Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings and Action Report 1 Santa Anita “Village” Community Association of Arcadia Architectural Review Board Findings and Action Report May 9, 2018 Project Address: 1123 Drake Rd Arcadia CA 91007 File # #1218 Applicant: Max Lucho 435 Hammel St Los Angeles CA 90022 323-506-3705 mlvdesigns0729@yahoo.com Owner: Paul Alikin 1123 Drake Rd. Arcadia CA 91007 626-423-8909 paul.alikin@gmail.com Project Description Remodel. Adding to first floor and taking out a portion of the existing first floor. Adding a covered porch to front and back elevations Adding a second story. Creating second entry to the west side elevation with double doors and columns covered by a sloping trellis. ACTION DENIED FINDINGS: 1. SITE PLANNING –The proposed project is not consistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: One of the two existing amenities consists of a large healthy Oak tree (along the side yard setback of the neighbors) with a large portion of drip line on the subject property. It might be possible that a small portion of the large trunk may be on the subject property. No survey has been provided in order to make an accurate determination. The second tree is in the front yard of undetermined species. An indication that it requires trimming was included by the applicant on the plans. A fruit tree is in the 2 II. ENTRY – The proposed project is mostly consistent with the Entry Guidelines based on: III. MASSING – The proposed project is not consistent with the Massing Guidelines based on: The massing of the second story to the first needs to be redesigned. The incorrect 30 degree front encroachment plane needs recalculation. It is likely that the massing of the second story and perhaps part of the first story intrudes into this plane. The second story massing creates a slab side along the west side elevation. A second entry consists of double doors and columns with a sloped trellis is along the west elevation. This is not harmonious and compatible with the proposed project or with neighboring properties. To the rear the second story The entry is being altered to include a covered porch with columns. The style of columns, materials and their placement and function were expressed as a concern. However, since the primary concern was the massing of the second story compared to the first it was premature to spend time considering details that likely might change. The height and depth of the proposed porch give the 3 cantilevers over the living space of the first floor. The building envelope would allow for expansion of the first story and reduction of the second. This could be done and still preserve the total proposed square footage. Thus, a lighter character would be achieved to the second story compared to the first story base. Most of the second story has the same articulation as the first visually giving the eye a vertical appearance. IV. ROOFS – The proposed project is not consistent with the Roofs Guidelines based on: V. FAÇADE DESIGN – The proposed project is not consistent with the Façade Design Guidelines based on: VI. DETAILS - The proposed project is not consistent with the Details Guidelines based on: All roof pitches should be the same. The roof type and color are from the Village approved List. The proposed facade (architectural features, details, and finishes of all 4 elevations) consists of a mix of stucco, stone and siding. Once the massing achieves a better balance the façade issues can be evaluated. As proposed the façade treatment also needs to be evaluated as to not look piecemeal and random. The applicant did not identify any particular architectural style on the The neighbors were concerned about the number and size of windows affecting privacy. Some windows on the plot plan were not on the elevations. Changing the massing of the second story would help reduce the number of windows. Size also needs further design. The second entry on the west elevation is not compatible with a side entry. The side lights on each side of the front door would provide a better focal point if they extended to the 4 VII. MATERIALS AND COLORS – VIII. LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE - The proposed project is not consistent with the Landscape and Hardscape Guidelines based on: IX. FENCES AND WALLS Color chips are not included on the plans. The colors on the rendering do not match what the colors will be. Again, once the massing is corrected materials and colors can be evaluated. See V. An Oak Tree Encroachment permit will be required by the city to evaluate the effect of a new driveway and proposed wood fence intruding into the dip line of the Oak tree. The arborists report was not available. The scope of this project will take its toll on the existing landscaping. A definitive plan is needed that incorporates drought tolerant elements. While no percentages were on the plans it appears as if the balance between The neighbors to the west expressed concern that the proposed wood fence would intrude on their property. A survey is needed to address their concerns. The style of the gate across the driveway could better match the architectural style. If an electric gate is proposed where would the mechanical equipment be 5 X. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project is not consistent with the Architectural Style Guidelines based on: XI. ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS The proposed project is not consistent with the Additions and Alterations Guidelines based on: XII. STREETSCAPE & FRONT OF DWELLING - The proposed project is not consistent with the Streetscape & Front of Dwelling Guidelines based on: XIII. FLOOR AREA & SETBACKS XIV. GARAGES - The proposed project is consistent with the Garages Guidelines based on: No particular architectural style was identified. Again, once the massing is corrected the materials can be evaluated for a cohesive style on all 4 As previously mentioned, second floors should be modest in relationship to the first floor. A remodel, especially adding a second story has many challenges in making the new transparent to the existing. Correct massing A two story project is appropriate to this neighborhood with several other existing two story homes. The plate heights are consistent with the neighborhood. The ratio of the second story to the first has been addressed The FAR and setbacks meet code with the exception of probable intrusion into the 30 degree encroachment requirement in the front The existing garage located to the rear is to be kept. It will receive the same treatment regarding roof, materials and colors as the main house. The location of the garage to the rear is a positive element 6 XVI. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES & NEIGHBORHOOD – The proposed project is not consistent with the Affect On Adjacent Properties & Neighborhood Guidelines based on: These Actions and Findings were made by the following ARB Members of the Santa Anita “Village” Community Association of Arcadia at a meeting held on May 9, 2018 7PM at 229 S Altura Rd, Arcadia CA 91007. It was moved by Nadar Samaan and seconded by Thanh Lim to Deny this project as shown. The vote was 3 to 0 to approve the motion to Deny. Names of ARB Board Members: Laurie Thompson Nadar Samaan Thanh Lim You are hereby advised that appeals from the ARB’s decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. You may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or anyone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. Appeals of The neighbors are concerned about the number of windows and their size. Also of concern was the location of the fence. Issues with materials, colors, and style are usually easy to solve. Much depends on effective massing being achieved between the second and first story. Expand the first and reduce the 7 the decision to the Planning Commission may be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 within 7 calendar days of the decision accompanied by a complete application packet and 12 sets of architectural plans and the appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule.