HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Appeal the Denial of New Circular Driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road
DATE: October 17, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director
Lisa L. Flores, Planning/Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL TO OVERTURN THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOME OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRPERSON’S
DENIAL OF A NEW CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 1231 SAN CARLOS
ROAD (HOA Appeal No. HOA 17-01) Recommendation: Approve the Appeal and Uphold the ARB Denial
SUMMARY
The Appellant, the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association, has filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission’s decision to approve plans for a circular driveway at 1231
San Carlos Road. The Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association Architectural Review Board Chairperson originally denied the plans, and the homeowner had appealed to the Planning Commission, who reversed this decision.
It is recommended that the City Council find that the project is Categorically Exempt
under California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and approve the appeal and
overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of Home Owners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 17-01, and uphold the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association Architectural Review Board Chairperson’s denial of a new circular driveway.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 17,414 square foot interior lot, zoned R-0 with a Design
Overlay, and is located within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association area (The Oaks HOA, refer to Attachment No. 2 – 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 by large lots
and wide, tree lined streets, with most properties featuring lush landscaping. More than
half of the homes have single driveways, although there are many homes with circular driveways. The subject property was previously developed with a single-story house
with a circular driveway.
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 2 of 9 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 Oaks HOA for
consideration. As part of the review process for the new house, the applicants
participated in preliminary design meetings with The Oaks HOA Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the ARB provided direction that the existing circular driveway should be eliminated from the proposal for the new two-story house to better conform to the
character of the neighborhood and enhance the overall appearance of the proposal. A
hearing was held on July 14, 2015, to consider the revised proposal, which included a
modified site plan featuring a single driveway that led 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 proceed forwardly out of the driveway and onto the
street, as shown below. At this meeting, the 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
October 17, 2017
Page 3 of 9
On April 8, 2017, the applicants submitted a short review application to revise the front
yard landscaping and reintroduce a circular driveway. The proposed design also relocates two required mature Oak trees, and other smaller trees further back from the street to the outer edges of the subject property to the 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 Figures 1 and 2 to view the relocations of the trees.
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 4 of 9 On April 17, 2017, the short review application was reviewed by the ARB Chairperson
designee, Mr. Vincent Vargas – refer to Attachment No. 3 for the ARB Short Review
Form. A noticed public hearing by the ARB is not required for the review of driveways,
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 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 ARB
review process in 2015 – refer to Attachment No. 3. Therefore, the request was denied on April 19, 2017.
On April 27, 2017, 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 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, the property meets the minimum code requirements for a circular driveway, 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.
The appeal was first scheduled to be heard at the June 27, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. However, the applicant requested a continuance to the August 22, 2017,
meeting to allow additional time to address the ARB comments – refer to Attachment
No. 3 for both Staff Reports. 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 applicant submitted a letter stating that the proposed circular
driveway would 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. 3. A revised site or landscape plan was not provided
that depicts these changes. The applicant also submitted another letter with
justifications as to why the circular driveway should be approved – refer to Attachment No. 3.
On August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the revised proposal. Two
representatives from The Oaks HOA, Mr. Vargas and Mr. Lynch, informed the
Commission why they denied the circular driveway and one neighbor spoke in
opposition to the revised proposal.
The Planning Commission voted 2-1, with one Commissioner absent, to approve the Applicant’s appeal and overturn the ARB denial of the circular driveway - refer to
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 5 of 9 Attachment Nos. 3 and 4 for August 22, 2017, Planning Commission Staff Report and
Draft Meeting Minutes.
On September 5, 2017, The Oaks HOA filed an appeal of Planning Commission’s
approval of the project – refer to Attachment No. 1 for the Appeal Letter.
DISCUSSION
In the appeal letter, The Oaks HOA stated that they felt the Commissioners that voted in
favor to approve the circular driveway did not appear to have an understanding of the
City’s Single-Family Design Guidelines and City Council Resolution No. 6770, the key
issues for not allowing a circular driveway were not considered, and their verbal rationale for their decisions were not based on the facts and findings, nor the requirements of the City’s Guidelines and Resolution No. 6770.
