Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 2 - HOA Appeal 17-01, 1231 San Carlos Rd. DATE: August 22, 2017 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: HOME OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 17-01 WITH CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPEALING THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOME OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL BOARD CHAIRPERSON’S DENIAL OF A NEW CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 1231 SAN CARLOS ROAD Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the ARB Denial SUMMARY The property owners, Mr. Tom Crosby and Ellen Fu-Crosby are appealing the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association (Oaks HOA) Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chairperson’s denial of a new circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road. On April 19, 2017, the ARB Chair denied the property owner’s request for a new circular driveway and lighted columns along the circular driveway within the landscaped front yard setback area. This item was initially scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at the June 27, 2017 meeting, but the Appellant requested that their item be continued to the August 22, 2017 meeting to give them additional time to address the issues that were raised by the ARB and other aspects. The Commission voted 3-1 (Thompson dissenting) with one Commissioner absent, to grant the continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting, and to not receive the staff report or take any public testimony at that meeting. The Appellant has revised their landscape design for the new circular driveway and requested that the Planning Commission consider the current proposal. The ARB has not reviewed the new submission. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB denial. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 17,414 square foot interior lot, zoned R-O with a Design Overlay, and is located within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association area. HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road August 22, 2017 – Page 2 of 4 The property is approximately 100 feet wide by 175 feet deep and is located near the T- intersection of Hacienda Avenue and San Carlos Road. The Oaks HOA is characterized with large lots and wide, tree lined streets. Most properties feature large mature trees and lush landscaping. More than half of the homes have single driveways, although there are homes with circular driveways. The subject property was previously developed with a single-story house with a circular driveway. On April 17, 2017, the short review application was reviewed by the ARB Chairperson designee, Mr. Vincent Vargas. A noticed public hearing by the ARB is not required for the review of driveway, hardscape, and landscape per Resolution No. 6770, which authorizes the ARB Chairperson or designee to render a decision administratively. Mr. Vargas found the proposed changes to the site plan to be inconsistent with the established design guidelines and neighborhood specific design standards. Furthermore, the current decision to deny the proposal was consistent with the prior discussion and outcome of the regular review process in 2015. Therefore, the request was denied on April 19, 2017. The appeal was first scheduled to be heard at the June 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting – refer to Attachment No. 1 - June 27, 2017 Staff Report. However, the Appellant requested for a continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting to allow him additional time to address the ARB comments – refer to Attachment No. 2 – email from Appellant. The Commission approved the request with a 3-1 vote (Thompson dissenting) with one Commissioner absent to grant the continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting, and to not receive the staff report or take any public testimony – refer to Attachment No. 3 – June 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes. On July 31, 2017, the Appellant submitted a letter stating that the proposed circular driveway will remain in the same location, but the new two 72” Oak trees would be relocated from the outer edges of the front yard area to the center lawn area that is within the inner circular of the driveway to avoid any encroachments. The revised design would also include additional shrubs in the front yard area to screen the circular driveway – refer to Attachment No. 4. A revised site or landscape plan was not provided that depict these changes. The proposed changes were not presented to the ARB Chair for re-consideration. The Appellant also submitted another letter with justifications as to why the circular driveway should be approved – refer to Attachment No. 5. ANALYSIS Staff still concurs with the ARB decision that the revised site plan featuring the circular driveway is inconsistent with Resolution 6770 and the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Staff determined that the revised proposal is not compatible with the design of the new house, nor will it enhance the overall landscape character of the Santa Anita HOA area. The relocation of the two oak trees and additional shrubs within the front yard area would help soften the appearance of the new two-story house, but it will not mitigate staff’s concern since the proposed circular driveway would add an excessive amount of hardscape to the front yard area. The site was already approved with a driveway that has a large vehicular maneuvering area at the rear of the property HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road August 22, 2017 – Page 3 of 4 that enables the driver to turn a vehicle around, negating the need to back into the street or oncoming traffic and mitigating any safety concerns, as stated in the June 27, 2017 Planning Commission staff report – refer to Attachment No. 1. Although the site had a circular driveway, the new layout replaces the need to have two driveways and excessive amount of hardscape in the front yard area. PUBLIC NOTICE Public hearing notices for the initial hearing for this item were mailed to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property on June 15, 2017. This project was continued by the Planning Commission at the June 28, 2017, Planning Commission meeting to the August 22, 2017 meeting. Public hearing notices for the continuance of this item were mailed to the property owners with 300 feet of the subject property on August 10, 2017. As of August 17, 2017, staff has not received any public comments on this project. