Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1691 I. . .' - RESOLUTION NO. 1691 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS' APPEAL OF THE HIGHLANDS HOME OWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND ADDITION TO A POOL HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS AT 1857 HIGHLAND OAKS DRIVE. WHEREAS, on January 30, 2003, Phong and Gail Ngo submitted plans and an application for Architectural Design Review to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Highlands Home Owners' Association (HOAl for a proposed rehabilitation and addition toa pool house that was built without permits by the previous owners at their residence at 1857 Highland Oaks Drive; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2003 the ARB denied the proposed rehabilitation and addition to the pool house; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2003, Phong and Gail Ngo submitted an appeal of the ARB's denial; and WHEREAS, the appeal was based on the ARB's findings in regards to the compatibility of the proposed rehabilitation and addition to the pool house; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 11, 2003 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the information submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached reports dated March 11, 2003 is true and correct. SECTION 2. That this Commission finds: 1. That the existing construction and the proposed rehabilitation, which will retain the flat roof, is not consistent with the standards of the Highlands HOA area. 2. That the proposed rehabilitation, addition to, and permitting of the pool house that was built without permits will not be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the other structures on the property and with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. r- e e. - SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal submitted by Phong and Gail Ngo. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of March 11, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen and Olson NOES: None SECTION 5, The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No, 1691 was adopted at a regular meeting of the ,:,Ianning Commission on March 25, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Hsu; Lucas, Wen and Baderian NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Olson Q;bc.~~~_/) Cl1airman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ~~~T: ('/ .. /; ~ Secretary, Planning City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: \ ~p~ Steph n p, Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia -2- 1691 '- e . STAFF REPORT Development Services Department March 11, 2003 TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: James M. Kasama, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 1857 Highland Oaks Drive - An appeal of the Highland Home Owners' Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed rehabilitation, addition to, and permitting of a pool house that was built without permits. SUMMARY The owners of 1857 Highland Oaks Drive, Phong and Gail Ngo, are proposing to rehabilitate, add 32 square feet, and legalize a pool house that was built without permits. The Ngos purchased the property on an "As Is. basis in September 2002, and applied for a Real Estate Inspection on November 5, 2002 to begin the legalization process. In January 2003, the Ngos submitted an application for Architectural Design Review of the proposed pool house rehabilitation and addition. The Architectural Review Board of the Highland Home Owners' Association denied the proposed plans on February 3, 2003. The Ngos are appealing this denial. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the appeal. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANTS: Phong and GailNgo ADDRESS: 1857 Highland Oaks Drive APPEAL: An appeal of the Highland Home Owners' Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of the proposed rehabilitation and permitting of a pool house that was built without permits. LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: Approximately 17,240 square feet (0.40 acre) 90 feet along Highland Oaks Drive j EXISTING LAND USE: The property is improved with a one-story, single-family residence with an attached two-car gar<:!ge, a swimming pool and the pool house. ZONING CLASSIFICATION: R-1-10,000 & D - Second One-Family Zone with a 10,000 square foot minimum lot size with a density of one dwelling per lot and an Architectural Design Overlay. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SFR-4- Single Family Residential with a maximum density offour (4) dwelling units per acre. BACKGROUND Phong and Gail Ngo purChased the property at 1857'Highland Oaks Drive on an "As Is" basis. Their escrow closed on September 19, 2002. Coincidentally, also on that .- date, it was brought to the City's :attention that a laundry room had been built inside the garage without permits. This was verified by Code Services and a Notice of Violation was issued to the new owners on October 2, 2002. On November 5, 2002, the owners applied for a Real Estate Inspection to begin the legalization process of the laundry room. The Real Estate Inspection disclosed that the laundry room in the garage was indeed built without permits, and that it, effectively made the garage a one-car garage. The Real Estate Inspection also determined that a pool house had been built without permits. The Ngos applied for a Modification to try and retain the laundry room in the garage (MC 02-058) but the ModifieationCommittee denied the application and allowed the owners one yearto restore the two-car garage. The next step in the legalization process was to have the Highland Home Owners' Association's (HOA) Architectural Review Board (ARB) approve of the existing pool house. Since the Real Estate Inspection determine.d that SOme minor upgrade,S would be necessary for the pool house to comply with Building Codes, the Ngos decided to rehabilitate the structure and adq 32 square feet. The proposed plans are shown as Attachment 'C' 'and Attachment 'D! is photographs of the subject property and the pool house. ARB Appeal .. 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 2 '- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. -- 7. 8. 9. 10. . In early January 2003, the Ngos submitted an. Application for Homeowner Association Architectural Design Review (Short Review Procedure) for the pool house rehabilitation and addition. The submittal included signatures of consent from all of the surrounding homeowners, After two submittals of additional information and plans, the ARB denied the proposed plans on February 3, 2003. Attachment 'E' includes the following: APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (SHORT REVIEW PROCEDURE) (3pp.) CITY OF ARCADIA - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) - NOTICE OF AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION - dated January 7, 2003 (1p.) Memorandum to Mr. and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated January 8, 2003 (1p.) Note To The Highland Oaks Homeowner's Association from Phong and Gail Ngo - dated 17 January 2003 (1p,) Memorandum to Mr. and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated January 20,2003 (1p.) Memorandum to Highlands Homeowners Association ARB (with photographs of situations on neighboring properties) from Phon9 and Gail Ngo - dated 1-30-03 (2pp.) . Memorandum to Mr. and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated February 3, 2003 (1p.) ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION (2pp.) Memorandum to The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia from Phong and Gail Ngo (Appeal) - dated 6 February 2003 (1p.) Letter to Arcadia City Planning Commission from Phong and Gail Ngo - dated 11 February 2003 (2pp.) Also, Attachment 'F' is a report from Mr. Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman, in response to the appeal by the Ngos. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Ngos' proposal is to rehabilitate the existing pool house and add 32 square feet to the east side of the structure. The property owners have agreed to comply with the corrections required by Building Services (i.e., provide safety/tempered glass, "clean-up" exterior electrical connections, provide GFCI/grounded outlets in the ARB Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 3 bathroom, and extend the plumbing vent at least 8 inches above the roof). In ~ addition, they have indicated thatthe windows will be replaced, the sliding glass door . will be replaced with French Doors, the' building will be. painted to match the house, and all plumbing will be properly loca~ed indoors. Side Yard Setback Modification The existing pool house has a southerly side yard setback of 6 feet at the southwest corner of the building and a side yard setback of 8 feet at its southeast corner. Based on the linear dimension of 90 feet along the front property line, a 9-foot side yard setback is required. Therefore, the following Modification is necessary for the existing pool house: . A southerly side yard setback of Mo-8 feet in lieu of the 9 feet required by Code Section 9252.2.3. This Modification is .not part of this appeal, but is an issue that will need to be addreSsed in order for the pool house to be permitted. The Modification is not subject to consideration at this time. ARB Flndinas The Architectural Design Review Board (Committee) Findings and Action are included as Attachment 'E.8' of this staff report. The ARB's denial of the Ngos' . e proposal is based on the finding that the pool house, with a flat roof would not meet the standards and quality of other permitted structures in the Highlands HOA area. Hlahland Home Owners' Association Reaulatlons City Council Resolution No. 5289 (Attachment 'G') sets forth conditions, regulations, procedures and standards by which the Highland HOA may exercise its plan review authority. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property within the Highland HOA area will be compatible with each other, Section 3 of Resolution No. 5289 imposes Conditions on the properties in the Highland HOA area. The following Condition Nos. 7 and 8 are applicable to the subject pool house: 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall of fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other stru~tures in the neighborhood. 8. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE, The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. ARB Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 4 . . ,e it Architectural Review Principles City Council Resolution No. 5289 stipulates that the ARB and any body hearing an appeal of the ARB's decision, shall be guided by the following principles: a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that Individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Committee or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance), c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the amenities and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). Plannlna Commission Determination Based on the above principles, the Planning Commission is to determine whether, or not, the Ngos' proposal satisfies the Highland HOA Regulations as specified in City Council Resolution No. 5289, such that the pool house as proposed to be rehabilitated and added onto will be compatible and harmonious with the other structures on the same lot and with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. CEQA Architectural Review decisions will not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of the appeal. Staff's opinion is that the proposed pool house rehabilitation and addition will be compatible with the house at 1857 Highland Oaks Drive and with the other structures in the neighborhood. Staff cites the fOllowing in support of its opinion: ARB Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 5 1. In addition to the upgrades required by Building Services, the proposed .~ rehabilitation includes new windows, French doors, and painting, to match the . house. 2. The existence of similar sti'1Jctu~es in the neighborhood (irrespective of their permit status). 3. The existence of the subject pool house for many years without a complaint. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval of Appeal If the Planning Commission is to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the appeal and overrule the ARB's denial based on the following finding, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for adoptIon at the next meeting. . . That the proposed pool house rehabilitation and addition will be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the other structures on the property iii'ld with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. Denial of Aooeal If the Planning Commission is to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the appeal and uphOld the ARB's denial based on the following finding, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for adoption at the next meeting. . That the proposed pool house rehabilitation and addition will not be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the other structures on the property and with other properties and structures in the neighborhood. If any Planning Commissioner, or other Interested party has any questions or comments regarding this appeal prior to the March 11th hearing, please contact Jim Kasama at (626) 574-5445. ~~ ~ ~~ Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator ARB Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 6 e . . e it Attachments A. Location Map B. Aerial Photo C. Plans (3pp.) D. Photographs of 1857 Highland Oaks Drive and the subject pool house (2pp.) E. 1. APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (SHORT REVIEW PROCEDURE) (3pp.) 2. CllY OF ARCADIA - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) - NOTICE OF AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION - dated January 7, 2003 (1p.) 3. Memorandum to ,Mr, and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated January 8, 2003 (1p.) 4. Note To The Highland Oaks Homeowner's Association from Phong and Gail Ngo - dated 17 January 2003 (1p.) 5. Memorandum to Mr. and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated January 20,2003 (1p.) 6. Memorandum to Highlands Homeowners Association ARB (with photographs of situations on neighboring properties) from Phong and Gail Ngo - dated 1-30-03 (2pp.) 7. Memorandum to Mr. and Mrs. Ngo from Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman - dated February 3, 2003 (1p.) 8. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION (2pp.) 9. Memorandum to The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia from Phong and Gail Ngo (Appeal) - dated 6 February 2003 (1p.) 10. Letter to Arcadia City Planning Commission from Phong and Gail Ngo - dated 11 February 2003 (2pp.) F. Report from Mr. Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman, in response to the appeal by the Ngos (5pp.) G. City Council Resolution No. 5289 (8pp.) ARB Appeal 1857 Highland Oaks Drive March 11, 2003 Page 7 ~ (1911) (1910) N '. 100 D 100 Fest (151) (161) (1900) (1906) AVE (B5) GRAND VieW :I: (1874) (1871) - G') (1861) )> (1860) :I: '; (1866) r- ~ (1865) 'Z C (1B53) g (1852) 0 (1860) )> ~ " (1845) , en (1852) )> (1844) C ~ (1847) :u 'e (1837) (1828) (1B44) (1841) (1838) (1833) (1830) (1827) (1824) (1821) (1838) (1829) (1821) (1820) (1811) ------ (1810) lis 1857 Highland Oaks Dr~ ARB Appeal .' Development Selllices Depment Engineering Division Prepsod by: RSGonzBIw,February, 20001 Attachment 'A' '.~ cC..xnent SeI1Iices Department _Engineering Division PIDp/JBd by: R.5.GonzsJaz. H3bIu/rf <003 . " I' ~ N fDO o fDO Feet ,. r ~:J .~ ',- .~. .--;. .; '~~ ~. 1> o' " ~ , ;;1;"" . 'iol ,~, '-.~- !l;'l Ir:: {l.!'II;- I ~ ~, ~ . \~,. , '. .', ,~,."..,:,,~, ..ji;'i' ~ , 0 ~ D ~ 1857 Highland Oaks Dr Arcadia f!} ., '. I ~ ZDne ~ ~~!I C=fJog;ffnU@)/lD(QJ (OJta1Ik~ [Dr ~R{gJ ~fPJfPJ(eJ@) D Attachment "B' " r:::';1'%il'[;;~t~,;:(:~:, ' 'h~;:h~~:rl- -;~;>l1Jl:...~~ f''-'''-'t".. --~- f.. ~;~':;jtY!~ft:.?',\'~~r:';~"_~~:. :'~:: ~.-~ v~ . ~ -~.- ....,.: .' ~ ~', ,- " -;~1: " ,. ;. I, \:'. .' '.~ ;~ ~. ~ ~ ..... ..' ".1 .,' ......' . , '-~. I ... \ " ~.. -=... .., , . ,.... .~ ~, ';, If~.,)t>~~~ ",'''', '~ 7 iil j' ~ ~''j- \~ "'.. ~ '\.. ; ~ I -(j ...~ V~J .~ .. " :1';..,.,. t'~~- "'tJ ,,-~ t~ 2.~ Lx. \ \ ~- "' ." .. ... ~' 't') ,....... ..s-.'''' -~ J i' "'~," r. . , ;:1- ,~ .~~. '~ [ii(. ,.,.. .~ ~ '~ ,~: }' ~' ~. ,- .. --- -,:-.-:--:!..'J-: - . ", _-~' I .;;.rt~i,<':' ... .' "'~ '\;~ .,.\' "', ,;- I" .~t. 'a'; I. \ .l~-- ..";1 . . ~ < ", I "".o:"p..'" :,.' . . ':.>-' ?1:~If:;!\;i3 "~~f.:,~,',',,~,:,"~,i~:.~,,;,~~~l~ ", : - :::~:, t. . _' -,' ~ .. . :oliLciu;oNSTRUC110t!" l' " '2,jOQ'Rl~g~ew:'[)'rif~i~. !SO;!." ," " ChinG Hili$i (fA' ~199 , '" .~.::~;;t~f;~:':r T~l!1:"~:~:!",C.",.,.,'..,~,_;,;..,1,',;,":,.,{",'~ ".=: :. ';. j - .: ~-\~'i:b:-.:! r~- -:''',. ~ ....1;. -- . ,:- - ,- ;.". ,. " " ,. r.' ~,_::I''"";'- ", _.~_::;<''(-'- ,- ,,' .,-",-:." ;. '."~;.~, ,'" . ..~: ~.. ~J.. :' ~J\;'o. ~" t"4.. :fit. , ., ' t ,,'V n;" (l;!t, ...~ ~ :1('" 4 ._ )~~: r~'< ~'f!:.~J;' .i~riit: NJ~~f~r~~;~1:''''~:{:'~>';~~U'':<:<,.;'';4'''~'~ :,' . ,;.,..:,' :':;;~t~' i!f '~,il"~t ,:f. ':'~~:",':'f?~;;i-'ir>"')-&;~,~io .:' · ~~R~ ~~~, ~:,~~ ii~: '~:'.?:~':' 'F~:."> ~~.',>;.1~~;:"~(:~'~r~1,~~'At'~ ~::A'~""~' ~.tL~ ,. M "';C:~, "',,'" ',iF;.,'.<," ,-, ''''';''''.,'' .I.~< ~.4.t, ....,.-Q.,........ ~ ."\\.~; (':ri~l <!.t-'..fi-; ,~' :c ,;; l.f. ./\ I'~' .r;.~'" '. '. ..' " . ;}>:',' (},,,.\li ~5, ~~ .:=-',;"\f,-ift<,,!!;;"')'~~~t' ~"',,~tto~' ,<" . '. '..~,.;,.:.c,','.-,;,":"':.:...,:. '-j~ . .,~y :';-n'Ci!:~ "" . rRe~..... "~'=1"; - _~:~2 ,[...." .:.. - ~ ',.....~ - ,=-_ :J~t~:: ;::~~~~~ ~r.~;;~t::',~,i::~..' ':'::{~f'.~t/7'~>~ ',(: :;,;"h ;;,.~ " :;,~,~It~y, "~'~t:i,':.~r'.~-:::'~cf:';:~~:~~";"--:"U:""\'''' lrf,\.t':-' ...~~ ',.""'r".~}~f'~~ . '--. '.x.~lr~':{' .1'-:....'?:. ,- ."'';", _ ^:l:~~7~l:'::!,~ .~Y ~'J"~ .....~~..i..,.,<t.~.~':...h.I::f\.;-. ,_ ~.-1.f-"k;:t..~- J. . . 'Tr ~., ~,:,.. ~ "11-~::.' '.'; ~.; (.. ~~~~;,..,.~- ;., .t1~i.;:~:~~'if~:,~,.;"k~;~~.':t}<~:! ~':,3.~:::~" ._ .\"::~?:" ;:~il;~<\ r ",~j',;<';" , ',,', '7... is. :-, -~- ~.,'.;-' . <'J",' :__"::V'~ " Attachment 'C' p.I ~ ~ h'_ ., .,:,. ~ ~ e e (E) ~..vvm --I --l , Attachment 'e' p.2 e) .- ., ~ .... [] ~ J Co) .... ~ v -J Phong and Gall Ngo . 1851 Highland Oaks .Dr: 6' __I Arcadia, CA /lOA / At28 Appel) 1- DELeO CONSTRUCTION d 2400 Rldgeview Dr. Ste. 603 ChIno Hills, CA 91709 Ucense # 795874 a, Hie , (e) '/Xb J!'Ami1.5 wI #)(f'tisep ~~ 7itt..f. r B' f ;;'1.. ""/;'..J:l~:" . ,;,,~., t .. . , , /' .;f, I ~ I, ;,0 I ( (;)S1fl,c,q , .,. I7thS" ;~ ~\ , (~) 7"oA,Gl/if) CbvItJ r4~ F;<..o.ll f)."E.""t"'i')",..J) t<E-AK. 5,....' LJOtIL q.J (lJl ~ ~f , '. ~ \ Nt"" -r""" ~ 80'"'8 Sl..Il)~" fPt,:lu/ O_ILS . 7P ~) I tJ6w ~:>~ ""1,,, I.II,JyL ,-6~_ W\tJ ~rNJ .' ... U Q;,.*"",~.4't~" '~..l~' . ~. " "'p":<:..",,;.ff';' .;. >p~'l,;_,Cl;..-r'-:"; ,';0'"'" ...... '" ,:ri;;:~ .-, r ,),6":<,\";,1 , '. ,," .,,, . '" . . .......~... ~~~~._, '~'r: fI . ;"'1. -<- ~:'" ". -~. '...... , r if. ~ (e) I " , , , .' ftVuA 8' ". ; , " ~ S7Vc.t," ~ ~;;, '" ~"ISII F,;/1~1( ~ --- .- - -.,,, -> ' 't"rl: l, _:..:":' ~.!....:.::. t 1'1~ 18) , ~..w ~ 1 ~,tI' 511 i' 7.'l~ ~ ~ 1 'I -- "'tw '2030 kit! rri: 1/1""1'- ~"","'IlD" (B\SfEI..t::IIATlO/'J ) ~_. .. _. _"" ...."no"w - """""13 '-..n." ....,~ r we SoT ELc"ItTl"""!) DELeo CONSTRUCTION 2400 Rldgeview Dr. Ste. 503 .. Chino Hills. CA 91709 ., Ucense # 195874 8. Hie I 13 . "J6D .e~s lo4-rJa /85'7 HI6~"'I7~.4?4. dJfU.4.tJ,A I ~/4()3 I/,/n::~ Attacbment 'C' p.3 . e . --==',; ~ , , 1.1 .,,~,' . I, .jl~~..-4! : I r _," II !tr; -~[!' "\il J.t4. ,.~ I' ~ :,' -r' : .! :', ",.- j ':'. "",.i, ..: .--:::::: t -- ~" --':I:~-lci: :;:~'~' ,1 . ...' [-I l [..t - 'j~ \I~'?t "', ".- ~.:I_. . ~~" I \ t..f:I'f~l-, . \ ... I ~ " I ,. rt : 'l-' ". ' 1 ,-'~' . \: '.. ~ I ~I' 'I;' "II.'W.\ ~I! -"ie'" )' '\I, .! I~I' ,'~ " T:;I" f "I 'I' I ~. '.- .,4, , ,"I :JI'11 t.:~~~-~'.~ :, , ". .. i t; I; ,I ~ '.1 "II,' , "ill';::, II . ,!~ , ~-;q.. , I }.I 'Ii';; I " . ,I" ..'....'1 . ~" ", :J.. l:' "l.": _I., . ,- ,1-' "I" "ii' 1857 Highland Oaks Drive A~tachment 'D' p.l , ,. .,~'." Ai' '.'\l'~' ,i~~ ,.,"il~~ ".V ~t ~ - I~ 'I i . ", '!' ..~-' ']i' " , 'J;.O "9"r'~/) ..~.... . ." ,'.:., :~~~ O,'? ;. ,i,G,!:'",,~l.' . '~~@'~ 8 ~ '.... 1:tJ'. -0. 0 '. . .':;ill. :' , ~ '~. I , R;t-G :,', , ~ . ~" "a;t" "\il' ~ ..t.'.' """, .:lii': , A ~-tF.'- - 0'11.1 -;;> " . 'olIl ..'~ 'Yj,.;'t'" ~~. '. ':"". ;'\l> "',"~ ir~~T': {'w';" .lJ;,~:f." ""~~1";~ '.{:J:~tI,. \ " . ().~~ ,.~f~'Q, ~ ,': "~~:.; ;\;,;:., . , . ~ 0, ",' ,_ :,', ~'" ~l~ , ,.r .~ ... I~ o'~ J; .ii. c:ri 'l~ . ~~~.~_<.;~;,t~:. '" ~ ~,.:;~ ~~, 7'~-r~~L ~.~~ C:"~ ",.,~t::.~. '~'~"f~__, _~. . l..t..l,... .....-'~ ". ~o -=)": '- "''c. --f- I ~ ~.... .-..l~" ~,_ ."1~ .1' .;' - ~\~~~-', ~"""''''.''''.1,j;;~" - ~~.~'. ., ~. .',<t' 'I" r..... o .-..... Existing pool house - 1857 Highland Oaks Drive l Attachment 'D' p.2 . e . " ~ <"'7'.' . ~. . . . -. . . ... FILE 110. . DATI FILED ::r TELEPHONE ~ER (t,~"'1 ~lo - t'l<li c. APPLICANT (IF 0'l'BER ~,. OWNER) AJ)DRESS - . TELEPHONE NUMBER D~TVJ:ION OF PROJECr (check applicable) [] ENCLOSED ADDmON 1'0 HAIl DWEU.IlfG SQUARE POOTAGE 1'0 BE ADDED [] UHElfCJ .o.c:m ADDmON SQUARE POOTAGE OF ADDI1'OH [] ROOFIHG :ir~ t MATERIALS [] ulwOI ALTEltAnOHS (describe below) [] &-.n;!cIORWALLS OR FENCES (describe below) [] 01lWC (describe below) . ~'h~...... _~\""'I>C "'It-fO()( ~ . ;.,.~ ..,- . " ..j.::.........~. J ".d- ~~. - Y" .-... -.- ... Attachment 'E.I' p.l .. , . 112, '1'RB UlfDElSIGlfED CSIGlfAriJIBs> MERS OF WACBH'l' PROru1'I, w.Kdtr 'l'IIAT WI HAW lEAD THE f'ORIGOING' APPLICA'nOIf, AHD HAW SE!H THE PIOfOSED PWS, AIm RUby GIAIIT OUR ~ TO THE PROPCSED PROJECT. , . '.. } ON~t!AP SlCNA'!"!J!J of OWHBR I; '.J'~ (Z~A1 2. ~~..1.A C/ r 3 1), 4. s. 6. 