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