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal. The Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB Chairperson’s denial of the short review application for a circular driveway, and find that the project is exempt per Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Denial of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the ARB denial of the circular driveway, the Commission should make a motion denying Appeal No. HOA 17-01, stating that the circular driveway is not consistent with the City’s design guidelines and with City Council Resolution No. 6770. Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and overturn the ARB denial of the design, therefore approving the project subject to any conditions as deemed appropriate by and forth by the Commission, the Commission should approve a motion that finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve Appeal No. HOA 17-01 and state that the proposed design is consistent with the City’s design guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and secure an appropriate improvement to the lot. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the August 22, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting, please contact Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager by calling (626) 574-5445, or by email to lflores@ArcadiaCA.gov. HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road August 22, 2017 – Page 4 of 4 Approved: Attachment No. 1: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017, including the following attachments: • Short Review Findings and Actions Form • Appeal Application Package • Response letter from Santa Anita Oaks ARB Chair • Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 2: Request for Continuance from Appellant, dated June 26, 2017 Attachment No. 3: Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 27, 2017 Attachment No. 4: Letter from Appellant regarding proposed changes to the landscape design, dated July 31, 2017 Attachment No. 5: Letter from Appellant, dated July 31, 2017 Attachment No. 1 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017 DATE: June 27, 2017 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager By: Amanda Landry, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 17-01 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPEALING THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOME OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRPERSON’S DENIAL OF A NEW CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 1231 SAN CARLOS ROAD Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the ARB Denial SUMMARY The property owners, Mr. Tom Crosby and Ellen Fu-Crosby are appealing the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association (Oaks HOA) Architectural Review Board (ARB) Chairperson’s denial of a new circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road. On April 19, 2017, the ARB Chair denied the property owner’s request for a new circular driveway and lighted columns along the circular driveway within the landscaped front yard setback area. It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB denial. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 17,414 square foot interior lot, zoned R-O with a Design Overlay, and is located within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association area – refer to Attachment No. 1 – Aerial and Photos. The property is approximately 100 feet wide by 175 feet deep and is located near the T-intersection of Hacienda Avenue and San Carlos Road. The Oaks HOA is characterized with large lots and wide, tree lined streets. Most properties feature large mature trees and lush landscaping. More than half of the homes have single driveways, although there are homes with circular driveways. The subject property was previously developed with a single-story house with a circular driveway. Project History In 2015, an architectural design for a new two-story Prairie style residence with a circular driveway and a second driveway was submitted to the Rancho Santa Anita HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 2 of 8 Oaks Home Owners’ Association for consideration. As part of the review process for the new house, the Appellants participated in preliminary design meetings with the Oaks HOA ARB and the Board provided guidance that the existing circular driveway should be eliminated from the proposal for the new two-story house with a single driveway to better conform to the character of the neighborhood and enhance the overall appearance of the proposed two-story house. A hearing was held on July 14, 2015, to consider the revised proposal, which included a modified site plan featuring a single driveway that lead to an attached garage at the rear of the property. It included a large, paved turn-around area making it possible for vehicles to make a 3-point turn and head nose first out of the driveway and onto the street, as shown below. At this meeting, the Oaks HOA ARB approved the revised project. A permit was issued on May, 4, 2016 for the construction of the new house, as shown below. The house is currently under construction. Figure 1: Originally Approved Hardscape and Landscape Plan Oak Tree Oak Tree HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 3 of 8 Proposed Revisions On April 8, 2017, the Appellants submitted a short review application to revise the front yard landscaping and hardscaping and reintroduced the circular driveway. The proposed design also relocates two required mature Oak trees, and other smaller trees further back from the street and to the outer edges of the subject property to such extent that the driplines of the trees would overhang onto adjacent properties. The revised landscape plans include a larger expanse of turf and low lying plants in the center of the front yard area and in front of the circular driveway – refer to images, figures 1 and 2 to view the relocations of the trees. On April 17, 2017, the short review application was reviewed by the ARB Chairperson designee, Mr. Vincent Vargas – refer to Attachment No. 2 for the ARB Short Review Form. A noticed public hearing by the ARB is not required for the review of driveway, hardscape, and landscape per Resolution No. 6770, which authorizes the ARB Chairperson or designee to render a decision administratively. Mr. Vargas found the proposed changes to the site plan to be inconsistent with the established design guidelines and neighborhood specific design standards. Furthermore, the current decision to deny the proposal was consistent with the prior discussion and outcome of the regular review process in 2015 – refer to Attachment No. 4. Therefore, the