Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout421 Magellan Findings 1 REPORT OF FINDINGS AND DECISION SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION Hearing Held Thursday August 25, 2022 Place: Arcadia City Hall 7PM City Council Conference Room 240 W Huntington Dr Arcadia 91007 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Development Code Section 9107.20.050 a Site Plan and Design Review in the Homeowner Association Areas may be approved only if it is found that the proposed development is consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines. PROJECT ADDRESS: 421 Magellan Rd. Arcadia CA 91007 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; New front facing garage along front elevation, revised and expanded driveway, grading of existing slope, a new back up and parking area in the existing front landscaped area, new retaining walls, revised front architectural elevation. The proposed ADU is done under the authority of the City of Arcadia and was not considered a part of this application. Also not considered was an attached patio in the rear due to lack of architectural detail and specificity as to materials and colors. APPLICANT: Peng Ni Winhome Company 3096 Parkway Circle El Monte CA 91732 OWNER: CHANGSHEN FAN & YUJIA FAN 421 Magellan Rd Arcadia CA 91007 2 DECISION: The proposed project at 421 Magellan Rd. was DENIED based on Resolution 7272, Single Family Guidelines, and the Development Code. FINDINGS SITE PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The Village was developed to follow the natural existing slopes and contours of the land with as little grading as possible. The subject property is located approximately in the middle of the west side of Magellan Rd. The west side consists of 20 homes. Most have significant slopes and a crest. Magellan Rd. is unique because its defining characteristic is that it resembles a hillside community with the steepest slopes in the Village. No front facing garages are located at the crest of any of the 12 most steeply sloped properties. The first 3 properties at the south end feature split level with the garages tucked under the first floor. Such configuration requires little grading of the existing slope. Additionally, split level increases the proportion of the width of the house compared to the width of the garage making the garage secondary (non- dominating) to the house The pattern all along the west side of Megellan is for driveways to be located at the far north side of the lot and go straight from street and terminate at a garage in the rear resulting in the least disturbance to the slope. No wide back up spaces intrude into the front landscaped areas. This creates a consistent green belt along the front that stretches from Balboa on the south to Hugo Reid on the north. SITE MANAGEMENT The proposed front facing garage dominates and is not visually harmonious or compatible with the site or surrounding properties. 1. The location at the crest of the slope emphasis the mass and scale and is not visually harmonious or compatible with the site. 3 2. The proposed garage does not meet code requiring a setback from the front façade. The front façade lacks articulation. 3. The measurements evidenced on the elevations show a mass and scale taller, wider and with greater square footage than garages on surrounding properties. Note: How the height measurements were determined do not meet Arcadia’s Development Code. 4. A garage located at the crest results in a backup platform and driveway that requires excessive change/grading to the natural slope. The existing natural slope is a defining characteristic of this neighborhood. Objective 1 of the Single-Family Guidelines is to “Protect the character of single-family residential neighborhoods through the preservation and improvement of their character-defining features”. Objective 4 is to “Preserve the natural topography of a site”. FORMS AND MASS The garage (secondary mass) does not recede to the primary mass (house portion). The front facade appears as flat with tacked on details. FRPNTAGE CONDITIONS This project (featuring a front facing garage) is not located in a manner compatible with the existing on-site relationship or to the surrounding neighborhood. GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS The proposed garage doors do not meet code requirement for 16 linear feet. No documentation is given for recessing the garage doors or for providing windows. The Development Code prohibits 2 driveways as shown on the plot plan. To deal with slope the driveway features a very large dog-leg configuration causing considerable alteration to the natural slope. No such dog leg as an entry into a garage is found in the neighborhood or anywhere in the Village. It also has the consequence of creating the parking of vehicles in what is an existing green belt (a neighborhood characteristic) along the entire length of the street (20 homes). The new driveway and back up space add 4 hardscaping that exceeds the 40% or less VS landscaping allowed by the Development Code See SITE MANAGEMENT section for more information. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE When all Village homes were identified as to style the majority fell into an architecture called Minimal Traditional. The applicants identified the proposed style as Post War. No matter what the style, the “house” part of the front façade does not appear primary to the large front facing garage. It lacks careful design and exhibits little architectural interest. HEIGHT, BULK, AND SCALE The height of the proposed addition is not measured in compliance with code. The bulk and scale of the proposed garage overshadows the “house” portion of the project and is out of scale with garages in the surrounding neighborhood. ROOFLINES The elevations show a 4/12 pitch. The roofing plan does not confirm the pitches. ENTRIES The entry is too narrow and deep. The stucco covered pilasters ( the depth not determined) and entry roof provide little articulation or architectural interest. The “house” part of the plan does not counter balance the large proposed garage. 5 WINDOWS AND DOORS The proposed new windows do not match the windows on the south, west or north elevations. The existing windows feature grids which are not shown on the materials board or the elevations. ARTICULATION The project lacks articulation on the front and north elevations. The garage is not set back from the front elevation as required by code. The north side of the proposed garage has a large blank wall. COLORS AND MATERIALS When the materials board states that a material is to be matched, the existing materials need to be specifically identified. The proposed roof does not match the existing, the proposed windows do not match the existing, the existing finish of the existing stucco is not identified, the materials/color of the proposed retaining walls are not identified, the color and finish of the concrete back up space and new driveway are not identified. ACCESSORY LIGHTING The exterior craftsman style lighting wad not evaluated to determine if it is sufficiently shielded to direct the light downward. HILLSIDE PROPERTIES The applicants were unable to provide accurate information regarding the average slope. More information is needed. 6 WALLS\ As a result of the grading of the natural slope, new retaining walls are required. It is unclear about the height and materials. More information is needed. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND LANDSCAPED AREAS A large portion of the existing landscaping within the required front yard setback will be replaced by a large impervious concrete back up space and dog leg driveway. Hardscape ratio to landscaped areas does not meet code requirements. CONCLUSION This proposed project does not preserve or respect the unique characteristics of the project site or neighborhood. Placing a front facing garage at the crest of a slope creates the necessity of excessive change to the natural topography. The back- up space intrudes into the green belt and creates the need for additional retaining walls. It is not compatible or harmonious with the subject site or the surrounding neighborhood. The following questions are aligned with the first 4 goals of the Single Family Guidelines: 1. Does the project preserve character defining features.? NO 2. Is the streetscape physically pleasing? NO 3. Is the project consistent in style, scale, massing and quality as surrounding homes? No 4. Does the project preserve the natural topography of the site? NO 7 Based on the findings it was motioned and seconded to DENY the proposed project at 421 Magellan Rd. The vote was 4-0 to pass the motion for denial. ACTION: DENY ARB Board members rendering the decision: Laurie Thompson Thanh Lim Jerry Shen Michael Lee You may view this document on the City website. www.Arcadia CA.gov/noticesanddecisions If yiou have any questions contact Laurie Thompson, ARB Chair at laurie229@gmail.com or 626-47-5092 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 14 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. Cc: Planning Department City Clerk