The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 3 - HOA Appeal 15-04DATE: March 22, 2016 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Nick Baldwin, Associate Planner SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 15-04 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR AN APPEAL OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR A PROPOSED 4,977 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY, TRADITIONAL-STYLE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AT 407 OXFORD DRIVE - This appeal was continued from the January 12, 2016 meeting. Recommendation: Deny appeal and uphold ARB approval SUMMARY John and Demie Kiragis, and Robert and Kris McNamara, the property owners at 400 and 408 Oxford Drive, respectively, are appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association (Lower Rancho) Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) approval of the design for a two-story, Traditional-style, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage at 407 Oxford Drive (see Attachment No. 2 for the Appellants’ Letter in Opposition to the ARB approval). This appeal was initially heard by the Planning Commission at its January 12, 2016 meeting and was continued to provide time for the ARB, appellants, and architect to meet to try to agree upon a revised design. On February 9, 2016 the ARB subcommittee met to try to agree on a design as directed by the Planning Commission, but no agreement was reached. Based on comments received at the sub-committee meeting, the applicant made some additional changes regarding the roof and façade design. He then chose to submit the plans with those latest revisions to the ARB at its meeting on February 18, 2016 and the ARB approved the revised design (see Attachment No. 3 for the ARB Findings and Action Form and Meeting Summary). It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of the revised design. BACKGROUND City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (hyperlink) and in addition, City Council Resolution No. 6770 (hyperlink) establishes guidelines and design review procedures for properties within the five, City HOA 15-04 - Continued 407 Oxford Drive March 22, 2016 – Page 2 of 6 designated, Homeowners’ Association areas and these documents can be accessed through these hyperlinks or on the City website. The appeal and design that were considered at the January 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting concerned a 5,400 square-foot, two-story, Traditional-style residence—(refer to Attachment No. 1 - the January 12, 2016 Staff Report). The Planning Commission commented that this design could be appropriate in this context with some revisions and that there should be another ARB meeting to discuss a revised design since the planned ARB subcommittee meeting that was to be held prior to the ARB decision was not held due to scheduling conflicts during the holiday season. The Commission voted 4-0 with one commissioner absent to continue the appeal, and requested that the ARB, appellants, and architect meet again to try to agree on a revised design. On February 9, 2016, Mr. Michael Fox, the architect and one of the appellants, Mrs. Kris McNamara had a phone conversation and e-mail correspondence to discuss what changes to the design are necessary (see Attachment No. 4, Applicant’s Letter in Support of the ARB’s Decision) and later that day a sub-committee meeting was held to discuss a revised design. The sub-committee meeting included Mr. Fox, Mrs. McNamara, and ARB members, Mr. Lou Pappas, Mr. Kevin Thompkins, and Mr. Rick Fricke. It was agreed by those attending that progress was made on the design, but no agreement was reached (see Attachment No 5, Subcommittee Meeting Summary from the Appellant). At an ARB meeting held on February 18, 2016, the ARB approved a revised design (see Attachment No. 3 for the ARB Findings and Action Form and Meeting Summary). However, the appellants and several other neighbors are opposed to the revised design (see Attachment No. 2 for the Appellants’ letter in opposition to the ARB decision). PROPOSAL The revised design (see Attachment No. 6) that was approved at the February 18, 2016 ARB meeting is for a 4,977 square-foot, two-story, Traditional-style house with a 247 square-foot basement. This design proposal is similar to the previously approved design in that it retains the Traditional architectural style, remains two-story, and maintains a nearly identical building footprint. The new design is different from the previous design in the following ways: • The living area was reduced from 5,400 to 4,977 square-feet. • The size of the upper floor was reduced from 1,680 square-feet to 1,205 square- feet. • The upper floor steps back from the front and east side property lines a significantly larger amount and steps back from the rear property line to a lesser degree. A 247 square-foot, fully-subterranean, finished basement was added with light wells that are within the westerly side yard. This room is to be a home theater. • The five second story windows on the front elevation were eliminated and replaced with three dormers. Two of the dormers will provide natural light to the Foyer and the third one will be purely decorative. HOA 15-04 - Continued 407 Oxford Drive March 22, 2016 – Page 3 of 6 • The house has the appearance of a one and a half story house on the front and easterly side elevations. Architectural Plans Approved by the ARB January 12, 2016 Revised ANALYSIS The ARB is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the designs for new homes are consistent with the design guidelines and regulations in City Council Resolution No. 6770, which are intended to ensure that new homes are harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood. At the January 12, 2016 public hearing the Planning Commission discussed whether or not the building height, massing, scale, and architectural style of the proposed home was consistent enough with the neighborhood to be considered harmonious and compatible(see Attachment No. 7 for an Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject Property and Vicinity). The Planning Commission commented that the proposed Traditional architectural style was appropriate, but that more could be done in regards to height, size, and/or scale of the building to make it more compatible with the surrounding homes. Specifically, the home should not be the largest in the neighborhood, the second floor should be reduced because it is on the uphill side of the street at a higher grade level, and the lot coverage limit will allow for more space on the ground floor. Massing In response to the comments made by the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing and in response to comments provided by the appellant and other neighboring property owners, the applicant revised the design as described in the Proposal section of this report. The revised design addressed the comments by cutting 475 square-feet from the upper floor, stepping back the upper floor from the ground floor, and changing HOA 15-04 - Continued 407 Oxford Drive March 22, 2016 – Page 4 of 6 the appearance of the home from the street to appear to be a one-and-a-half story house. The revised front elevation gives the home an appearance that is similar to other homes in the area. Also, the reduced size is closer to the sizes of other new homes recently approved in the area. See Attachment No. 4 for the Applicant’s letter in support of the ARB approval. New Construction: Recently Built or Under Construction 481 Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,492 sq. ft. home, Built 2014 474 Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,919 sq. ft. home, Under Construction 444 (448) Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,822 sq. ft. home, Under Construction 438 Oxford Dr. 2-story, 5,225 sq. ft. home, Under Construction 327 Oxford Dr. 2-story, 5,179 sq. ft. home, Under Construction 475 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 4,826 sq. ft. home, Built 2013 441 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 5,020 sq. ft. home, Built 2015 428 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 4,848 sq. ft. home, Built 2014 414 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 2,775 sq. ft. home, Built 1990 306 Harvard Dr. 2-story, 4,499 sq. ft. home, Under Construction The proposed design is substantially smaller than the maximum size allowed by the current zoning regulations, and is less than the floor-area-ratio recommended by the Zoning Review Committee. The recommended floor-area-ratio for this property would be 34% and would translate into a home size of 6,103 square feet plus a 650 square- foot allowance for a three-car garage. In regards to zoning compliance, the revised design will be in compliance if the three minor zoning issues regarding the circular driveway, pool enclosure, and pool equipment that were identified in the Staff Report for the January 12, 2016 meeting HOA 15-04 - Continued 407 Oxford Drive March 22, 2016 – Page 5 of 6 (Attachment No. 1) are corrected. However, during the previous Planning Commission meeting it was mentioned that a Yoga Room could easily be converted into a fifth bedroom, which would require the design to have a three-car garage. To address this concern, a condition of approval has been included to delete the wall dividing the Yoga Room and the adjacent storage room/closet to clarify that this is not a bedroom. Architectural Style The Traditional-style design that was discussed at the January 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was found by the ARB to be harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood, and the Planning Commission agreed. The revised design that was approved by the ARB on February 18, 2018, remains in the Traditional style, but the revisions to the front elevation that make it appear to be a one and a half stories and the smaller size of the upper floor help it blend in better with the neighboring homes. FINDINGS Staff concurs with the ARB findings that the proposed design is consistent with Resolution No. 6770 and the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of the revised design. