The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 1c: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Design Review Proposal for 215 West Naomi AvenueJune 1, 2010 SUMMARY STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development ervices Director •ZK By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrato Prepared by: Thomas Li, Associate Planner 4- SUBJECT: Consideration of an appeal of Administrative Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 for a new front porch cover and replacement of two patio covers at the rear of the existing single -story, single - family residence at 215 W. Naomi Avenue. Recommendation: Uphold denial The homeowner, Mr. Fausto G. Pachano, submitted Administrative Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 for a new 270 square -foot front porch cover and replacement of two patio covers (84 square feet and 128 square feet) at the rear of the existing, single -story, single - family residence. On April 27, 2010, the Arcadia Planning Commission denied the applicant's proposal based on the finding that the architectural design of the porch and patio covers are not consistent with the City's Single - Family Architectural Design Review Guidelines. The Development Services Department recommends upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's proposal. BACKGROUND The subject residence is a 1,896 square -foot, one -story home that was constructed in 1954. The applicant is adding a 270 square -foot front porch cover, and replacing two rear patio covers of 84 square feet and 128 square feet. However, the applicant began this work without design review approval or building permits. Architectural design reviews for porches and patio covers are usually handled at the administrative level; that is, over - the - counter, and they are usually minor improvements and typically match the architecture of the existing structure. However, staff referred this design review to the Planning Commission because the proposed improvements, while not particularly significant, are not clearly architecturally compatible with the existing structure. The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal at its regular meeting on April 27, 2010, and voted 4 -0 with one member absent to deny the applicant's request. The decision was based on the finding that the proposal is not consistent with the City's Single- Family Architectural Design Review Guidelines. The homeowner filed an appeal of the denial on May 4, 2010. The original sketch of the proposal is supplemented by new plans prepared by a professional designer to accurately depict the proposal. DISCUSSION The existing residence appears to be an eclectic, Mediterranean /California -ranch style based on the terracotta, S -tile roof, the off - white, stucco walls, and the wide, low- profile appearance. The roof has a low -pitch with a combination of hips and - gables. One of the existing rear patio covers is an extension of the roof, and the other has a flat, shed -type cover extending out from the wall of the house. Both patio covers had dark timber posts and beams. The partially- constructed front porch cover and rear patio cover enhancements are of Greek architectural style — see the attached plans and photos. The homeowner has added pediments supported by Corinthian -style columns. The front porch cover has six columns, and the rear patio covers each have two columns. The homeowner has explained that the pediments will have moldings and cornices, and that terracotta tiles will be added to the top edge of the pediments so that they match the roof of the house. The homeowner also explained that the front porch and driveway area and the rear patios will be further enhanced by plants and /or fountains in Greek -style pots between or adjacent to the columns. Attached to this report are the original sketch and photos prepared by the homeowner that were presented to the Planning Commission. Also attached are the newly prepared plans drawn by a professional designer that accurately depict the proposal. Architectural Design Review The purpose of the City's Architectural Design Review Guidelines and Process as stated in Section 9295 of the Municipal Code is to promote a desired level of quality residential development that will do the following: A. Contribute to a positive physical image and identity of single- family development. B. Allow diversity of style while promoting the positive design characteristics existing throughout the City. C. Provide guidance for the orderly development of the City and promote high quality development. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 215 W. Naomi Avenue June 1, 2010 — Page 2 D. Maintain and protect the property values by encouraging excellence in architectural design that: a. Will enhance the visual environment and character of the community; b. Will preserve and protect property values; c. Is sensitive to both the site and its surroundings; and d. Has been carefully considered with well- integrated features that express a definite architectural style. The interpretation and implementation of the Design Guidelines should be based on the above purposes. Projects that are reviewed for compliance with the Design Guidelines should meet the intent of the above purposes. The Design Guidelines do not seek to impose an overriding style, a limited color palette, or an artificial theme, but seek to promote the positive design characteristics existing throughout the City. The goal is to promote quality designs that have been carefully considered. It is intended to promote designs that have well integrated features rather than tacked on details. The Design Guidelines are less quantitative than mandatory development standards and may be interpreted with reasonable flexibility in their application to specific projects. The applicability of the Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines is stated as follows on page three: The guidelines are utilized during the City's architectural design review process to ensure the highest level of design quality, while also allowing room for flexibility in their application. The guidelines are "should" statements; they express the City desires and expectations. Alternative design