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