HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-12-10PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 minute time limit per person.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony
Concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that
should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the
proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which
you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPEAL NO. HOA 09-02
411 Oxford Drive
Ray Ballarini
The applicant is appealing the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association
Architectural Design Review Board decision to deny a Gerard Stone Coated Steel Roof Canyon
Shake Ironwood at the subject residence.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve appeal
There is a five working day appeal period after the approval /denial of the appeal. Appeals are to be
filed by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.
CONSENT ITEMS
2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 8, 2009
RECOM MENDATION: Approval
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
MATTERS FROM STAFF UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be
made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)
574 -5423.
PC AGENDA
1 -12 -10
Development Services Department
January 12, 2010
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 09 -02 of the denial of a
new metal roof for 411 Oxford Drive.
SUMMARY
This is an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Ballarini of a denial by the Rancho Santa Anita
(Lower Rancho) Homeowners' Association's Architectural Design Review Board
(ARB) for the use of Gerard, Canyon Shake, stone coated steel roofing to re -roof the
residence and garage at 411 Oxford Drive. A Vicinity Map and an Aerial Photo with
zoning information are attached as Attachment No. 1. The Development Services
Department is recommending that the Planning Commission overturn the ARB
decision and approve appeal no. HOA 09 -02, subject to the conditions listed in this
staff report.
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2009, the Lower Rancho ARB denied the homeowners'
application (Short Review Procedure Attachment No. 2) to replace the existing
wood shake roof at 411 Oxford Drive with a Gerard, Canyon Shake, stone coated
steel roof. The application was denied by Mr. Steve Mathison, the current Lower
Rancho ARB Chairman (see Attachment No. 3 ARB Findings and Action, and ARB
Minutes of May 7, 2009) based on the Lower Rancho ARB's consensus to no longer
permit metal /steel roofing in the Lower Rancho area.
The homeowners submitted to the ARB a Short Review Procedure form for their
desired roofing material and were able to secure the signatures of consent from the
owners of each of the two adjacent properties (see Attachment No. 2).
Nevertheless, the application was denied. This being the second appeal of a denial
of a request to use metal roofing in the Lower Rancho area, staff did a thorough
review of the applicable architectural design review procedures as set forth by City
Council Resolution No. 5287 (Attachment No. 4). Staff determined that even though
the item, "Roofing" is listed on the Short Review Procedure form (see Attachment
No. 2) Resolution No. 5287 does not include, "Roofing" in the items to be reviewed
through the Short Review Procedure. Section 3.11 of Resolution No. 5287 requires
the Regular Review Procedure (a noticed, scheduled meeting) to be used for
re- roofing proposals. The Short Review Process is only for those specific issues
listed under Section 3.10 of Resolution No. 5287. However, because the use of the
Short Review Procedure for roofs has been the practice for many years by all five of
the City- designated homeowners' associations, staff accepted the homeowners'
appeal that was filed on December 7, 2009 (Attachment No. 5).
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Public hearing notices of this appeal were mailed on December 30, 2009 to the
owners of those properties within 100 feet of the subject property (see Attachment
No. 8 100 -foot radius map) and to the Lower Rancho HOA President, Mr. Kevin
Tomkins, and the ARB Chairman, Mr. Steve Mathison. Pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a re- roofing project is Categorically
Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines, and therefore, the
public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The homeowners are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Lower
Rancho ARB decision to deny the use of Gerard, Canyon Shake, stone coated steel
roofing at 411 Oxford Drive. As stated in the appeal documents, the homeowners,
Mr. and Mrs. Ballarini, believe that a steel roof is the best material for their home at
411 Oxford Drive. They have also identified examples of successful, recent
installations of the proposed roofing material, which in staff's opinion are
aesthetically appealing, are consistent with the City's Single Family Residential
Design Guidelines, and are compatible with the other structures in the
neighborhood.
The Lower Rancho regulations (City Council Resolution No. 5287) require that any
body hearing an appeal of an ARB decision be guided by the principles stated in
Section 15 of Resolution No. 5287.
The roof of a residence is an important design element and an appropriate material
enhances the architectural appearance of the structure. The City's Single Family
Residential Design Guidelines state, "The roof of a house does more than provide
shelter from the elements; it helps define the architectural style and design of the
residence." And, "Roof plans and materials should be compatible with the
architectural style and design of the structure."
The homeowners' proposed roofing material is neither new nor unique to the Lower
Rancho area. There are over two dozen homes in the Lower Rancho area that have
stone coated, steel roofs, and the Planning Commission approved an appeal last
September to allow a stone coated, steel -shake roof at 531 N. Monte Vista Road.
Staff has noted that there are detail elements of the older steel roofs that are not
particularly appealing; such as the edges of the tiles, the ridge tiles, and the eaves.
HOA Appeal No. HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
January 12, 2010 page 2
However, the material the homeowners want to install is significantly improved in
style and details to better simulate a wood -shake roof. Additionally, the
homeowners and their contractor are willing to install the roof in accordance with the
following conditions of approval that the Lower Rancho ARB had imposed on steel
roof projects in the past to ensure that the steel roofs would closely simulate a wood
shake roof. These conditions of approval were developed through the cooperation
of roofing contractors with the former Lower Rancho ARB Chairman.
1. The roof shall have open cut valleys.
2. A drip -edge overhang shall be provided at the eaves.
3. The edges shall not be exposed more than two inches.
4. The starter of the ridge shall be cut and bent neatly.
5. No trim tiles shall be used on the rake of the gable roof.
Stone coated, steel -shake roofs have been installed on many residences throughout
the City and in the other HOA areas because many builders and homeowners feel
that the material is very durable and has a substantial appearance, but without the
weight and structural requirements of concrete -tile roofs. And, unlike a wood roof,
the steel shingles do not separate or warp over time. Staff agrees with the
homeowners that steel -shake roofs weather well, are durable enough to be walked
on, have an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and are fire retardant. The Arcadia
Fire Department has never had any concerns with the use of the proposed roofing
material.
Attachment No. 6 is photos of the subject property and Attachment No. 7 is photos
of homes in the Lower Rancho area that have a stone coated, steel roof. It is staff's
opinion that the photos show that steel roofs do not detract from the aesthetic
qualities of the properties, and therefore, staff believes that the proposed roofing
material would be an aesthetic improvement to the residence.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The proposed project is required to comply with all code requirements and policies
determined to be necessary by the Building Official and Fire Marshal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission overturn the Lower Rancho ARB
decision to deny the use of the Gerard, Canyon Shake, stone coated steel roof, and
approve Homeowners' Association Appeal No. HOA 09 -02, subject to compliance
with the aforementioned conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Building
Official and Fire Marshal.
HOA Appeal No. HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
January 12, 2010 page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal and overturn the ARB
denial, the Commission should move to approve Homeowners' Association Appeal
No. HOA 09 -02, subject to the stated conditions of approval, or as modified by the
Commission, based on a determination that the proposed project meets
contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility with the
neighborhood, and is of good architectural character.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB
decision, the Commission should move to deny Homeowners' Association Appeal
No. HOA 09 -02, based on a determination that the proposed project is not
harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood, or is of poor architectural
character, or would be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent
properties and the neighborhood.
If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or
comments regarding this matter prior to the January 12, 2010 public hearing, please
contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574 -5445 or at Iflores @ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved by:
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 7
asama, Community Development Administrator
Vicinity Map and an Aerial Photo with zoning information
Homeowners' application Short Review Procedure
ARB Findings and Action, and ARB Minutes of May 7, 2009
City Council Resolution No. 5287
Homeowners' appeal documents
Photos of the subject property
Photos of homes in the Lower Rancho area that have a stone
coated steel roof
Attachment No. 8 100 -foot radius map for public hearing notice mailing
HOA Appeal No. HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
January 12, 2010 page 4
Attachment No. 1
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 1
Q
N
100 0 100 Feet
•r
NI
1
COLORADO ST
(438)
OXF
DR
(400)
R -0
41
4- MW
COL(
(345)
(384)
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, December 2009
0;
Unity o
411 Oxford Drive
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Dr
Arcadia
El Zone
Development Services Department
Engineering Division
Prepared by: R.S.Gonzalez, December2009
411 Oxford Drive
HOA 09 -02
Attachment No. 2
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 2
A, PROJECT ADDRESS
B. PROPERTY OWNER
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
(SHORT REVIEW PROCEDURE)
Ray Dolores Ballarini
TELEPHONE NUMBER 62.6 445 6968
C. APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER)
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
D. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (check applicable)
(J ENCLOSED ADDITION TO MAIN DWELLING
SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ADDED
[J LNENCLOSED ADDITION
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ADDITON
411 Oxford Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 -2644
FILE NO. 1 -Z 7f
DATE FILED 4
(1 ROOFING Gerard Stone Coated Steel Roof
SPECIFY MATERIALS Canyon Shake Ironwood
EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (describe below)
EXTERIOR WALLS OR FENCES (describe below)
OTHER (describe below)
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED (SIGNATURES) OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, CERTIFY
THAT WE HAVE READ THE FOREGOING APPLICATION, AND HAVE SEEN THE PROPOSED
PLANS, AND HEREBY GRANT OUR CONSENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
ON MAP SIGNATURE OF OWNER ADDRESS
r iwa!
1. 415 Oxford Dr. Jeff Stellern
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE ALL PROPERTIES WHOSE
BOUNDARIES ARE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, CO- TERMINUS WITH THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
EXAMPLE:
Colorado Blvd.
407 Oxford Dr. Michael Fritsch
2
NO
1
3
HOUSES
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
HERE
4
5
STREET
Attachment No. 3
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 3
Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association
ARB File No. 29 ZAD
Review Date:
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 41/ e ri j e i
B. PROPERTY OWNER(S): /iW •L.4g /,4J�
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
C. Architect/designer Contractor Ph 4744(1 ¢¢S 44'615
D. Proposed Project:
PGA 414-r14...40 rt �5 ��cu 77 4 1 -c; envied)
E. FINDINGS (Only check those that apply and provide a written explanation for each check)
1. The proposed construction materials ARE ARE NOT (0 with the
existing materials, because
2. The proposed materials WILL WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on
the overall appearance of the property, because
3. The proposed project IS (4), IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining
properties, because
4. The proposed project IS (t-); IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public
right of way, because
5. The elements of structure's design ARE ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design, because
6. The proposed project IS IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the
subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood,
because ,v,4-
7. The location of the proposed project WILL WILL NOT be acceptable and not
detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood,
because
8. The proposed project's setbacks DO DO NOT provide for the adequate separation
between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because
City modification required Not required
Sheet 1 of 2
F. OTHER FINDINGS:
G. ACTION: Approval without conditions
Approval with following conditions
H. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ACTION
I. ARB MEMBER (S)/ COMMITTEE RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION
Ij7Z —t)E 4411- TfI-1SoA.)