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 establishes design review procedures that apply to the properties within the five City-designated Home Owners’ Association areas. Resolution No. 6770 establishes, among other things, an ARB’s design review authority
for both “regular” and “short” review processes. 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 related features such as 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
October 17, 2017
Page 6 of 9
• 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 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 www.ArcadiaCa.gov/designguidelines, 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.
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 7 of 9 • 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. 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 authority of ARBs is well 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.
The project site was originally approved with a driveway that has 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, as stated in the June 27, 2017, Planning Commission staff report –
refer to Attachment No. 3. Although the site had a circular driveway previously, the new
layout replaces the need to have two driveways and an excessive amount of hardscape
in the front yard area. In the latest revised design with the circular driveway, the relocation of the two oak trees from the outer edges of the driveway to the center lawn area does help soften the appearance of the new two-story house, but it would not
mitigate the excessive amount of hardscape in the front yard area. In addition, it is
important to note that the original project was viewed in its entirety by the ARB during
their process, and the project was approved based on the elements included in the proposal at that time. Changing the front yard appearance through an “after the fact” process is difficult to support without complete ARB approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
On August 22, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the revised proposal. In summary, Commissioner Thompson stated that the ARB has the authority to act on the
design and layout of a new circular driveway according to Resolution No. 6770, the ARB
and the Appellant’s Architect already resolved the driveway issue through the design
review process, and it was disingenuous for the owner to come back for the same request after the design for the new house and the site has been approved. Commissioner Thompson believed it would be inconsistent with the development trend
to allow a circular driveway through this appeal process.
Commissioner Lewis stated that there are certain “exceptions” to this case that should
be considered. She felt that the circular driveway was warranted because the subject
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 8 of 9 site is located close to the intersection, and it would safer for the owners to have the
option to ingress/egress from a circular driveway. Also, the site previously had a circular
driveway; therefore, it would not change the overall appearance. Furthermore, in
reviewing the aerial photos, many homes along this street have an existing circular driveway so this would not change the overall development pattern, and she had no issue with vehicles being parked on a driveway. For these reasons, Commissioner
Lewis was in favor of the circular driveway.
Vice-Chair Chan felt it was very possible that the property owner, Mr. Crosby, may have
not fully understood his choices when he removed the circular driveway from the original proposal. He understood the ARB concerns with circular driveways, but he also believes circular driveways have an exclusive appearance that is often found in higher-
end neighborhoods.
Commissioner Thompson made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB
Chairperson’s denial for a circular driveway. There was no second.
Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB Chairperson’s denial for a circular driveway, and it was seconded by Vice-Chair Chan.
The Planning Commission voted 2-1, with Commissioner Thompson dissenting and one
Commissioner absent – refer to Attachment Nos. 3 and 4 for the August 22, 2017
Planning Commission Staff Report, and Draft Meeting Minutes.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction of
Accessory Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 3 for
the Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
A public hearing notice for this item was published in Arcadia Weekly and mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property on October 5, 2017. As of October 12, 2017, no additional comments were received regarding this project from the
public hearing notice. However, Mr. Crosby did send another piece of correspondence
for the City Council which was received on October 11. This letter has been added as
Attachment 5.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning
Commission’s approval of Home Owners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 17-01, and
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos Road
October 17, 2017
Page 9 of 9 uphold the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association Architectural Review Board
Chairperson’s denial of a new circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road, and find that
the project is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”).