7. ~ ADJACENT PiClrUctf OWNERS SHALL BE CONSmERED TO BE ALL PIOPERuJllj VIIOSE BOUNDARIES ARE, Iff WHOLE 01 Iff PART, CO-TERMIHUS lIITJf THE SUBJEC'1' PIOPERTY: . e EXAMPLE: .2 3 4 1 SUBJECT 5 PROPERTY - STREET 7 G . Attachment 'E.!' p.2 . e . ~ AI APl'LtCATI~ !OJ 'l'BB SJfOI!' uvlDf "':0,,11,"<<1 ~lIJ ALSO 81 AOCIJUI~ BY THE IOLLOYDIG: .~_. '" 1. Completed Applicatioa Fora 2. "1 Seta of scaled plaas vb1ch should !aclude the fol1ov1Da: a. Plot plaD shov1aa th!I eat1re s:lte and the ed.stiaa and pl'OP9sed use. ' 3. 4. ' II. BleVatioaa, floor plalis, aect:l.oas, etc. 88 aec:~''''", to fullJ :I.llusUate. the project. ' Dlitpeo41aa Upoll the specific sUe, scale, location of the proposed pC'ojec:t, the Boer,. (('......ittee) I18J require add:l.tioaal iaformstioll 1IIc1udiDa but llot l1mited to ~olor 8fJd/or ID8terials samples. I\, and Attachment 'E.I' p.3 , ,I ,. I !' . DATE: APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Your application, No. 2003. existing guest house (in the . was filed on January 6.. 2003, found to be incomplete and . , to remode1 an<Lfor expand the yard of the above property), which as. been reviewed by the ARB, and . . e house was not built UDder permit, or to de requirements, or the standards of the n. Therefore, any awroval of plans by . .' IegitipJi~,fhe .~ .structure will be conditioned upon . . 'the building Up to the standards both of the Association and the City's B . ding Code. Cursmy inspection of the structure revealed in particular following items that are sub-standard: (1) thetlat roof and (2) plumbing ipes running up outside the walls of the building. Flat roofs, with tar* or composition lIhingles have never been approved or permitted an in the HigJIlands north of Virginia Dr. These items together with any items necessary to bring the structure up to code should be clearly called on any plans submitted to the ARB for our approval. If you have any q . ODS regarding the above please contact Ralph Bicker at 101 White Oak . Phone (626)355-1773. . . ~~;c (:4.I2(J CII"'J~"~ . Attachment 'E.2' . e . I I' J ' . , . ~ ;: ... , . I HIGHLANDS no. . OWNERS ASSOCMTION ARCIIll1!:CTUTAL REJ'IEW BOARD TO: FROM: Mr. and Mrs. Ngo ! 1857 Highland Oaks pro Ralph Bicker. ARB,Cbairman January 8. 2003 SUBJECT: Plans for Guest Ho . , I ! I am truly sorry to have to Committee concurred in this (pJanni"g and Services Manager concurred with the Committee's your plans as INCOMPLETE. My on. I also asked Mr. Corkran Nicholson City Hall) to review the plans and be elusions. Our Committee reviews on year. To be very honest with yo on the homeowners ARB, your p of the very poorest ~les of a , between 45 and 70 sets of plallS each in the almost 20 years that I have served as submitted would have to rank as one Ian that I have ever seen. I believe that if you will review 'the sections that "thave highlighted and underlined in the enclosed City of Arcadia Information Packet, and the comments in the last paragrap of our ''NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION". you will rstand the reasons for the Committee's determination. If further clarifi 'on is necessary, yon may contact either myself or Mr. Corky Nicholson' :city Hall. ,!' . I. "," ~-~ Ralph L Bicker. ARB Chairman Attachment 'E.3' 17 January 2003 To The Highland Oaks Homeowner's Association: This note and accompanying drawings are to support the renovation of our cUrrent pool house at 1857 Highlllnd Oaks Drive. ' We believe tbatthe cum:nt set of drawings will be adequate for your needs.. The city has approved them as adequate and "professi<mal" enough for their needs at this point. Upon inspection of the structure, the city has noted four things which they would like us to do to bring it up to code, all of which will be completed as part of the renovation in addition to further work to make the structure more aesthetically pleasing, All work done to the pool house will he in keeping with city code requirements. All exterior 1rim and materials will be in keeping with the main house (colors, treatments etc;), with exception of the root: which will remain at its current pitch. We would like to keep pur current roof style on the pool house when we refurbish the structure. We feel that this is accep1able because I) the roof is not visible from any neighboring property; 2) the sfructure is not at all visible from. the street; 3) it would be very expensive to rebuild a roofwbich is in perfectly fine condition as is; 4) this is not a significant structure in our backyard - rather itisqili.te hidden from most vantage points; and,S) we feel strongly that if yoq single us out to change this, that you must also ask two of our immediate neighbors to c~ge their "non-conforming"structures which we can see from our yard. , Our itJ.tent in renovating the pool houseis to add to the functionality of our home, increase our. property value, and to create a more aesthetically pli:asing structure in our yard.: Though we are working,within a limited budget, and we will do whateVer is in our capac;ity to make this structure a: quality feature of our home. If yoti have.any questions regarding the drawings or specifications, you may Call our con~r, D. J. Lloyd, at Delco Construction, af909-393-0529. . , Phong and Gail Ngo cc. D~lco Construction Attachment < . .e . 'Et4'; . i 'I J r IDGHLANDS HOME~WNERS AS~~C Tldlv ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD : I '- 1:- ,'\:' ,I . TO: e . 1 . I IJan~ 20, 2003 Mr. and Mn. Ngo 1857 Higbland Oaks Drive FROM: Ralpb Bicker, ARB Ch~n SUBJECI: Guest House Plans - Submitted Janll8l"Y 17, 2003 I i , Your plans subm~ for our review and approval on JJ171031are:stiD incomplete and unacceptable for the reasons out6ned in detaU in our Japnary 7, NOTICE OF INCOlW"Un: MP~ATlON and the Janll8l"Y 8 cover letter.; ~e recogoize that our Committee c:a~ DOt, IPrder or recomm~d ihe ~pgrading of the sub- staDdard "guest house" to bring it up tolllie standards df the .!\ssoeiation for work not reauimll a City Bpildinll nenoit. However, it would be inaftnnlnriate for the Committee to approve any plaDs for either; (I) espanslon (no maUer bow small), or (2) remodeling, of the noting structure (if a buDding pe~it is required), uulc!ss the entire structure is brought up to the stAndAnI.. and aualitv of the other perinitted structures in the neillhborbood. To do so would be de-facti>> approval of, or recOgnition that, the eKisting structure met the quality and standards o~the other homes in th~ area. ' The Committee has reviewed your plan. J submitted on JJ17J01They have determined, for the reasons set forth in detaD in. i the attached NOTICE OF INCOMPT ,ETE APPliCATION dated InlO3 and,cover ~r dated 1J8I03, ~t the work as proposed would not bring the structure up ~ the stlpDdarda of the neighbOrhood. Your plans were also reviewed by, and clisenllSed with, Mr.(:orkran "Corky" NIcholson. PlaaDiDg Senices Manager in City HaD. He concurred that, the Committees cond,sions were appropriate. Therefore, if you want the Committee to ~e formal action ~n J.e plans as submitted it is prepared to disapprove them. In caR, of denial you have j the right to appeal the Committee's decision to the City Planning Commission. In tb; event you wish to me an appesl, it must be filed with the City within 7 (seven) working days of the date of the Committees decision letter. Because of "mpUcation that ~t result from the f....ing of an appeal I would suggest that before yoo make a decision either way, you make aD appointment to discuss the matter with Mr. 'Nicholson. His l!