Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings and Action FormArcadia Highlands Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board Findings and Action Report File No.: 0-009-2019 Date: 4/2/2020 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 NOT consistent with the Site Planning Guidelines. Setbacks, heights, proportions, rooflines, and architectural features of the new construction second story do not complement the building orientation due to the roof line over 2 of the front windows calling additional attention to the height of the structure, the rooflines having additional pitch over a 3:12 pitch and the second floor plate height in excess of the first story plate height which all added additional height and mass to a home that is oriented well above street level. However, the proposed addition to existing homes does consider the potential for impacts on privacy of neighbors by having only one window on each of the South and North sides of the second story and having the glass on those windows obscured. Il. MASSING - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Massing Guidelines. The finish elevation of the foundation is roughly n feet above the street at the center of the home and with the proposed new structure with a height of 24 feet and 9 inches, the top of this structure would be approximately 36 feet above the street which presents massing and scale issues in comparison to the neighboring homes. The height of this structure could have been partially mitigated with a lesser pitch roof and a lower plate height on the second floor. Objective 3 of the City's Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines is to ensure home additions are consistent in scale and massing with the surrounding neighborhood. This objective is not being met when the proposed home is starting roughly one story above the street and then needlessly adding additional overall height to the structure that will be effectively 3 stories above the street Building elements that emphasize a structure's verticality were also included in the design over two of the three windows on the second story. III. FRONTAGE CONDITIONS - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Frontage Condition Guidelines_ Homes should not have significantly greater height at the front of a property than that of adjacent homes. Adjacent homes are single story or split level homes and the proposed Page 1 of 4 second story addition may be seen from the street and adds needless additional height to the second floor due to the second floor plate height and elements in the roofline that emphasize the structure's verticality. IV. GARAGES & DRIVEWAYS - The proposed project IS consistent with the existing structure of the garages and driveways. V. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines. Homes in the immediate neighborhood exhibit siding and nature stone at the base of the home. VI. HEIGHT, BULK & SCALE - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines. The proposed second floor plate height of 9 feet does not consider existing second story plate heights established within the immediate neighborhood of 8.5 feet or less. Including a larger plate height than the first floor and what is established in the area adds to the overall height of the proposed home and a roof peak that would be roughly 36 feet above the street The proposed structure's size and bulk does not complement the predominant massing types of the neighborhood. VII. ROOFLINES - The proposed project IS consistent with the Roofline 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. However, elements in the roofline do emphasize the structure's verticality which emphasizes that the second story eves are approximately three stories in height above the street. VIII. ENTRY - The proposed project IS consistent with the Entry Guidelines. The proposed entry addition is architecturally compatible with the style of the proposed project. IX. WINDOWS & DOORS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines. The window placement and window material on the second story have been designed to minimize direct views into neighboring residences and actively --used outdoor spaces of neighboring properties. X. ARTICULATION - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines. The second story windows and surrounding window structure provide articulation that provides interest through the use of thoughtful integration of key elements while avoiding a disordered appearance. XI. FACADE DESIGN - The proposed project IS generally consistent with the Facade Design Guidelines based on the home's overall design. XII. COLORS & MATERIALS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines. The proposed project utilizes stone at the base of the home and an earth tone color pallet. XIII. ACCESSORY LIGHTING - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines. XIV. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Additions and Alterations as it does exhibit a consistent architecture style throughout, largely due to the entire exterior being remodeled within the proposed scope. XV. - HILLSIDE PROPERTIES - The proposed project IS NOT consistent with the Guidelines. It is questionable if the second story step -backs from downhill slope to the street are adequate to Page 2 of 4 mitigate height, bulk and scale issues due to the existing topography. Some of the roof pitches are not parallel with the existing slopes and therefore emphasize the structure's verticality. The proposed project does minimize the need for additional grading. XVI. - FENCES, WALLS, GATES, & HEDGES - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines and most of the materials are existing. XVII. 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. 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. XI. ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Guidelines for Additions and Alterations as it does exhibit a consistent architecture style throughout due to the entire exterior being remodeled within the proposed scope. XIII. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA & SETBACKS - The proposed project IS consistent with the Minimum Floor Area and Setback Guidelines. However, it would be the largest home on the subject street that is within 300 feet. It would also have the greatest floor area ratio ("FAR"), at 0.262 to 1. The subject's proposed FAR is in excess of 30% greater than the average of the homes with 300 feet of the subject property. XIV. AFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES & NEIGHBORHOOD - The General Plan Land Use Policy LU -3.5 requires that, "new construction, additions, renovations, and infill developments be sensitive to neighborhood context, building form, scale and colors." The proposed project is not consistent with the Single -Family Residential Design Guidelines primarily due to the scale of the project in the context of the topography of the subject parcel. The proposed project does not integrate design that mitigates the massing and scale issues with respect to the streetscape as well as adjoining properties. Page 3 of 4 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 April 2, 2020 via a conference call. Members In Attendance -Vote: Dean Obst, ARB Chair - No Signature: Lee Kuo - No David Arvizu - No Patrick Cronin - No Angie Gren - No APPEALS The ARB's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission and the City Council, in compliance with Section 9108.07 of the City's Development Code. Section 9108.07.020 of the City's Development Code states: Decisions of the ARB or ARB Chairperson on all matters specified in Section 9108.01.050 (Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board) and 9108.01.070 (Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board Chairperson) may be appealed to the Commission. Section 9108.07.040 of the City's Development Code states: An appeal shall be submitted in writing and shall specifically state the pertinent facts and the basis for the appeal. 1.Pertinent Facts and the Basis for the Appeal. The pertinent facts and the basis for the appeal shall include, at a minimum, the specific grounds for the appeal, where there was an error or abuse of discretion by the previous Review Authority (e.g_, Commission, Director, ARB, ARB Chairperson, or other City official) in the consideration and action on the matter being appealed, and/or where the decision was not supported by the evidence on the record. Appeals filed by a City official, a Commissioner, or a Councilmember shall be exempt from the requirements of this Subparagraph. 2.Shall be Filed within 10 Days. The appeal shall be filed with the Department within xo days following the actual date the decision was rendered. a.Appeals addressed to the Council shall be filed with Planning Services. 3.Accompanied by Filing Fee. The appeal shall be accompanied by the filing fee identified in the Fee Schedule. 4.Suspension of Action. Once an appeal is filed, any action on the associated project is suspended until the appeal is processed and a final decision is rendered by the applicable Review Authority. Page 4 of 4