Attachment No. 1: Appeal letter from Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Subject
Property and Vicinity
Attachment No. 3: Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated August 22, 2017 and June 27, 2017, including the following attachments:
• Late Correspondence from Appellant, Mr. Crosby, dated August
22, 2017
• Request for Continuance from Appellant, dated June 26, 2017
• Short Review Findings and Action Form
• Appeal Application Package
• Response letter from Santa Anita Oaks ARB Chair
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 27, 2017
• Letter from Appellant regarding proposed changes to the landscape design, dated July 31, 2017
• Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 4: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, August 22, 2017
Attachment No. 5: Letter from Mr. Crosby, dated October 11, 2017
Attachment No. 1
Appeal Letter from Santa Anita Oaks
Home Owners’ Association
Attachment No. 2
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the
Subject Property and Vicinity
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
)LJXUH±6XEMHFW3URSHUW\1RWHGULYHZD\KDVEHHQUHPRYHG
)LJXUH/RRNLQJ1RUWK7RZDUGV6XEMHFW3URSHUW\
)LJXUH$GMDFHQW3URSHUW\WRWKH6RXWK
)LJXUH$GMDFHQW3URSHUW\WRWKH1RUWK
Attachment No. 3
Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated August 22,
2017 and June 27, 2017, including all the attachments
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 RoadAugust 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 Chairfor 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 approvedwith a driveway that has a large vehicular maneuvering area at the rear of the property
HOA Appeal No. 17-01
1231 San Carlos RoadAugust 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 RoadAugust 22, 2017 – Page 4 of 4
Approved:
Attachment No. 1: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 27, 2017, including the following attachments:
x Short Review Findings and Actions Form
x Appeal Application Package
x Response letter from Santa Anita Oaks ARB Chair
x Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 2: Request for Continuance from Appellant, dated June 26, 2017
Attachment No. 3: Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 27, 2017Attachment 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
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. 17-011231 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. 17-011231 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. TheAppellants 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. 17-011231 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. 17-011231 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. 17-011231 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. 17-011231 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. 17-011231 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 ChairAttachment No. 5: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Late Correspondence from Appellant,
Mr. Crosby, dated August 22, 2017
Request for Continuance from
Appellant, dated June 26, 2017
Short Review Findings and Action Form
Appeal Application Package
Response Letter from Santa Anita Oaks
ARB Chair
Planning Commission Minutes, dated
June 27, 2017
Letter from Appellant regarding
proposed changes to the landscaping
design, dated July 31, 2017
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
California Environmental Quality Act
3UHOLPLQDU\([HPSWLRQ$VVHVVPHQW)250³$´
35(/,0,1$5<(;(037,21$66(660(17
&HUWLILFDWHRI'HWHUPLQDWLRQ
:KHQ$WWDFKHGWR1RWLFHRI([HPSWLRQ
1DPHRUGHVFULSWLRQRISURMHFW +2$$SSHDO1R+2$
3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ±,GHQWLI\VWUHHW
DGGUHVVDQGFURVVVWUHHWVRUDWWDFK
DPDSVKRZLQJSURMHFWVLWH
SUHIHUDEO\D86*6¶RU¶
WRSRJUDSKLFDOPDSLGHQWLILHGE\
TXDGUDQJOHQDPH
6DQ&DUORV5RDG$UFDGLD
&URVVVWUHHWV 6DQ&DUORV5RDGDQG+DFLHQGD$YH
(QWLW\RUSHUVRQXQGHUWDNLQJ
SURMHFW
$
%2WKHU 3ULYDWH
1DPH7RP&URVE\
$GGUHVV6DQ&DUORV5RDG$UFDGLD&$
6WDII'HWHUPLQDWLRQ
7KH/HDG$JHQF\¶V6WDIIKDYLQJXQGHUWDNHQDQGFRPSOHWHGDSUHOLPLQDU\UHYLHZRIWKLVSURMHFWLQ
DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH/HDG$JHQF\
V/RFDO*XLGHOLQHVIRU,PSOHPHQWLQJWKH&DOLIRUQLD(QYLURQPHQWDO
4XDOLW\$FW &(4$ KDVFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKLVSURMHFWGRHVQRWUHTXLUHIXUWKHUHQYLURQPHQWDODVVHVVPHQW
EHFDXVH
D7KHSURSRVHGDFWLRQGRHVQRWFRQVWLWXWHDSURMHFWXQGHU&(4$
E7KHSURMHFWLVD0LQLVWHULDO3URMHFW
F7KHSURMHFWLVDQ(PHUJHQF\3URMHFW
G7KHSURMHFWFRQVWLWXWHVDIHDVLELOLW\RUSODQQLQJVWXG\
H7KHSURMHFWLVFDWHJRULFDOO\H[HPSW
$SSOLFDEOH([HPSWLRQ&ODVV 0LQRU$OWHUDWLRQVWR/DQG
I7KHSURMHFWLVVWDWXWRULO\H[HPSW
$SSOLFDEOH([HPSWLRQ
J7KHSURMHFWLVRWKHUZLVHH[HPSW
RQWKHIROORZLQJEDVLV
K7KHSURMHFWLQYROYHVDQRWKHUSXEOLFDJHQF\ZKLFKFRQVWLWXWHVWKH/HDG$JHQF\
1DPHRI/HDG$JHQF\
'DWH -XQH6WDII $PDQGD/DQGU\6HQLRU3ODQQHU
Attachment No. 4
Draft Planning Commission Minutes,
dated August 22, 2017
DRAFT
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTESTuesday, August 22, 2017
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made
available for public inspection in the City’s Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California,
during normal business hours.
