2015, theapplicant filed an
appeal oftheDevelopment Services Department’s decision-see Attachment No. 5 for
the Appeal Letter.
Appeals of Single-Family Architectural Design Review decisions by staff are heard
before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally
approve, or deny the appeal/proposed design.The Commission’s decision may be
appealed to the City Council.
PROPOSAL
The fourth submittal of architectural plans (Attachment No. 2) proposes a 6,496 square-
foot residence comprised of a 2,712 square-foot firstfloor, a 1,227 square-foot second
floor, and a 2,557 square-foot basement. The first floor is comprised of aliving room,
dining room, family room, office, kitchen, wok-kitchen, two bedrooms, and 2½
bathrooms. No open ceilings to the second floor areproposedfor thefirst floor. The
second floor consistsofthree bedrooms and three bathrooms, and thebasement
contains a gym, game room, theater, wine room, and storage area. An attached 433
square-foot, two-car garage and an attached 245 square-foot, one-car garage are
proposed at the front of the residence.
The architecture of the proposed residence is Tuscan in style, and featurescolors,
materials, and design elementstypical of this style of architecture. The proposed
setbacks for the first-story are at or slightly greater than the minimum 11-foot
requirement.Thesecondstory is at the required setbacks fromthe front, rear, and north
property lines.But, from the south side property line, which is on the downhill side, the
secondstory is setback 32’-6”, which is 10’-6” more than the minimum 22-foot
requirement.The conceptual landscape plan for this projectindicates that several
mature trees in the front and rear yards are to be preserved. Additional new trees are
proposedin the front, rear, and side yards, includingnew privacy hedge trees along the
rear and side property lines.
ANALYSIS
Staff is satisfied with the overall architectural style of the proposed residence,including
the proposed materials, colors, and architectural detailing.The basement, although
large,does not add mass or volume to theresidence, and does not affectthe
architecture or visual character of the residenceas viewed from the street and/or
surrounding properties.Thebasementis not part of thereasons for the staffdenial of
the project. The primary reason for the staff denial isthat the majority of the homes on
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 5of 7
this block are single-story, post-war homes, including the immediate homes to the south
and west of the subject property. It is staff’s determination thatfurther reductions and
changes in the mass and visual appearance of the second-story are needed for the
design to be deemed compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City’s
Single-Family Residential DesignGuidelines.Theproposed design is inconsistent with
the following design guidelines:
Site Planning(p.6):
x The location, configuration, size, and design of new buildings should be visually
harmonious with their sites and compatible with the character and quality of the
surroundings.
x Theheight and bulk of proposed dwellings should be in scale and in proportion
with the height and bulk of dwellings on surrounding sites. Alternatively,
projects should incorporate design measures to adequately mitigate scale
differences.
Massing(p.9):
x Newdwellings should be compatible in mass and scale to surrounding buildings
in the neighborhood and with the natural site features.
The City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines can be found at:
http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/docs/sf_arch_design_guidelines_4-17-09.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3Exemptionfrom the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) asNew Construction of One,Single-
Family Residenceunder Section 15303of the CEQA Guidelines.Refer to Attachment
No. 7for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
In addition to the Notice of Pending
Decision process, public hearing notices
for this appealweremailed on October
27,2015,to the property ownersand
tenants of those properties within the
design review notification area, and to
other residents in the vicinity who had
previously commented on the design
review submittal.As ofNovember 5,
2015, staff hasnot received any
additional public comments onthe
project.
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 6of 7
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commissiondenythe Appeal, and uphold the
decision of the Development Services Department to deny Single-Family Architectural
Design Review No. SFADR 14-89, and find that the project is not consistent with the
Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines.
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal, and approve the proposed
design, it is recommended that the decision be subject to the following conditions:
1.All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits,
building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental
regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the
property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer,
Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services
Director, or their respective designees.
2.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 ofthe matter.
3.Approval of Single-Family Architectural Design Review Application No. SFADR
14-89shall not be of effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after approval
of this project, 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and overturn the
Development Services Departmentdenial, and approve the proposed design, the
Commission should approve a motion that finds that the project is Categorically Exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approves Single-Family
Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14-89based on a findingthat the proposed
Appeal SFADR 14-89
1734 Claridge Street
November 10, 2015 –Page 7of 7
design isconsistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, and
subject to the aforementioned conditions, as may be modified by the Commission.
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the Development
Services Department denial of the proposed design, the Commission should approve a
motion to deny the Appeal and deny Single-Family Architectural Design Review No.
