Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1121 '" '. .-., F . RESOLUTION NO. ll2l A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE'S DENIAL OF MODIFICATION M-79-l39 TO ALLOW A TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT REAR YARD SET- BACK IN LIEU OF A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIRED FOR A PROPOSED SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE ~ffiIN DWELLING AT l670 ELEVADO AVENUE \~EREAS, on October 30, 1979, an appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of Modification M-79-l39 was filed by Jerry and Ann Durgerian to allow a twenty-eight foot rear yard setback in lieu of a thirty-five foot rear yard setback required for a proposed second-story addition to the main dwelling at l670 Elevado Avenue, . more particularly described as follows: Lot 9 of Tract No. l6920 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 386, Page 1 through 3 inclusive of Maps in the office of said County Recorder WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on November 13, 1979, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. . That the factual data submitted by the Planning Department in the attached report is true and correct. Section 2. That we hereby make the following findings of fact: . -l- 112l . l. That the proposed second-story addition would be detrimental to the public health and welfare, and injurious to the property or improvements in its zone or vicinity. 2. That the proposed second-story addition would not secure an appropriate improvement of the property. 3. That the proposed second-story addition would not promote uniformity of development in its zone or vicinity. Section 3. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, we hereby deny the appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of Modification M-79-139. Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at ~ a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia held on November 27, 1979, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Fee, Hedlund, Hegg, Kuyper, Soldate, Sargis NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Brink ~ Chairman ATTEST: . ~rf j)j,(JAMJ'Mljdd-~ Secretary -2- 112l 1.,_ - _..' . NOVEMBER 13, 1979 TO FROM: CASE NO: PREPARED BY: CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT MODIFICATION M-79-l39 WILFRED E. WONG ASSISTANT PLANNER GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: JERRY & ANN DURGERIAN LOCATION: REQUEST: . EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: 1670 ELEVADO AVENUE AN APPEAL OF THE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE'S DENIAL (3-0 vote) TO ALLOW A 28 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK FOR A PROPOSED SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO THE MAIN DWELLING IN LIEU OF A 35 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED (9252.2.81) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING; ZONED R-lD APPROXIMATELY 10,300 SQUARE FEET (.24 ACRES) 85 FEET ALONG ELEVADO AVENUE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT SITE ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS; ZONED R-ID SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0-4 dufac) ANALYSIS The subject property is at a higher elevation than the properties to the rear (along Alta Oaks Drive). The applicants sought to retain the existing patio area by constructing the proposed two bedroom and bath addition over the patio. The construction of the addition as proposed would minimize disruption to the existing dwelling. The applicants submitted several photographs