CALL TO ORDER - Vice Chairman Chan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia
Council Chamber.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners, Lewis, Thompson, and Chan
ABSENT: Commissioner Lin
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to excuse Commissioner Lin from the meeting. Without objection the motion was approved.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMSThe Commission received one correspondence relating to Agenda Item 2 from the Appellant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person)
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGVice Chairman Chan announced that the public hearings items listed on the Agenda will be presented out of order. The change is reflected below.
3.Resolution No. 2001 – Approving Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-03 (76053) and Multiple
Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 17-06 with a Categorical Exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for an eight unit residential condominium development at 141-145 Alice Street
Applicant: Mr. Robert Tong
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2001
Planning/Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores introduced the item and
turned it over to Assistant Planner, Vanessa Quiroz who presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman Chan opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant would like to
speak on this item.
Applicant Mr. Robert Tong responded.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the item.
No one responded.
2 Draft - 8-22-17
Vice Chairman Chan asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of
the item.
No one responded.
MOTION – PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to close
the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.
MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to adopt the amended Resolution No. 2001 – Approving Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-03
(76053) and Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 17-06 with a
Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for aneight unit residential condominium development at 141-145 Alice Street
ROLL CALLAYES: Commissioners Lewis, Thompson and Chan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lin
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by
5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
4.Resolution No. 2000 – Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 17-02 (74938), Minor Administrative Modification No. MINOR AM 17-11, and Multiple Family Architectural Design
Review No. MFADR 17-01 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three unit residential condominium development at 116 Bonita Street
Applicant:Mr. Leo Wu of Archfield Inc. Architects
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 2000
Planning/Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores introduced the item and
turned it over to Associate Planner, Jordan Chamberlin who presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman Chan opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant would like to
speak on this item.
Mr. Jason Yen of EGL responded on behalf of the applicant.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the item.
No one responded.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of
the item.
No one responded.
3 Draft - 8-22-17
MOTION – PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to close
the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.MOTION
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to adopt Resolution No. 2000 – Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 17-02 (74938), Minor Administrative Modification No. MINOR AM 17-11, and Multiple Family Architectural
Design Review No. MFADR 17-01 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three unit residential condominium development at 116 Bonita Street
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Thompson, Lewis and Chan
NOES: NoneABSENT: Commissioner Lin
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by
5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
1.Resolution No. 1991 – Approving Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-02 (74941), Multiple Family
Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 16-10, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No.
TRE 16-54 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a ten unit residential condominium development at 837-841½ W. Huntington Drive
(Item was continued from the April 25, 2017, meeting)
Applicant: Mr. Scott Yang
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 1991
Planning/Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores introduced the item and
informed the Commission that this item was continued from the April 25, 2017, Planning Commission meeting at which time the Commission closed the public hearing. If the
Commission chooses to reopen the public hearing, they can formally make a motion to re-open the hearing. With that, Ms. Flores turned it over to Associate Planner, Jordan Chamberlin who presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to reopen
the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Chan opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to
speak on this item.
