Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprovalSanta Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- Date: November 8, 2023 File No. 300 Project Address: 1330 Rodeo Road, Arcadia, CA 91006 Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA Applicant Name: Natalie Kazanjian Property Owner(s) Name: Sunny He and Katherine Wong Project Description: Cosmetic update with addition of second story. Original footprint and surrounding vegetation remains. FINDINGS Only check those that are apply and provide a written explanation for each The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Site Planning Principles and Neighborhood Context Guidelines. Explanation: The design of the house The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines. Explanation: The design of this 2-story house is well within the forms and mass guidelines. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions Guidelines. Explanation: The design is located in a manner compatible with then surrounding neighborhood and does not have significantly greater height and bulk than that of adjacent homes due to the thoughtful design. ____________________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways Guidelines. Explanation: The design retains the original existing garage and driveway positioning. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Architectural Styles Guidelines. Explanation: The design has an attractive ranch style with consistent features, proportions, and detailing. Placement and sizing of windows compliment the architectural style, while respecting adjacent neighbor privacy. _ ______ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale Guidelines. Explanation: The design utilizes aesthetically pleasant and asymmetrical massing, including in its roof forms, to maintain the architectural style of the home. Second floor massing is suitably tapered from the ground floor footprint._____________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines. Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- Explanation: The roof plan is consistent with the architectural style. Traditional roof forms and materials are used, and consistent with nearby homes. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines. Explanation: The entry design is comfortably recessed, with no vertical elements emphasizing disproportionate scale and massing. Front entry doors and decorative elements are compatible with the style of the house and the streetscape. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Windows and Doors Guidelines. Explanation: The project uses appropriately detailed and articulated windows and doors. Windows are aligned and balanced. There are no oversized or two-story-high windows in this design. There are no shutters in this design. ___________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines. Explanation: Architectural detailing and articulation is consistent with the architectural style of the project. There are no large expanses of wall plane. Articulation provides interest and appearance is ordered. Chimneys are capped. __ _________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines. Explanation: Façade treatment is relevant to the architectural style and is carried consistently throughout the design. Detailing is appropriate and natural to complement the theme. ___________________________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Colors and Materials Guidelines. Explanation: Colors are well chosen and materials of a high grade, reinforcing the architectural style and are used consistently and appropriately throughout the design. The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting Guidelines. Explanation: Exterior light fixtures are architecturally compatible with the main structure. ____________________________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines. Explanation: Additions and alterations are consistent in style and composition throughout the design. An accessory outdoor patio is noted in the rear, designed tastefully and with multi-use value. _________________ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Hillside Properties Guidelines. Explanation:_NA_______________________________________________________ Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Fences, Walls, Gates, and Hedges Guidelines. Explanation: No adjustments to original fencing footprints are proposed, and there are no front yard fences. _____ The proposed project  is,  is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and Landscape Areas Guidelines. Explanation: Existing trees are to be maintained. Landscaping and hardscape proportions remain compliant and complimentary to the architecture of the home. ________________ ACTION Pursuant to City’s Development Code Section 9107.20.050, a Site Plan and Design Review in the Homeowners Association Areas may be approved only if it is found that the proposed development is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.  APPROVED  CONDITIONALLY APPROVED  DENIED Date of ARB Meeting: NOVEMBER 8, 2023 ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision: Tom Walker (chair, ARB) Matthew Rimmer (ARB) Loren Brodhead (ARB) Russ Meek (ARB) Jessica Louie (ARB) April Leong (ARB) John Golper (ARB) AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Conditions of Approval: N/A Reason for Denial: Santa Anita Oaks ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- There is a ten (10) day appeal period for this application. To file an appeal, a completed Appeal Application form must be submitted to the City’s Planning Division along with a $600.00 appeal fee by _4:30PM_ p.m. on November 20, 2023. You will be notified if an appeal is filed. Approved designs shall expire in one year (November 9, 2024) from the effective date unless plans are submitted to Building Services for plan-check, a building permit is issued and the construction is diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved design concept plans may preclude the issuance of a building permit. An extension may be granted by the ARB or designee, or the Review Authority that approved the project for a maximum period of one (1) year from the initial expiration date. An extension can only be granted if the required findings can be made. Please note that acceptance of an extension request does not indicate approval of an extension. You may visit the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/noticesanddecisions to view this document. If you have any questions regarding the above decision, please contact the ARB Chairperson at saohoaarb@gmail.com. Thank you. c: City of Arcadia, Planning Division