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for new construction of one single-family residence under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 8 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public hearing notices for the continuance of this appeal were mailed on March 10, 2016, to the property owners and tenants of those properties within the design review notification area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval and find that the project is exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, subject to the conditions that the wall between the Yoga Room and the adjacent closet be removed, and the locations of the pool equipment, pool enclosure fencing, and circular driveway be adjusted to meet building and zoning regulations. HOA 15-04 - Continued 407 Oxford Drive March 22, 2016 – Page 6 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB approval of the design, the Commission should approve a motion to approve Appeal No. HOA 15-04 and state specifically how, based on the record, the proposed design is not consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and/or City Council Resolution No. 6770. Denial of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of the design, the Commission should approve a motion that finds the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that denies Appeal No. HOA 15-04, stating that the design is consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the March 22, 2016, Planning Commission meeting, please contact Associate Planner, Nick Baldwin by calling (626) 574-5444, or by email to NBaldwin@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Attachment No. 1: Staff Report for the January 12, 2016 Meeting Attachment No. 2: Appellants’ Letter in Opposition of the February 18, 2016 ARB Approval Attachment No. 3: ARB Findings and Actions Form, and Meeting Summary dated February 18, 2016 Attachment No. 4: Applicant’s Letter in Support of the February 18, 2016 ARB Approval Attachment No. 5: Subcommittee Meeting Summary from the Appellant Attachment No. 6: Revised Architectural Plans Approved by the ARB on February 18, 2016 Attachment No. 7: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Attachment No. 8: Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 Staff Report for the January 12, 2016 Meeting DATE: January 12, 2016 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 15-04 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR AN APPEAL OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR A PROPOSED 5,400 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO STORY TRADITIONAL-STYLE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AT 407 OXFORD DRIVE Recommendation: Deny appeal and uphold ARB approval SUMMARY John and Demie Kiragis, and Robert and Kris McNamara, the property owners at 400 and 408 Oxford Drive respectively, are appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association (Lower Rancho) Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) approval of the design for a proposed 5,400 square-foot, two-story, Traditional-style, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage at 407 Oxford Drive. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval. BACKGROUND City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City's Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (hyperlink) and in addition, City Council Resolution No. 6770 (hyperlink) establishes guidelines and design review procedures for properties within the five, City- designated, Homeowners’ Association areas. An architectural design for a 6,791 square-foot, two-story, 28-foot tall, Tuscan-style home was submitted to the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association Architectural Review Board (ARB) for consideration. A hearing was held on July 16, 2015, and several neighboring residents commented that the design was incompatible with the neighborhood, and that the views of the mountains for the residents on the south side of the street would be blocked by a two-story home. The ARB commented that the bulk, mass, and style should be revised to better conform to the character of the neighborhood and that views may be maintained if the upper floor were set back from the front of the ground floor of the house (see Attachment No. 1 for the July 16, 2015 meeting minutes). Appeal No. HOA 15-04 407 Oxford Drive January 12, 2016 – Page 2 of 6 A revised architectural design was submitted to the ARB for consideration. The revisions to the design included a lower height (25’-0” from 28”-0”), a smaller size (5,400 square-feet instead of 6,791 square-feet) a new architectural style (Prairie instead of Tuscan), an upper floor that steps back a greater distance from the ground floor at the front of the house, and enhanced landscaping. A hearing was held on August 20, 2015 and several neighboring residents commented that the design was still too large, and that balconies and larger windows on the upper floor impacted the privacy of the neighbors. The ARB commented that the existing large trees block the views of the neighbors residing on the south side of the street more than a new two-story house would, that the newly proposed Prairie architectural style is uninteresting, and that the architect should consider a one-story home (see Attachment No. 2 for the August 20, 2015 meeting minutes). A third design was submitted, and on September 24, 2015, a hearing was held and several neighboring residents attended and provided a letter (Attachment No. 3 – Comments to the September 24, 2015 ARB Meeting) that focused on their continued concerns regarding size, mass, two-story height, privacy, and the proposed Prairie architectural style. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the architect would work directly with two ARB members to address the outstanding design issues (see Attachment No. 4 for the September 24, 2015 meeting minutes. After working with two ARB members, a fourth design was submitted, and on October 28, 2015, a hearing was held and the architect explained how the design was revised to incorporate characteristics from preferred examples provided by the two ARB members that he worked with. The changes to the design included lowering the grade 1’-0” to allow the pitch of the roof to be increased and have a maximum height of 25’-6” and to plant an additional large tree in the front yard. It was determined that further changes to the design are needed to protect the privacy of the neighbors and to reduce the size of the upper floor of the home (see Attachment No. 5 for the October 28, 2015 meeting minutes). A fifth design was submitted, and on December 3, 2015, an ARB hearing was held. This current version of the architectural design includes some, but not all of the changes that the ARB requested. Changes included are the elimination of a balcony, the re- arrangement of the floor plan on the upper floor, and the proposed planting of large trees (see Attachment No. 6 for the approved architectural plans). The neighboring residents re-stated their opposition to the design because it is a two-story design that is not characteristic of a Ranch-style neighborhood. In the view of the ARB, the design is harmonious with the neighborhood and consistent with the design guidelines. The ARB approved the design by a vote of 3-1 (see Attachment No. 7 for the December 3, 2015 meeting minutes and the Findings and Action Form). On December 10, 2015, the ARB approval was appealed by John and Demie Kiragis, and Robert and Kris McNamara who reside at 400 and 408 Oxford Drive, respectively, which are directly across the street from the subject property (Attachment No. 8 – Appeal Letter). The appellants state that the approved design is too large for the lot and is over-sized for the neighborhood, the style conflicts with the established character of the neighborhood, and the privacy of the neighbors will not be adequately protected. The appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB’s approval Appeal No. HOA 15-04 407 Oxford Drive January 12, 2016 – Page 3 of 6 of the architectural design. The appellants also state that improper notice (6 days in lieu of 10 required) was provided for the December 3, 2015 meeting at which the final decision was made. The architect of the