HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings and Action Report°�_.
Arcadia Highlands; Homeownerys Association
Architectural Review Boa -rd
Findings and Action Report
File No.: L-001-2018 Date: 4/12/2018
Project Address: 1129 Highland Oaks Dr.
Applicant: Brian Chen
Owner (if different) _. Jianxun Si and Caiwen Tian
Project Description: Com lete remodel redesi and expansion second sto - 4,175 aq ft
FINDINGS
L SITE PLANNING - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Site Planning Guidelines as
it does not preserve the existing mature tree near the home and does not add any additional trees to
the front landscape to mitigate the removal and provide balance to the front yard.
lI. ENTRY -The proposed project IS consistent with the Entry Guidelines.
III. MASSING -The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Massing Guidelines based on the
proposed fiirther protrusion from the existing second story facade over the front door. The proposed
project is flanked by single story homes and additional massing of the second story facade over the front
door does not allow for harmonious blending with the immediately surrounding homes_
IV. ROOFS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Roofing Guidelines based on the roof plan
and material (concrete tiles) being compatible with the Highlands requirements and the architectural
style and design of the home.
V. FACADE DESIGN - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Facade Design Guidelines
based on the aforementioned Massing issue but is consistent with the Facade Design Guidelines in the
home's overall design, use of color and traditional design. elements.
VL DETAILS -The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Architectural Details
The details are high quality and are consistent with the architectural style.
VII. MATERIALS & COLORS -The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines.
VIII_ LANDSCAPE & HARDSCAPE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines
as discussed in the Site Planning section. It does not preserve the existing mature tree near the
home and does not add any additional trees to the front landscape to mitigate the removal and
provide balance to the front yard.
Page 1 of 3
IX. FENCES & WALLS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Fences and
Walls.
X. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines as the
traditional elements added to the home are a vast improvement over what is already existing.
Xl. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines
for Additions and Alterations based on the aforementioned Massing issue.
XII. STREETSCAPE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Streetscape due to the
aforementioned Massing issue and Landscape balance issue.
XIII. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA & SETBACKS - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the
Minimum Floor Area and Setback Guidelines. Although a portion of the existing project has a
setback of less than 6o feet from the street, the proposed modifications do not call for any additional
improvements to be less than 6o feet from the street so no exception is taken to the proposed
modifications.
XIV. GARAGES - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Garages.
XV. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS & APPEARANCE - refer to above referenced comments.
XVI. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES & NEIGHBORHOOD - The existing ridge height of
the property will remain but the structures mass will be enlarged.
Page 2 of 3
ACTION
—Approved/ _.._ Conditioniffly Approved/ X Denied
These Findings and Action were made by the following ARB Members of the Association at a
meeting held on April 12, 2018 at 1129 Highland Oiks Dr., Arcadia, CA
Members InAttendance-Vote•
Dean Obst, ARB Chair - Yes
David Arvizu- No
Lee Kuo - Yes
Sunny Padival - No
Gina Truex - No
Signature:
Dean Obst
EXPIRATION - If for a period of one (i) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have
been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading
and/or/the installation of a new foundation and/or lby installation of new materials on a structure that
is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null
and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however,
the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the
current standards in effect.
APPEALS - Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission
decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to the City Council. Said appeals shall be made in writing and
delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be
accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of
the City Council. Upon receipt of an appeal in proper form, such appeal shall be processed by Planning
Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee,
except that noticing shall be consistent with ARB notiicing.
Page 3of3