J. APPEALS
K. EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS
SIGNED:
PRINT NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
Genial
Appeals for the ARB's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission.
Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements,
fee and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices,
240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 within seven (7) working days of the Board's
(Committee decision.
If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been
approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued, said approval
shall become null and void and of no effect.
RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION
W- 71
�Jc9c �s fApt- J2.
DATE:
PHONE:
FAX:
Arcadia, CA 91007
ARB File No. -f4 6 -I.
OWNER:
4 77 1//
SPECIAL ARB COMMENTS: 77/6 �,0D/ -6Z) T /S 1.56---A.)/a5
727 7146 6 11 15 6 /A.) 7 of
I1* y 7 f. 00 7 /•0,G gc
7 ,e- &ro-leA✓$4-n V5 Pr..Oe)c>GTS /4 C i Tcz> 04) rr."4:
P,e E Af'P ,ec ti C tiN //t4 rL /44_ ca r s r 4-1 cam`
/9- i 7 G.'Ty of 4726-0-P/4.
771:1,4 /7 /Zt t.")4- f S heet 2 of 2
l767 i¢- c�� 5r2�Pl�i.
Date: May 7, 2009
Steve Mathison
Dale Brown
Rick Frickie
Bob Eriksson
Lou Pappas (absent)
Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association
Serving the Lower Rancho College St. Areas
Re: Review of ARB approved roofing materials metal roof materials
Mtg Date: Thursday May 7, 2009
Mtg Time: 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm (open to the public)
The meeting was opened and the following board members were present:
The purpose of the meeting was to establish a consensus for the preapproved roofing
materials for the area in addition to a detailed discussion on the Boards position on the
installation of Metal Roofing Products that have been proposed in the area and have also
been conditionally approved on a small number of homes over the past few years on a
individual basis.
It was discussed that a number of products currently on the list are no longer
manufactured for a variety of reasons (failed manufacturers or product failures) and that
the list can use some updating.
The metal roof products were then discussed as this issue seems to come up on a regular
basis and the board members felt that the position needed to be discussed in detail. After
much discussion the general consensus of the board members was to NOT allow metal
roofing products in the area for the following reasons:
1) Ridge, valley, eave, and edge details of the products require a great deal of special
attention for the roof system elements to fit properly together and look correct.
Even when they are assembled correctly they still have a manufactured look, and
the details noted obviously do not resemble the details for a wood or composite
shingle, which the metal roof is designed to emulate.
2) The finish of the product uses an similar asphaltic granular material similar to that
of an asphalt shingle. With the exception of the variations in the surface to mimic
the shape of a real wood shake, the product looks like a "Thick Butt Asphalt
Shingle" which is not allowed in the Rancho Santa Anita area
3) Although the material can provide a Class A fire rating, other materials already
approved by the Board also achieve this fire rating.
4) The Board has received input regarding the difficulty fire fighters have in an
emergency venting a space through a roof with this material. As such there is the
opinion greater damage can occur to a structure.
The different roof types within the association were discussed and the overall appearance
of the neighborhood is that of a wood shake or shingle in addition to manufactured tile
that has the appearance of shake as well as concrete tile. It is the opinion of the board
that the metal roofing products submitted to date are not "Harmonious" with the look and
feel of the community it represents.
Attachment No. 4
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5287
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING AND AMENDING REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA
AREA AND IN THE AREA BETWEEN THE TURF CLUB AND
COLORADO STREET "D" ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ZONE AREA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 4020, and
adopts the following Resolution pursuant to Ordinance No. 1389, for the property
described in Exhibit "A attached hereto.
To implement the regulations applicable to the real property within the
Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association "D" Architectural Design Zone area, the
Architectural Review Board is established and is hereinafter referred to as the
"Board
The governing body of the Board, is the Rancho Santa Anita Residents'
Association.
SECTION 2. In order to promote and maintain the quality single family
residential environment of the City of Arcadia, and to protect the property values
and architectural character of such residential environments, in those portions of
the City in which the residents have formed a homeowners association, and to
accomplish the purposes set forth in Section 4, there is hereby established the
following regulations and procedures in which said association may exercise plan
review authority.
SECTION 3. In order that buildings, structures and landscaping on property
within said area will be harmonious with each other and to promote the full and
proper utilization of said property, the following conditions are hereby imposed
upon all property in said area pursuant to the zoning regulations of the Arcadia
Municipal Code, and all those in control of property within said area, are subject to
this Resolution and Ordinance No. 1832:
1. FLOOR AREA. No one family dwelling shall be erected or permitted
which contains less than 1,400 square feet of ground floor area if one story in height,
and not less than 1,000 square feet of ground floor area if one and one -half or two
stories in height. The space contained within an open porch, open entry, balcony,
garage, whether or not it is an integral part of the dwelling, patio, basement, or cellar
shall not be considered in computing the square footage contained in any such
building. The minimum required floor area shall be deemed to include the area
measured from the outer faces of the exterior walls.
2. FRONT YARD. If a dwelling with a larger front yard than the minimum
required by the underlying zone designation exists on a lot on either side of a lot
proposed to be improved, the Board shall have the power to require an appropriate
front yard on the lot to be improved, including a setback up to a size as large as an
adjacent front yard.
3. SIDE YARD. A lot with a building or any part thereof, occupying the front
one hundred (100) feet, or any part thereof, of such lot shall have a side yard of not
less than ten (10) feet.
4. ANIMALS. Wild animals, sheep, hogs, goats, bees, cows, horses, mules,
poultry, or rabbits shall not be permitted or kept.
5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of
any structure, including roofing, wall or 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 structures in the neighborhood.
6. 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.
7. APPROVAL OF BOARD REQUIRED. No structure, roof, wall or fence
greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be erected, placed or
replaced unless approved by the Board.
Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall
or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall
be submitted to the Board.
No structure, roof, wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except in
exact conformance with the plans approved by the Board.
If necessary to properly consider any application, the Board may require
specific plans, working drawings, specifications, color charts and material samples.
The provisions of this requirement shall not apply if the project consists only
of work inside a building which does not substantially change the external
appearance of the building.
8. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. The Board shall be empowered to
transact business and exercise powers herein conferred, only if the following
requirements exist:
2 5287
a. A formally organized property owner's organization exists in said area.
b. The organization has by -laws adopted that authorize the establishment of
the Board.
c. Said by -laws provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the
Board.
d. Owners have been appointed to the Board in accordance with the by -laws.
e. A copy of the by -laws and any amendments thereto have been filed with
the City Clerk and the Director of Planning.
f. The Board shall designate a custodian of records who shall maintain said
records and make them available for public review upon reasonable request.
g. Permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action, and decision
of the Board shall be maintained by the Board.
Any decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting
forth the reasons for the Board's decision.
Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board
members who considered the application.
A copy of the Board's findings and decision shall be mailed to the applicant
within three (3) working days of the Board's decision.
h. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public in accordance with
the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Open Meeting Law).
9. POWERS OF THE BOARD. The Board shall have the power to:
a. Determine and approve an appropriate front yard pursuant to Condition 2
of Section 3.
b. Determine whether materials and appearance are compatible in
accordance with the above Conditions 5 6 of Section 3.
c If a grading plan is required for a building permit for a structure, the Board
may require such plan to be submitted along with the building plans.
d. Any of the conditions set forth in Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, may
be made less restrictive by the Board if the Board determines that such action will
foster the development of a lot and will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment
of the adjacent Jots and the general neighborhood and would not be inconsistent
with the provisions and intent of this resolution.
e. The Board shall have the power to establish rules for the purpose of
exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules
shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk.
3
5287
10. SHORT REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURE.
a. The Short Review Process may be used by the Board for the review of
applications for modifications to the requirements set forth in Conditions I through
4 of Section 3, provided that the application for a Short Review Process shall be
accompanied by a completed application form which shall contain the signatures of
all contiguous property owners indicating their awareness and approval of the
application.
b. The Board is not required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the
consideration of a Short Review Process Application.
c. The Board Chairman or another Board member designated by the Board
Chairman, to act in his absence, shall render his decision on a Short Review Process
application within ten (10) working days from the date such request is filed with the
Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the ten (10) working day
period, be deemed an approval of the plans.
d. The Board may determine which requirements set forth in Conditions 1
through 4 of Section 3 are not appropriate for the Short Review Process, and
therefore require the Regular Review Process for the consideration of such
Conditions. Any list of such Conditions which are not appropriate for the Short
Review Process shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk and the Director of
Planning.
11. REGULAR REVIEW PROCESS PROCEDURES.
a. The Regular Review Process shall be used by the Board for the review of
the Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, (eligible for Short Review) in those cases in
which the applicant fails to obtain the signatures of approval from all of the
required property owners.
b. The Regular Review Process must be used for the review of applications to
those Conditions 1 through 4 of Section 3, which the Board has determined are not
appropriate for the Short Review Process pursuant to the above.
c The Board is required to hold a noticed, scheduled meeting for the
consideration of a Regular Review Process Application.
d. Notice of Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant
and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property,
not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting.
The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and
address, of such owners as shown upon the assessment rolls of the City or of the
County.
4
5287
The applicant shall also provide the Board with letter size envelopes, which
are addressed to the property owners who are to receive said notice. The applicant
shall provide the proper postage on each of said envelopes.
e. Arty decision by the Board shall be made by a majority of the entire
membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by the Board
members who considered the application.
f. The Board shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process
application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with
the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30)
working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans.
12. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period of one (1) year
from date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the
Board, has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become
null and void and of no effect.
13. LIMIT ON BOARD'S POWERS. The Board shall not have the power to
waive any regulations in the Code pertaining to the basic zone of the property in
said area. The Board may, however, make a recommendation to the City agency,
which will be considering any such waiver request, regarding waiving such
regulations.
14. APPEAL. Appeals from the Board shall be made to the Planning
Commission. Said appeal shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning
Department within seven (7) working days of the Board's decision and shall be
accompanied by an appeal fee in accordance with the applicable fee schedule adopted
by resolution of the City Council.
Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal from the Board's decision, such
appeal shall be processed by the Planning Department in accordance with the same
procedures applicable to appeals from the Modification Committee.
15. STANDARDS FOR BOARD DECISIONS AND APPEALS. The Board and
any body hearing an appeal from the Board'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 Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid
that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood.
5 5287
(Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 6 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 Conditions Nos. 5 6 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 use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and
neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 5 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution
Exterior Building Materials Exterior Building Appearance).
d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of
properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to
Condition No. 2 of Section 3 of this Resolution Front yards).
SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this
Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls, and property
regulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's
environment, for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be
compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties.
Design controls and aesthetic considerations will help maintain the beauty of the
community, protect property values, and help assure protection from deterioration,
blight, and unattractiveness all of which can have a negative impact on the
environment of the community, effecting property values, and the quality of life
which is characteristic of Arcadia.
It is further determined that the purpose and function of this Resolution is
consistent with the history of the City and continued efforts through various means
to maintain the City's land use, environmental, and economic goals and to assure
perpetuation of both the psychological benefits and economic interests concomitant
to an attractive, well maintained community with emphasis on residential living.
All findings and statements of purpose in related Resolutions which pre-
existed this Resolution or prior covenants, conditions, and restrictions constitute
part of the rationale for this Resolution and are incorporated by reference.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid by the final dedsion
of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of
6 5287
the remaining portions of this Resolution. The Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or
more section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof be
declared invalid.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 1st day of April, 1986.
ATTEST:
/s CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
/s/ DONALD PELLEGRINO
Mayor of the City of Arcadia
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA
I, CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN, Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution No. 5287 was passed and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of April, 1986, and that said
Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Hannah, Lojeski, Young and Pellegrino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Js/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN
City Clerk of the City of Arcadia
7 5287
EXHIBIT "A"
Area #1 Beginning at a point on easterly line of Michillinda Avenue, said point
being the southwesterly corner of Lot 36, Tract No. 15928; thence easterly along the
southerly boundary of said Tract No. 15928 and Tract No. 14428 to a point which is
the northwesterly corner of Lot 12, Tract No. 15960; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lot 12 and its prolongation thereof to its intersection with the
centerline of De Anza Place; thence southerly and easterly along said centerline to its
intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly along said
centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Hugo Reid Drive; thence easterly
along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Golden West Avenue;
thence northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of
Tallac Drive; thence easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly
line of Tract No. 13312; thence northerly and easterly along the easterly and
southerly boundary of said tract to the southeasterly corner of Lot No. 1 to its
intersection with the easterly line of Golden West Avenue; thence northerly along
said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Vaquero Road; thence
easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the easterly terminus line
of said Vaquero Road; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection
with the southerly line of Lot 17 of Tract No. 11215; thence easterly along said
southerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of aforementioned Tract No.
11215; thence northerly along said easterly line and its prolongation thereof to its
intersection with the centerline of Colorado Street; thence westerly along said
centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Altura Road; thence southerly
along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the
northerly line of Tract No. 17430; thence westerly along said northerly line to its
intersection with the easterly line of Michillinda Avenue; thence southerly along
said easterly line to the point of beginning, said point being the southwesterly corner
of Lot 36 of Tract No. 15928:
EXHIBIT "A" cont'd
8 5287
EXHIBIT "A"
Area #2 Beginning at the northwesterly corner of Lot No. 62 of Tract No. 12786;
thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot and its prolongation thereof to
its intersection with the centerline of Hugo' Reid Drive; thence easterly along said
center line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of
Tract No. 14460; thence northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the
northerly line of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line to its
intersection with the westerly line of said Tract No. 14460; thence southwesterly
along said westerly line, and its southwesterly prolongation thereof, to its
intersection with the northeasterly corner of Lot No. 61 of Tract No. 12786; thence
westerly along the northerly line of said tract to the point of beginning, said point
being the northwesterly corner of Lot 62 of Tract No. 12786;
Area #3 All properties with that area bounded on the west by Baldwin Avenue,
on the north and east by Colorado Street and on the south by the southerly tract
boundaries of Tract Nos. 14940 and 15318.
EXHIBIT "A"
9 5287
Attachment No. 5
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 5
December 3, 2009
City of Arcadia Planning Commission
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91006
Lisa Flores and the Planning Commission
Appeal for A.R.B. Decision to Deny a Residential Metal Roof
Homeowner Associations and their Architectural Review Boards are
necessary to keep neighborhoods in good and beautiful order. We
are members of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association and we
agree with most of what they do. However, we do not agree with
our A.R.B.'s letter of May 7, 2009 (encl.copy) totally denying the
installation of steel roofs.
Here are our answers to each of the four paragraphs in our A`.R.B.'s
update letter of May 7, 2009.
Answer For No. 1 Roof Details
Roofs, like any job, have to be professionally installed
with attention to finish detail. If steel roofs in the
Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association area have been
installed with shoddy workmanship then this is the area
that should be addressed. I'm enclosing pictures of steel
roofs installed locally by a local contractor of long
standing.
Answer For No. 2 Stone Chips
Gerard steel roof panels are manufactured by a 7 layer
process. See ESR- 1491 -3 -1 and Gerard brochure enclosed.
We are considering a newer Gerard solid color panel that
does not look as much like our A.R.B.'s objectionable stone
coating. See pictures with closeups.
Answer For No. 3 Fire Rating
We would like to have Gerard class "A" fire rated roof
installed on our home.
Treated wood roof shakes are fire rated "B They must have
additional underlayment to be fire rated "A The added
weight of "A" rated wood shake roof is closer to 5 Lb. /sq.ft.,
depending on the thickness of the cedar shakes. We prefer not
to have this additional weight on our roof. See info. for
Green River cedar shake application enclosed.
Page 1 of 2
Answer For No. 3 (continued)
Lightweight tile or fiber cement shake roofs are "A"
fire t'ated, but they weigh 5 to 10 Lbs. more per sq. ft.
than a steel or wood roof.
The additional weight of a tile or cement shake roof on
our 2" x 4" x 24" on center rafters is not desireable.
Concrete roof shakes absorb water which adds more weight
to an already heavy roof. Who needs this? See enclosed
Monier Lifetile info.
Answer For No. 4 Fire Fighting Difficulty
How could fire fighting venting of steel roofs be a
problem? Steel roofs are installed throughout Arcadia and
are approved by all Homeowner Associations A.R.B.'s except
Area 4's A.R.B. Why? This is a non reason for Rancho's
A.R.B. denial of steel roofs.
We disagree with Homeowners A.R.B. of Area 4 that steel
roofs are not "Harmonious" with wood or tile shake roofs
for the "neighborhood look See enclosed pictures.
Ray and Dolores Ballarini
411 Oxford Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007 2644
Page 2 of 2
December 3, 2009
City of Arcadia Planning Commission
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91006 -6021
Lisa Flores and the Planning Commission
We want a steel roof installed on our home because of reasons
A through F below:
A. The wind rating of Gerard Roof is excellent. See ES
Report 1491 Page 4, table 1.
The back of our property faces Colorado Blvd. and the
210 Freeway. The Santa Ana winds have an open corridor
to blast 70 MPH plus wind at our roof, which causes wood
shingles and pieces to break off. We do not want another
wood roof installed.
B. Rats gnaw on our wood shingles to get into the attic. A
steel roof would be a good barrier for this problem.
C. Peacocks like wood roofs. They dig in their claws to
push off and fly anyplace they want. Over time pieces
of wood shingles break off and need to be repaired.
A steel roof would help solve this problem.
D. Steel roofs are walkable and are not as subject to
damage as the other A.R.B. approved roofs. Cable
installers, plumbers and christmas decorators are but a
few people who walk on roofs and cause leak damage.
E. Earthquakes are a good reason for installing a light
weight and sturdy steel roof. Steel roofs weigh about
1.5 lbs per sq. ft. compared to 3 to 15 lbs per sq. ft.
for wood or concrete tile roofs. We would feel a lot
safer with a light weight roof over our heads when the
Raymond Hill Fault activates.
F. Steel roofs are "A" fire rated and they fulfill our fire
insurance requirements. We have home owners fire insurance
with So. Cal. Auto Club and they have a fairly new ruling
about wood roofs. They will not insure a wood roof home
if the roof is five years old. We need a new steel roof.
My wife and I are in our 70's and have appreciated living in
Arcadia for 38 years. A steel roof would be a relatively trouble
free roof and we would like to have one installed. We are not
trying to change the look of our home, we're just trying to
improve it.
Ray and Dolores Ballarini
411 Oxford Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91007 -2644
Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association
ARB File No. 0.1 -Z,470
Review Date: 1—"
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A. PROJECT ADDRESS: e9
B. PROPERTY OWNER(S): orfie
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
C. Architect/designer Contractor Ph
D. Proposed Project:
f'1'014¢474v 7' .�fr /.°4&P 40/774 "6x6 -=7-j 4
eae��I�.l
E. FINDINGS (Only check those that apply and provide a written explanation for each check)
1. The proposed construction materials ARE ARE NOT (i.)- 6i patible with the
existing materials, because SGT 4-#$-
2. The proposed materials WILL ILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on
the overall appearance of the property, because
t(
3. The proposed project IS IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining
properties, because
4. The proposed project IS (PriS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public
right of way, because
5. The elements of structure's design ARE ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design, because
6. The proposed project IS IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the
subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood,
because
7. The location of the proposed project WILL -)WILL NOT be acceptable and not
detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood,
because
8. The proposed project's setbacks DO ('DO NOT provide for the adequate separation
between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because
City modification required Not required
S h e e t 1 of 2
F. OTHER FINDINGS:
G. ACTION: Approval without conditions
Approval with following conditions
H. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ACTION
I. ARB MEMBER (S)/ COMMITTEE RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION
4TL; V 1'141,f7ei1So,J
J. APPEALS
SIGNED:
PRINT NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
Genial
ARB File No. 4f
OWNER:
Appeals for the ARB's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission.
Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Offices for the requirements,
fee and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Offices,
240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007 within seven (7) working days of the Board's
(Committee decision.
K. EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS
If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been
approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned, or discontinued, said approval
shall become null and void and of no effect.
RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION
t`� ✓r�x M I4- rt4N5e
r,c) p 44,4- ve.
DATE: //1/401
PHONE: (p ¢7
FAX:
Arcadia, CA 91007
SPECIAL ARB COMMENTS: ,21 1> o 4'• /.S -70
7o 7-hie .4- �'1Gt 77h M/A) OF
No y z o o9 /=o.G ,earls
7' A-Grc-.✓ l v6 P 2 L'cZ "de us Vi) oAv re/
P,ee APPRniar coe9GrA- 1 TC r 144- L 5 r r4 6"'
n-7." 7146 G.'r of f 42,
Ate 1 Peablicr Sc)u -1i/T 'oar g sbti P"°vot. us r
,00W7Z47 1ri1 p 5c-r' Sheet 2 of 2
Perifit* d SA
Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association
Serving the Lower Rancho College St. Areas
Date: May 7, 2009
Re: Review of ARB approved roofing materials metal roof materials
Mtg Date: Thursday May 7, 2009
Mtg Time: 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm (open to the public)
The meeting was opened and the following board members were present:
Steve Mathison
Dale Brown
Rick Frickie
Bob Eriksson
Lou Pappas (absent)
The purpose of the meeting was to establish a consensus for the preapproved roofing
materials for the area in addition to a detailed discussion on the Boards position on the
installation of Metal Roofing Products that have been proposed in the area and have also
been conditionally approved on a small number of homes over the past few years on a
individual basis.
It was discussed that a number of products currently on the list are no longer
manufactured for a variety of reasons (failed manufacturers or product failures) and that
the list can use some updating.
The metal roof products were then discussed as this issue seems to come up on a regular
basis and the board members felt that the position needed to be discussed in detail. After
much discussion the general consensus of the board members was to NOT allow metal
roofing products in the area for the following reasons:
1) Ridge, valley, eave, and edge details of the products require a great deal of special
attention for the roof system elements to fit properly together and look correct.
Even when they are assembled correctly they still have a manufactured look, and
the details noted obviously do not resemble the details for a wood or composite
shingle, which the metal roof is designed to emulate.
2) The finish of the product uses an similar asphaltic granular material similar to that
of an asphalt shingle. With the exception of the variations in the surface to mimic
the shape of a real wood shake, the product looks like a "Thick Butt Asphalt
Shingle" which is not allowed in the Rancho Santa Anita area
3) Although the material can provide a Class A fire rating, other materials already
approved by the Board also achieve this fire rating.
4) The Board has received input regarding the difficulty fire fighters have in an
emergency venting a space through a roof with this material. As such there is the
opinion greater damage can occur to a structure.
The different roof types within the association were discussed and the overall appearance
of the neighborhood is that of a wood shake or shingle in addition to manufactured tile
that has the appearance of shake as well as concrete tile. It is the opinion of the board
that the metal roofing products submitted to date are not "Harmonious" with the look and
feel of the community it represents.
COMPANY
TYPE
COLOR or COLOR NUMBER
MONIER LIFET1LE
CEDARLITE
3783, 3774, 5872, 5780, 5773, 3830
Premier DURALITE 2000 -Shake
1130, 3958, 3934, 5932, 3453
MONIER 2000 Vignette Shake
7973, 7933, 6938, 3934, 3940, 3960, 0939
FIREFREE PLUS FMFC
RUSTIC SHAKE
Light Brown, Dark Brown, Gray
EAGLELITE
PONDEROSA
301, 302, 303, 304, 311, 387, 399
AUBURN TILE
SHAKE BRUSHED
LIGHTWEIGHT
No blended colors
501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 507, 541,542
543, 544, 527, 529, 530, 531
PIONEER
WEATHERED SHAKE
LITEWEIGHT
WS -409L; WS -445L,
WS -453L, WS -407L
EVERWEST SHAKE
WES -557L, WES -558L, WES -544L,
WES -560L, WES -561L, WES -562L
PRO -TEX
SHAKE
PRO Brown, PRO Gray
COMPANY.
TYPE
COLOR or COLOR NUMBER
Various
WOOD CEDAR SHAKES
Heavy. or Medium
Class A or 8 treated
MONIER LIFETILE
SHAKE ISR
1430, 3016, 3156, 5225, 5746
WESTILE
SHAKE ISR
Ceder, Creekstone, Palomino. Granite.
Capistrano Blend, San Juan Blend
AUBURN TILE INC.
Regular Weight
SHAKE BRUSHED
330, 33, 125, 101, 600, 300
201, 202, •204, 807, 809, 810, 602
PIONEER
WEATHERED SHAKE
445, 456, 548, 453, 409, 516, 54.4, 452
EVERWEST SHAKE
561, 558, 559, 562
EAGLE
PONDEROSA SHAKE
5678, 5687, 5689, 5699, 5087, 5501,
5502, 5504. 5511, 5529, 5552
RANCII0 g, ..N i'A ANI TA RESIDENTS' ASSoCIA"I'ION
ROOFING STANDARDS
JUNE 29, 2000
The Architectural Review Board has established the following roofing materials as compatible and
harmonious, and approved for dwellings in the Lower Rancho /College areas.
a. NOT APPROVED: composition shingles (tar paper) or fiberglass shingles
b. NOT APPROVED: multi stacked ridge end kicks; must maintain horizontal ridgeline
c. APPROVED: Class A and Class B (see following charts)
WOOD- CEDAR SHAKES Rt7 WI✓IGIiT SHAKES•
LIGHTWEIGHT SHAKES:
40.
ICC Evaluation Service, Inc.
www.icc- es.org
DIVISION: 07 THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
Section: 07320 -Roof Tiles
REPORT HOLDER:
GERARD ROOFING TECHNOLOGIES
955 COLUMBIA STREET
BREA, CALIFORNIA 92821 -2923
(800) 237-6637
www.gerardusa.com
EVALUATION SUBJECT;
STEEL ROOFING PANELS: GERARD' TILE AND SHAKE
PANELS, ARMOR TILE AND SHAKE PANELS, DIPLOMAT
TILE AND SHAKE PANELS, CANYON SHAKE PANELS,
BARREL VAULT PANELS, AND NB TILE PANELS
1.0 EVALUATION SCOPE
Compliance with the following codes:
2003 International Building Code (IBC)
2003 International Residential Code (IRC)
BOCA National Building Code /1999 (BNBC)
1999 Standard Building Code (SBC)
1997 Uniform Building CodeTM (UBC)
Properties evaluated:
Roof covering fire classification
Wind resistance
Weather resistance
2.0 USES
The steel roofing panels described in this report are used as
roof coverings over new and existing roofs.
3.0 DESCRIPTION
3.1 General:
The steel roofing panels are formed from steel complying with
ASTM A 653 SS Grade 33, minimum, and have a zinc
galvanized G90 coating complying with ASTM A 924 or
aluminum -zinc alloy coated steel complying with ASTM A 792
AZ50. The steel panels have a baked -on primer on both
sides, with a semigloss wash coat on the underside. The steel
is No. 26 gage with a nominal base -metal thickness of 0.0179
inch (0.45 mm). After the panels are formed, the upper
surface and flange edges are coated with crushed stone
chips that are bonded to the panels with an acrylic resin. A
clear acrylic overglaze is applied to the panels to complete
the process. The panels when installed weigh 1.4 pounds per
square foot (6.84 kg /m
REPORTS are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed, nor are they to be construed as an
endorsement of the subject of the report or o recommendation for its use. There is no warranty by ICC Evaluation Service. Inc.. express or implied, as to any
finding or other mazer in this report. or as to any product covered by the report.
Copyright it 2006
ESR -1491
Reissued December 1, 2006
This report is subject to re- examination in two years.
Business/Regional Office 5360 Worlmtan Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601 (562) 699-0543
Regional Office 900 Montclair Road, Suite A, Birmingham, Alabama 35213 (205) 599 -9800
Regional Office 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, Illinois 60478 (708) 799 -2305
3.2 Gerard" Tile and Shake Panels, Armor Tile and
Shake Panels, Diplomat Tile and Shake. Panels:
The tile panels are 45 inches (1162 mm) wide by 151/2
inches (394 mm) deep and weigh.5.83 pounds (2.65 kg). The
shake panels are 44 inches (1 137 mm) wide by 15
inches (394 mm) deep and weigh 5.69 pounds (2.58 kg). The
products are illustrated in Figure 1.
3.3 Canyon Shake Panels, Barrel Vault Panels, and NB
Tile Panels:
The Canyon Shake panels are 45 inches (1143 mm) wide by
16.5 inches (419.10 mm) deep and weigh 5.83 pounds (2.65
kg). The Barrel Vault panels are 43.84 inches (1114 mm)
wide by 15.58 inches (396 mm) deep and weigh 5.31 pounds
(2.41 kg). The NB Tile panels are 46 inches (1168 mm) wide
by 16 inches (406 mm) deep and weigh 5.78 pounds (2.62
kg). The panels are illustrated in Figure 1.
4.0 INSTALLATION
4.1 General:
All panels must be installed in accordance with the applicable
code, this report and the manufacturer's published installation
instructions must be performed by installers approved by
Gerard Roofing Technologies.
The manufacturer's published installation instructions and
this report must be strictly adhered to and a copy of the
instructions must be available at all times on the jobsite
during installation. This report must govern if there are any
conflicts between the manufacturer's published instructions
and this report.
Except as allowed in Section 4.8 all panels must be
installed on wood or steel battens spaced approximately 14
inches (368 mm) on center over open rafters, spaced or solid
sheathing, or an existing roof covering in accordance with
Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8 of this report.
4.2 Battens and Counterbattens:
Wood battens must be nominally 2- inch -by -2 -inch and
counterbattens must be nominally 1- inch -by-4 -inch standard
grade, or better, Douglas fir or other species having a specific
gravity of 0.50 or greater. Steel battens must be hat shaped
sections with a 1 -inch (38 mm) minimum height, fabricated
from minimum No. 22 gage galvanized steel with a minimum
base -metal thickness of 0.0299 inch (0.76 mm). Battens must
be as shown in Figure 2 of this report.
4.3 Roof Slope and Underlayment:
All panels must be installed on roof slopes of 3:12 (25- percent
slope) or greater with an underlayment of two layers of Type
I (No. 15) organic -fiber felt [in jurisdictions adopting the UBC,
one layer of Type II (No. 30) organic -fiber felt underlayment
can be used as an alternate), complying with ASTM D 226 or
one layer of Elk Corporation's Versashield underlayment (ER-
AIM MOp•1 h••••
nrouua
Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8 ESR -1491
5627). Where the roof slope is less than 3:12 (25- percent
slope), the panels must be limited to use as a decorative roof
covering only, and must be installed over a roof covering
system complying with the applicable code.
On all roofs sloped greater than 3:12 (25- percent slope),
where the January average temperature is 25 °F (-4 °C) or
less, or where there is a possibility of ice dams forming along
the eaves and causing a backup of water, an ice barrier must
be installed as follows:
Spaced or solid sheathing and two layers of Type I (No. 15)
organic -fiber felt underlayment must be installed in the field
of the roof. [In jurisdictions adopting the UBC, one layer of
Type II (No. 30) can be used as an alternate to the two
layers of Type I felt.]
Solid sheathing and two layers of Type 1 (No. 15) felt,
applied shingle- fashion and solid- cemented between the
plies, or a self- adhering polymer modified bitumen
membrane, must extend from the eave's edge to a point a
minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) inside the exterior wall line
of the building, under the IBC, IRC, SBC and BNBC, or 36
inches (914 mm) under the UBC. Underlayment layers or
self- adhering polymer modified bitumen membrane must be
installed beneath valley flashing in accordance with IBC
Section 1507.5.6, IRC Section R905.4.6, UBC Section
1508.3 and SBC Section 1507.6.6.