Project Architect, Mr. Pison Netsawang responded on behalf of the applicant.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the item.
No one responded.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of
the item.
4 Draft - 8-22-17
The following residents responded:
Ms. Haihong HeMr. Mark Chang
Mr. Simon Lorona
Vice Chairman Chan asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Pison responded.
MOTION – PUBLIC HEARINGIt was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to close
the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.
DISCUSSION
Planning/Community Development Administrator Ms. Flores asked the Commission
since they have concerns regarding the trees along the rear property line, if they would like to add a condition of approval stating, “The trees along the rear property line shall be
at a minimum height of 10 feet and the trees shall be of sufficient number to provide
screening across the rear property line.”
Vice Chairman Chan asked Ms. Flores if it would be possible to add a condition of approval requiring that the trees be planted prior to construction to help mitigate dust and privacy issues.
Ms. Flores explained that it would be difficult to impose such a condition because the site has to be leveled and graded and there is a possibility that the trees might not
survive during this process.
Commissioner Thompson suggested another option is to have the applicant install a 10
foot construction fence along the property line in lieu of the required 6 foot construction fence. Ms. Flores stated that the condition of approval could be added.
MOTIONIt was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Thompson to adopt
Resolution No. 1991 – Approving Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17-02 (74941), Multiple
Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 16-10, and Protected Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 16-54 with a Categorical Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a ten unit residential condominium development at 837-841½ W. Huntington Drive, and amended to include the two added conditions of approval as read by Ms. Flores.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Thompson and Chan
NOES: NoneABSENT: Commissioner Lin
There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are to be filed by
5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
5 Draft - 8-22-17
RECESS/RECONVENE
Vice Chairman Chan called for a recess at 7:55 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at
8:01 p.m.
2.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 (Item was continued from the June 27, 2017, meeting)
Appellant:Tom and Ellen Fu-Crosby
Recommended Action: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the ARB Denial
Planning/Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores introduced the item and presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman Chan opened the public hearing and asked if the Appellant would like to speak on this item.
Appellant Mr. Crosby responded, and explained that he has lived in his home for the last
14 years and one of the main reasons he bought his home was because it had a circular
driveway. He decided that he wanted to retire and that is what prompted him to build a new home on the same lot that will suit his retirement needs. He had his designer use
the same configuration that included the circular driveway when he created the plans for
his new house. When he submitted his plans to the Architectural Review Board (ARB),he was told that since he was building a new house, a circular driveway would not be
permitted. He was under the assumption that since the original house had a circular
driveway it would be grandfathered and allowed to be built with his new house. He mentioned that several homes in the area have circular driveways and that two homes
built in the last few years after he originally submitted his application, have been allowed
to be built with circular driveways. Given that, he thought he would be able to keep his circular driveway. At that point he submitted his application to request to keep the
circular driveway to the ARB. The ARB denied his application and that is why he is appealing their denial to the Planning Commission. He stated that the suggestions made in the staff report have been incorporated into his plan.
Vice-Chairman Chan asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the item.
Mr. Scott Carlson, Appellant’s attorney responded. Mr. Carlson wanted to point out that it appears that the Home Owner’s Association (HOA) Architectural Review Board (ARB)
has adopted their own policy that does not allow circular driveways to be built for new
projects in their HOA. He stated that the HOA ARB does not have the power to do thatand that would be something that would have to be determined by the City.
Vice-Chairman Chan asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the item.