approved design provided a letter in response for consideration by the Planning Commission (See Attachment No. 9). The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal. The Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. PROPOSAL The subject property is a 17,767 square-foot interior lot, zoned R-0 (See Attachment No. 10 - Aerial and Photos). The property is currently improved with a 1,712 square- foot, one-story, Ranch-style, single-family residence built in 1954. The existing home will be demolished and replaced with the proposed design, which is a 5,400 square-foot, two-story, Traditional-style home (See Attachment No. 6 - Architectural Plans). There are three minor zoning issues that pertain to the design of the circular driveway, the location of the pool equipment in the rear yard, and the location of the pool enclosure fencing. These items are easily correctable and would be identified as correction items in the plan check process. With the exception of these three zoning issues, the proposed design is in compliance with the zoning code and regulations specific to the Lower Rancho Home Owners’ Association specified in Resolution 6770. ANALYSIS The ARB is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the designs for new homes are consistent with the design guidelines and regulations in Resolution 6770 which are intended to ensure that new homes are harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood. The design guidelines include, but are not limited to, architectural style, massing, site planning, building height, building materials and color. The appellants claim that the ARB erred in approving the proposed design because it is too massive, not in character with the architectural character of the neighborhood, and does not provide adequate protection for the privacy of the neighbors. The appellants assert in their appeal letter (Attachment No. 8) that the two-story design is too massive to be compatible with the neighborhood. It is stated that the proposed home, at 5,400 square-feet, is significantly larger than the average home in the immediate vicinity (roughly a 300 foot radius) which is 2,800 square-feet. They claim that the appearance of the two-story home will be massive not only because it is adjacent to one-story homes, but also because it is located on the north side of the street, which has a higher grade elevation than the properties on the south side of the street. Therefore, a two- story home on the north side of the street could reduce the views of the mountains for the residents on the south side of the street. In regards to architectural style, it is recorded in the minutes of the five meetings for this project that the opponents to the project identify the style of their neighborhood as Ranch and do not support the proposed Traditional style approved by the ARB. Lastly, it is stated in the appeal letter that the approved two-story design would intrude on the privacy of the immediate neighbors. Appeal No. HOA 15-04 407 Oxford Drive January 12, 2016 – Page 4 of 6 Massing The main elements of the approved design that the opponents to this project find disagreeable are related to size and height of the building which contribute to the massing of the home. Within a 300-foot radius, the lots are all comprised of one-story Ranch-style homes built in the 1950s and there are no newly built homes or homes under construction. There is no set distance or criterion that defines a neighborhood. Consideration of a larger area includes a mix of new and older homes, and provides a context of the changes occurring in the area. When considering this larger area, the character is a blend of high quality one- and two-story homes of various architectural styles such as Ranch, Traditional, French, Contemporary, and Prairie (See Attachment No. 10 for photos of new homes in the vicinity). The size approved for this project (5,400 square-feet) is comparable to the other new homes in the area. This is reflected in the map of the neighborhood shown below which shows nine homes that were approved by the ARB within two blocks of the subject property that have been recently built or are under construction and ranges from 4,492 to 5,225 square feet. Each of these nine new homes was determined by the ARB to be compatible with the neighborhood. In regards to the height of the building, there are already two-story homes being built in the neighborhood and some of them are on the north side of the street. Of the nine new homes shown on the map, six are two-story and two of those are on the north side of the street. New Construction: Recently Built or Under Construction 481 Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,492 sq. ft. Built 2014 474 Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,919 sq. ft. Under Construction 444 (448) Oxford Dr. 1-story, 4,822 sq. ft. Under Construction 438 Oxford Dr. 2-story, 5,225 sq. ft. Under Construction 327 Oxford Dr. 2-story, 5,179 sq. ft. Under Construction 475 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 4,826 sq. ft. Built 2013 441 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 5,020 sq. ft. Built 2015 428 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 4,848 sq. ft. Built 2014 414 Cambridge Dr. 2-story, 2,775 sq. ft. Built 1990 306 Harvard Dr. 2-story, 4,499 sq. ft. Under Construction Appeal No. HOA 15-04 407 Oxford Drive January 12, 2016 – Page 5 of 6 Architectural Style The Traditional style approved by the ARB blends well with the established neighborhood and shares many characteristics with Ranch-style architecture. The architect worked closely with the ARB and the residents attending the ARB meetings to create a design that would fit into the character of the neighborhood. Over the course of five meetings and five design iterations, the architect changed the style from Tuscan to Prairie and finally to Traditional in response to the comments received. Two-story, Traditional homes are under construction nearby at 438 Oxford Drive and 327 Oxford Drive (identified on the neighborhood map shown above). Privacy The subject property is an interior lot with two neighboring properties with one-story homes to the east and west and no neighbor to the north since the northerly property line abuts Colorado Street. Even though privacy is not included as a guideline within Resolution 6770 or the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, it is appropriate to take extra measures to protect the privacy of the neighbors when there are one-story homes adjacent to a two-story design proposal. The ARB adequately addressed this issue by making the windows on the side elevations as small as the Building Code will allow and by proposing 24”-box hedges alongside the house (See Attachment No. 6 – Architectural Plans). The architect provided additional screening of the home from the neighborhood by proposing two 72”-box Camphor trees and a 60”- box Jacaranda tree in the front yard. FINDINGS Staff concurs with the ARB findings that the proposed design is consistent with Resolution 6770 and the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of the design. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for new construction of one single-family residence under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 11 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed on December 29, 2015 to the property owners and tenants of those properties within the design review notification area. As of January 7, 2016, staff has not received any public comments on this project. Appeal No. HOA 15-04 407 Oxford Drive January 12, 2016 – Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval and find that the project is exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB approval of the design, the Commission should approve Appeal No. HOA 15-04 and state specifically how, based on the record, the proposed design is not consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and/or City Council Resolution No. 6770. Denial of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB approval of the design, the Commission should approve a motion that finds the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that denies Appeal No. HOA 15-04, stating that the design is consistent with the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the January 12, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting, please contact Assistant Planner, Nick Baldwin by calling (626) 574-5444, or by email to NBaldwin@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Attachment No. 1: ARB Minutes of the July 16, 2015 Meeting Attachment No. 2: ARB Minutes of the August 20, 2015 Meeting Attachment No. 3: Comments from the September 24, 2015 ARB Meeting Attachment No. 4: ARB Minutes of the September 24, 2015 Meeting Attachment No. 5: ARB Minutes of the October 28, 2015 Meeting Attachment No. 6: Architectural Plans approved by the ARB Attachment No. 7: ARB Minutes of the December 3, 2015 Meeting and the Findings and Action Form Attachment No. 8: Appeal Letter Attachment No. 9: Response Letter from the Architect dated December 22, 2015 Attachment No. 10: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Attachment No. 11: Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 