=IepboDe number is (626) 574-5422. Please let me know ifyoo ",aUt me to go ahead and ~ave the Committee ~ Wsfunnald~on. . ~-- Ralpb Bicker, ARB Chairman Xc: Corky Nicbolson End: 1 Attachment 'E.S' /- '30. 0'3 To: Hieb1ands Homeowners Assoc~on ARB From: Phongand Gail Ngo . Re:Pool House renovation for 1857 Highland.Oaks Drive Your I dated 7 January 2003 stated that you needed a plot plan, elevations, and a roof pIan. We submitted to you on 17 January a plot plan, elevations, and a floor plan, along with an.explanation as to why w would like to keql our current roof. Your letter dated 20 January states that the appli~o is stin incomplete, yet we are unclear exactly what it is you need to consider the applicati complete. The note accompanying our 17 January plans explained that the aesthetics of the house 'n be in keeping with the main house, and that all 'York win be done to code. This includes: ) colors and exterior finishes .willbeas similar to the main house as possible; 2) all plumbing ipes will be properly located indoors and vents will be at proper height; 3).new windows and Frenc doors will also be added per the elevation drawings; 4) the electrical work will be upgraded, and 5) all 'York will meet or exceed city building codes. With regards to the foundation of the , again, this is the city'sconcem, and not the ARB's. The city has explained to me that the ARB hould oilly be conCerned with the exterior aesthetic and arehitecture of the structure. As you know the city will.not approve a structure which does not fully meet buildint codes. With re to the root: we have outlined why we would iike to keep it in its current configuration. It is not all visible from the street, and we wish it to remain as low-profile as possible. In addition to the mentioned heretofore, Mr. Bicker may recall a conversatiOn which he had with our neighbor Alta Oaks, MnJ. Cogomo. She was very'concemed aboufseeing the structure from her A yard. An increase in the height of the roofwill simply make the structurem~ visible from several . vantage futs of our neighbors, including that of Mrs. Cogomo. u will ~d photographs of two of our neighbors "non-confonning" struCtures, noted by you, Mr. icker, when you came to our home in October to talk with us about the pool house. One is a similar-laking flat roofed structure, and the other is a huge vent/hoodlcap on top of the house, visiblefro our yard and-inside our home. We feel that if you are asking us to radically modify our pool h to meet tlte ARB's standards, you must also uphold our neighbors to the same standards. Thereare doubtedly.many homes in the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association which have similar"n n-confonning" structures, s\l we must request that you not single us out because weare the new on the black who naively invited you into our home to talk with you about our project. We are un lear what you are still lacking with regards to our application. Statements like "the entire strocture i brought tip the standards and quality. of other permitted structures in the nei~borhood" (from yo 20 January letter) are very vague and do not tell us exactlv what it is that this committee is lacking have a completeappliclition. The city feels that what we have previously submitted to you is scient to make a decision. For this reason, we are asking that the committee to take formal action to ake a decision (lII aUf. pool house renovation project based on the submitted information. Encl. . Attachment 'E.6' p.l . ~ I . u:.: ~ ~ ,:1;1 " " . .~: : _1 ' ~ ' .' j:" ~ . .' ..,~ ' I., '~"'!i\ 1,1;11' ..f(.' ,I, :,' ,t .,' " 'T '~ ~.'; , ,I,' , ')I.f,',' , " .:'.1 . , " ': Pl~i~;' .' ,11',:-... ,11'1'''.7,' ,. . At tachment 'E.6' p.2 HIGHLANDS HOME WNERS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTU. REVIEW BOAlW TO: Mr. and Mrs. Ngo 1857 Highland Oaks Drive Febnwy 3, 2003 . FROM: Ralph Bicker, ARB Cbainnan SUBJECT: Your January 30th letter Regarding "Pool Renovation" Your January 30'" letter reganting the work you propose do to the "Pool House" in your rear yard slates that you "1IJ1l still unclear about what is 1ac'.!ritlg with regard to your appijcation." As I have previously explllined to you in person, and Iso stated in our January 7'" "Notic:e of an In....QlDIete ADblieationn. I will repeat. "his obvious that the exi . g guest house was not built under permit, or to meet either the City's Building Code requirements, or the standards of the llIigJt1ands Homeowners Association." Also "Flat or low piteh shed roarS, with tar-paper or. eom "on sbiDgleshave NEVER lIIEEN APPlROVED OR PEllMrM'ED anywhere in the Fig'....nds north oFV" Drive. <Mlr the past almost 20 years that I have served as a w member oFthe Homeowners AssOciation ARB, I have reviewed on the average of 45 to 70.sets oFplans and/or ests each year. Our approval rateoFthese applications is about 90 pereeat or more OD the lint submittal androbably 9S percent or more by the _ad submittal. I would further _irnSlte that during the past 20 years poSS1 lyas many as 8 tolO requests, at moSt, have been received to install a "non-approved type roofing ~" such as . . on or ..'lphtI1t type shingles or a material similar to that which exists on your pool house. lcan say, without '011, that every request forthose.types of roofS has been denied. The original CCclRs fOr the Highlands, at the. the property was first subdivided in the 1940& and 195011, required Heavy Shake, Tile or a similar type roof OD all etures. Both the City and our ARB has always honored and tried to .....inhoin these hish stmdards. There IIJ1l about 20 diff'ln...A RJOfing materials on the list of approved;e materials. There is no way that our ARB is going to rove any addition to or milodeling of the Pool Hou ma;m..miqg the existing non-confollning roofing material ' We realize that on oc:"".n.,..~ an individnal may,' the necessary Homeowners Association's ARB approval or the required City pennit, re-model or otherwise alter their home, or even change a roof materia1 or construct something lib a pool house. Whenever that occ:urs, if observe the work in prosress or if it eomes to our attention whi1e the work is SIillreJaDwly rllQlIIt, we can c:all that to the City's attention and they can see to it that ....mdive measures ate'taken Without delay. How~. with non . thiiIgs such as you referred to on two of your neighbors properties there is nothing our ARB, can do such things until the property owner needs to come to us for approvaloFplaus to expand, remodel or otherwise work on thoSe strnc:tures. AIllo, about IS years or so ago, lRaI Estate DiaeIOS1iJ.es . were eDaeted reqUiring that whenever a property is sold the seIler has a legal responsibility to diselose to buyer ill writing any work that has been perform~on the property without permit. The purpose of these IIJ1l to protect the buyer; (1) by giving him a chance to negotiate with the seller to make required corrections of on-permitted work at sellers expense or; (2) asking seller to adjust the selling price so that new bI1yers like yoursel . do not unknowingly find themselves responsible for sulving problems created by seller; pJOb1ems such as the non . rming and Don-permitted pool house, and the laundry room in the garage. However. when non-confi:mning or non . work goes und'ilWt"'CI for a number of years, like obviously happened with the pool house, and the Iaun room, on your property there is nothing our ARB can do about it until the property owner needs ARB approval to a permit for additional work. It haS always been the policy of our ARB in such mstmces to condition our approval at any ..