to show how the exist- ing trees would reduce visibility towards the adjoining properties. . . . . M-79-l39 The applicants also indicated a willingness to relocate windows, provide additional landscaping, and use frosted windows. The Homeowners' Association had reviewed and approved the proposed addition. Two letters from adjoining rear property owners (1709 and 1685 Alta Oaks Drive) in opposition to the proposed addition were re- ceived by the Planning Department. Residents of two other adjoin- ing rear properties were in attendance and testified in opposition (1691 and 1701 Alta Oaks Drive). The principal objection was their loss of privacy. The Modification Committee noted that if the setback was 35 feet from the rear property line (as required by Code) there would still be the loss of privacy. The Modification Committee felt that the de- letion or relocation of the patio would allow for a single-story addition, in compliance with Code, and would provide for a more appropriate development. Also, other alternatives which would be in compliance with Code should be pursued. An appeal of the Committee's denial was filed by the applicants. A copy of the applicants' letter of appeal and letters in opposition received for the Modification Hearing are attached. FINDINGS To approve this modification application, the Planning Commission must find that the request would secure an appropriate improvement, or prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote uniformity of devel- opment. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~~~ Assistant Planner WEW/vb Attachments ..,~ . . l670 Elevado Ave. Arcadia, Ca. 91006 October 30, 1979 REC~.'ciZD Planning Commission Arcadia City Hall 240 W. Huntington Dr. . Arcadia, Ca. 91006 .' .j CITY c,,- ....r: '\'--'1;:., P'....^NN1NG L",:T Dear Commissioners I We would like to appeal the ruling of the Modification Committee on Application No. M-79-139. The public hearing date was Tuesday, October 23, 1979 at 2100 p.m. . Attached is a summarized version of our case to be presented at a later date. . Sin7erelY, C r, ~/2~~. -. r'it /cf0;;,6 /)~~ Mrs. Je ry rgerla . . t.- ~;: ; ,! jdlad . . . . . 1670 Elevado M-7~139 Approximately twelve years ago we began iooking for a home in Arcadia. We searched for almost two years before we found a home in a location that filled the majority of our expectations. It featured beautifully maintained landscaping and a large enclosed patio. The back yard was not large, but adequate for two toddler boys. The only major shortcoming was it relatively small in square footage and only had two bedrooms. Over the past three years we have contemplated various possibilities for adding on to the existing structure. Aft:r.many trips to several architects and several major concept reV~Slons, we decided that the present plan achieved most of the desired. results. It would add two bedrooms and a bath over a land space already being utilized by our existing patio. It would provide the roof and vertical supports to attach a window and screen combination to enclose the patio again. We now use the patio to eat dinner in the warmer months. With the sliding windows and infrared heater, we could also utilize the area in the cooler months. The major advantage is that the structure is a completely self-contained unit, which does not require any destruction of walls which were just paneled, wallpapered and painted. In effect it would eliminate the general turmoil of house additions. The attached plot plan shows the proposed windows are located to insure maximum privacy for lots directly