1 Attachment No. 1 ARB Minutes of the July 16, 2015 Meeting Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: July 20, 2015 Re: 407 Oxford Dr. Mtg. Date: July 16, 2015 Mtg. Time: 7:30p.m. (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Ernie Boehr, Bob Eriksson, Lou Pappas and Rick Fricke. Michael Fox, the architect for the new two story home on 407 Oxford Dr. opened by stating how hard he worked to satisfy both client and the neighborhood and looking for solutions for difference in size of the new homes to the surrounding homes. The design of the home is Tuscan, not overly stated. He said he can play with the massive size of the home to satisfy the Board. The materials he has planned for the home are all high quality down to the stone and wrought iron being installed. He made changes to his original design after talking to the ARB such as breaking down the entry, no longer a large massive look to the front by pushing back the 2nd floor. The entry is recessed, roof height is 28 feet, garage has nice windows to look like part of the house, adding 4 new trees, and curving the line of the driveway. He presented a number of story boards to give visual aid to his presentation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Due the fact that this was a well attended meeting by the neighbors, the mood of the meeting got both passionate and heated from neighbors who have lived in the area for a long time. The negative comments made by most of the neighbors present were the following: the Tuscan design of the home is not in keeping with the College area's ranch style homes; the almost 6000 sq. ft. size of the home is too big next to the 2500 sq. ft. homes in the area; due to its size, it is blocking the views of the mountains of some neighbors who moved into that neighbhood for that very reason; feeling that developers are not respecting the neighbors who lived in the area for many many years and wonder why new owners need such a large house. There were complaints that the City does not back the longtime homeowners who have paid property taxes all these years and supported Arcadia schools and shopping centers since they allow these massive two story homes that change the whole integrity of the neighborhoods. Summary of Board Comments: To address the issue of two story homes, the Board said that the City allows them and ARB's have no say so about that. They can play around with the plan to give the appearance of a one story home by pushing back the second floor. This may or may not solve the problem of neighbors loosing their view of the mountains. The architect did comply with the feedback from the Board in making some changes. Although the design is professionally done, the bulk of the house needs to be shrunken down to fit the neighborhood. The Board cannot stop the Tuscan design but they can massage the style and bulk. The Board explained to the neighbors, that 4 to 5000 sq. foot homes are going to be built in our community. The goal of the Board is to keep the size no large than 5000. There was a suggestion for the architect to even look at an alternate style. This home would fit nicely somewhere else but not in this neighborhood and is suggesting the home be redesigned. The Board would ideally like to see a one story built on this lot. Regarding the curved driveway, a little more space was suggested along with 3 feet rather than 2 feet along the sides for screening. Although the architect gave a very good presentation, the Board could not pass the plans. Motion: To deny as presently submitted. Minutes by: Kathy Henrich Present at the Meeting: See attached sheet Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 ARB Minutes of the August 20, 2015 Meeting Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: August 23,2015 Re: 407 Oxford Dr. - 2nd Review Mtg. Date: August 20, 2015 Mtg. Time: 730 p.m. (open to the public) The meeting was opened at the home of Kevin Tomkins, HOA President, with the following board members present: Mike La Porte, Bob Eriksson, and Rick Fricke. Mike La Porte led the meeting for Ernie Boehr who was out of town. Michael Fox, architect for 407 Oxford Dr., said he made numerous changes by reducing the height of the home from 28 feet to 25 feet and reducing the slope of the roof. The first home he reviewed was a Tuscan style home, but he changed it to a Prairie style home. He took very seriously the comments made by the neighbors at the first meeting. He felt that the Prairie style home has a longer linear look which enhances this special community. He worked on the mass of the home by setting the 2nd floor back further. To be consistent with the set back, he designed a curving line to the driveway. The floorplan of the house is an opened space with the mass of the home pushed back. The elements offer visual interest with the stone cladding, wood trim and a warm palatte. He realizes that the landscaping is an important component and looked for a sensible balance with the home by planning a beige concrete driveway, travertine pavers at the front entry and three new trees in the front. He also got rid of the higher base plate by lowering it to accommodatea a one step up instead of three in the entry. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This meeting was well attended with many expressing their thoughts on this home. The comments were as follows: 1) the home is still too large for the neighborhood at 5400 plus garage and patio; 2) the home is twice the size of the other homes in the area and feel massive two story homes should not be allowed; 3) windows and balcony do not offer enough privacy to the neighbors; 4) the two kitchens planned should be banned; 5) the home should be listed as a 5 bedroom home instead of 4 due to the fact that the yoga room has a bathroom off of it, thus requiring a three instead of a two car garage; 6) the property is on higher ground than the homes across the street to the south; 7) it is not being properly maintained now as it sits vacant leaving the neighbors to feel the lack of integrity from the homeowner towards the feelings of the neighbors; 8) neighbors really questioned whether the owners are really going to live in the home when it is finished. Summary of Board Comments: Rick Fricke questioned the designer on his calculations being correct and asked Michael Fox to double check them. The rendering is missing details. He wants to see the dimensions and details of the home to make sure it is being built correctly. Rick did discuss that a possible one story plan would work with a higher roof line with dormers, but the designer said the owners love the size of the back yard and do not want to sacrifice the space. Bob Ericksson said that two story homes are never turned down but agrees they are too big. He feels the view of the home with not block the neighbor's home across the street due to the fact that the trees in the back of the home in question are so tall now, they already block that view and that the home will not be higher than the trees. He agrees that they will need to design a three car garage as the design stands now. The City would require that. Mike La Porte would like to see the architect push hard on the owners. He feels the prairie style looks uninteresting. He agrees that the calculations are off on this 4 bdrm 6 bath home according to the plans and also that a third garage will have to be added. Mike also pushed for a one story home. Kevin Tomkins, in going along the lines of a one story home, suggested building a basement with the yoga room and theater be placed downstairs. MOTION: The approval is contingent per the above notes along with a change to the floor plan to include a third garage. The horizontal eaves need to be lengthened to follow the true style of a Prairie style home, that the propery be maintained before and during constructdion and that Bob meets with the landscape designer. Michael Fox will need to bring in sketches to the board before the next meeting. Minutes by: Kathy Henrich Present: See Attached Sheet. Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 Comments from the September 24, 2015 ARB Meeting Good Evening Ernie and ARB Board Members, We are writing to once again appeal to you to deny the plans for 407 Oxford Drive for the following reasons: The proposed project does not relate to anything else in the neighborhood: - The architectural style has no connection, relationship nor does it compliment any of the existing style homes. This has been discussed at each meeting with the architect and it is dismissed by the owners as they have made very minor changes to their plans. Their actions have shown no desire to work with or compliment the neighborhood with their new home design. - The size of the project will look out of scale and proportion to the neighbors. The average square footage of the homes in our neighborhood is 2,500 and they want to build a 6,000 sq ft house. They list the house as 5,460 sq ft but do not include the garage and outdoor patio area - increasing the square footage to just under 6,000 sq. ft. They list the house as four bedrooms, 6.5 baths yet they have a Yoga Room, Library and Tea Room, all which could be used as bedrooms. This is a single- family neighborhood and they have two master suites - why? Over the past three months, the owners misrepresented themselves - if they are doing this now - what will they be like when they build the house…and why should the existing neighbors, who have lived and cared for there homes be the ones that are punished if this plan goes through? That is wrong!! - Additionally, the homes that are directly next door will be affected by the two-story element and the house will invade their privacy, the windows at the rear second floor would need to be higher up or eliminated in order to protect their privacy. The homes across the street will loose a good portion of their view of the mountains - an element that has been raised at each meeting, as this is a property value that will negatively affect the existing homeowners. Not to mention, there are NO two-story homes on the northside of the street for that key reason - it will obstruct the mountain views of the southside homes. - Importantly, this project will set a new precedent, both in size, two-story and style - all elements that are NOT wanted by the majority of the neighborhood which has been communicated loudly, both with letters and in person by individuals who have attended and spoke up at the past two ARB meetings. Per Resolution 6770 (which repeals Resolution 5287) pursuant to Ordinance NO. 2287, Section 2 states: “In accordance with the Arcadia General Plan (the Single-Family Homeowners’ Association Architectural Design - or ARB which we are as the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association) directive 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.” “Section 3: “…to promote and maintain the quality single-family residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property VALUES and ARCHITECTURAL character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association…” “Section 4:…It is determined that each building or structure and its landscaping and hardscape on properties within each area should exhibit a Consistent and Cohesive Architectural Style, and be Harmonious and compatible with other structures in architectural style, scale, visual mass, height, width and length, and setbacks…” “A. Site Planning - 1. Natural amenities such as views, and other features unique to the site should be protected and incorporated into developmental proposals.” “L. Affect on Adjacent Properties and Neighborhood - The impact on adjacent properties shall be addressed, including impacts on privacy and views. First story and second story elements should be designed and articulated to reasonably address these issues, and windows and balconies shall be located to reasonably protect privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards” In closing Under Section A. Standards for ARB Decisions and Appeals, Section 7. …”It is determined that the various land use controls, and property regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia’s environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties….” We again, turn to you, our ARB Members, to stand tall and support the existing neighbors in denying this plan. This property owner wants to build a home that is oversized, out of scale, negatively affects the surrounding neighbors and has no connection to the style of homes of our neighborhood. This has been repeated over and over again - and not changes. This owner needs to purchase a piece of property in the Oaks or Upper Rancho where they can build a 6,000 sq ft home and fit in - but not in this neighborhood. You as our ARB members have the power to deny this. We ask that you do!! If this is approved this property, as stated in the conclusion of Section 7, “can have a negative impact on the environment of the community, affecting property values, and the quality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia.” Please deny this plan!! Thank you, Kris and Bob McNamara Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 ARB Minutes of the September 24, 2015 Meeting Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: September 24, 2015 Re: Reviews- 476 Cambridge, 514 Monte Vista, 407 Oxford & 1018 Encanto Mtg. Time: 6:30 – 9:30pm (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Ernie Boehr, Bob Eriksson, Lou Pappas, Rick Fricke (missed first meeting) and Kevin Tomkins. 476 Cambridge Motion: A motion was made (Lou made the motion, Bob second) to approve project subject to: 1. Review of landscape plan 2. Standard approval conditions 514 Monte Vista Motion: A motion was made (Lou made the motion, Ernie second) to approve project subject to: 1. Review of landscape plan- maybe remove Eucalyptus tree 2. Standard approval conditions 3. Other conditions a) Put in fence or retaining wall on side of property b) Move air-conditioning c) Pool will be a separate approval/ condition- try to get early renderings to review setbacks with the neighbors 407 Oxford Public Comments: Meeting was well attended. Kris McNamara read the attached letter. Key concerns were around size, mass, second story- protecting privacy and views of surrounding homes and yards. The biggest complaint was around the style of the house (Prairie), fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood. Motion: A motion was made, based on Architect’s agreement, to withdrawn application. A motion for continuance was made, carried and unanimously approved. It was suggested that a meeting with one or two board members and the owner and architect would hopefully get them to a point of having a plan that could be approved. 1018 Encanto Motion: A motion was made (Rick made the motion, Bob second) to approve project subject to: 1. Review of landscape plan 2. Standard approval conditions 3. Other conditions a) Raise the height of the side windows b) Dormers across the front should be same size Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 ARB Minutes of the October 28, 2015 Meeting Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: October 29, 2015 Re: 407 Oxford Dr. Mtg. Date: October 28, 2015 Mtg. Time: 6:30p.m. (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Ernie Boehr, Bob Eriksson, Lou Pappas and Rick Fricke. Kevin Tomkins as HOA President participated with comments. Michael Fox, the architect for the new two story home on 407 Oxford Dr. opened by saying he met with two HOA members to look at several styles that has been approved int he area and came away with a short list of homes that the HOA liked. As a result, the design of the home was changed to a more traditional style home with a warmer palette and colors. The floorplan is essentially the same, although a pocket door was added in the dining room to open the home to the back yard. The grading of the home will be lowered a foot to accommodate the increased pitch of the roof due to the new design. The peak will be at 25.6. This change gives the home a gable feel and roof scape. The present city tree will be replaced with a 60 boxed tree. The pad sits in relationship to the curb at 3 feet. A dark grey concrete roof is planned. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Various comments were made unrelated to the style of the home but not discussed in length due to the nature of the concerns. Only two neighbors really expressed their feelings on the new design, one liking the design, the other wanting a more Cape Cod style home, which she thought would fit in more with the neighborhood. She also commented on the current lack of upkeep on the present home still standing. The neighbors showed a concern on the circular driveway that was not shown in the plans in the neighbors the received but do show as a part of the new plans. Discussion followed with no changes to the new circular plans. SUMMARY OF THE BOARD COMMENTS: It was mentioned that the floor ratio is at 30% which is smaller the 35% that is allowed and therefore fits into city's criteria. A couple of the Board met with the family and felt the family really want to be a part of the community and are very lovely people. It was determined that the side windows need to be made smaller and set higher to give privacy to the neighbors and that the second floor needs to be set back a foot or more. The front door currently designed needs to be changed to a solid front door. The problems with the design were the drawings needed to be dimensioned more, the second story is too big for the house and that it is architecturally unbalanced. The architect needs to show the home with the correct elevation in relation to neighboring houses and to get the details worked out. The goal is to make the house look like it belongs there. Motion: A motion was made to grant a conditional approval along with a chair review of the modifications with Michael Fox and staff, Kevin, Rick and Lou, meeting sooner rather than later and then final approval to be signed off by Ernie which includes the landscape plan. It was amended to include a neighbor, Khris McNamara, to sit in on the review. Minutes by: Kathy Henrich Present at the Meeting: The Board as listed above Helen Barrett Carmi Falabrer Denice and John Kibages Pat Colville Bob and Kris McNamara Jeff Stellern Ray Ballarin April Verlato - Highland Oaks ARB Attachment No. 6 Attachment No. 6 Architectural Plans approved by the ARB Attachment No. 7 Attachment No. 7 ARB Minutes of the December 3, 2015 Meeting and the Findings and Action Form Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: December 10, 2015 Re: 407 Oxford Dr. 6th Meeting Mtg. Date: December 3, 2015 Mtg. Time: 7:30p.m. (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Ernie Boehr, Bob Eriksson, Lou Pappas and Rick Fricke. The purpose of this meeting was to find out what changes the architect Michael Fox made that warrant an approval from the Board. Michael reiterated some of the feed back from the Board on the 2nd story to remove the massive sizing. He revised the 2nd floor plan by arranging one of the two bedrooms in front to be located on the side next to the front bedroom, thus eliminating the extention to the front of the house. That original area was reduced and set back. He also eliminated the balcony. The upstairs windows need to be the size they are designed for egress requirements. Although he rearranged the rooms on the second floor, he did not reduce the 1680 sq. footage as seen on the previous plans. He made the elevation assymetrical. Two 60 inch boxed trees are planned for the front as well as two 40 inch boxed trees in the back yard. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The neighbors were still not pleased with the size of the home and the fact it has not changed in design from a two story home to a one story home. It is not in keeping with the ranch style look in the neighborhood. SUMMARY OF THE BOARD COMMENTS: The negative comment was that the house has not changed in size and is still too big in regard to the mass and scale of the other homes in the neighborhood. The feeling was the Board was given the runaround from the architect. The positive comments were that the architect has complied with the guidelines of the city which allows two story homes, the height of the roof has been reduced, the siding of the house has been changed to fit the neighbborhood, that big trees are planned which will frame the home, that the second floor was brought back in, that it is not an objectionable design, is harmonious with the neighbors and that Michael Fox complied with the requests of the Board. Ernie Boehr explained to the neighbors that any decision made by the Board can be appealed to the City Planning Commission. Approval by the City can also be appealed as well to the City Council. He felt the spirit of the decision would be based on the issues the architect complied with. Motion: A motion was made to approve the home with the condition that the landscape plans have been approved by Bob Eriksson, and along with the Standard Conditions required. Minutes by: Kathy Henrich Present at the Meeting: The Board as listed above Bob and Kris McNamara, 408 Oxford Dr. Ray Ballarin, 411 Oxford Dr. John Kirages, 400 Oxford Dr. Juintow Lin, Foxlin Architects DocuSign Envelope ID: 97763D20-7F64-4894-B312-E831FFDB42CF Rancho Santa Anita HOA 407 Oxford Dr. X X X X X X X Cul Guo DocuSign Envelope ID: 97763D20-7F64-4894-B312-E831FFDB42CF Rancho Santa Anita HOA Robert Eriksson Ernie Boehr Lou Pappas X Rick Fricke December 3, 2015 Attachment No. 8 Attachment No. 8 Appeal Letter Attachment No. 9 Attachment No. 9 Response Letter from the Architect dated December 22, 2015 407 OXFORD RESIDENCE APPEAL RESPONSE December 22, 2015 Dear Mr. Baldwin, As a principal of FoxLin Architecture, responsible for design of the proposed residence at 407 Oxford, I am writing in regards to the appeal letter to offer a response to the inaccuracies and misrepresentations regarding all the important features of the house. We understand the community’s concerns and weariness with development, but we emphasize that this is a modest two-story proposal with precedent in the immediate neighborhood. The approval from the ARB was not a hasty decision – as the minutes demonstrate, it is the result of a 5 month long deliberative process in which the design went through multiple rounds of changes guided and shaped by local feedback and comments. Below, we address the criticisms raised regarding the overall size, style, privacy, and alleged sightline issues of the house. 1) With regards to the overall size: The design more than conforms with the city’s development standards and is far under the allowable size for the site, built area to lot ratio, height limits, and setbacks. Two houses at 438 oxford and 327 Oxford are less than a block away with larger area to lot size ratios than our proposal for 407 Oxford; both houses are over 5,000 square feet. The house at 327 Oxford is on the same side of the street just six houses away, close enough that 407 would not look conflictingly large. The proposed frontage for 407 is also of comparable width and setback as all others on the block. With regards to the second story I am attaching an image which shows the number of two-story houses interspersed with single-story houses in the immediate vicinity of this proposed home. One of these homes is even on the same side of the street six houses away (see attachment 1 and attachment 4). 2) With regards to the style: Driven by HOA and community feedback, our design underwent several stylistic changes. Our initial design was a Tuscan style home, which we were told would not fit with the character of the neighborhood. We then proposed two styles (craftsman and prairie) to the HOA board. We were told either style would be compatible. We decided to work in the prairie style; the prairie style emphasizes the horizontality of the ground floor to respond to the single story homes of the neighborhood, and has precedence in another HOA approved prairie style house on the next street over (Harvard Street). After developing this design and presenting at the next meeting, we were told that the prairie style would also be incompatible. To find a solution, we sat together with our clients, a husband and wife, with two members of the board. Our clients were shown by the ARB members a number of houses that would be stylistically acceptable to the ARB at this site. We chose to interpret a design based on a home that exists on Monte Verde a few blocks away. Please find attached the existing house on Monte Verde and an elevation of our design for comparison. (see attachment 2) At the next meeting in October, a motion was made and approved to grant a conditional approval along with a chair review of the modifications; we redesigned the front façade, reduced the second floor area (pulling the second floor yet further from the street frontage) and responded to several design change requests. At the next meeting in December, our design was granted approval. 3) With regards to privacy concerns: We took privacy into careful consideration after concerns were raised by the ARB. All of the windows on the second story are small: 2’-6 wide by 2’6 high. On the East side the two windows are set back 15’ so there are no possible direct views into the neighbor’s yards. 4) Blocking views to the mountains: Some neighbors have stated that the new house would block views of the mountain and reduce the neighborhood’s property value. However, it is important to note that the mountains to the North are not currently visible due to the presence of very large mature trees in the rear yard. The yard and these trees were not only already present before the construction of this home, but were a huge selling point for the client and we are retaining all of them. (see attachment 3) In addition, we are planting four new trees in the front yard, which is currently barren. The trees proposed for the front yard are very mature with one 75” box and three 60” box trees. 5) Summary of Meeting minutes a. July 15 Meeting i. Board Comments 1. “To address the issue of two story homes, the Board said that the City allows them and ARB's have no say so about that. ” a. For each subsequent submittal, we have pushed the second floor farther back, and provided more first level roof visible to the street. b. August 20 Meeting i. Board Comments 1. “Bob Ericksson said that two story homes are never turned down but agrees they are too big. He feels the view of the home with not block the neighbor's home across the street due to the fact that the trees in the back of the home in question are so tall now, they already block that view and that the home will not be higher than the trees. “ c. September 24 Meeting i. Public Comments 1. “The biggest complaint was around the style of the house (Prairie), fitting in with the rest of the neighborhood.” a. We have since changed the style based on suggested example from ARB. d. October 28 meeting i. Public Comments 1. “Various comments were made unrelated to the style of the home but not discussed in length due to the nature of the concerns. Only two neighbors really expressed their feelings on the new design, one liking the design, the other wanting a more Cape Cod style home, which she thought would fit in more with the neighborhood. “ a. We started with many more neighbors commenting negatively at the start of this process. In the end, there was one single neighbor that has expressed concerns, the appellant. She has continually attempted to try to design the house. We wish we could make everyone happy but despite our many efforts and overall success with other neighbors, we are unfortunately unable to