-.qJ"n.nOo or mnj)(fAIiqg. on doing whatever work is ne. . .'Y to bring the non-confi:mning imp1'OveIllllDt up the h4h -"d;ln:/s expected in the ASsociation anJa. Please .believe me, our ARB is not trying to single'you to make these co. rrec:tions because, as you suggest. you~" the new kids on the block". As theWtgl1'-ds ARB,IIJ1l charBed by our membership with the responsibility review all plans to insure that whatever is CXlIIStn1c:ted, remodeled, or expanded meets the high quality of the homes in our _ and we try to be &ir and COIISistent in. ~ons. Attachment 'B.7' FILE NO.: :J.dd 3 ,:tJt) L/ DATE SUBMIITED: t:- 36 - ~ . ARc.:WTECTUKAL DESIGN REYIEW BOARD (COMkInU) FINDINGS AND ACTION . A. PROJECT ADDRESS: /95'7 HIGH~"""'O d~5 IJ-'l,' B. PROPERTY-OWNER: P#dP~ tf t:1f-l'L. A/riJ ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT): C.FlNDINGS (only check those that apply,and provide a written explanation for each check). 1. The proposed construction materials ARE' 0, ARE NOT. compatible with the existing _ "inateriaJs, bec~""" ::!/'8:~ .A-71'"ClloI!!:a. "N'i!.rnih: ap /,NCd~I'~erTe' L!..PIll-I~O, lMnrL> /-7-'S If ~~/,lts:~ D-rre-D /-5-~. /-zo-63 tJ :t/5/d - .. 2. The proposed materials - WIi..L)I(. WILL NOT 0 have a'SigJiificant adverse imp8ct on the overall appearance oCtile property, ~i'''''' ~-,?",e A:$ 0/ RCd(/e - ~ .A-'/.TA-c.Hl!rb 1-1-"~ j I -tl - 0 3) / - ~ -G tt 2. -:3 -6 . ." - e,,~Oenvr:.e:- 3. The proposed project IS 0, IS NOTl(significantly visible from.th~'adjoining public rights of way, becauserr 13 /"r /ler.,.n.. y~ . ' e 4. The proposed project IS It IS NOT 0 significantly visible from the adjoining properties, becll'lge I'r lUt!lV~ At!!" l~ lit'Ny ,,:;. -j?f'e:" A-g"1T"JiVt;. pP4pe""rtes We4~ f"'D I&€ .l)l!!!~D WJ7'H... ~~.p 'STDAY A-~{}lrJ(#~ ., 71-feY ~t.. 7#GIJ ,l-b+IC /)ol/,v (J~.,weE SU(J-'5r-'DMJ.9. -r~-'lf-PI!!F~ SHe:-1J RAt1' S. The elements of the structure's design ARE 0, ARE NOT;e..consistent with the existing buUding'sdesign, beca'Jse . ~Ee. A-"f'1'"~CA:~D ~o,cA..e-stfOo-vO~ ~~tn:J 71 ,+1\1 ~ LsL.:z. ,4-136Ve:. 6. The proposed project IS 0, IS NOT 0 in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on otherJJf!!perUes in the neighborhood, """"Ji"" , . .Il'l'ff. - ,- 7. The location of the proposed project WILL CI, WILL NOT 0 be detrimental to the use and enjoyment , value of adjacent property and neighborhood, because .,.. ~N 61=- 6:,.;J$T; IS OJ ~ . 8. The proposed project's setbacks DO CI, DO NOT CI provide for adequate separation between improveJ;t1}lnts on the same or adjoining properties, because Af~ 'S/tN1tr .A-S "#-..., ./f'$tJVe- 9. ,OTHER FINDINGS: Se:e: AV7Il"tc.H~D rftAPC5Pevr~ ,lZ4:r-e-RA-t:Jj 7D ~OIl'C: HaoIflndmg,dium Attachment 'B.8' p.l D. ACTION: a APPROVAL a APPROVAL sUbject to the fullo$g conditio~(.s): , . t .:' "j,;,,:; .1:/1 v DENiAL " ,~ E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITrEE'S) ACTION: .:2. -3 - ~ F. BOARD (COMMI'ITEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: ~wL. B(~(eHI11~~ v er-~ I'3dw-EtJ Grl -rR ,,,,,A:S G. REPRESENTlNGTHE 1-116-1-( LI4-#O..5 R''"tn~wlVe::J'J.S AsSOCIATION. H. APPEALS e . ' . Appeals fi:om the Board's (Committee's) decision sba1l be made to ~ plann;11g Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal shOuld contact the plannmg Offices fur the requireme.ots, fees and procedures. Said appea1 must be made in writing and delivered to the planning Offices, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, witbhi seven (7) working days of the Board's (Co~'s).decision.' , I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If fur a period of one (1) year fi:om the date of approVal; any project fur which plans tiave been approved by the Board (Committee), bas bee unused, abaudoned or discontinued. said approval shall become null ami void and ofno effect. .' . Attachment, 'E.S' p.2 . e . 6 February 2003 To: The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia From: Phong and Gail Ngor Re: 1857 Highland Oaks Drive Pool House This note serves to appeal the Highland Oaks Architectura1 Design Review Board's decision to deny our request to renovate our existing pool house. We feel that their findings are unqualified, and are pursuing our right to appeal their decision. Supporting materials will be forthcoming no later than Wednesday, 12 February 2003. Thank you. ilECE'''e,O f~~ \\ S 'l.\\\\~ L' or"<S> ~,." wil\0\\\ ~ tI\ Ili~""''' C1l~' \lO~.iCio",Q Attachment 'B.9' II February 2003 . Dear Arcadia City Planning Commission, This letter serves to explain,the course of events leading up to our hearing to appeal the Highlands Homeowner's Association (ARB) decision to deny our request to modify our existing pool house. Shortly after we closed escrow last fall on our new home at 1851 Highland Oaks Drive, we invited Ralph Bicker over to discuss our intent to renovate the existing pool house, which has been standing and in use in its current stal!l for more than 25 years. He not only spoke about our project, but also asked to "peek into our neighbor's yards" to see what they are doing. He noted to us two sbUctures which he said must have been "bootlegged in" - the vent cap on the house behind us, and a pool,housesimilar to ours in a neighboring property. Later, we discovered that Mr. Bicker had called the city to infonn them of our sbUctures which were built without permits, but to ourJrnowledge. has not done so for our neighbors, thus the "singling out" which we allude to in enclosed correspondence, Our intent is to bring the pool house up to city building code and further enhance it so,that we may get more use out of it and 'it will add to our property value. It is not visible from the street and is only partially visible from one neighboring yard (but if they put up a solid fence or'hedging it would not be at all). In addition to the cil)' recommendationS, we will. alSo add French doors, new paint, insulation and more in an attempt to add to its functionality and aesthetics. We would like to keep the current style of low-pitched rolled roofin order to allow the building to remain low-profile in the landscape as well as keep costs down, This building is intended to be only a recreational room. but it certainly will be in keeping with our main house and an attractive building-none-the-Jess. e Over the. past two months, we have submitted three sets of applications to the ARB in order to get approval to renovate the building, each application has been either returned as incomplete or finally denied. We tried several times to .get clarification from the HOA as to exactly what they are lacking in order to make a decision about our project, but have never been silccessful. It is our feeling that they are being unnecessarily difficult by not helping us to understand the process; we suspect that regardless of the caliber of the. project, the non-tiled roofwould cause them to deny the request in any case. We have spoken to several roofers about the possibility of putting a "conforming" roof on top of the, existing roof, so that we could keep the lower pitch and profile but still meet the HOA's desires, Duetodrainage issues, is not feasible - the roof either needs to stay in its current style or. be completely rebuilt to accommodate tiles. With regards to the ARB's findings report, number four is purely hypothetical: "The proposed project is significantly visible from the adjoining properties, because i:t wOtU,d, be- if lM1,Yofthe; ~ pr0pertr.e4-Wenl''0- be-d.ewloped.