SFADR 14-89, findingthat theproposed designis not consistent with the City’s Single-
Family ResidentialDesign Guidelines.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the November 10, 2015, Planning Commission meeting,
please contact Management Analyst,Tim Schwehrby calling (626) 574-5409, orby
email to TSchwehr@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Attachment No. 1:Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 2:Current Submittal of Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 3:First Submittal of Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 4:Incompletion & Denial Letters
Attachment No. 5:Appeal Letter
Attachment No. 6:Public Comments of Opposition
Attachment No. 7:Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Link to Single-Family Design Review Guidelines:
http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/docs/sf_arch_design_guidelines_4-17-09.pdf
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No.1
Aerial Photo & Photos
of Subject Property & Vicinity
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
n/a
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-1 (7,500)
Number of Units:
VLDR
Zoning:
Property Characteristics
1952
1,868
<$177$1
Site Address:
1734 CLARIDGE ST
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 generated04-Nov-2015
Page 1 of 1
11,026
OTHER DWELLINGS ON CLARIDGE STREET
1756 Claridge St (
screened from street by
trees)
1760 Claridge St
1759 Claridge St (screened from street by trees)
1755 Claridge St
OTHER DWELLINGS ON CLARIDGE STREET
1701 Claridge St
1709 Claridge St
155 Sierra Madre Blvd
1712 Claridge St
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No.2
Current Submittal of Architectural Plans
65.72'S 00°48'58" E
103.03'
S 89°20'24" W
110.00'S 01°02'04" E
99.63'
N 89°20'24" E
INTERLOCKING PAVERS
CONC. WALKWAYRESIDENCE
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE
1734 CLARIDGE ST.
ARCADIA, CA 91006
L-1071114T.L.
JobDrawnSheet
CONCEPTUAL1"=10'-0"07-11-14
DateScale
Assessor's ID No. 5766-017-020
Sheet TitleProject
BEN LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
2605 FAIRFIELD PL.
SAN MARINO, CA 91108
TEL: 626-535-9544 FAX: 626-535-9534
CONSULTANT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, LIC. # 3109
DATENOREVISIONSTERRY LEE DESIGN GROUP
220 W. LESLIE DR.
SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775
TEL: 626-285-6522 FAX: 626-285-6479
Prepared by
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE : 1" = 10'-0"L=44.40'
CONC. WALKWAY
07°42'34"R=330.00'
EX. PARKWAY
DRIVEWAY
CONC. WALKWAY
PORCH
CO NC.W AL K W A Y
LAWN
LAWNLAWN
09-15-14101-07-152
1-CAR GARAGE
2-CAR GARAGE
CONC. WALKWAY
CONC. WALKWAY
CONC.PATIO
05-21-153
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No.3
First Submittal of Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No.4
Incompletion & Denial Letters
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No.5
Appeal Letter & Email
1
Tim Schwehr
Subject:FW: 1734 Claridge St
From: Jonathan Soo [mailto:fjsoo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:56 PM
To: Tim Schwehr; 'Sidney Chang'
Subject: Re: 1734 Claridge St
Hi Tim,
I went back to check the project information after the meeting with you on Monday and found that the
current proposed floor area is about 3900 s.f. which is about 35% FAR for this project. We also had
a meeting with the owner yesterday. The owner would not want to make any further revision to the
plan, he even mentioned that he would go back to the 1st original submitted design of the 4700 s.f. if
the project need to go to Planning Commission or City Council. We have been working with the city
for several months to refine the design to the city's standard, we also provided additional setback than
required at the first and second floor in order avoid any disturbance to the neighbors. Furthermore,
we reduced the proposed area to a number that is much more below than the maximum
allowable area per current zoning code. I think we have been working with the city in good faith
during this design process. However, it is very unfair to the current owner if the project is rejected just
because it is opposed by some of the neighbors.I understand that we should try our best to work
with the neighbors to provide a reasonable design to the area. However, their demands of further
reducing the proposed area to below 35% FAR or providing only a single-story building are too
excessive and not acceptable to the owner. I hope you can convey our points to you supervision and
come out with a decision that is reasonable. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further
questions or need any further information to support your decision. Thank you very much for you
patience and effort.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Soo
(626)319-0658
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No.6
Public Comments of Opposition
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No.7
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA 91007
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2011FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1.Name or description of project:Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 14-89
2.Project Location –Identify street
address and cross streets or attach a
map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map
identified by quadrangle name):
1734 Claridge Street,Arcadia, CA 91006
(cross street:Sierra Madre Blvd)
3.Entity or person undertaking project:A.
B.Other (Private)
(1)NameSidney Chang, CT Max
(2)Address112 N. Earle St.
San Gabriel, CA 91775
4.Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with
the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA)" has
concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because:
a.The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b.The project is a Ministerial Project.
c.The project is an Emergency Project.
d.The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e.The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class:Section 15303
f.The project is statutorilyexempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g.The project is otherwise exempt on
the following basis:
h.The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date:September 29, 2015Staff:Tim Schwehr, Management Analyst