adjacent to our back yard. The smallest window, which faces the Curry's home, has a 90% view of a huge oak tree and a lO% view of their living room windows which are set back at least 40 to 50 feet. At the Modification Comnittee Meeting, several alternatives were given to insure the Curry's privacy. First, a row of trees of adequate size to obscure any view of his house with a written guarantee that they be maintained. Second, the raising of that window to six feef, in order to eliminate the view but provide ventilation only. Third, the complete elimination of that window. A fourth alternative was suggested at the meeting of frosted glass, to which we readily agreed. Since our addition will be bedrooms, we are also concerned about privacy. Actually, all that would be necessary for their privacy would be 'draperies. If we were inclined to peep, we could do that now and be thirty feet closer by the fence. Mr. George Watts reminded the objectors that if we merely moved back a few feet that we could build anyway but would not be required to perform any of the alternatives. None of the proposed alternatives were acceptable to the Curry's. This leads to the obvious conclusion that they ~re not as !nterested in privacy as they were in personal vindictiveness for events which occurred almost nine years ago, when we reprimanded actions by their children. RECEi';/ZO n(~-'- n.1 1070 '-.,) t U.I. I......, ,.: CITY OF ARC",OIA PLANNING DEPT. . . . 1670 Elevado Page 2 Mr. Rauperstrauch had already signed the original petition, but bowed to pressure from his wife. He removed his name while my wife was presenting the plans to Mr. and Mrs. Vollmer, his neighbors to the north. The Vollmers signed the petition gladly, but when later approached by their neighbors of over 26 years, reluctantly concured with them although they saw no reason for their objections. As for the neighbors just south of the Curry's, we have not spoken to them. However, the Curry's told them that we could look into their pool area. That is false since not only our tree, but two others would have to be removed before we could look into their yard. Although, I feel the majority of the Modification Committee would have approved the plans, they felt that since Curry claimed four neighbors objected that they would not try to overrule their objections. I am sure that all the rest of our neighbors do not object and will bring letters from them confirming my convictions. We can build our addition by relocating it several more feet further away from the fence, or postpone our addition until that regulation is changed within the next year. Therefore, it seems reasonable to approve the plans as presented to avoid much higher building cos~later. Realizing the work load of the Planning Commission, I would suggest a single representative come to our home to confirm to the accuracy of our statements. That representative could then report his findings to the entire board. Thank you for your consideration. RECii:i-....i:::D l!CT 31 i979 CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING DEPT. . ALVIN 6, 'vOLLMeF/ 1709 N<o'A.l.TA OA.KS OFt. ARCAOfA.. C~l'FOJtNJA 0c). ')..~/lq?.q . "'-'- ~" ~ '\4.tt, .",c..:. c.. I ,,-' · '-u, ~ ~ K......""'-. 1- "'-N-t,~">..". n..-+-~, \;~ ~~II ~~IS, \J'~ ~ ct, ~e~ R E C ~ 1:,' i! 0 . ~. :.;:- '~1~ ''', ':i CITY OF Af?C:'''''A PLANNING DCp7', ----~----- . . . RECEI\/ED .