Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings and Action ReportPage 1 of 3 Arcadia Highlands Homeowner’s Association Architectural Review Board Findings and Action Report File No.: O-002-2019 Date: 8/16/2019 Project Address: 2011 Highland Oaks Dr. Applicant: _WYF Architecture________ Owner (if different) _Julie Wu______________ Project Description: Complete remodel/redesign and addition of second story _ FINDINGS I. SITE PLANNING - The proposed project IS consistent with the Site Planning Guidelines. II. ENTRY - The proposed project IS consistent with the Entry Guidelines. The proposed entry addition is architecturally compatible with the style of the proposed project. III. MASSING - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Massing Guidelines. The ARB was not able to conclude the compatibility in mass and scale of the proposed structure to the surrounding buildings based on the plans submitted, due to the grade variation from the lower street level, and asked the applicant to provide a pole and stick representation of the proposed second story roof peaks but the owner refused the request. 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. The roof plan is compatible with the proposed architectural style and design of the home. V. FACADE DESIGN – The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Facade Design Guidelines based on the home’s overall design. The use of stone at the base of the façade is consistent with the stone used on other home in the neighborhood. However, reference Findings Item X below for additional detail regarding the design. VI. 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 consistent with the Guidelines. Existing landscaping is to remain and hardscape design is proposed to be consistent with the existing. Page 2 of 3 IX. FENCES & WALLS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Fences and Walls. X. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines. Homes in the immediate neighborhood exhibit dormers in the façade of the second story however, as referenced above in Findings Item III, the ARB was not able to conclude the visual massing effect this proposed architectural style and design would have in relation to the streetscape and surrounding buildings. XI. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Additions and Alterations as it does exhibit a consistent architecture style throughout. XII. STREETSCAPE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Streetscape as referenced above in Findings Item X. XIII. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA & SETBACKS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Minimum Floor Area and Setback Guidelines. XIV. GARAGES - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Garages. XV. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS & APPEARANCE - Refer to above referenced Façade Design comments (Finding Item V). XVI. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES & NEIGHBORHOOD - The proposed project does attempt to minimize the ridge height of the proposed addition by preserving the existing first story plate height of 8 feet and utilizing an 8.5 foot plate height on the second story. However, as referenced above in Findings Items III, V, X and XII, it could not be determined what overall effect the proposed project would have on the adjacent properties and neighborhood based on the information provided by the applicant. ACTION ____ Approved/ __ _ Conditionally Approved/ __X__ Denied These Findings and Action were made by the following ARB Members of the Association at a meeting held on August 16, 2019 at 2011 Highland Oaks Dr., Arcadia, CA Members In Attendance-Vote: Dean Obst, ARB Chair – No Signature: __Dean Obst__________ _ Lee Kuo - No Sunny Padival – No Patrick Cronin - No Page 3 of 3 EXPIRATION - If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the ARB, has not begun construction (as evidenced by clearing and grading and/or/the installation of a new foundation and/or by installation of new materials on a structure that is being remodeled) or has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. Such project may be resubmitted to the ARB for renewed approval; however, the ARB shall review the project as if it had not been previously approved in accordance with the current standards in effect. APPEALS - Appeals from the ARB shall be made to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions on ARB cases may be appealed to the City Council. Said appeals shall be made in writing and delivered to Planning Services within seven (7) calendar days of the ARB's decision and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. Upon receipt of an appeal in proper form, such appeal shall be processed by Planning Services in accordance with the same procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee, except that noticing shall be consistent with ARB noticing.