The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFindings and Actions(HOA NAME) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- Date: 2/12/2025 File No. Project Address: 30 Hacienda Dr Association Name: Santa Anita Oaks HOA Applicant Name: Eric Tsang Property Owner(s) Name: Hongbin Xing Project Description: New 5,864 sq ft, 2-Story, modern style single family residence, 691 sq ft garage, and 543 sq ft patio, and a 1552 sq ft basement. The proposed Improvements will require the removal of one protected tree (Sycamore). FINDINGS Only check those that are apply and provide a written explanation for each The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Site Planning Principles and Neighborhood Context Guidelines. Explanation: 2nd floor windows are proposed with high sills (5’) to protect neighbor’s privacy. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Forms and Mass Guidelines. Explanation: The project stays significantly below the maximum allowed height. It also uses mass at the base appropriately and utilizes sufficient second floor setbacks. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Frontage Conditions Guidelines. Explanation: Two additional oak trees to be added to the front yard setback The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Garages and Driveways Guidelines. Explanation: Driveways is no wider than necessary to provide for safe access (12’). The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Architectural Styles Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to create a more traditional design (versus the more edgy and modern design that the neighbors had concerns with) the project will meet this finding. (HOA NAME) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Height, Bulk, and Scale Guidelines. Explanation: The project stays significantly below the maximum allowed height. It also uses mass at the base appropriately and utilizes sufficient second floor setbacks. The proposed design is asymmetrical. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Roofline Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to create a more traditional roofline the project will meet this finding. Roof pitches are consistent. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Entries Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to create a more traditional entry the project will meet this finding. Entry roof slope matches adjacent roofs. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Windows and Doors Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to use more traditional window aspect ratios the project will meet this finding. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Articulation Guidelines. Explanation: The project is adequately articulated and utilizes sufficient second floor setbacks. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Facade Details Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to use more traditional façade materials the project will meet this finding. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Colors and Materials Guidelines. Explanation: By addressing the specific design changes in the conditions below to use more traditional materials the project will meet this finding. (HOA NAME) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Accessory Lighting Guidelines. Explanation: The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Additions, Alterations, and Accessory Buildings/Structures Guidelines. Explanation: No accessory buildings are proposed. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Hillside Properties Guidelines. Explanation: No hillside conditions exist. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Fences, Walls, Gates, and Hedges Guidelines. Explanation: No fences are proposed. The proposed project X is,  is not consistent with the Impervious Coverage and Landscape Areas Guidelines. Explanation: The proposal balances between landscape and hardscape. ACTION Pursuant to City’s Development Code Section 9107.20.050, a Site Plan and Design Review in the Homeowners Association Areas may be approved only if it is found that the proposed development is consistent with the City’s adopted Design Guidelines.  APPROVED X CONDITIONALLY APPROVED  DENIED Date of ARB Meeting: 2/3/2025 ARB Members Rendering the Above Decision: Tom Walker (chair) Jessica Louie Loren Brodhead Matt Rimmer (HOA NAME) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- Krister Lile AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Conditions of Approval: 1. Change the asymmetric shed roof over the front entry to a symmetric gable 2. Widen specified front windows to create a more traditional look 3. Reduce the expanse of wood slats on the front, right part of the house by half with wood on top and stucco below 4. Add a gable on the front second story 5. Increase size of proposed new oaks in the front yard setback from 36” to 48” boxes Reason for Denial: There is a ten (10) day appeal period for this application. To file an appeal, a completed Appeal Application form must be submitted to the City’s Planning Division along with a $600.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on 2/13/2025. You will be notified if an appeal is filed. Approved designs shall expire in one year (2/4/2026) from the effective date unless plans are submitted to Building Services for plan-check, a building permit is issued and the construction is diligently pursued, a certificate of occupancy has been issued, or the approval is renewed. The final plans must be consistent with the approved design concept plans and any conditions of approval. Any inconsistency from the approved design concept plans may preclude the issuance of a building permit. An extension may be granted by the ARB or designee, or the Review Authority that approved the project for a maximum period of one (1) year from the initial expiration date. An extension can only be granted if the required findings can be made. Please note that acceptance of an extension request does not indicate approval of an extension. You may visit the City’s website at www.ArcadiaCA.gov/noticesanddecisions to view this document. If you have any questions regarding the above decision, please contact the ARB Chairperson at (saohoaarb@gmail.com). Thank you. (HOA NAME) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Findings and Action Report -5- c: City of Arcadia, Planning Division