4.4 New Roofing Application —Class A:
The roofing panels, are recognized as Class A roof coverings
in accordance with the Exception to Section 1505.2 of the
IBC, Section R902.1 of the IRC, Section 1505 of the SBC,
and Section 1506.0 of the BNBC; and as noncombustible roof
coverings in accordance with Section 1504.2 of the UBC.
Wood battens must be attached to the supporting framing
members that are spaced a maximum of 24 inches (610 mm)
on center, with corrosion- resistant nails or sheet metal screws
in accordance with Tables 1 and 2 of this report.
Steel battens must be attached to the supporting framing
members that are spaced a maximum of 24 inches (610 mm)
on center, with two No. 10 by 3 c inch-long (19.1 mm),
corrosion resistant sheet metal screws.
Panels adjacent to the ridge are field- adjusted by cutting
and bending vertically.
Valleys must be framed using wood or steel counterbattens
spaced 6 inches (152 mm) apart, fastened on both sides of
the valley. Valleys must be framed to receive No. 26 gage
[0.0179 inch (0.45 mm)], corrosion- resistant metal flashing
which extends out at least 8 inches (203 mm) on both sides
of the center line. Valley flashing end laps must be a
minimum of 4 inches (102 mm). Underlayment layers or self
adhering polymer modified bitumen membrane must be
installed beneath valley flashing in accordance with IBC
Section 1507.5.6, IRC Section R905.4.6, UBC Section 1508.3
and SBC Section 1507.6.6.
All full -size panels must be fastened to the roof prior to the
cutting of panels for placement at hips, ridges or valleys. The
panels must be staggered a minimum of one module, and
must be fastened to the battens with corrosion resistant nails
or screws in accordance with Tables 1 and 2 of this report.
Fasteners must be positioned 1 inches (38 mm) from the
center of the concave and along the down- turned edge of the
panel. Care must be exercised in nailing to avoid striking the
finished surface of the panel or over driving the screws.
Ridge and hip boards must have a minimum 2 -inch (51 mm)
nominal thickness and project approximately 4 inches (102
mm) above the rafters or existing roof surface. The panels
must be fastened to the side of the ridge and hip boards after
mitering, cutting and bending, then capped with the
appropriate trim.
Gable ends must be capped with gable cap pieces, rake or
barge molds, or individual trim caps.
Roof openings and penetrations must be flashed, in
accordance with the applicable code, with flashing formed to
match the shape of the panels.
4.5 Reroofing Application:
4.5.1 General: The existing roof must be inspected and
prepared in accordance with the requirements of IBC Section
1510, SBC Section 1510, IRC Section R907, BNBC Section
1512 and Appendix Chapter 15 of the UBC. Roof panels must
not be installed over excessively deteriorated roofing, which
must be removed and the panels installed as specified for
new roofing application.
The tile and shake panels installed over existing wood
shake, wood shingle, asphalt shingle or gravel- surfaced
roofing must be subject to the conditions set forth in this
section. Battens must be installed in accordance with Section
4.4 of this report. Wood counterbattens must be installed
parallel to the framing (perpendicular to the eaves) at a
maximum spacing of 24 inches (610 mm) on center. When
the panels are installed over an existing classified roof, the
resulting roof classification remains the same as the existing
roof classification, except as noted in Section 4.5.2.
When installation is over wood shingles or shake roofs, the
entire existing roof surface must be covered with gypsum
board, mineral fiber, glass fiber or other approved materials
securely fastened in place in accordance with Section 1510.4
of the IBC, Section R907.4 of the IRC, and Section 1510.4
and Appendix Section 1516.3 of the UBC. As an altemate to
the materials specified above, one layer of Elk Corporation's
Versashield underlayment (ER -5627) must be used to cover
the entire existing roof.
For installations over existing built -up roof coverings, all
loose gravel and debris must be swept off. Blisters in the plies
must be cut and nailed flat. Raised perimeters, such as gravel
stops, must be covered by the roofing system. Where the
system is installed over integral gutters, a fascia board nailed
to the rafters must be provided and installed outside the
gutter.
4.5.2 Fire Classification— Reroofing:
4.5.2.1 Class C: When installation is over existing
nonclassified (nonrated) wood shake and wood shingles, the
ridge and hip caps must be removed. Existing roof coverings
must be cut back flush with the fascia or barge cover. Wood
counterbattens must be installed parallel to the framing
(perpendicular to the eaves) at a maximum spacing of 24
inches (610 mm) on center. Counterbattens must be fastened
to the framing members with corrosion- resistant nails or
screws in accordance with Table 3 of this report. Battens
must be fastened to the counterbattens with corrosion
resistant nails or screws in accordance with Table 1 and 2 of
this report. Fastening must be done to prevent splitting the
battens or counterbattens. The panels must be fastened to
the wood battens with corrosion resistant nails or screws in
accordance with Table 1 and 2 of this report. New flashing
must be installed over and around all existing valleys, vents
and chimneys in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable code. The valley used in reroofing must be as
shown in Figure 3 of this report. When installed in accordance
with this section, the resulting roof classification is Class C.
4.5.2.2 Class B: When a Class B roof assembly is required
over an existing nonclassified (nonrated) roof covering,
installation must be as described for the Class C roof in
Section 4.5.2.1, with the following addition: Mineral- surfaced,
72 -pound (31.8 kg) cap sheet, complying with ASTM D 3909,
must be fastened in place over the existing roofing material
with minimum 2 -inch (51 mm) head and side laps, prior to the
Page 3 of 8
application of counterbattens and battens. The cap sheet
functions as a fire- resistive sheet and is permitted to be used
to satisfy the underlayment requirement of Section 4.3 of this
report.
As an alternative to using mineral- surfaced, 72 -pound (31.8
kg) cap sheet for Class B installations, an underlayment of
1 (38 mm), foil faced, fiberglass blanket
insulation, or 1 inch -thick (38 mm), foil faced, fiberglass batt
insulation placed between each batten, or one layer of Elk
Corporation's Versashield underlayment (ER- 5627), is
permitted to be installed. Installation of the underlayment
must be with the foil face up and 2 -inch (51 mm) headlaps
over the existing roof surface prior to the application of
counterbattens and battens.
4.5.2.3 Class A: When a Class A roof assembly is required
over an existing nonclassified (nonrated) roof covering,
installation must be as described for the Class C roof in
Section 4.5.2.1, with one of the assemblies described below:
a. One layer of minimum 1 4 -inch-thick (6.4 mm) Georgia
Pacific Dens -Deck overlayment, followed by battens,
must be placed directly over existing roof covering
(mechanically fastened to the roof deck) or attached to
counterbattens.
b. One layer of Type G3 Cap Sheet, granule side up, must
be placed over existing roof covering, followed by
counterbattens mechanically fastened to the roof deck.
Battens must be mechanically fastened to the
counterbattens, followed by 1 inch -thick (12.7 mm)
FSK -faced insulation, foil face up, placed between each
batten row.
c. Foam plastic insert/insulation and support panels over
existing roof covering must be placed between the vertical
counterbattens and between the horizontal battens.
d. One layer of minimum 1 2 inch -thick (12.7 mm), water
resistant core gypsum sheathing, complying with ASTM C
79, is installed over the counterbattens using 4d drywall
nails or equivalent. The gypsum sheathing joints must be
tightly butted. As an alternative to 1 2 -inch-thick (12.7 mm)
gypsum sheathing, two layers of Elk Corporation's
Versashield underlayment (ER -5627) may be used. In
accordance with Section 1510.4 of the IBC, Section
R907.4 of the IRC, and Section 1510.4 and Appendix
Section 1516.3 of the UBC, when the steel panel roofing
system is installed over wood shake or wood shingle
roofs, the 1 2 -inch thick (12.7 mm), water- resistant core
gypsum sheathing, described above, installed over the
counterbattens and covering the entire surface of the
existing wood roof, or two layer of Elk Corporation's
Versashield underlayment (ER- 5627), satisfies the
requirements of Section 1516.3 and Table A -15 -A of the
UBC Appendix. Steel roof panels so installed over existing
roofs comply with UBC Standard 15 -2 and are Class A
fire- retardant roofing assemblies.
4.6 Wind Resistance:
For jurisdictions adopting the IBC, IRC, BNBC and SBC, the
maximum allowable wind uplift pressure is as shown in Table
2 of this report. The balance of the installation must be as
described in Section 4.0 of this report. Recognition in
jurisdictions adopting the UBC is limited to Exposure B areas
where the basic wind speed does not exceed 70 mph (112.70
km /h), the building height is less than 40 feet (12 192 mm),
and installation is in accordance with Section 4.4 or 4.5 of this
report.
4.7 Structural Diaphragm:
Structural roof diaphragms using the roof panels described in
this report must be constructed as follows: Nominally 1 -inch-
ESR -1491
by- 6-inch standard grade, or better, Douglas fir sheathing or
sheathing of other species having a specific gravity of 0.50 or
greater, spaced a maximum of 9 inches (241 mm) on
center, must be nailed to framing in accordance with the
applicable code. Framing members must be spaced a
maximum of 24 inches (610 mm) on center. Wood battens,
counterbattens and the roofing panels are installed over
spaced sheathing in accordance with Section 4.1 of this
report. Fasteners attaching the counterbattens to .the roof
must penetrate into the framing members and must be within
6 inches. (152 mm) of the counterbatten ends.
The resulting diaphragm has an allowable shear of 180 Ibf /ft
(2628 N /m) and is equivalent to 15 -thick (11.9 mm)
wood structural panels complying with DOC PS 1 using 8d
common wire nails over nominally 2 -inch wood framing
members in an unblocked diaphragm, with nails 6 inches (152
mm) on center at the edges and 10 inches (254 mm) on
center in the field of the panel. The maximum aspect ratio is
4:1. Diaphragm deflections, based on using 15 32 inch -thick
(11.9 mm) wood structural panels complying with DOC PS 1,
must be estimated by using the following equation:
A 5vL vU59600 0.0033841_ I(A,X) 12b
For SI:
A 381 vL /2EAb vU2347 0.086L 25.41(D,X)/2b
where:
A
b
E
L
v
Area of chord cross section [(in (mm
Diaphragm width [ft (mm)).
Elastic modulus of chords [Ibf /ft (kPa)] (per
AF &PA -NDS).
Diaphragm length [ft (mm)).
Maximum shear due to design loads in the
direction under consideration [Ibf /ft (N /m)).
Deflection [in. (mm))
Sum of individual chord- splice slip values on both
sides of the diaphragm, each multiplied by X, the
splice distance to the nearest support.
Calculations for diaphragm deflection must account for the
usual bending and shear components as well as any other
factors, such as nail deformation, that will contribute to the
deflection.