request was denied on April 19, 2017. On April 27, 2015, an appeal of the ARB denial was filed by the Appellant/Property Owners, Mr. Tom Crosby and Ellen Fu Crosby – refer to Attachment No. 3. The Appellants believe that the decision of ARB Chairperson’s to deny the proposal was arbitrary and capricious, as the subject site had a circular driveway, a large number of older existing homes feature circular driveways, that the property meets the minimum Figure 2: Revised Hardscape and Landscape Plan Oak Tree Oak Tree HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 4 of 8 code requirements for a circular driveway, that traffic conditions are such that a circular driveway is needed to improve the driver’s safety, and Resolution No. 6770 does not give the ARB authority to make design decisions related to front yard hardscaping and landscaping. ANALYSIS City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City’s Single-Family Residential Guidelines (hyperlink) and City Council Resolution No. 6770 (hyperlink) establishes guidelines and design review procedures for properties within the five, City-designated, Homeowners’ Association areas. The ARB Chairperson or designee is charged with the responsibility to ensure that the circular driveway and any changes to the landscape and/or hardscape are consistent with the design guidelines and regulations in Resolution 6770 which are intended to ensure that the new homes and site design are harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood. The design guidelines include, but are not limited to, site planning, landscape and hardscape, architectural style, and massing. City Council Resolution No. 6770 clearly establishes HOA specific development standards and design review procedures that apply to the properties within the five City- designated Homeowners’ Association areas. City Council Resolution No. 6770 establishes, among other things, an ARBs design review authority for both “regular” and “short” review process. Section 5.D.1 of Resolution No. 6770 specifies that the ARB Chair or designee shall have the authority to approve hardscape, landscaping in the front and street side yards, including without limitation, swimming pools, spas, fountains, and other water features and fences, lights and other features related tennis courts, sports courts, or other significant paved features. Section 6.A of Resolution No. 6770 sets forth standards for ARB decisions and appeals, and further establishes that the decisions of the ARB and any decision making body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision shall be guided by the following principles: • Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the ARB or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. • Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 5 of 8 • A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. • A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. Arcadia General Plan The City’s General Plan states that the City’s character and amenities make Arcadia a very desirable place to live. One of the guiding principles of the Land Use and Community Design Element is that Arcadia’s single-family and multifamily residential neighborhoods have given the City its identity as a Community of Homes. The City protects and preserves the character and quality of its neighborhoods by requiring harmonious design, careful planning, and the integration of sustainable principles. Further, the Land Use and Community Design Element contain specific policies related single-family development. Relevant polices related to the project include: • Policy LU-3.1: Protect the character of single-family residential neighborhoods through the preservation and improvement of their character-defining features. Such features include but are not limited to tree-lined streets, building orientation, sidewalks, and architectural scale and quality. • Policy LU-3.5: Require that new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building forms, scale, and colors. • Policy LU-3.7: Ensure that the design and scale of new and remodeled single- family residential buildings are appropriate to their context. Design Guidelines Consistent with the Land Use and Community Design Elements goals and policies, City Council Resolution No. 6665 sets forth the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (Attachment No. 6), which apply to all new construction and remodeling of single-family houses. Applicable design guidelines for this project include: • Site Planning Guideline 1. Natural amenities such as views, trees and similar features unique to the site should be preserved and incorporated into development proposals. • Landscape and Hardscape Guideline 8. For aesthetic and environmental reasons, the use of impervious paved surfaces should be minimized when not necessary for vehicular or pedestrian access or recreational purposes. Permeable hardscape materials are encouraged. HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 6 of 8 The Development Code provides that lots with street frontage of 100 feet or greater are eligible for circular driveways. However, all new development and most additions and remodels of single-family homes are also subject to the Site Plan and Design Review process, during which the specific design features of a proposal are reviewed using the adopted Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and, if applicable, the HOA specific standards found in Resolution No. 6770 are applied. As discussed earlier in this report, the design review authorities of ARBs are clearly established and they are permitted to make decisions regarding landscape and hardscape designs. For the reasons stated in this report, the decision by the Oaks ARB designee to deny the short review application for revised landscaping and hardscape plans is consistent with the established Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770. Staff concurs with the ARB decision that the revised site plan featuring the circular driveway is inconsistent with Resolution 6770 and the City’s Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Staff determined that the revised proposal is not compatible with the design of the new house, nor will it enhance the overall landscape character of the Santa Anita HOA area. The proposed re-design of the front landscape would cause the two required mature Oak trees to be relocated further back from the street and to the outer edges of the subject property, causing the driplines for the trees to overhang onto the adjacent properties. The circular driveway would create a visual focal point to the center of the