Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Family Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues proposed two‑story home at 516 East Angelino after finding design and calculation deficiencies
Summary
The Design Review Commission on May 27 continued consideration of a proposed two‑story single‑family home and ADU at 516 East Angelino Avenue after staff and the city architect identified floor‑area, paving and massing problems and found submitted drawings inconsistent.
The San Gabriel Design Review Commission continued consideration of a proposed two‑story single‑family residence with an attached garage and an accessory dwelling unit at 516 East Angelino Avenue (planning case SPR20‑059) on May 27 after staff and the city architect raised substantive plan and calculation issues.
Staff said the 6,750 square‑foot lot currently contains a one‑story residence; the proposed new home would measure 1,679 square feet (802 ground floor, 877 second floor) and the application included conversion of an existing portion of the property into an ADU. Staff found the overall site submittal out of compliance with development regulations, citing floor‑area ratio (FAR) errors, excessive front‑yard paving, inconsistencies between plans and elevations, and missing or incorrect calculations. City architect Ron concluded the proposal’s frontal two‑story plane, a tall stair tower and the forward‑loaded garage are incompatible with the prevailing modest one‑story neighborhood context and with the city’s single‑family residential design guidelines.
The applicant and property owner, Vu Nguyen, said the project has been in review since 2020 and expressed frustration at repeated review cycles and delays. The applicant’s team provided a revised rendering the day of the meeting; staff and the commission said the late submittal could not be fully analyzed and called for a complete, consistent resubmittal. The city architect pointed to an ADU footprint and floor plans that, when measured from the submitted sheets, indicate roughly 990 square feet for the ADU (exceeding the 800‑square‑foot ADU exemption used in staff calculations) and told the applicant to confirm final area calculations.
Commissioners also asked the applicant to address several design and technical items before the application returns: reduce the scale of the stair tower and consider lower ceiling heights to reduce overall wall height; provide accurate, current renderings that show adjacent houses (context) and the final landscape plan; confirm parking and driveway geometry and turning movements for vehicles; and adjust paving and landscaping to meet code requirements for front‑yard open space and water‑wise planting. The city architect recommended showing accurate dimensioned plans that match the final proposed construction and requested corrected floor‑area calculations and explicit documentation that the ADU adheres to size limits.
Commissioner Chang moved to continue the application to a date uncertain, urging the applicant and design team to work closely with the city architect, landscape architect and planning staff to submit a complete, consistent package that addresses the listed deficiencies. The motion passed on roll call with the present commissioners voting yes.