The following residents responded:
6 Draft - 8-22-17
Mr. Vince Vargas, Santa Anita Oaks HOA member, stated that Mr. and Mrs. Crosby participated in two ARB meetings; one in early 2015 and another time in April of 2017 for
the same current application. In addition to that they also hired a designer that was very
conversant with the requirements of new residential development in the Santa Anita Oaks. Regarding the current application it was determined by the ARB that the circular
driveway should be eliminated from the proposal of the new two-story house and that a single driveway would better conform to the current neighborhood specific standards of the Santa Anita Oaks as well as to the character of the neighborhood to enhance the
overall appearance of the house. The basis for the ARB’s decision in this case is clearly established in the authority and power granted to the HOA to exercise plan review authority as stated in Resolution No. 6770. Other official City documents refer to the
power of the authority of the HOA which includes the City’s General Plan and the Arcadia Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. The General Plan states that in addition to application of the City’s guidelines the five (5) Home Owners Associations in
Arcadia can enforce private neighborhood specific design standards.
The Associations have played an important part in preserving the character of the
residential neighborhoods in the northern part of the City. They could have chosen to remodel their home and keep their circular driveway, but the chose to build a new home.
Mr. Crosby chose to get the house first and eliminate the circular driveway and after he
gets the house approved then at a later time file a Short Review form to get the approval for the circular driveway. That should not be the way the system works.
The Oaks ARB decision to deny the short review application is consistent in applying the various policies and regulations. In addition, some of the circular driveways are not
managed well by the property owners and there are cars, boats, trucks, motorcycles,
RVs, and commercial vehicles parked on the circular driveways. In the Resolution it says that part of the authority in the design review process is that if the HOA or ARB sees a
negative trend they are allowed to address that trend. The HOA and ARB have properly executed their authority and powers over the design review by properly following allcurrent procedures and evaluation of the proposed application relative to the Design
Guidelines, Resolution No. 6770, and the Santa Anita Oaks neighborhood specific standards and ultimately the goals of the Arcadia General Plan.
Mr. Jack Lynch, Santa Anita Oaks ARB member, pointed out that majority of the homes in the Santa Anita Oaks area have straight driveways.
He is in opposition to this item because Mr. and Mrs. Crosby along with their designerwent through several meetings with the ARB and were fully aware that the circular
driveway was not allowed because they built an entirely new home. Regarding the
properties that Mr. Crosby mentioned that were allowed to have or maintain circular driveways: one property went through a minor remodel, and the other one was a rebuild.
Since Mr. and Mrs. Crosby’s house was completely demolished it is considered a new
home; therefore, they cannot have a circular driveway. He mentioned again that thehomeowners in that area do not want circular driveways and expect the HOA to enforce
that restriction. It is his opinion that the lack of having a circular driveway will not affect the property value.
Mr. Alan Crawford, a neighbor of the subject property, stated that he has lived in his home for 21 years. Throughout that time the residents at the subject property of 1231San Carlos Road have always parked at least two-to-three large cars on their former
7 Draft - 8-22-17
circular driveway and rarely parked their cars in the garage. If they are approved for the new circular driveway he fears that they will continue to park multiple cars on the
driveway creating the look of a parking lot. He stated that he agrees with the statements
made by Mr. Vargas and Mr. Lynch.
Vice Chairman Chan asked if the Appellant would like to speak in rebuttal.
Appellant Mr. Crosby and his attorney Mr. Carlson responded. Mr. Crosby addressed the
issue about his property not being leveled on the south side. Mr. Carlson disagreed with the comments made by the HOA and ARB members and stated that they do not have the authority through Resolution No. 6770 and their HOA policy to prohibit circular
driveways. The standard in the City Code provides some entitlement to allow for circular driveways, and it supersedes Resolution No. 6770 and the HOA policy. He addressedthe public comments relating to parking issues and blight, he does not believe that
prohibiting a circular driveway is the proper way to remedy those issues, and straight driveways have the same issues.
Commissioner Lewis asked the applicant, Mr. Crosby, questions regarding the square footage of the new house compared to the previous house, and was his intent to build a
new house as his retirement home. Mr. Crosby responded to Commissioner Lewis
question and plans to retire in this house. He further stated that he would have not build a new house had he known he could not keep his circular driveway.
