Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAOHOA ARB Findings and Actions 1111 San CarlosSanta Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- Date: January 10, 2023 File No. Project Address: 1111 San Carlos Rd, Arcadia, CA 91006 Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA Applicant Name: Philip Chan Property Owner(s) Name: Tom Nguyen Project Description: New 2-story single family home. 6,768sf Spanish style architecture. 5 beds-6 baths with 4-car garage. 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 home is consistent with the local streetscape and fits the context of the neighborhood. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines. Explanation: The mass of the home is consistent with the local streetscape and homes in the vicinity. ___________________________________________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions Guidelines. Explanation: The hardscape design is appropriate for the design. Landscaping is copious and appropriate. Several large trees, including 3 oaks, are to be planted in the front yard setback._____________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways Guidelines. Explanation: The circular driveway and associated hardscape elements appropriate for the design and driveways are wide enough for safe access and not overly wide. ________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Architectural Styles Guidelines. Explanation: The home is a single and consistent design form. The design is consistent with the local streetscape. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale Guidelines. Explanation: The home is similar in height, bulk, and scale to homes in the vicinity. ______________________________________________________ Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines. Explanation: Rooflines are of consistent pitch and materials. _______________________________________________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines. Explanation: Entry is a single-story structure with unnecessary decoration and is clearly visible. _______________________ 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 adequate 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: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: Proposed walls, fences, and gates are appropriate for the project. _____ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and Landscape Areas Guidelines. Explanation: Impervious coverage in the front yard setback is appropriate for the landscape design. ________________ Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- 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: JANUARY 10, 2023 ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision: Tom Walker (Chair) Matt Rimmer Vince Vargas Jessica Louie Loren Brodhead Gabriel Rousset AYES: 6 NOES: 0 Abstain: 0 ABSENT: 0 Conditions of Approval: 1. The rectangular windows in the front were changed to arched windows 2. Oak trees were added to the landscape plan 3. Driveway was moved closer to the house 4. Balcony in the back was removed 5. Garden wall will be less than 24” high 6. The front gate was eliminated 7. The wall next to the front door was removed 8. The front fence was removed 9. Pool plans to be submitted with no waterfall features Conditions of approval were met in 1/11/2023 Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- 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 January 23, 2023. You will be notified if an appeal is filed. Approved designs shall expire in one year (January 11, 2024) 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