HomeMy WebLinkAboutFindings & Action FormSanta Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
Date: October 20, 2021 File No.
Project Address: 1311 Oaklawn Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006
Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA
Applicant Name: Dr. Preeti P. Shah
Property Owner(s) Name: Dr. Preeti P. Shah
Project Description: New 2 story single family house, 5 bedrooms, 6·1/2 bathrooms,
with 5925 SF of living area, 1032 SF basement, 650 SF attached 3-car garage,
and a 360 SF pool house.
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: Efforts were made to create a design that was consistent and compatible
with the majority of the ranch style home on this street. ________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines.
Explanation: While the project is within the limits of the FAR, the overall massiveness
of the home was difficult to justify in the context of this specific streetscape. Several
ideas were incorporated to try to address this issue including limiting both side yard
setbacks to 15’ (versus 10’) and to push the 2nd story back away 44’ from the front of
the house to give the illusion of a single-story home from the front. The massiveness
of the home was still a concern with some board members and is the reason for the 3-
2 vote to approve.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions
Guidelines.
Explanation: Most of the bulk of the home is pushed back from the front of the house.
Landscaping is copious and appropriate with the exception of numerous palms that
are to be removed from the design. ____________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways
Guidelines.
Explanation: Garage is behind the front yard setback with a single modest width
driveway. There is the required backup space for cars entering and exiting the
garage.___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Architectural Styles
Guidelines.
Explanation: The home is a single and consistent design form.
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale
Guidelines.
Explanation: While the project is within the limits of the FAR, the overall massiveness
of the home was difficult to justify in the context of this specific streetscape. Several
ideas were incorporated to try to address this issue including limiting both side yard
setbacks to 15’ (versus 10’) and to push the 2nd story back away 44’ from the front of
the house to give the illusion of a single-story home from the front. The massiveness
of the home was still a concern with some board members and is the reason for the 3-
2 vote to approve. _____________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines.
Explanation: Rooflines are all of consistent pitch and materials__________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines.
Explanation: Entry is a modest single-story structure________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Windows and Doors
Guidelines.
Explanation: Windows and doors are consistent and appropriate for the design of the
home________________________________________________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines.
Explanation: The design uses considerable articulation. ______________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines.
Explanation: Façade treatments are consistent with the architectural style________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Colors and Materials
Guidelines.
Explanation: Appropriate materials are used.
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting
Guidelines.
Explanation: Lighting is appropriate for the project___________________
The proposed project is, is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and
Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines.
Explanation:________________________________________________________
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: A dilapidated fence on the south side must be replaced. _____
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: Impervious coverage in the front yard setback is minimized within the
landscape design. ________________
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 20, 2021
ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision:
Tom Walker (chair, ARB)
Matt Rimmer (ARB)
Loren Brodhead (ARB) <left meeting early and did not vote>
Vince Vargas (ARB)
Gilbert Perez (ARB)
Jessica Louie (ARB)
Peter Olson (ARB)
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
Abstain:
ABSENT: 1
Conditions of Approval:
COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS REVOLVED MOSTLY AROUND CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY. THE DESIGNER AND
owners of this property were open to these concerns and agreed to make five changes: (1) Raise sill high
heights on non-egress 2nd story windows on the north and south sides to 6’ high, (2) Delete the two balconies,
(3) lower the grade of the lot to mitigate the height of this structure versus the neighboring
properties, (4) replace the fence with a new fence or wall on the south side, (5) remove all palm trees from the
landscape design as they are incompatible with both the streetscape and the style of the home.
Once these conditional changes are provided, the plans will be stamped
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
Santa Anita Oaks
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Findings and Action Report
-5-
$600.00 appeal fee by _5:00PM_ p.m. on November 1, 2021. You will be notified if an
appeal is filed.
Approved designs shall expire in one year (October 21, 2022) 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