features may be allowed if consistent with the intent of the guidelines, or if such allowance will facilitate an innovative or otherwise preferable design concept. The Architectural Style section of the Guidelines (p.25) states the following: Arcadia, like most other California cities, has a mix of architectural styles within its residential neighborhoods. Consistency of design features within traditional styles such as Ranch, American Colonial, Spanish, etc. has served Arcadia well because it has enlivened the City with variety while maintaining a distinctly traditional neighborhood character. In recognizing the value of architectural diversity, the City does not seek to dictate which styles are allowed, but rather to promote an awareness of what makes different elements work together. Strict adherence to a single architectural style is not required; however, combining too many elements from several divergent styles often results in an incoherent design. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 215 W. Naomi Avenue June 1, 2010 — Page 3 Generally, the City recommends choosing a single architectural style as a starting point in the design process. Positive design features from other styles may be incorporated if the various elements work together. Most importantly, the overall architectural style should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Using similar features, colors, and materials found in nearby homes is encouraged. Although the Guidelines clearly allow for creativity and the combining of different architectural styles, it is staff's opinion that the proposed front porch and rear patio enhancements will not complement the existing house. The diversity mentioned by the Guidelines is tempered by the "Additions & Alterations" section of the Guidelines (p.33) which state the following: • An addition should be designed to look like part of the original house. All exterior treatments should match those of the existing house as closely as possible. • Porch additions should match the scale and architectural style of the existing house. In general, the eaves of the porch roof should align with the first story. Staff's opinion is that the proposed Greek -style of the porch and patio covers overtly contrasts with the simple, low- profile appearance of the existing house, and that these styles do not work well together. Therefore, staff recommends upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION At the Planning Commission's April 27, 2010 regular meeting, the Commission voted 4 -0 with one member absent to deny Administrative Single - Family Architectural Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28. The Commission agreed with staff's determination that the proposed porch cover and two patio covers are not consistent with the City's Single - Family Architectural Design. APPEAL REQUEST The homeowner, Mr. Fausto G. Pachano, filed an appeal of the subject proposal on May 4, 2010. New plans prepared by a professional designer were later submitted to accurately depict the subject proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Development Services Department has prepared a Preliminary Exemption Assessment finding that the proposed project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301: minor alterations to an existing structure. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 215 W. Naomi Avenue June 1, 2010 — Page 4 Denial FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Administrative Single- Family Architectural Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28 because the proposal is inconsistent with the City's Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approval If the City Council intends to approve Administrative Single - Family Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28, the Commission should find the proposal to be consistent with the Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines based on the evidence presented, and move to approve the project. If the City Council intends to deny Administrative Single - Family Design Review No. Admin -SFADR 10 -28, the Commission should find the proposal to be inconsistent with the Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines based on the evidence presented, and move to deny the project. Approved: J .Q Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photograph and Zoning Map Original Site Plan and Sketch of Front Elevation New Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations Photographs of the Subject Property Admin -SFADR 10 -28 215 W. Naomi Avenue June 1, 2010 — Page 5 100 N 0 100 Feet (239) (233) (227) 20) (221) 214 s (1235) (238) (232) Development Services Depaitment Engineering Division Prepared by. RS.Ganzalez, April 2010 (226) (220) NAOMI AVE (212) R -1 ( (200) .. (i185) I (179) LERO NAOMI AV (194) 215 W Naomi Avenue Admin. SFADR 10 -28 (1 i 1 Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R.S.Gonzarez, Ap►i! 2010 215 W Naomi Avenue Admin SFADR 10 -28 CW.l,"1 7 • L t ' ' r. L ; 0 • 110113011011114010 . ONINNYld • '3N1 'dnotte NOISO If 1 L0016 V3 VIOVONV 3AN, IINOVN 'AA 9IZ asnoH A11WY1 310NIS 01300111321 -- - i ---Ak-- ' V - = , ri PROJECT SUMMARY 12 ... ----- ---- g r \ . _ _ .00.4Sl_ f — - — - 3AV IWOVN PLOT PLAN SCALE r • me o g g gh;ria :.f.. iv•1 'A v L tr,, ' , spi Li k 4 .... t 5 , 1.14 11 £ IF 'S''N dVW AiINIOIA 1 1111. 1 10 , I 110 7 . 7 4 I, I 1St:0 DICIAIV3.1 —A- 7. I --,— I EX. ROOF PLAN SCALE: VS' ..o 14 I . . .. Ll -J EXISTING HOUSE - EXTERIOR WALL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3116".1 1 5 J.. , — .. i ,..— //N I� Ii i I EX. MAIN HOUSE I !I R -, , 1 1 1 I 1. ...- ,,...,, , 0 • 110113011011114010 . ONINNYld • '3N1 'dnotte NOISO If 1 L0016 V3 VIOVONV 3AN, IINOVN 'AA 9IZ asnoH A11WY1 310NIS 01300111321 1 4449-41, (M O ••4.4[49-41/ (4[41 'Wa'n't 014 43'•14•vy'vV •PIA •u0.41 'M 44 • NO14304 ON114V11O'ONINNVId • 'ON1'd110NONOIS30 ^1• JI L001.6 VO 'VIaVONV 3AV 11/UOVN 'M SLZ 3Sf1OH A1IWV 1 31DNIS 13aOW3i1 N � �a a .. Avr wee _ s—S ^ ,... — �:ssti7 = ,. � ..� -'- :` ,—•rte + ��'.r . ` , w.re.'+�..4" ........ A... 0 %� '' ✓..r...�.. .i^r..vv"rrr�..V, ti ti'ti� 4.4.11.,,, IN, . .� . - .i+r.r..i,�.1,_..,r..n ..r_ —r.. ^te .+— rv u �- ^ ..r^r s w,�a..a.4 .�`'� �„� '