front elevation and the main entryway. Whereas, the approved design removes excessive amounts of hardscape and utilizes trees and shrubs to mitigate and soften the appearance of the new two-story house, which replaced a low-lying single story house. The approved design also features a large vehicular maneuvering area at the rear of the property that enables the driver to turn a vehicle around, negating the need to back into the street or oncoming traffic and mitigating any safety concerns. In addition, the approved location of the two large mature Oak trees would be situated closer to the street and towards the interior of the subject property to help soften the appearance of the new two-story home. The location of a driveway to the side of the house helps to draw attention to the prominent trees and landscaping, rather than to the center of a two-story mass, which serves to further mitigate the difference in height between the new house and the adjacent one-story houses. If the circular driveway was to be approved, it would accentuate the height and the presence of the two-story house, and call more attention to the difference in height between the new house and the two adjacent one-story homes. The height difference would be further emphasized by the location of the house near the T-intersection. The combination of impacts of a circular driveway and relocating the mature trees would be incompatible with the prevailing character of this HOA area. The applicants have also included in their appeal a request for clarification regarding other hardscape modifications that they believe are unrelated to the circular driveway. As all of the revised hardscape features on the revised plans submitted with the circular driveway appear to be integrally tied to that significant component that was denied, staff recommends that the applicant be required to resubmit revised plans that do not feature HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 7 of 8 or discuss a circular driveway for a short review if they wish to revise other hardscape and landscape elements of their approved plans to the ARB. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption for minor alteration to the land under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 5 for the Preliminary Exemption Assessment. PUBLIC COMMENTS Public hearing notices for this appeal were mailed on June 15, 2017 to the property owners of those properties within the 300 foot radius. As of June 22, 2017, staff has received one written comment from the Oaks HOA - refer to Attachment No. 4. The Oaks HOA provided detailed comments that provide further context about the ARB decision making process, and additional factors that went into the consideration of the applicant’s request. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal. The Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARB Chairperson’s denial of the short review application for a circular driveway, and find that the project is exempt per Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Denial of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the ARB denial of the circular driveway, the Commission should make a motion denying Appeal No. HOA 17-01, stating that the circular driveway is not consistent with the City’s design guidelines and with City Council Resolution No. 6770. Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and overturn the ARB denial of the design, therefore approving the project subject to any conditions as deemed appropriate by and forth by the Commission, the Commission should approve a motion that finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approve Appeal No. HOA 17-01 and state that the proposed design is consistent with the City’s design guidelines, and City Council Resolution No. 6770, and secure an appropriate improvement to the lot. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the June 27, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting, please HOA Appeal No. 17-01 1231 San Carlos Road June 27, 2017 – Page 8 of 8 contact Amanda Landry, Senior Planner by calling (626) 821-4334, or by email to alandry@ArcadiaCA.gov. Approved: Attachment No. 1: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Attachment No. 2: Short Review Findings and Actions Form Attachment No. 3: Appeal Application Package Attachment No. 4: Response letter from Santa Anita Oaks ARB Chair Attachment No. 5: Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 1 Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property and Vicinity Attachment No. 1 Overlays Selected parcel highlighted Parcel location within City of Arcadia N/A Property Owner(s): Lot Area (sq ft): Year Built: Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.): R-O (22,000) Number of Units: VLDR Property Characteristics 17,415 0 CROSBY,TOM H CO TR CROSBY FU TRUST Site Address:1231 SAN CARLOS RD Parcel Number: 5770-022-016 N/A Zoning: General Plan: N/A Downtown Overlay: Downtown Parking Overlay: Architectural Design Overlay:Yes N/A N/A N/A Residential Flex Overlay: N/A N/A N/A Yes Special Height Overlay: N/A Parking Overlay: Racetrack Event Overlay: 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 generated 21-Jun-2017 Page 1 of 1 Figure 1 – Subject Property - Note, driveway has been removed Figure 2 - Looking North Towards Subject Property Figure 3 - Adjacent Property to the South Figure 4 - Adjacent Property to the North Attachment No. 2 Short Review Findings and Actions Form Attachment No. 2 Attachment No. 3 Appeal Application Package Attachment No. 3 Attachment No. 4 Response letter from Santa Anita Oaks ARB Chair Attachment No. 4 Attachment No. 5 Preliminary Exemption Assessment Attachment No. 5 Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A” PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: HOA Appeal No. HOA 17-01 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): 1231 San Carlos Road, Arcadia Cross streets: San Carlos Road and Hacienda Ave. 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. B. Other (Private) (1) Name Tom Crosby (2) Address 1231 San Carlos Road, Arcadia CA 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: 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) 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: June 14, 2017 Staff: Amanda Landry, Senior Planner Attachment No. 2 Request for Continuance from Appellant, dated June 26, 2017 Attachment No. 3 Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 27, 2017 Attachment No. 4 Letter from Appellant regarding proposed changes to the landscape design, dated July 31, 2017 Attachment No. 5 Letter from Appellant, dated July 31, 2017