4.8 Canyon Shake, Barrel Vault and NB Tile Panels
Direct Application to Roof Deck (No Battens):
The panels may be installed directly to deck without battens
as a new roof covering assembly. The sheathing must be
minimum -thick (12.7 mm) wood structural panels
complying with DOC PS 1, covered with underlayment in
accordance with Section 4.3 of this report. The minimum roof
slope must be 3:12 (25- percent slope). The panels must be
fastened to the sheathing in accordance with Tables 1 and 2
of this report.
5.0 CONDITIONS OF USE
The Gerard steel roofing panels described in this report
comply with, or are suitable alternatives to what is specified
in, those codes listed in Section 1.0 of this report, subject to
the following conditions:
5.1 The panels must be manufactured, identified and
installed in accordance with the applicable code, this
report and the manufacturer's published installation
instructions.
5.2 Prior to reroofing with the panels, the existing roof must
be inspected and approved by the code official, as
required by the applicable code.
Gable Roof Roof Slope 2:12 to 6:12
Panel Type
Fastener
Pattern 3
Maximum Mean Roof Height (ft)
Exposure B
Exposure C
Gust Wind Speed (m h 2
Gust Wind Speed (mph)
<90 1 100
110
120 130 I
140
150
<90 I 100 1 110 1 120 1 130 j 140
150
Canyon Shake, Barrel
Vault, NB Tile over Deck
1 1
60 60
60
60 1 60
45
28
60 60 60
46
21 N/A
N/A
2 1
60 60 1
60
60 60
60
60
60 60 60
60
60 1 49
26
Tile. Shake, Canyon Shake, Barrel
Vault, NB Tile over batten
1
60 60 1
33
18
N/A N/A
N/A
45 l
17 j N/A
N/A 1 N/A j N/A
NIA
2
60 60
60
60
40 1 24
N/A
60 f
60 43
19
NIA i N/A
N/A
3
60 60
60
60
60 42
26
60 1
60 1 60
42 1 19 I N/A
N/A
4
60 60
60
60
60 60
60
60 60 i 60
60 f 60. 1 60
32
Gable Roof Roof Slope: >6:12 to 12:12
Panel Type
Maximum Mean Roof Height (ft)
Fastener Exposure B
Exposure C
Pattern 3
Gust Wind Speed (mph)'
Gust Wind Speed (mph)"
<120 130 i 140 j 150 1 160 1 170
180
<120 j 130
140 1
150 I 160 170 j 180
Canyon Shake. Barrel
Vault. NB Tile over Deck
I 1
60 60
60
60 1 60 60
60
1 60 I 60
60
60
60 i 47 1 27
2
60 60
60
60 60 1 60 1
60
60 60
60 1
60
60 60 57
Tile, Shake, Canyon Shake, Barrel
Vault, NB Tile over batten
1
60 60 60 1 43 j 27 1 18
N/A
60 1 38
19 N/A 1 N/A N/A j N/A
3
60 60 1 60 60 1 47 31
21
60
60
40 21 I N/A I N/A 1 N/A
5
60 1 60 l 60 1 60 60 i 60
1 60
60
60
60 1 60 60 42 I 25
Hip Roof Roof Slope 2:12 to 5.6:12
Panel Type
Maximum Mean Roof Height (ft)
Fastener
Exposure B I Exposure C
Pattern 3
Gust Wind Speed (mph)' T
Gust Wind Speed (mph)
<100 110 1 120 .1 130 1 140 1 150 1 160
<100 1 110 1 120 1 130 1 140 1 150
160
Canyon Shake, Barrel
Vault, NB Tile over Deck
1
I 60 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 60
60 1 60 1 60 j 35
19
2
1
60 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 I 60 1 60 60
1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60
60
Tile, Shake, Canyon Shake, Barrel
Vault. NB Tile over batten
1
60 60
60 I 40 1 24 N/A I N/A I 60 1 43
19
N/A N /A.
N/A
N/A
3
60 60
60 1 60 I 60 60 1 60 60
60 60 1 60
1 32
17
Page 4 of 8
6.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
6.1 Data in accordance with the ICC -ES Acceptance
Criteria for Metal Roof Coverings (AC166), dated July
2006.
6.2 Engineering calculations for wind and diaphragm
design.
TABLE 1 —WIND SPEED AND MAXIMUM MEAN ROOF HEIGHT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION'
For SI: 1 f, 304.8 mm, 1 mph 0.44 m/s N/A Not Applicable
1 Mean roof heights were deterthined from maximum allowable wind uplift pressures (See Table 2) and wind loads were calculated in accordance with
ASCE 7 -05 for an enclosed building with importance factor of 1.0.
2 To convert wind speed from 3 second gust to fastest mile, use Table 1609.3.1 of the IBC or Table R3012.1.3 of IRC.
3 See Table 2 for fastener pattern description.
ESR -1491
6.3 Reports of racking diaphragm test in accordance with
ASTM E 72.
7.0 IDENTIFICATION
Pallets of the steel roofing panels described in this report
must bear a label indicating the manufacturer's name (Gerard
Roofing Technologies) and address, the product name, and
the evaluation report number (ESR- 1491).
Gust 6
Wind
Speed
(mph)
Type
Roof Type and Slope
Gable Roof Slope 2:12 to 6: 2`
Gable Roof Slope >6:12 to 12:12
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 1
Zone 2 3
Exposure
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
Fastener'
16d
#8
I6d
#8
16d
08
16d
#8
16d
#8
16d
#8
16d
#S
I6d
#8
16d
#S
16d.
#8
90
Batten
1
1
l 1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
I
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
Counterbatten'
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
100
Banal c
1
1
2
1
2
I
3
1
3
1
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Counterbatten
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
110
Batten 3
2
I
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Counterbatten
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
120
Batten
2
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
4
2
5
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
Counterbanen
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
130
Barren'
2
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
4
2
6
2
2
I
3
1
2
1
3
1
Counterbatten
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
140
Batten
2
1
3
1
4
2
5
2
5
2
NA
3
2
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
Counterbatten
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
NA
7"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
150
Batten
3
1
3
1
4
2
5
2
6
2
NA
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
4
2
Counterbatten
14"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
7"
14"
NA
7"
14"
14"
7"
14"
14"
14"
7"
14"
Panel Type Fastener Components
Pattern 1
1
Roof Zones
1
2
3
Canyon Shake
Barrel Vault NB
Tile over deck'
1
Panel
i
8d 10.5" OC
(5 per panel) 93.5 psf
8d 10.5" OC
(5 per panel) 93.5 psf
8d 10.5" OC
(5 per panel) 93.5 psf
2
Panel
I
i
8d 10.5" OC
(5 per panel) 93.5 psf
8d 5 5" OC
(9 per panel) 129.25 psf
8d 5.25" OC
(9 per panel) 129.25 psf
Tile, Shake.
Canyon Shake,
Barrel Vault, NB
tile over batten'
1
Panel
I
8c1@ 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
Batten
j
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
2
3
1 Panel
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
Batten
Panel
L
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
(2) 16d 91.25 psf
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d iii 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
Batten
(1) 16d 52.5 psf
(2) 16d 9125 psf
(2) 16d 91.25 psf
4
Panel
i
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d l) 6" OC (8 per panel)
Batten'
I
(1) 16c1- 52.5 psf
(2) I6d 91.25 psf
(2) #8 159.25 psf
5
Panel
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 12" OC (5 per panel)
8d 6" OC (8 per panel)
Batten13
1
(2) 16d 91.25 psf
(2) 16d 9125 psf
(2) #8 159.25 psf
Page 5 of 8
TABLE 2- FASTENER PATTERN MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WIND UPLIFT PRESSURES'
ESR -1491
For SI: 1 in 25.4 mm, 1 psf 47.88 Pa
The panel fasteners are 8d 2 -3/8 inch long ring shank corrosion resistant nails. #10- 2 inch long corrosion resistant wood screws may be used in lieu
of nails.
The batten fastener into rafters are 16d 3 -1/2 inch long ring shank corrosion resistant nails or #8- 3 inch long corrosion resistant wood screws.
The fastener shall penetrate a minimum of 1.5 inch into the rafter.
3 Batten fastening for new construction. For reroofing over existing roofing with counterbatten, see Table 3 for number of fasteners.
In jurisdictions enforcing the IBC and the MC, the design wind pressure must be determined in accordance with IBC Section 1609.6 and IBC
Tables 1609.6 2.1 (I), (2), (3) and (4); and IRC Section R301.2.1.
TABLE 3 BATTEN AND COUNTERBATTEN SPACING AND FASTENER REQUIREMENTS FOR REROOFING'
For Si: 1 ft 304.8 nun, 1 in 25.4 mm. 1 mph 0.44 m/s N/A Not Applicable
Number of batten fasteners and counterbatten fastener spacing determined wind loads were calculated in accordance with ASCE 7 for an enclosed building
with importance factor of 1.0 and NDS specifications. Maximum mean roof height is 40 ft.
r For the batten to counterbatten attachment, the number of fasteners required at each intersection are shown for each wind load condition.
3 For the counterbanen to rafter attachment, the fastener spacings along counterbanen are shown for each wind Toad condition.
The batten and counterbanen fasteners are 16d 3 -1 /2 inch long ring shank corrosion resistant nails or #8 3 inch long corrosion resistant wood screws.
The counterbanen fastener shall penetrate a minimum of 1.5 inch into the rafter.
6 For hip roof between 2:12 and 5.6:12. Zone 3 shall be treated as Zone 2.
6 To convert wind speed from 3 second gust to fastest mile, use Table 1609.3.1 of the IBC or Table R301.2.1.3 of IRC.
Page 6 of 8
r Side tap
(somm))
N N
I 1 2 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 1 T I
LRapeatnp pansm
TILE PANEL 15 1/2" X 45 3/4"
1' Norma
(25rnm)
1 Nominal
(25mm)
45 (1,1E2.05mm
41 a811460.45mm)
r
44 ak" (1,136.85mm
40
pattern on second hall of panel.
SHAKE PANEL 151/2" X 44 3/4"
rti
75Onan) L
V Nominal
(25mm)
II
15 'It
mn)
r Nominal
(25mm)
1
14 ak"
7 Side isP 1• Nominal
(508m) L., (25mm)
�II j
1
15
mm)
45"
46"
(364.6mm)
r Noma
(25mm)
NET COVERAGE 42
CANYON SHAKF
43.54"
NET COVERAGE 42
PARRFI VAUI T
NET COVERAGE 42.75
\•1/ \11/ \1I/ \1111/ "111 "\/1 "\III /e
1111 1111111-1111111 1111
NB TILF
TYPICAL PANEL PROFILE
26 GA. GALVALUME STEEL WITH STONE COATED FINISH
FIGURE 1— PRODUCT ILLUSTRATIONS
MISSION CAP
6" X 15 1/4"
SHAKE CAP
6" X 15 1/4"
I- 1• (Nom.)
-I I-1• (NOM.)
—I I" i• (NoM.)
