HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings and Action Form
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-1-
Date: 8-27-20 File No. 1263
Project Address: 943 Balboa Dr. Arcadia 91007
Association Name: Santa Anita Village
Applicant Name: John Sheng
Property Owner(s) Name: Zhongming Lin
Project Description: Remodel and second story addition, Prairie Style
First floor 1910 SF, Second story 1,232 SF Total SF =3,142 SF, FAR 35%
Lot Coverage 2,766SF = 30% (35% allowable)
FINDINGS
Only check those that are apply and provide a written explanation for each
The proposed project is not consistent with the Site Planning Principles and
Neighborhood Context Guidelines because the scale of the second story is
disproportionate and not lighter in character to the first story. The Prairie architectural
features, while compatible with the selected style, visually intensify the scale. The first
story does not anchor the second. The left front elevation, the east elevation and a
portion of the rear elevation should be designed with a greater first floor area with
additional setbacks at the second story of the addition.
Examples of recent nearby two story Prairie style homes which have achieved the
design guidelines including a harmonious ratio of the second story to the first.
Address Lot size FAR SF 1st story SF 2nd story Ratio
*530 Drake
on the corner
of Drake and
Balboa
11,237 SF 33% 2,855 800 28%
845 Balboa
currently in
plan check
10,219 34.4% 2,720 SF 830 SF 30%
1150 Hugo
Reid
10,599 33% 2,411 995 SF 41%
Subject
Property
9,106 SF 35% 1,910 1,232 65%
Single Family Design Guidelines-Examples to provide context for applicant
*530 Drake Rd. p. 18 middle photo
p. 15 Prairie Home (middle photo) evidencing appropriate second story massing setback from the
front of the home to minimize overall appearance. Note windows.
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-2-
The proposed project is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines.
Explanation: The second story ratio to the first story emphasizes a vertical look and
causes the second story to dominate (not enough setback).Walls and plate height of
the second story are taller than those on the first. The second story is disproportionate
and not harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions Guidelines.
Explanation: This project is not higher than the neighbors but the bulk is significantly
greater. Compare the ratios in the previous section.
Garages and Driveways Guidelines.
Explanation: Except for the note below this section is not applicable.
Part of the driveway is to be extended to a “walkway” that may cause excessive
hardscape and not meet code. See Section Impervious Coverage and Landscape
Areas for additional information. A walkway should be scaled for human traffic and not
vehicles. The walkway has more SF of concrete than the garage to the rear. Also, by
code, parking cannot be provided within required setback areas.
The proposed project is, consistent with the Architectural Styles Guidelines.
Explanation: Prairie is the intended style of this project. Prairie elements can be
seen on all 4 elevations therefore this section is given a “yes”. However, Prairie
Elements (wide eaves, cubic massing, very low slope roof, wide fascia boards, and
tall narrow windows) exaggerate the bulk of the disproportionate second story. Page
15 (middle photo) of the Guidelines evidences an appropriate second story massing.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale Guidelines.
Explanation: The second story massing needs to be stepped back and reduced to
minimize the effects on the neighbors and streetscape . The size and bulk of the
second story are not harmonious with the predominant massing patterns of the
neighborhood. The middle photo on p. 15 of the Design Guidelines is an example of
a Prairie style with a second story exhibiting a smaller and lighter character.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines.
Explanation: The roof pitch is not consistent with the pitches found in the
neighborhood or other Prairie homes. The selected pitch is a contributing factor to
visually increasing the bulk of the second story.
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-3-
The proposed project is consistent with the Entries Guidelines.
Explanation: The structure of the existing entry is to remain.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Windows and Doors Guidelines.
Explanation: To be harmonious with a hallmark of the Village the double door should
be changed to single with or without sidelights. Many of the windows on the second
story are as tall or taller and wider than those on the first. This raises privacy issues
as well as visually increasing the look of vertical bulk. The size of the windows is also
testimony to the excessive height of the second story walls.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines.
Explanation: The lack of vertical articulation is evidenced on the west and north
elevations. Portions have no first story roof to break up large vertical plane. The
second story east elevation is not articulated.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines.
Explanation: A continuous sill wrapped around the entire elevation is featured as a
unifying Prairie detail on three of the 4 elevations. Because of the massing on the left
side of the front elevation and low roof pitch the pattern is not able to be carried out on
the front elevation causing it to lose cohesion and harmony. The façade detail should
be carried out with each façade.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Colors and Materials Guidelines.
Explanation: Prairie homes have natural muted earth colors. The color selected is a
tint (pastel) and may be too bright especially as contrasted by the earthy muted color
variations of the brick. The project proposes pre cast concrete panels on the bottom
of the front façade. This is a material not found in the neighborhood or anywhere in
the Village. This issue was not thoroughly explored at the hearing as other issues
were more pressing.
The proposed project is, consistent with the Accessory Lighting Guidelines.
Explanation: The proposed light fixture on the materials board is consistent with the
guidelines.
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-4-
The proposed project is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and
Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines.
Explanation: This proposed second story addition has, as its major issue, excessive
mass and scale. Other issues, such as over sized windows on the second floor, the
second story appearing to dominate the first, not enough first story roof result from
this issue. The roof pitch and ratio of the first and second stories is not consistent
with the neighborhood or with other recently approved Prairie style homes.
Documentation is provided in other earlier sections of this report
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Hillside Properties
Guidelines.
Explanation: NA
The proposed project is consistent with the Fences, Walls, Gates, and Hedges
Guidelines.
Explanation: The existing fences, walls and gates are to be kept as part of this
remodeling/ second story addition application.
The proposed project is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and
Landscape Areas Guidelines.
Explanation: Existing trees are proposed to be kept. The required balance between
Hlandscaping and landscaping as not been calculated or provided on the landscape
plans but appears not to meet code. The walkway next to the existing driveway
needs to be scaled for pedestrian use. The new concrete has square footage more
suitable for vehicle parking. By code, parking is not allowed in a required setback
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
ACTION
Pursuant to City’s Development Code Section 9107.20.050, a Site Plan and Design Review in the
Homeowners Association Areas may be approved only if it is found that the proposed development
is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.
DENIED
Date of ARB Meeting: AUGUST 27, 2020
ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision:
AYES: Thanh Lim, Michael Lee, Jerry Shen, Patrick Hu, Laurie Thompson
NOES:
ABSENT:
Reason for Denial:
The primary reason for denial is the mass ( not enough setback), bulk, and
scale of the second story. Most of the other factors (detailed in this report)
are a consequence of the bulk of the second story. If the applicant/owner
wish to max the FAR, area reduced from the second story can be
incorporated into the first. The proposed lot coverage is 30% and 35% is
allowable. Therefore the first story can be expanded.
There is a ten (10) day appeal period for this application. To file an appeal, a completed
Appeal Application form must be submitted to the City’s Planning Division along with a
$600.00 appeal fee by 5 p.m. on_August 7, 2020. You will be notified if an appeal is filed.
You may visit the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/noticesanddecisions to view this
document. If you have any questions regarding the above decision, please contact the
ARB Chairperson at Laurie229@gmail.com or 626-447-5092 Thank you.
c: City of Arcadia, Planning Division