Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINDINGS & ACTION Report 2039 Elkins Pl.Page 1 of 4 Arcadia Highlands Homeowner’s Association Architectural Review Board Findings and Action Report File No.: L-01-2017 Date: 02/01/2017 Project Address: 2039 Elkins Pl. Applicant: _Eric Tsang Design Studio________ Owner (if different) __Bo Huang/Jia Ying Investment, LLC_____________________ Project Description: New build- two story single family home 4010 sq ft plus 989 basement/4999 total_ FINDINGS I. SITE PLANNING - The proposed project IS NOTconsistent with the Site Planning It’s size exceeds most of the homes on the street. Although the project is a traditional design, it does not blend in with the adjacent homes and most of the homes on the street. Due to building’s unique site on a sloped street and the slope of the frontage to the street, the design visually appears to have more massing due to shape, use of materials and a front facing garage. II. ENTRY - The proposed project IS consistent with the Entry Guidelines III. MASSING - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Massing Guidelines based on Due to the home’s unique building site, the home sits high from the street and the front facing gabled stone façade and the front facing garage make the home appear to have a visual heaviness in comparison to the homes on the street. IV. SCALE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Scale Guidelines Although there are a number of other two story homes on the street, the home’s design visually looks out of scale and incompatible to the adjacent homes and majority of homes on the street. V. ROOFS - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Roofing Guidelines based on The majority of the homes on the street do not have gables but are hipped roofs with long horizontal planes. Page 2 of 4 VI. FACADE DESIGN - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Facade Design The use of stone all the way to the top of the gable makes the home not compatible with the others. The gabled front breaks the horizontal lines that predominate the neighborhood. The front facing garage appears to dominate the front façade. The independent stone clad chimneys do not appear to visually anchor the design. VII. DETAILS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Architectural Details The details are high quality and are consistent with the architectural style of the design but the design is not compatible with the majority of homes on the street. VIII. MATERIALS & COLORS – The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines The El Dorado stone on the front façade and chimneys are not compatible with the other homes on the street. IX. LANDSCAPE & HARDSCAPE - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines X. FENCES & WALLS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Fences and Walls XI. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines as it does not blend in and therefore not harmonious and compatible with the homes on the street that have predominantly horizontal lines. XII. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS - The proposed project IS/IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines for Additions and Alterations based: N/A XIII. STREETSCAPE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Streetscape due to it’s design to blend in with other architectural style on the street and also due to it’s unique position on the sloped street and lot positioning. The roof form and front facing garage and façade is not harmonious to the other homes. XIV. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA & SETBACKS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Minimum Floor Area and Setback Guidelines. Although it meets City code, the home appears to have more massing for it’s particular lot site and position. A reduced floor area would make it appear more suitable to it’s unique site and more compatible with the majority of homes on the street. XV. GARAGES - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines for Garages as it dominates the front elevation. Page 3 of 4 XVI. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS & APPEARANCE - refer to prior comments. XVII. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES & NEIGHBORHOOD - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines for Affect on Adjacent Properties and the Neighborhood based on the design does not blend in with the majority of homes on the street. ACTION ___ Approved/ ___ Conditionally Approved/ __X__ Denied These Findings and Action were made by the following ARB Members of the Association at a meeting held on Feb. 1 2017 at 440 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia Members In Attendance-Vote: Unanimous Suzanne Ligon- Signature: ________________________________ David Arvizu- Suzanne Ligon, ARB Chair Gina Truex- Dean Obst- Lee Kuo- EXPIRATION - If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and/or/the installation of a new foundation and/or by installation of new materials on a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. APPEALS - Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to the City Council. Said appeals shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt of an appeal in proper form, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except that noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing. Page 4 of 4