HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings & Action FormSanta Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Date: October 15, 2020 File No.
Project Address: 314 Arbolada Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006
Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA
Applicant Name: Danny Wu & Carman Yang
Property Owner(s) Name: Danny Wu & Carman Yang
Project Description: Front yard landscape to include new circular driveway, entry
walkway, entry motor court, landing, and front porch; planter walls, pilasters, lights,
and steps. New and existing driveway area; new and existing planting areas.
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 hardscape in the front yard setback is out of context
with the neighborhood. Massive hardscape elements along with numerous walls and
pilasters of various heights and excessive lighting are not compatible with other
properties on the street.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions
Guidelines.
Explanation: The hardscape design is not compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. ____________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways
Guidelines.
Explanation: The driveway includes an overly large “car court” which results in
excessive paving. The car court also merges with a very large porch and the
combination results in a massive hardscape area that gives the impression of a
hotel.______________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Architectural Styles
Guidelines.
Explanation: The design includes a massive car court, numerous walls and pilasters
of various heights, and excessive lighting that do not reflect a consistent architectural
style with the house.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale
Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines.
Explanation: The entry design is massive and merges with an even more massive car
court. The design also includes numerous walls of various heights, 12 pilasters of
various heights each capped with 12 light standards that were not yet
specified.________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Windows and Doors
Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Colors and Materials
Guidelines.
Explanation: Appropriate materials are used for the driveway.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting
Guidelines.
Explanation: Exterior lighting include 12 fixtures, not fully specified, but appear in the
landscape drawings to not be shielded or downward facing. Wattage was not
specified.___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and
Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines.
Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________
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: Numerous (6) front yard walls of various heights are specified to create a
courtyard area. This design concept does not exist in the neighborhood and therefore
is not consistent. Proposed Ligustrum hedge is extremely fast growing, too high and
essentially creates a wall at the street. Hedges in this neighborhood are low and slow
growing and so a more compatible species should be used. _____
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and
Landscape Areas Guidelines.
Explanation: The design includes varied composition but does not focus on drought
tolerant plantings. Front Ligustrum hedge does not take in to account its long-term
growth and maturity and is too high and hides much of the landscape in the yard.
Hardscape is excessive compared to other homes in the area. ________________
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: OCTOBER 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:
NOES: 7
Abstain:
ABSENT: 0
Conditions of Approval:
Reason for Denial:
The overall design was considered out of context with the neighborhood with a
massive porch and car court, along with too many design elements resulting in
something too elaborate and ostentatious.
Furthermore, some design elements such as light fixtures were left unspecified.
During the meeting, the designer indicated that the homeowner (not present at the
meeting) would be willing to make changes to make the project acceptable,
although they had been unwilling in previous discussions prior to the public
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
hearing. The ARB voted on the design as it was presented.
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 October 26, 2020. You will be notified if an
appeal is filed.
Approved designs shall expire in one year October 26, 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