please one the neighbor directly across the street. ii. Board Comments 1. It was mentioned that the floor ratio is at 30% which is smaller the 35% that is allowed and therefore fits into city's criteria. A couple of the Board met with the family and felt the family really want to be a part of the community and are very lovely people. e. December 4 Meeting i. Board Comments 1. The positive comments were that the architect has complied with the guidelines of the city which allows two story homes, the height of the roof has been reduced, the siding of the house has been changed to fit the neighbborhood, that big trees are planned which will frame the home, that the second floor was brought back in, that it is not an objectionable design, is harmonious with the neighbors and that Michael Fox complied with the requests of the Board. Thank you for your objective consideration in this matter. Michael Fox Principal, Foxlin Architecture Associate Professor of Architecture Cal Poly Pomona Juintow Lin Principal, Foxlin Architecture Associate Professor of Architecture Cal Poly Pomona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Following are excerpts of the appeal letter, with responses in bold text . Dear Mr. Kasama, We are the adjacent homeowners at 400 and 408 Oxford Drive for forty plus years and we are proud to call this our home. We thank you for allowing us to express our concerns and objections to the recently approved plan by our ARB for 407 Oxford Drive. We are writing as the representatives of our neighborhood homeowners who have consistently expressed objection to the plans at 407 Oxford Dr. at each of the past five ARB meetings due to the fact: - the house is too large for the lot; See response 01 - the plans are oversized for the neighborhood - building a home that is twice the square footage of other homes in the neighborhood (attached are copies of the five proposed designs); See response 01 - the style is not harmonious and conflicts with the integrity of the neighborhood -with both existing homes and new homes being built; See response 02 - it is a two-story house that will violate and invade the privacy of the homes on either side and will lower the property value by blocking the mountain views of those across the street; See response 03 and 04 - there are no two-story houses on this side of Oxford Drive. The north side property is elevated and the elevation of the property on the south side of the street is lower, making the height of the home even greater than normal thus blocking views even more; See response 01 and 04 - approving this project would set a precedent, both in size, scale and style - all elements consistently protested to the ARB; See response 01 and 02 - the ARB has not conducted itself in a fair minded way that is required in Resolution 6770 in determining the validity of a design, but acted in an agenda formed posture at several meetings, telling the homeowners to just "get over it"- things are changing; - the ARB gave us 6 days’ notice for the December 3 meeting (the meeting notice was received on 11/27 and the meeting was 12/3) and the plans that were modified for approval were received the day before the meeting. Our protest has fallen on deaf ears. We have lived in Arcadia most of our lives and this is a beautiful city to live in and we want to see that maintained. When we added on to our home at 408, 28 years ago, the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Architectural Review Board had to sign off and approve our design with the criteria that our addition tied in with the existing home style and it would only be approved if we maintained the integrity of our home design with in our neighborhood (our addition was in the backyard and was completely invisible to the street) and we had to have the approval of our design by all the contiguous homeowners. We were pleased City of Arcadia Code of Ordinances Architectural Design Review 9295 - Purpose: 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. " Based on this Ordinance, we are appealing to you to deny permits for this project as it does not meet the above criteria for the following reasons: - At each of the ARB meetings over 12+ homeowner s attended and they all expressed frustration with: the design which was out of character with the neighborhood; was out of scale - over 5,400+ sq ft when the average home is 2,800 sq feet; would decrease the property value and invade privacy with a two story home (which there are NONE in our block on that side of the street); they rejected the circular drive; and communicated that the plans are not compatible with the existing style homes in our neighborhood. Please note that the circular drive was, and is, encouraged by the ARB. The garage is in the rear. (Michael Fox) - According to Resolution No. 6770, the role of the ARB is to follow these guidelines (the ARB states in their meeting notice that they are following the guidelines of Resolution 5287 - that resolution was replaced by 6770, maybe that's their confusion?) - "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... "and this is not being upheld . On December 3, the ARB meeting was held with five days notice (and that was after the Thanksgiving weekend). Each Board Member commented and voted on the proposed plan: Rick's comments: "I deny the plan based on being too big for the block; no two stories on the block; it's too massive and too out of scale with the neighborhood." He expressed that he had spent time studying the neighborhood and this plan just does not fit. He had spoken to the architect several times, and he thinks Michael is just not listening and maybe he can't design a home that really would fit in our neighborhood. He voted against the plan. The above in Yellow is not the ARB member’s comments nor is it recorded in the minutes They are the interpretation of the person writing the appeal (Michael Fox) Bob's comments: "They bought the wrong lot for what they want to build and should have bought elsewhere." Bob said the architect was advised to reduce the square footage (it did not change), redo the two story and make it more recessed, but if they added more big trees it will be a better fit with the neighborhood. Bob approved the plan as long as they add more BIG trees. (In the architects plans they intend to water 4-5 times daily. We are limited with our water use in Arcadia and they want to water daily, yet the rest of the homeowners are told to CUT water usage. If they big trees they will have to water more). The above in Yellow is not the ARB member’s comments nor is it recorded in the minutes They are the interpretation of the person writing the appeal (Michael Fox) Lou's comments: He had met with the architect and the homeowners and showed them homes that would complement our neighborhood. A home on Monte Verde was one they liked yet the architect did not change the design at all to look more like that home, which would have been a better fit. He said they complied with the requests that were made Lou votes to ok the plan. (They did? The architect was told to reduce the sq. footage - he did that once but never again; they added a circular drive which was asked to be removed - it's still there; they were told to reduce and raise the windows on the two sides of the house - they reduced them on the eastside but not on the westside - this is complying?) The above in Yellow is not the ARB member’s comments nor is it recorded in the minutes They are the interpretation of the person writing the appeal (Michael Fox) Ernie: "Michael has a client who wants a home that is not right for this neighborhood." He needs to add more trees to frame the house and he votes to ok the plan. We have had the largest number of homeowners attend every ARB meeting regarding this project and the owners have consistently objected to each plan. In addition, the homeowner s who are contiguous to this property all objected to the design, yet the board approved this plan last week. The above in Yellow is not the ARB member’s comments nor is it recorded in the minutes They are the interpretation of the person writing the appeal (Michael Fox) Attachment No. 10 Attachment No. 10 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 1954 1,712 1 FRITSCH,BETTY A ET AL CLARK,BARBARA P Site Address: 407 OXFORD DR 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 generated07-Jan-2016 Page 1 of 1 17,767 407 Oxford Dr., Subject Property 401 Oxford Dr., Adjacent Property to the East 411 Oxford Dr., Adjacent Property to the West 408 Oxford Dr., Property acrossthe Street 400 Oxford Dr., Property across the Street to the East 414 Oxford Dr., Property across the Street to the West 481Oxford Dr. 474Oxford Dr. 448 Oxford Dr. 438Oxford Dr. 327Oxford Dr. 475 CambridgeDr. 441 Cambridge Dr. 428 Cambridge Dr. 414 Cambridge Dr. 306 HarvardDr. Attachment No. 11 Attachment No. 11 Preliminary Exemption Assessment Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: An Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association Architectural Review Board’s approval of the single-family residential design 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): 407 Oxford Dr. (between N. Baldwin Avenue and Princeton Road) 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name John and Demie Kiragis (2) Address 400 Oxford Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 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 Quality Act (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: 15303 (Class 3, Construction of one Single-Family Residence) f. The project is statutorily exempt. 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: December 24, 2015 Staff:Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 2 Appellants’ Letter in Opposition of the February 18, 2016 ARB Approval Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 3 ARB Findings and Actions Form, and Meeting Summary dated February 18, 2016 DocuSign Envelope ID: FBB9BA5C-FD98-4766-B0C8-696B6047AC71 X X X Rancho Santa Anita X X Cul Guo X X 407 Oxford Dr X DocuSign Envelope ID: FBB9BA5C-FD98-4766-B0C8-696B6047AC71 Ernie Boehr Robert Erikkson X February 18, 2016 Rick Fricke Rancho Santa Anita Lou Pappas Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association Serving the Rancho Santa Anita & College Street Areas Date: February 18, 2016 Re: 407 Oxford Dr Mtg. Date: February 18, 2016 Mtg. Time: 6:30 p.m. (open to the public) The meeting was opened and the following board members were present: Ernie Boehr, Bob Eriksson, Rick Fricke and Lou Pappas Neighbors present: Kris and Bob McNamara, Ray Ballerini, Jim Hanrahan, Helen Barrett, Jeff Stellern, (an additional two names are illegible) Subsequent to the last ARB hearing (December 3, 2015) and the Planning Commission Meeting(January 12, 2016), a sub-committee composed of Lou Pappas, Kevin Tomkins, Michael Fox (project designer) and Kris McNamara met to seek compromise between neighbors’ concerns and project design. Although it was agreed that the design had progressed in a favorable direction, no agreement was reached. Michael Fox, project designer presented the most current concept, featuring a traditional façade, newe roof line treatment and a reduction in square footage to just slightly under 5000 SqFt. Neighbor comments can be summed up as follows. “Better, but still not the right deisgn for this location…. It should be a single story home”. Kris McNamara, speaking for the neighbors, asks the ARB to act responsibly, listen to the concerns of the neighbors, and deny this project BOARD COMMENTS: Summary of Board Comments: Lou Pappas: Designer has met standard for approval Bob Erikkson: “ “ “ “ Ernie Boehr: “ “ “ “ Rick Fricke: Design is still not right for the location Motion was made by Lou Pappas to approve project subject to landscape review , detailing review and standard approval conditions. Motion passed. Aye: Lou Pappas, Bob Erikkson, Ernie Boehr Nay: Rick Fricke Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 4 Applicant’s Letter in Support of the February 18, 2016 ARB Approval 407 OXFORD RESIDENCE SECOND APPEAL RESPONSE March 3, 2016 Dear Mr. Baldwin, As a principal of FoxLin Architecture, responsible for design of the proposed residence at 407 Oxford, I am writing a summary of what has transpired since the continuance was granted by the planning commission on We understand the community’s concerns and weariness with development, but we emphasize that this is a modest two-story proposal with precedent in the immediate neighborhood. Having already gained approval from the ARB and support from the staff report, I made a personal call at this point directly to the appellant on February 9th . We had a cordial discussion and she emailed me two images that she had previously submitted to the ARB on October 8th where she stated that such houses: “…would fit beautifully in our neighborhood as well: at 100 White Oak and 1717 Highland Oaks Drive the two story homes that are a better fit in a neighborhood of single story ranch homes. There is less square footage on the second floor to minimize the impact and a cape cod style would accomplish this and blend in nicely among single story homes.” Images are below from the appellants letter to the ARB. Images submitted to the Architectural Office by the Appellant as sample homes that “would fit beautifully in our neighborhood” We proceeded to develop the design towards this style which required us to further reduce the second floor area. The area has been reduced to 4,977. The 5,000 SF was recommended as a target area by the planning commission based on an average of new homes. We then had a successful meeting with a sub-committee of the ARB which included Lou Pappas, Rick Fricke, Kevin Tomkins and the appellant Kris McNamara. We changed the style to match the examples that the appellant recommended "would fit beautifully in the site" and we also reduced the size to under 5,000 SF. Lou and Kevin were very positive and gave constructive criticism. The appellant at this time noted that she will not (as a neighbor) approve anything that is not a single story proposal even though she had earlier sent the images above to the ARB. As an exercise we made a rendering of a single story house in the same style. The images are below comparing a one-story version with decorative attic dormers to the proposed two-story version. The point is that with this style of roof coming down to the first floor, it is really viewed as a single story house by the neighbors. Comparative images of the proposed two-story house (left) to a 1,500 SF single story house (right) in the same style Following the Sub-committee meeting, we made a number of changes, most notably reconciling a flat portion of the roof as well as adding some detailing to the front door and window shutters. We then had another ARB meeting whereby the revised house was again approved by the ARB. The second approval from the ARB was again not a hasty decision and involved long deliberative process in which the design went through multiple rounds of changes guided and shaped by feedback and comments. Please note in closing that we have greatly respected and taken into account the subjective design guidelines of the ARB and the planning commission to ensure the aesthetics and privacy of the neighborhood is preserved. 5,000 SF was recommended as a target area by the planning commission based on an average of new homes. This is a subjective target as defined by recent precedent and it should be noted that we are legally entitled to build a two-story home of more than 7,000 SF on this site. By following the subjective suggestions, we now have the lowest built area to lot ratio of ANY new home. We have worked hard to adhere to these guidelines yet we believe that these guidelines should be able to be followed without impacting people’s ability to expand their houses or to build new homes which are closer to what is legally allowed by the building codes. We believe strongly that it should be the wisdom of the ARB board which decides to approve or not approve any new proposed home. The ARB has been established to make sound judgements as to what is subjectively a good fit to the neighborhood. The ARB has now twice approved designs for this house. The process at this point has completely been hijacked by the appellant who is adamant on stopping ANY proposed two story house and I urge the planning commission to consider the sound decisions made by the ARB. Thank you for your objective consideration in this matter Michael Fox Principal, Foxlin Architecture Associate Professor of Architecture Cal Poly Pomona Juintow Lin Principal, Foxlin Architecture Associate Professor of Architecture Cal Poly Pomona Attachment No. 5 Attachment No. 5 Subcommittee Meeting Summary from the Appellant Attachment No. 6 Attachment No. 6 Revised Architectural Plans Approved by the ARB on February 18, 2016 Attachment No. 7 Attachment No. 7 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property 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 1954 1,712 1 FRITSCH,BETTY A ET AL CLARK,BARBARA P Site Address: 407 OXFORD DR 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 generated07-Jan-2016 Page 1 of 1 17,767 407 Oxford Dr., Subject Property 401 Oxford Dr., Adjacent Property to the East 411 Oxford Dr., Adjacent Property to the West 408 Oxford Dr., Property acrossthe Street 400 Oxford Dr., Property across the Street to the East 414 Oxford Dr., Property across the Street to the West 481Oxford Dr. 474Oxford Dr. 448 Oxford Dr. 438Oxford Dr. 327Oxford Dr. 475 CambridgeDr. 441 Cambridge Dr. 428 Cambridge Dr. 414 Cambridge Dr. 306 HarvardDr. Attachment No. 8 Attachment No. 8 Preliminary Exemption Assessment Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: An Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents’ Association Architectural Review Board’s approval of the single-family residential design 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): 407 Oxford Dr. (between N. Baldwin Avenue and Princeton Road) 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name John and Demie Kiragis (2) Address 400 Oxford Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 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 Quality Act (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: 15303 (Class 3, Construction of one Single-Family Residence) f. The project is statutorily exempt. 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: December 24, 2015 Staff:Nick Baldwin, Assistant Planner