Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings & Action Report 1 Santa Anita “Village” Community Association of Arcadia Architectural Review Board Findings and Action Report May 9, 2018 Project Address: 300 Cabrillo Rd. Arcadia CA 91007 File # #1216 Applicant: Wayne Lei 245 E Main St #113A Alhambra CA 91801 626-715-7222 Owner: Bill Liu 300 Cabrillo Rd Arcadia CA 91007 626-297-4848 Project Description remodel to front elevation. Moving location of side facing garage door to a front facing garage door. Adding a large California T addition to front of house. Remove all existing siding and brick wainscot and replace with stucco. This proposed project results in a significant change to approximately 2/3 of the front elevation. The south side of the new front addition would require a modification. ACTION DENIED FINDINGS: 1. SITE PLANNING –The proposed project is not consistent with the Site Planning Guidelines based on: The only site amenity is one small existing tree. It is to be removed and plans show no replacement tree. The location, configuration, size, and design is not visually harmonious with the site or with the character and quality of the surroundings. A more effective use of the available space for the addition needs to be developed The height of the proposed 2 II. ENTRY – The proposed project is not consistent with the Entry Guidelines based on: III. MASSING – The proposed project is not consistent with the Massing Guidelines based on: IV. ROOFS – The proposed project is consistent with the Roofs Guidelines based on: V. FAÇADE DESIGN – The proposed project is not consistent with the Façade Design Guidelines based on: While the entry is the only part of the existing to be retained in the proposed plan it will no longer be a focal point due to the proposed design of the addition. The entry will become the furthermost point back on the front elevation. A redesign should consider using the available space in a way that establishes a strong focal point. Traditionally this is The proposed addition forms a symmetrical horseshoe shape with a narrow opening to the front door. The front door loses it function as a focal point. The symmetrical horseshoe shape lacks the articulation of good design and is not harmonious with surrounding properties. The entire south side is one flat plane from front to back with no The roof on the addition has the same pitch as the existing house and garage. The garage is to maintain the existing open gable and the addition also has an open gable. However, each is to be stripped of The front facade, as shown, has no identifiable cohesive architectural style. The symmetrical balance design needs a different design approach perhaps by massing the available space to fill more of the center portion by bringing the entry forward. The south side of the elevation and the existing house form one flat unbroken plane. 3 VI. DETAILS - The proposed project is not consistent with the Details Guidelines based on: 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 As shown, this proposal is devoid of traditional architectural details with the exception of two thin plant-on shutters on the addition. The roofing is listed as Cedar-lite heartwood to match existing. A color board is not provided. More specifics are need about finishes, textures, windows, and shutters. The old garage door is to be moved to the planned new front facing garage door. A new upgraded garage door would be a more convincing feature. The current front landscaping consists of only one small tree (to be removed) and a blighted lawn with little else. It appears to be incomplete. This proposal does not include a landscaping plan. A new driveway is shown and much of the current driveway is to remain with a walkway carved out of the old driveway leading to the mailbox. No calculations are shown comparing the hardscape to landscape in the 4 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 not consistent with the Garages Guidelines based on: No existing fences or walls are to be changed. This project has no identifiable architectural style and exhibits little architectural interest. The neighbors on each side of the proposed project expressed that the all stucco look and design was not an improvement As designed the front elevation appears to be piecemeal and not transparent to the minimal traditional or ranch style found in the Village and in this particular neighborhood. The symmetrical horseshoe shape with a greatly recessed front door is not harmonious or compatible. Th i bl b t thi d i d th i i l h See IX The FAR is within all guidelines. The south side of the proposed addition needs a modification. There is some question if the property is measured accurately 5 XV. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS & APPEARANCE - The proposed project is not consistent with the Exterior Building and Appearance Guidelines based on: 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 Front facing garages are discouraged in the Village as they overly dominate the front elevation. To be considered the overall design of the entire front elevation should exhibit a quality of design to counter balance the negative effect of a front facing garage. This proposal needs a redesign. If a new driveway is proposed than all the old driveway needs to be removed This would open up space in order to Replacing the existing traditional materials with an all stucco look detracts from the existing and does not add value to the neighborhood. See X and XV 6 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 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.