0
r t' (NOM.)
ESR -1491
Page 7 of 8
MISSION TRIM FRAMING
SHAKE TRIM FRAMING
ESR -1491
ONE2X2 AT HIP CENTER
STEEL BATTEN CHANNEL SECTIONS
PANEL BATTEN CHANNEL SECTIONS
Use this method wth Shake cap
only!
Page 8 of 8
1 x 4 COUNTERBATTENS
F' 2 x 2 BATTEN
50 x 50mm)
FIGURE 3—TYPICAL DETAILS
ESR-1491
Country Blend
I
Canyon Shake Stocking Colors:
W.:M.11P
Country Blend
BEFORE
Gerard's patented interlocking fastening system prevents the panels from lifting
and allowing blowing embers to ignite the roof deck. Gerard comes with a UL 790 Class
"A" Fire rating (highest rating in the industry).
Gerard comes with a 2.5" hail warranty and is UL 2218 Class 4 rated (highest
rating in the industry).
Gerard's interlocking panels have withstood 170 mph wind tests and come with
a 1 20 mph warranty.
Gerard's superior features reduce the threat of roof collapse. In a survey,
the McMullen Company found only minor damage to 1°,/i) of homes protected by stone
coated metal roofing. In contrast, more than 50% of the homes with concrete and clay
roofs had significant damage.
Gerard roof panels will not split, crack, break, curl, warp or absorb
water. The stone granules arc UV- reflective and provide protection against the elements.
At only 1.41bs per square foot structures do not need re- engineering
to accommodate the Gerard system.
Gerard's products are 100 recyclable. Tbey also contain over
30% recycled content. Rest assured Gerard is doing their part to conserve our natural
resources.
In many areas where weather damage is prevalent, insurance
companies offer substantial premium reductions to homeowners with a Gerard roof.
Gerard's product line has the premium presentation discriminating
homeowners are seeking.
According to the Residential Cost Handbook, home values increase $1.35/ sq.
ft. with metal roofs vs. wood shake or asphalt composition.
Gerard is virtually a maintenance free product.
art
"47,1
Steel Doe,-, !Jul Bum
+.14,
A Gerard Roof Is T/ Bt--,1 P )1' f-t, y()11 Laty,j
Gerard s it7telOC//11,q H F Liol)(-ts
Home With Gerard Roofing
Property Damage: $10,240
Roof Damage: $10
Hail
Class 4 rnpact Rating 25 Ha il Warranty
F3 Tornado Mena, Arkansas April 2009 160 mph Winds
600 Feet Away
Two City Blocks Away
e 1-800-23-ROOFS
4.
Gerard No Damage
Before Ivan
1l((1 J1 1 70 out Not Sus a-mulgy
3 Hurricanes
1 Tropical Storm
1 Gerard Roof
Asphalt Total Loss
woolfrolt
C^,
After Ivan
Made with over 30% recycled steel
Uses 100% recyclable steel
Recycles the majority of their waste
Purchases all of their steel from suppliers who have
recycling facilities on site
Purchases packaging from vendors who recycle
Is highly energy efficient
Available Energy Star colors
Qualifier for LEED Credits
California Title 24 Compliant
REFLECTED
RADIATION
TOTAL SOLAR
RADIATION
Roof Surface
RE
Layer
ENERGY
Net Heat Flux
Into Roof
Heat Gain Reduction
The Gerard Stone Coated Steel Roofing System
reduces heat gain by as much as 45% over
conventional asphalt roofing. Gerard uses highly
UV- reflective granite stone chips which are
sealed to the tough Zinc Aluminum steel sub
straight. The Gerard system allows air to pass
between the deck and the panels. When air
convection is combined with the highly reflective
Gerard steel and stone roofing the result is one
of the most energy efficient and eco- friendly
systems in the world.
Protection Benefits
Weight
Fire
Wind
Hail
Snow Ice
Earthquakes
Weather
Warranty
Enviroment
Re -Sale
Concrete
Poor
9 -15 lbs. /sq. ft
Poor
Roofs Collapse from
Weight
Poor
Requires Special
Installation to Meet
High Wind Requirments
Fair
Crack Break
Poor
Breaks from Freeze/Thaw
and Weight of Ice /Snow
Poor
Fair
No Appearance Warranty
Fair
Good
Resin Composites
(PlasticlRubber)
Fair
6 lbs. /sq. ft
Poor
Marjority are
Class "C" Rated
Poor
Most Manufacturers Don't
Offer Wind Warranties
Good
Fair
Breaks from Freeze/Thaw
and Weight of Ice /Snow
Good
Fair
No Warranty for Color
Fade
Fair
Fair
Asphalt
Fair
3-4 lbs. /sq. ft
Fair
Poor
Most Wind Warranties
Are Valid for 5 Years
Poor
Poor
Ice Removes the
Protective Granules
Good
Fair
Pro -Rated Warranty
Poor
Fair
Wood Shake
Fair
3 -5 lbs. /sq. ft
Poor
Wood Burns
Poor
No Wind Warranty
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
No Warranty
Fair
Fair
Ratings based on comparison with Gerard as determined from manufacturer's specification, independent testing laboratories and published industry studies and statistics.
**Requires additional nails, clips, and/or details in high wind areas.
itl
AEi =owInc
System
)W S
O eSCape i!1, E
au tlx f :3
4, t
1
Devonshire Midnight Blue
Country Blend
Desert Sand
Standard Gerard Colors
Chestnut
Driftwood
Spanish Red Barcelona
Windsor Timberwood
Barclay
Terracotta
English Suede
Sunset Gold
Cyprus
Note: Printed swatches have a slight color variance than the actual panel color. Expect an 8 to 10 week lead time and an up- charge for Energy Star colors
Charcoal
Any Color on An
Midnight Steel
444
Dover
Profile
e' 11
Aspen
us ^..",/oux"/xmx"`o.u,"x".o.`/..//,m/ �,rmrm''m,.'�m.u/u*,"
.m/
w./om'^`'o ~.�'"�/.`,px,uom`ux",mo".o.m.xu",00,"`,^/"n�,./"~�
^nw xu"., m "|m0-vux,/..i,^x./ In' un.*"o m^//../"u,"/u
/x"m- me.m,/ '11-,
/m"o"/va'^m/,m"'x/`.m.//xu":"nv"r
`xvn.^/'^"."/c.`ux/
c°m."^°"
c1.1
11/2009 printing
Gerard Roofing
955 Columbia Street
Brea, CA 92821-2923
(774)529-0407or(800)23'ROOFS
gcmrdusazono
ETRLS US
Material Breakdown
Pure Acrylic Overglaze
Stone Chip
Acrylic Resin Basecost
Acrylic Film
Zinc-Aluminum, Coating
Base Steel
Zinc-Aluminum, Coating
Acrylic Film
19" c--cos r OF L
r.( 5 NA ic
GertAtzt; MA1406 ANy _5yEa.
C105_Ifvt F 150fr
A( PH
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR CEDAR SHAKES
CLASS "A"
oc) I) Shake Application
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLYING CEDAR PLUS CEDAR
SHAKES AS A CLASS "A" ROOF COVERING SYSTEM
Cedar Plus Class "B" labeled cedar shakes must be applied over one layer
of 1/4 thick Dens -Deck Roof Board manufactured by Georgia Pacific
Corporation or with one layer of 72 -pound mineral surfaced cap sheet.
Fastener length must be increased for the thickness for the Dens Deck
board or the cap sheet. Dens -Deck boards are fastened to spaced or solid
sheathing using a minimum of four fasteners to avoid panel shifting prior to
the installation of the shakes. If installed on spaced sheathing the horizontal
joints of the Dens -Deck must meet on the solid nailing surface. The mineral
surfaced cap sheet is installed mineral surface side up with 2" (51 mm) overlaps on sides and ends, and attached
with sufficient number of fasteners to hold the sheet in place prior to installation of the shakes. If installed on spaced
sheathing the horizontal overlap must meet on the solid nailing surface. (See figure A).
Roof Pitch and Exposure
Hand -split shakes should be used on roofs where the slope or pitch is sufficient to insure good drainage. Minimum
recommended pitch is 1 /6th or 4 -in -12 (4" vertical rise for each 12" horizontal run). Maximum recommended weather
exposure is 10" for 24" shakes.
FIG. A
Roof Application
Along the eave line, a 36" wide strip of Type 30 roofing felt is laid over the sheathing. The beginning or starter course
at the eave line should be doubled. After each course of shakes is applied, an 18" wide strip of Type 30 roofing felt is
laid over the top portion of the shakes extending onto the sheathing, with the bottom edge of the felt positioned at a
distance above the butt equal to twice the weather exposure.
Fasteners
Hot dipped zinc coated nails or stainless steel staples are recommended. However, any U.B.C. approved corrosion
resistant fasteners can be used, Use two for each shake placing them approximately 1" from each edge, and high enough
to be covered an inch or two by the succeeding course. Fasteners should be long enough to penetrate at least 3/4" or
through the sheathing. The butts of the shakes should project from 1 -1/2" to 2" from the first roof board so that the
rainwater will spill into the gutter or to the ground without working down the side of the building. Individual shakes
should be spaced about 1/4" to 3/4" apart to allow for possible expansion. These joints or spaces between shakes should
be broken or offset at least 1 -1/2" in adjacent courses and should be kept out of direct alignment in alternate courses.
WARNING: Both raw and fire retardant treated cedar products contain a level of tannic acid that metals and concrete
surfaces. Pre painted galvanized or pre painted aluminum gutters are recommended. Initial water run -off over both raw
and fire retardant cedar can cause staining. A low pressure wash of the roof immediately after application recommended.
Chemco is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages caused by water run -off.
4.4
Fatenerc
Shall be corrosion resistant such as hot dipped galvanized or stainless steel. Fasteners must penetrate into tile sheathing
3/4" or through the sheathing, whichever is less. Each shake is fastened with two fasteners positioned approximately
3/4" from each edge and approximately 1 -1/2" above the exposure line.
SlarTer course
Shall be one or two layers of shingles or shakes extending beyond the fascia board approximately 1 -1/2
Apply shakes approximately 3/8" apart. The joints between shakes should be offset a minimum 1 -1/2" between adjacent
courses.
Use two fasteners per shake approximately
V l 1/4" from edge and 1-1/2" above butt line
/1CIPlC. 4LLOW5 (iV M-11
Space shakes
approximately
1/2" apart
Exposure
Offset adjustment
courses a minimum Gutter
1 -1/2"
Roof felt laid over top edge of edge of each course
Fasica board Starter course
Header
_WOO() Shake Application
Rafter
Eave protection
Sheathing
Solid wood sheathing
4.3
Decking for cedar shakes may be spaced or solid sheathing. Spaced sheathing shall be 1" by 6" or minimum 1" by 4"
nominal dimensions and shall be spaced on centers equal to the weather exposure of the applied shakes. The voids
between sheathing should not exceed 5 Solid sheathing shall be minimum 1/2" thick. Solid sheathing may be required
in areas with severe wind, wind driven snow, or seismic regions.
