HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings & Action FormSanta Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Date: September 25, 2020 File No.
Project Address: 1225 Rodeo Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006
Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA
Applicant Name: Sanyao International, Inc
Property Owner(s) Name: Ji Hong
Project Description: Remodel of existing 3498 sq. ft. 2-story house to 9177 sq ft with
an additional 888 sq. ft. ADU. The home is subject to an Historical Design Review that
was completed by Architectural Resources Group. The design is limited by that fact.
FINDINGS
Only check those that are apply and provide a written explanation for each
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Site Planning Principles
and Neighborhood Context Guidelines.
Explanation: The design of the house maintains the original front façade unchanged
due to requirements set by the Historical Design Review. The additional square
footage is limited to the rear of the house.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines.
Explanation: The design of this 2-story house successfully disguises the massiveness
of the house to better blend with the character of the street. The design respects
existing structures on neighboring properties without overwhelming them with
disproportionate size and scale.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions
Guidelines.
Explanation: The design is located in a manner compatible with then surrounding
neighborhood and does not have significantly greater height and bulk than that of
adjacent homes. ____________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways
Guidelines.
Explanation: The historical status requires the existing front facing garage to remain
as well as the existing driveway. _____________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Architectural Styles
Guidelines.
Explanation: The design has a clear and distinctive style with consistent features,
proportions, and detailing. The floor plan has been designed to allow proper
placement and sizing of windows to compliment the architectural style. _ ______
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale
Guidelines.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Explanation: The design utilizes simple building massing and roof forms to maintain
the architectural style of the home. Symmetry is avoided. Second floor massing is
hidden behind the traditional roof form to minimize impact on adjacent neighbors and
to compliment the single story streetscape._________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines.
Explanation: The roof plan is consistent with the architectural style. Traditional roof
forms are used. Similar roof form and pitch to the immediate neighborhood are used.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines.
Explanation: The entry design is recessed enough to provide the appearance of
shelter. There are no vertical elements that emphasize scale and massing. Front entry
doors and decorative elements are compatible with the style of the house. The entry
is similar to prevalent entries in the neighborhood and is not a large formal structure
that is out of scale with the home and the streetscape. ________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Windows and Doors
Guidelines.
Explanation: The project uses appropriately detailed and articulated windows and
doors. Windows are aligned and balanced. There are no oversized or two-story-high
windows in this design. There are no shutters in this design. ___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines.
Explanation: Architectural detailing and articulation is consistent with the architectural
style of the project. There are no large expanses of wall plane. Articulation provides
interest and appearance is ordered. Chimneys are capped. __ _________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines.
Explanation: Façade treatment is relevant to the architectural style and is carried
consistently throughout the design. Detailing is not overly ornate and there are no
false appearance details. ___________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Colors and Materials
Guidelines.
Explanation: Colors and materials reinforce the architectural style and are used
consistently and appropriately throughout the design. Appropriate materials are used.
Natural stone materials are used. _____________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting
Guidelines.
Explanation: Exterior light fixtures are architecturally compatible with the main
structure. ______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and
Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Explanation: Additions and alterations are consistent with the architectural style and
detailing of a home in terms of materials, finishes, colors, windows, doors, siding, and
roof tiles. Accessory building matches architectural style.______________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Hillside Properties
Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Fences, Walls, Gates, and
Hedges Guidelines.
Explanation: Existing fencing will be retained. There are no front yard fences. _____
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and
Landscape Areas Guidelines.
Explanation: The design exhibits a balance between landscape and hardscape.
Driveway and walkways are wide enough for safe and convenient passage while not
overpowering the design. Existing trees are to be maintained. ________________
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.
APPROVED CONDITIONALLY APPROVED DENIED
Date of ARB Meeting: SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision:
Tom Walker (chair, ARB)
Matt Rimmer (ARB)
Loren Brodhead (ARB)
Vince Vargas (ARB)
Gilbert Perez (ARB)
Jessica Louie (ARB)
Peter Olson (ARB)
AYES: 6 (with conditions)
NOES: 0
Abstain: 1
ABSENT: 0
Conditions of Approval:
1. REMOVE THE NORTH WALL OF THE ENCLOSED BREEZEWAY TO ENHANCE ARTICULATION.
2. ADD VINES TO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
3. REDUCE OR REMOVE THE ADU WINDOWS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND ADD PLANTINGS IN APPROPRIATE AREAS.
4. PUSH BACK (REDUCE IN SIZE) THE COVERED PORCHES ON THE ADU TO 7’.
5. CREATE AND PRESENT POOL PLANS.
6. INDICATE LOCATION OF AC EQUIPMENT
7. CONSIDER ELECTRIC DOOR OPENER FOR THE GARAGE.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Conditions above were met with new drawings on September 24, 2020
Issued demolition permit is a required condition of approval.
Reason for Denial:
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 _5:00PM_ p.m. on September 28, 2020. You will be notified if an
appeal is filed.
Approved designs shall expire in one year September 29, 2021) from the effective date
unless plans are submitted to Building Services for plan-check, a building permit is issued
and the construction is diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or
the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design
concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved
design concept plans may preclude the issuance of a building permit.
An extension may be granted by the ARB or designee, or the Review Authority that
approved the project for a maximum period of one (1) year from the initial expiration date.
An extension can only be granted if the required findings can be made. Please note that
acceptance of an extension request does not indicate approval of an extension.
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 saohoaarb@gmail.com. Thank you.
c: City of Arcadia, Planning Division