-wi.tJl,GI,' 2'" ~ ~ - they would"the+"ltlco/c..-dcwl'\lcwthe; w.b-~tI:tr'p"per ~roof.;, This is nonsense because 1) the only property that would have a chance of seeing the top of the buildingis directly behind us, and that house has a beautiful vaulted ceiling in the rear, so they would. effectively have to tear down the whole rear of the house to even consi~er building ii second story. No other neighboring property would look~t, much less down on our pool house roofif a second story were,added. We should be dealing with the current situation, not hypothetical possibilities, Numbers seven and eight on the report were not ch~cked as,applicable by the ARB, yet they are. Number seven should read that "the location of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property. and neighborhood", yet it was checked as NI A, This will add to the value of our home, which will in turn add to the property value of the neighborhood. Number eight . Attachment 'E.IO' p.l . e . should read "the proposed project's setbacks do provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties." This too was checked as N/A, but has been verified by Don Stockham of the city to have adequate setbacks, Upon talking with the neighbors behind us about our pool house, they were concerned about seeing it at all. Ifwe are forced by the city to conform to the ARB's regulation of putting a more pitched roof on the structure, as opposed to keeping the slightly pitched roofwith rolled top, it will simply make the pool house taller and therefore more visible from not only our own yard, but also that of these neighbors. We are asking the city to help remedy the situation -we would like to improve the use of this structure and do so within our budget while also respecting the wishes of our neighbors to not build a more visible building. This is not the only building of its type in the iinmediate area, as many people recognize the value of a pool house as such. We ask that the city allow us to renovate our existing pool house to bring it up to code and make it more aesthetically'pleasing while retaining the current style of roof, We appreciate the eity's help and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, e~' ~., ~ -' Co W~o Phong and Gail Ngo () Ene!. Attachment 'B.IO' p.2 mGlILANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA110N ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECEIVE' FEB 2 6 2003 SUBJECT: 1857 Highland Oaks Dr. (Guest House Appeal) My name ili Ralph Bicker. DaY I tServlm' I have lived at 101 White Oak Drive in the Arcadia ffighlands since 1969. CoBllll~o8:_eJlIl)lYlalon I have been on the Board of Directors of the Highlands Home Owners Association, and a member of it's Architectural Review Board (ARB) since 1984. Also I have been Chairman of the ARB for about the past 15 years. Our ARB reviews all applications and plans (from about 40 to sometimes as many as 70 requests or more each year) for remodeling and/or expansion of homes in our area. We frequently meet with the owners or their Architects during the early planning stages of their improvements to t.ty to assist them in determining what might be required to get their plans approved, Because of this procedure our approval tate on plans the first time they are submitted is over 90"10, and over 95% by second ilUbmittal. Our,overaI1 approval rate of all applications reviewed is well over 95% each year. We always do our best to treat aU applicants tbe same, while trying to maintain tbe bigh standards of Ardlitectural Harmony and Compatibility, and qnality of construction of aU the homes in. the area. As best I can recall, during the past 15 years, before the Ngo appeal was filed, our ARB has only had 2 other cases that haye been appealed to the Planning Commission. At each of our Association's Annual Meetings, the membership has always encourages our ARB a, to "maintain th~ bigh mndlmls of tAte imorovements that have been set for and maintained .. in our area." Right after the Ngo's purchased their property, I met with Mrs, Ngoat her request. at the property, to look at the guest-house to see what might be required to remodel and expand it. Uponjust a cursory ~pectionit was obvious that the structure had not been built with any ARB review and approval or City permits. Its constroction simply wasnotnp to any of the . stanclanls expected in the Rig'lIllnds. The almost flat tarpaper roof and plumbing pipes extending up the outside ofthewalls.ofthe structure, (like one might expect to find in South BI Monte) was a dead give away as to the quality of construction. Although my background is a Civil. Engineer, and former Permit Engineer fur the City of Pasadena for . most of my career, I did nOt make lUly attempt to further examine or evaluate the structure. I did however, explain to Mrs.Ngo that it was the responsibility of our ARB, both to the City and to the other homeowners in the area,' to insure archit~ral hanuonv RnC! comnatibilitv of all oermitted constmetionlJ1 thll Bieblandl. I furthermore explained to her, that the ARB has never approved constroction or expansion of any home, guest house. garage or other structure in the Highlands with a flat, or simost flat, shed type roof. Also that the ARB has never under any clreumstances approved the use of asphalt shingles, rolled tarpaper type roofing material or anything similar to the material used on her guest house. Also in one of our several written responses to the Ngo's (copies attached), we explained to them that the original Cc.tR.~9 for QIl J)f the Drooerties in ~e Higb)and~ nortb of Vqblia, Dr. required the installation of Heavy shake or tile roofs. Since fire re~ons have prohibited wooden roofs in . Attachment "F- p.l . e . our area for the past IS - 20 years the ARB has developed a list of about 20 different materials that are acceptable on all structures without any special ARB approval, It was explained to the Ngo's that; (1) because the guest house obviously had been constructed without benefit of either ARB approval or City Permits, 8I\d (2) it was not np to the standanls of the Association for permitted structures, the only way we would approve any remodeling of or addition to the structure would be if the wotk included replacement of the existing non- conforming roof with one of the approved materia1~. Any ARB approval to remodel or make even the smallest addition to the non-permitted guest house without bringing the entire building (including the root), into (1) compliance with the standards of the Association and (2) all of the city's building code requirements, would in fact be a defado ARB approval of the entire structure. Our ARB would strongly object to any such approval, as it would set a precedent for approval of other non-conforming and non-permitted work in the area. The Ngo's have been advised that, (1) if the roof of the guest house were to be changed to one of the materials approved for installation in the Highlands and (2) the building was to be brought up to meet all of the