Roof pitch
Shall be a minimum 4:12 (1 -in -3) slope. Refer to low slope application requirements if roof pitches are lower.
Underlayments
Are not required in temperate climates. In areas subject to wind driven snow or ice buildup a layer of Type 30 felt shall
be laid up the roof from the eave line to a point 36 inches inside the interior of the building.
Interlayment shall be 18" wide Type 30 roofing felt laid at twice the weather exposure from the shake butts. For
example, a 24" shake laid at 10" exposure shall have the bottom edge of tile felt placed 20" above the butt.
1 -1/2"
drip line
\1 a r rr'1l ='PZ 15
1 3 j 1FGT sf1 S 13
S 1—r- t? i'
i l �r
Q J S
O SJ c0
Ok e
\e r-
Solid sheathing
12" to 24" from
inside wall line
Exposure
Ridge Cap
Eave Protection
Wo
n Shake Application
Rafter
Eave Protection
36" felt
Shakes Roofing
Felt
Spaced
Sheathing
Felt fastened
to sheathing
4.2
Product weight is a primary concern when selecting a roofing material, especially when reroofing. A roofing material that is
replaced with one that is heavier can create a significant hazard. Cedar shakes and shingles are preferred reroofing materials
since they are among the lightest and most durable.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
This heavy cement tile roof collapsed during an earthquake, yet neighboring
cedar roofed homes were virtually unharmed.
Metal Cedar Asphalt
Shingle
c
L
Materials over 600 Ibs may require
an engineering review of the building 2
Fiber- Cement
Cement Tiles
.p o Weight
Slate
9.7
1 5 1 /7l 5
r 14 F6 (A'
511MoulerLifetilee
Changing the way people think about roofs.
Camouflage
90° Rake
3 -Sided Ridge
3 -Sided Hip Starter
Apex 3 -Way
Apex 4 -Way
Split Shake Camouf
2SECB3963
2R9CB3963
2R3CB3963
1FHCB3963
13ACB3963
14ACB3963
Smokey
90° Rake
3 -Sided Ridge
3 -Sided Hip Starter
Apex 3 -Way
Apex 4 -Way
2SECB3958
2R9CB3958
2R3CB3958
1FHCB3958
13ACB3958
14ACB3958
Viz\ pp. v 'tai:- v.e iA'1u:.•"'`t__ °a..z: ..�`r
�qr
It
ir
Ills 7"1 I F ()G1.
YTh M.(. C` ^I /11 I r..._ a
Wool)
Reroof wi h ilY1..000.Uf0t.110i
All lightweight tiles are less than 600 lbs. per square
Structural enhancements rarely needed 7
4,500 lbs. less than average 30 sq. mid- weight roof
Our "true" lightweight flat tiles are 125 lbs. lighter per square than our nearest competitor.
Apart from sheeting, reroofing with Cedarlite and Duralite rarely requires structural reinforcement
and, in most municipalities, no engineering report is required to obtain a permit.
Reroof Redefined.
MonierLifetile is the first and only manufacturer to create a sub -600 flat tile. Other manufacturers claim to make "lightweight" tiles,
but they've usually modified a standard weight tile, with the actual weight varying from 6.9 -8.9 pounds per square foot. We call
them "mid weight" tiles. MonierLifetile's Duralite and Cedarlite tiles are truly lightweight, designed from the outset to be sub 600
while still passing our stringent requirements for strength and weather resistance. To ensure you're getting the benefits of
lightweight tile, MonierLifetile is the only choice for your project.
Lightweight tiles are tiles that weigh less than six pounds per square foot. Why does the weight of a roof tile matter so much? For
a typical 30- square reroofing job, a mid weight roof tile, at over seven pounds per square foot, can add up to 4,500 pounds to the
weight of a roof.
IN l-)f rL 15 17-1E STF,L a aoF Gc2r41 p lrLr c7 f �t /SR se
Estimated roof weights on average 30 square home
Threshold of concern Over 20K (Ibs.)
3 -5: Ibs
300 -500 ibs
..udi-fYWEI
under 6,Ib's�
under 60b Ibs
1
Concrete ,Tiles:
When that much weight is added to your home, its structural integrity should be reviewed.This means your roof may require an
engineering report and, depending on the results, you may need to have your home structurally enhanced. All of this adds extra cost
and time to the job.
This is especially important in areas with steeply pitched roofs, since they put more weight on the walls of the home. Because all of
our lightweight tiles fall below the 600 pound threshold, municipalities may not require engineering reports or structural
enhancements, which could potentially save you thousands of dollars.
2:
Attachment No. 6
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 6
Subject Property 411 Oxford Drive
Subject Property 411 Oxford Drive
Existing Wood Shake Roof
Attachment No. 7
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 7
Metal Roof 541 Monte Vista Road (Appeal last year)
Metal Roof 951 Volante Drive
Metal Roof 470 Cambridge Road
Metal Roof 412 Cambridge Road
Metal Roof 450 Cambridge Road
Metal Roof 428 Cambridge Road
Attachment No. 8
HOA 09 -02
411 Oxford Drive
Attachment No. 8
1 210
R AMP
1 I
6 °411 1V4Ipl
N..\\■.;
MOM sm.
COLORADO
1 210
COLORADO S
Water Meter Location
Bridges
Fire Hydrants
Water Valve
Street Centerlines
Buffer
1 parcels
condo
parcel
Features
City Boundary
N
200
0
http://arcadiagis/maps/water.mwf
i co' a,iLs H&r
0.46Y
SCALE 1 2,937
200
FEET
400
600
N
boo' gadtu4 Mae
4-11 Ox eed n
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:30 PM
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, December
8, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive
with Vice Chairman Hsu presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek, and Hsu
ABSENT: Chairman Pamlle
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Baerg to excuse
Chairman Parrille from the meeting. Without objection, the motion was passed.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian and seconded by Commissioner Baerg to read the
Resolution by title only and waive reading the full body of the Resolution. Without objection
the motion was approved.
OTHERS ATTENDING
None
MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
Deputy Development Services Director /City Engineer, Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator, Jim Kasama
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores
Associate Planner, Tom Li
Senior Administrative Assistant, Billie Tone
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS Five minute time limit
per person
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09 -14
1313 S. Baldwin Ave.
Paul Supancheck
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the following changes to the
existing leaming center for children that was approved under Conditional Use Permit No.
CUP 04-11 (d.b.a. Kids Island):
a. Business hours are currently from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every day. The applicant is
proposing extending the business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., every day; and
b. Allow private parties for children (max. 30 people and 3 staff members) during times
when open play and classes are not in session.
RESOLUTION NO. 1809
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, Califomia, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09 -14 to extend the existing business hours and to allow
private parties for children at the existing children learning center at 1313 S. Baldwin
Avenue (d.b.a. Kids Island).
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Paul Supancheck, the applicant, said that Kid's Island is a family oriented business and
an asset to the community and he asked the Commissioners to approve his application.
Commissioner Beranek asked Mr. Supancheck if he would comply with the conditions of
approval in the staff report. Mr. Supancheck said that he understood all the conditions and
would comply with them.
Commissioner Baderian noted that the staff report states that private parties will not exceed
33 attendees, which includes three staff members and he asked what would be the ratio of
children to adults. Mr. Supancheck said the ratio is usually one to one with no more than 15
children.
Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the
public hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
Commissioner Baderian asked if parking deficiencies would occur when the private parties
were held. Ms. Flores said that the parking study indicates no expectation of deficiencies.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-14 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and
adopt Resolution No. 1809.
PC MINUTES
12 -8 -09
Page 2
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Parrille
There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. Appeals are
to be filed by 5 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.
2. ZONE VARIANCE NO. ZV 09 -01, MODIFICATION NO. MC 09 -36 AND SINGLE FAMILY
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 09-43
231 W. Wistaria Ave.
J. Don Crenshaw (Architect)
The applicant is requesting approval of the following requests to rebuild an existing 2,523
square -foot, one -story, single family residence and add 1,198 square feet for a total living
area of 3,721 square feet:
A. A Zone Variance to allow a three -car garage (24 linear feet of garage opening) to face
the street on a 99.98 -foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum 100 -foot lot width required for a
three -car garage to face the street; and,
B. Modifications to permit the following setback encroachments:
1. A front yard setback of 34' -0" in lieu of 35' -0" required (the average front yard setback
of the two adjacent properties is 31' -8
2. An easterly side yard setback of 7' -0" in lieu of 10' -0" required to allow the addition to
align with the existing house,
3. A westerly side yard setback of 7' -O" in lieu of 10' -0" required to allow the addition to
align with the existing house, and
4. A westerly side yard setback of 8' -0" in lieu of 10' -0" required for two (2) air
conditioning units.
C. Single- Family Architectural Design Review
Associate Planner, Tom Li presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Glen Johnson, the property owner thanked Mr. Li and the Commissioners for their
review of his request. He also said that he feels the improvements proposed will bring the
property in line with the standards of the community.
Commissioner Baderian asked Mr. Johnson if he had read the conditions of approval in the
staff report and if he would comply with them. Mr. Johnson answered affirmatively.
PC MINUTES
12 -8-09
Page 3
Vice Chairman Hsu asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the
public hearing. Without objection the motion was approved.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Baderian,.to approve
Zone Variance No. ZV 09 -01, Modification No. MC 09 -36 and Single Family Architectural
Review No. SFADR 09-43 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and direct Staff
to prepare the appropriate Resolution for adoption at the next Commission meeting..
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Beranek and Hsu
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Pamile
A Resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission will be presented for adoption
at the next Commission meeting. There will be a five working day appeal period after the
adoption of the Resolution.
CONSENT ITEMS
3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2009
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, to
approve the minutes of November 24, 2009 as presented. Without objection the motion
was approved.
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
None
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS
Senior Planner, Lisa Flores said an application for rear and side yard setbacks was
approved by the Modification Committee that morning. She explained that normally this
type of application would be handled administratively. However, the applicant was not
able to obtain the signature of one of the neighbors from an adjoining lot. Consequently, it
was necessary for the Modification Committee to review the application.
PC MINUTES
12 -8-09
Page 4
MATTERS FROM STAFF
Mr. Kasama said that since there were no items for the December 22 Planning
Commission meeting, the meeting is cancelled. However, the Modification Committee
meeting will proceed as scheduled on December 22.
ADJOURNED to 1 -12 -10
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Chairman, Planning Commission
7:25 pm
PC MINUTES
12 -8-09
Page 5