-j (\ -, >).J 1 r' ~9 <.... v "" tJ iJ; October 22, 1979 CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING DEPT. Wilfred Wcng Flanning Department Apflication No: M-79-1,9 AHlicant: Jerry and Ann ~rgerian Addres s : 1670 Elevado Avenue The new addition will invade ocr privacy. We have a pool and don't like the idea of nei~hbors being able to see frcm an elevated and UDrestrioted viewpoint. We enjoy our privecy and wo~ld feel the ~r08chment of unrestricted visicn onto our premises. If the secend story is restricted to street vision only (westerly) there would be no objection on our part. Thank you for ycur consicereticn. Gary L. Thotls e ~L~4~~J - tieueen A. Thcmas 1685 Ai ta Oake Arcadia, Ca lif. . ,,~ , 19 ~ Of) ~ <Q ('0 ,. ~ 0 " " "'4'27' , ~~ ." 0 -:( 18 '7 . 0 '" \'\ ~ 7J ~... <I) '4 .,. Q 0 ./s <0 MADRE: ~ ~<'> 0 0' . 0 .' Q) , ~ ".'C , ..... el..VQ9 i ~ ~. Q- ~\ ' J';'43 I 0 .1'27 ... ~ .,~ <> ~ ,,~ '" 1<0 ^ '.:. Cl '~9 g:8 150 ?5 ~"l o 1.1.11~ 0 0 ~ /'-0- "'0 \j ~~ <Or- ,,~ 0 ~ .,.~ - ,.~ " ... ..... ;';JO? of) J309- :Q' <3 ~ t:' 147.0G 0 :::. Of) "R./DO Oi e, 0 It 0 O<r. ~ Ij'" r-- t- 'Ii ~ j. 0 15550 ..::. , \9 ~ ,'.3170 '-1, .:33 ~ -.S n, "" 0 . 0 W .-.. 0 >J> 0 " ''IN " ~\/'J -1 ~ ..J D If' ~ ..J ~f'- -:::: '. 'J' ~ W }~O,5~ ~ i'2S...lQ ..... /339.1 ..)93S ~ ~ ~ ~-IO .J> 0 i?1 ~ 0> 0 ~ ~~ 0 '" $ $:> 0 '.' . ..j ..jV' ~f(: t> 'J' <l) c: ~ :5>3c.) 11q .JA 1303S i3? 5'2 ~ tt C\ 0 (}>~ 0 ~u') 0 0 ~..J (J <> .. "\I' ~ t- ~ Jl ~ .., 'J' ,t; ~ - '38 3~ I..flSO 15'5.QQ 110\7 '- '" ~ " ..l ..J ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 "'<J' '" ~~ 0>0> t 0>' ..,U' 0 Jl I> <J' "- 140.S9 ~' ,550e \,'24.' ~ .., v. ~'" '" .,.,- 0 ..J b i) -;~ .~ '" '" ..l 0 . '" 0 ... '.1' \1'" <J' ~6]. Jl .D ..." \1''':> \,:1>.33 ,3Q 0.1 ",," -.l~ ,....- "" '" . M1913~ LAND U5E ~ ZONING r=lod ^ SCALE ~ NORTH , l. " "~ . =-:-~~ - r-~- I n " !~, , , ~ i ,JO':,O ~ ' S m 11' ~ ~ ( 1~ 10' (1l h '\-" > I ;.1 " . o. I I L--- , - , ~I I o '~ . 8 t _E-'- /~O ''''-0 ~ '" ~ z ~ o ~--I , ~; G ( ., I~ ~ '- ,'...,----. "''')~ ---- ..-:-.. '" ',~~,~~' , I I I "'--- '~',",' . , ~ 1: ..,.0 1~ .f . \ ~ ' , ~ i ~ .!?_~. 'Z't' 0 t! Ji -4 I i,f, '----, -1 @ + t \ ~ z " --.-------.. -'..... r..............r[&....) '" " > (!) ~ Iff> . ~~" \ """~.,...,E;O'~.~.." ~ ~A:::r-.:..... -- ---- I 'l~ 1.41"~ ~J n,'b'" .~ fl ....Q) ,. ~ j <D . \ " , ~ ,\ \ " I ..\, z: . , &'i'>4/Gi' J 1;'6IA. . ~ tel-- -@l .,. ----- . ~~.- p(lOP~ll' , LII,'r! , , , .0' , " ", . " t< '" "' i' .. ~ .' .- T"I ~ "1 ~':":;;k.: ' ~I loj .r ,',. I, -.., J"! . t ~: I :1 1"- ,', , " I~ ;1. ~. "n 'I . ',,- . ,,-- ,~ '-': , rl 1 -[j!..,.'"'j , ..' <: '1 rJ~ l , T ' ijG--{]- ,: I,_j I I 1- . ',f T -. (\ Ii Ii , I II ~ ./ - ~ _ .:CC-"'" _Ale r tj '~: c Q' " . ~I ~ ":"'.rV'-'; <-" lllr'lt " ~='.,- '1 ~ " "I , . , . . ~ ,~ r ~ --1f=:.I__-~:.:.~.-~ J."";,,, .~i..Z!'1~'_;" , " "1:'c..:;.--~/-= .. " .-~;... ~ r:.. " ~ _~J , "ll' " '~' . ';J;":" ;:-;:;-F\ 1-.........., _I 11 " . ,~~J~.... ~ll~,?'crl,.L ~~ '- '~~ ~ -"~ <- -- ~ i'iJII i'.l F;, \~t\! ':. ~ ~ <=;-:;-111,,' ",~..r,I"~"11 ' ,- , -. i. Ii ",eel.. ~. 11c, 'I', .. .. ~.A~ ~t-~ /- r "~^.Aji'lo::- ~ " i._ ~ .' ~-.> ~ '"" ~ -, '" 1.,-," ';' t ::::i. - :=.:.::::.c ~, _ :;;...::-c ~ A- -- -,:0-' J ,- 'J. "l-t::" '-" . . i-~ ! , :1 ~. _ ~ L, , J "- "..,..-,> I -1 i . //-,.-:- .--- - " .' - - <,~:> ..-.:::~-~ ' / -.......--:...~. ~-......~ '- /;. -<..:.'<./'/ -....~ -~~;:-- -~ - -\ 1 I : -" .'- u j! , /' ,.or- . ._,~~~,~ .'~J I ,\-1 ".'~'-~ , ';J of ~-,.._,-, ...,."'''''',./....\ '-,.rf" II ,I f ,I "<~ , II i- II I' \1 i i! I: I, -~ ',~ 1 ~ .J' ".'t. ;\ ;, ,c ~ ~,,_:.,,: -,~' ~ <::..:< t-'- .' , fIT -I' !~ 1. _)1 .~L1 "'.~ ~~ __" _"'-----L....--- --.,:. -........ __\_u_..l , _' _n_ '.' . "_f~~' i ~El_F-~V~\<2!;i.. L '.j .,..J' ."'_ ..........00:::-".,,'