city's permit requirements it could be approved by our ARB. Over the past IS years or so our ARB has had possibly 6 or 8 requests to replace existing wood shake roots with composition shingles. Each of these requests, without exception, has been denied. The ARB realizes that there area few composition shingle roofs in the Highlands north of Virginia. However according to our records and memories not a single one of these has ever had ARB approval, We believe they have all been "bootlegged in Without permit" "by the owners or unlicensed contractors who work without permits. Our ARB does not condone such installations. However, we are powerless to lio anything about those roofs until the owners, at some later time, need to come to get ARB for approval for some other project on their property. Then we require installation of one of the approved materials. While admittedly, as the Ngo's contend, the guest house on their property is not now highly visible from the street or from the adjoining properties, (That is probably how it got built without being detected). However it would be quite visible from any second story addition that might, in the future, be built on one of these properties. While our ARB has not encouraged the colllltrUction of 2-story houses, or Zad story additions in our area, there has been a definite trend toward these types of homes in the area, and we have approved the plans for most of them. In fact, all except 2 that have been proposed in our area have been approved. Those 2 were disapproved because they were an:hiteeturaUy totally incompatible and out of keeping with the other homes in the area. In summary, if the Planning Commission were to approve the Ngo's appeal and overturn our ARB's denial of their application, it would set a very undesirable preeedent for the future of our Highlands. R-3 Attachment 'F' p.2 HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD TO: Mr. and Mrs. Ngo 1857 Highland Oaks Drive january 20; 2003 . FROM: Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman SUBJECT: Guest House Plans - Submitted January 17, 2003,' Your plans submitted for our: review and approval on 1/17103 are still incomplete and unacceptable for tbe reasons outlined In detail in our January 7, NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICA nON and the. January 8 cover letter. We recognize that our Committee can not order or recommend the upgrading oftbe sub- staodard "gnest bouse" to bring it up to the ,standards of the Associatioo for work !!!! reQuirinl! a Citv Buildiol! Dermit. However, it would be lnanDrooriatefor the Committee to approve any plans for either; (1) expansion (00 matter bow small), or (2) remodeUog, of tbe existing structure (if a building permit is required), unless the eotire structure Is brougbt'up to the stAndards and Qualitv of tbe other permitted structures in the neil!hborhood. To do so wonld be de-facto approval of, or recognitioo that. the existing strilctnre met the quality and standards of the other homes iil the area. The Committee has reviewed your plans as submitted on 1/17103; They bavedetermlned, for the reasoos set forth in detail in the attached NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE a APPLICATION !:Iated In/OJ and cover letter dated 1/8/03, that the work as proposed .1 would not bring the structure up to the standards of the neighborhood. Your plans were also reviewed by, and discussed with, Mr. Corkran "Corky" Nicholson,. Planning Services Manager in City HaD. Be concurred that the Committees conclusions were appropriate. Therefore, if you want the Committee to take formaladion on the plans as submitted it is prepared to disapprove them. IJi case of denial you have the right to appeal tbe Committee's decision to the. City Planning Commission. IJi the event you wish to file an app~ it must be rded with the City within 7 (seven) working days of the date of the Committees decision letter. Because of eompHc:ation that might result from the riling of . an appeal I wonld suggest that before you make a decision either way, you make an appointment to discuss the matter with Mr. Nicholson. His telephone number is (626) 574-5422. Please let me know if you want me to go ahead and have the Committee make it's formal decision. ~4v1--- Ralph Bieker, ARB Chairman Xc: Corky Nicholson Encl: 2 . Attachment 'F' p.3 .. . e . HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARCHlTECTUTAL REVIEW BOARD TO: Mr. and Mrs. Ngo 1857 Highland Oaks Dr. January 8, 2003 FROM:' Ralph Bicker, ARB Chairman SUBJECT: Plans for Guest House . I am truly sorry to have to return your plans as INCOMPLETE. My Committee conclDTed in this decision. I!Ilso asked Mr. Corkran Nicholson (planning and Services Manager in City Hall) to review the plans and he concurred with the Committee's conclusions. Our Committee reviews on average between 45 and 70 sets of. plans each year. To be very honest with, you, in the abnost 20 years that I have served on the homeowners ARB, your plans as submitted would have to rank as one of the very poorest examples of a plan that I have ever seen. I believe that if you will review the sections that I have highlighted and underlined in the enclosed City of Arcadia Information Packet, and the conunents in the last paragraph of our "NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION", you will understand the 'reasons for the Committee's determination. If further clarification is necessary, you may contact either myself or Mr. Corky Nicholson in City Halt ~~ Ralph L Bicker, ARB Chairman Attachment 'F' p.4 \ CITY OF ARCADIA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) NOTICE OF AN INCOMPLETE APPLlCA TION e. DATE: January 7. 2003 APPLICANT: Phong and Gail Ngo ADDRESS: 1857 Highland Oaks Dr. Your application, No. 2003~002, to remodel and/or expand the existing guest house (in the rear yard of the above property), which was filed on January 6, 2003, has been reviewed by the ARB, and found to be incomplete andunsatisfactOlY. Before the ARB can begin to process your application, the following information must be submitted: All plans, includiri.g (1) the plot plan ~ existing and proposed uses, e (2) elevations and (3) roof plan, must be 'professio.n~l gualitx ntaos to scale so as to fullv and clearlv illustrate the Dro~ It is obvious thatJhe existing guest house was not built under permit, or to meet either the City's Building Code requirements. or the standards of the Highlands Homeowners Association. Therefore, any approval of plans by the ARB to remodel, expand or otherwise legitimize the existing structure will be conditioned upon bringing the building up to thestandSlTds'both of the Association and the City's Building Code. ' Cursory inspecti()D of the structure revealed in particular the following items that are sub-standard: (1) the flat roof and (2) plumbing pipes running up outside the walls of the building. Flat roofs, with tar-paper or composition shingles have never been approved or permitted anywhere in the Highlands north of Virginia Dr. These items together with any other items necessary to bring the structure up to cOde should be clearly called for on any plans submitted to the ARB for our approval. If you have any questions regarding the above please contact Ralph Bicker at 101 White Oak Dr. Phone (626)355-1773. '-~ ~/cbr- fA;e 13 CHl1'inJrrl#,;) . Attachment 'F' p.5