MOTION – PUBLIC HEARING
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to
close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Thompson stated that ARB and HOA are the most harmonious and compatible areas within the City. He explained that there are three things to consider
when reviewing land use: General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. Excessive hardscape and nuisance parking is not a red herring and does pose a real
problem. The ARB has done a great job in keeping their neighborhoods as harmonious
and compatible as possible. The statement that the ARB does not have the authority to deny the circular driveway is incorrect. The Resolution says that the ARB Chair or
designee shall have the authority to approve hardscape in the front and street yard
sides. The ARB definitely has the Authority and staff is proper in their recommendation in denying the Appeal. If we were to approve this appeal it would be prejudicial to the
entire neighborhood and the developers who have followed the rules. He is sympathetic to Mr. and Mrs. Crosby’s circumstances, but the ARB and Architects worked to get together on what is allowable. To come back after the original decision was approved
with the straight in driveway and try to get the circular driveway approved is disingenuous and he is opposed to approving the appeal.
Commissioner Lewis stated that she agrees with Commissioner Thompson in that the HOA and ARB have the authority to make the decision that they made. However, there
are a couple of “exceptions” that should be noted. If this home were located anywhere
else other than next to the wide intersection, her decision would be to deny the appeal. Because of that intersection, which she travels through that area frequently, the circular
8 Draft - 8-22-17
driveway with the ability of ingress/egress on the south side of the property is muchsafer. Because they are longtime residents, and the fact that they want to stay where
they currently live and have lived for 16 years changes her perspective. Furthermore, it
is not a spec house that will be sold by the developer. Had there not been a circulardriveway, it would change her decision. As far as parking on the driveway, she did not
have any concerns with that. For these reasons, she felt she could approve the driveway.
Vice Chairman Chan stated that he agrees with Commissioner Thompson regarding design review process and the HOA authority and that it was very possible the property
owner, Mr. Crosby, may have not fully understood his choices when he removed the
circular driveway from the original proposal. During his site visit he did notice that there was a new house at 1101 San Carlos Road with a circular driveway. He understands the
sentiments regarding circular driveways, however, he also believes circular driveways have an exclusive appearance that is often found in higher-end neighborhoods.
Assistant City Attorney Mr. Michael Maurer stated that the Planning Commission should base their decision with what was presented in the record and that the request is
consistent with the City’s design guidelines.
MOTION – First Motion
It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, to uphold the ARB Denial of the circular
driveway, and deny Home Owners Association Appeal No. HOA 17-01, with aCategorical 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, the circular driveway is not consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines and with City Resolution No.
6770.
The motion did not receive a second.
MOTION – Second Motion
It was moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Vice Chairman Chan to approve the
Appeal and overturn the ARB denial of the design; therefore, approving Appeal No. HOA 17-01 with a Categorical Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
finding 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.
ROLL CALLAYES: Commissioners Lewis and ChanNOES: Commissioner Thompson
ABSENT: Commissioner Lin
There is a ten day appeal period after the approval of the item. Appeals are to be filed by 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There willbe no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action.
9 Draft - 8-22-17
5. Minutes of July 25, 2017, Arcadia Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Recommended Action:Approve
MOTIONIt was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Lewis to
approve Consent Calendar Item 5, approving the July 25, 2017 Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes.
ROLL CALLAYES: Commissioners Thompson, Lewis and Chan
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lin
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
City Council Liaison Beck was not present.
MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
The Planning Commissioners did not have anything to report.
MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Assistant City Attorney Mr. Maurer did not have anything to report.
MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Planning/Community Development Administrator Ms. Lisa Flores reported that there are two items scheduled for the upcoming September 12, 2017 meeting; one item is a five-unit condominium on
California Street and the other item is a modification to a new single-family house on Lenta Lane. Ms.
Flores reported that the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the properties on Foothill Boulevard the Planning Commission reviewed a month ago will be presented to the City Council at their
September 5, 2017, meeting. That night the Council will be also discussing the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance during their study session.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. to Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at
7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber at 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia.
___________________________
Zi LinChairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Lisa Flores
Secretary, Planning Commission
Attachment No. 5
Letter from Mr. Crosby, dated October 11, 2017