The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1366 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1366 A RESOLUTION DENYING MP 88-010, OVERRULING AN APPEAL OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A 4,600 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND THREE CAR GARAGE AT 525 CAMPESINA ROAD. WHEREAS, on March 24, 1988 an application was filed by Mr. Ron Staebler appealing the Rancho Santa Anita's Architectual Review Board's approval of a 4,600 sq. ft., two-story residence and three car garage, Planning Department Case No. MP 88-010, on property commonly known as 525 Campesina Road, more particulary described as follows: Lot 19 of Tract 12900, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 262, Pages 47-48 inclusive of Maps, in the office of said County Recorder. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 26, 1988, 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. This Commission finds: 1. That the denying of MP 88-010 will not result in a detriment to the public health or welfare, or injury to the property or improvements in such zone or vici nity. 2. Denial of MP 88-010 would secure an appropriate improvement. 3. The appearance of the 4,600 sq. ft., two-story residence and three car garage will be compatible with the neighborhood. 4. That the granti ng of MP 88-010 will not adversely affect the cOOlprehens ive General Plan. 5. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. . Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita's Architectual Review Board's approval of a 4,600 sq. ft., two-story residence and three car garage, with the following conditions: 1. The living room shall have a maximum height of 12' so that it will comply with the recently adopted changes to the R-O zoning regulations. 2. That MP 88-010 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of April 26, 1988 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay, Szany NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of ~ Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of May, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany Chairman, Pl ni Ci ty of Arcadi a ion None ecretary, Panning City of Arcadi a . 1366 -2- . . . April 26, 1966 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner CASE NO.: MP 66-010 APPELLANT: Ronald Staebler, et al. APPLICANT: Vlng Shlng Wu 525 ClImpeslnll ROlld LOCATION: REQUEST : Appelll of the Rllncho Santa Anitll's Architectural Review BOllrd's approvlll Of Il 4,600 square foot, two-story residence and three car garage (9272.2.3 and 9272.2.4). 65' lC 170.10' = 14,456.50 sQuore feet (0.33 Ilcre) 65 feet 1l10ng Cllmpeslne Road. LOT AREA: FRONT AGE: EXISTING LAND USE &. ZONING: The property Is presently Improved with Il one-story, single fllmily residence with a detached garage end swimming pool. The zoning Is R-Q &.0 15,000. SURROUNDING LAND USE &. ZONING: The surrounding lots lire 1111 developed with single-family houses; the IIrea Is zoned R-Q &.0 15,000. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SF-4, Single-family residential (4 d.u.lacre). . . . BACKGROUND On March 15, 1966, a public hearing was held before the Rancho Santa Anita Resi- denrs Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) to consider plans submitted by Mr. Vlng Shing Wu. Mr. Wu is proposing a 4,600 square foot, 30 foot high two-story dwelling with a 630 square foot llttached three-car garage. Based upon the information receIved at the hearing and dIscussion among the ARB members, the Board made the findings set forth in ExhIbit 'A' and voted 4-0, with one member absent, to approve the proposed dwelltng. This proposed dwelltng complies with all code requIrements, IncludIng lot coverage, building height and setbacks. It was submitted to the ARB prior to April 5, 1966, and therefore, Is not subject to the new height and setback requIrements. However, with the exception of the northerly side setback at the living room, It does comply with the new requirements. SPECIAL INFORMATIQN Section 9272.2.3 of the ArcadIa MunIcipal Code establishes residential areas which are subject to the DesIgn Overlay Zone. City Council Resolution No. 5267 (attached) sets forth the desIgn review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Rallcho Santa Anita Resident's Associatton. Secttons 3.5 and 3.6 of Resolutton 5287 set forth the followIng conditions for e)Cterior buildIng materials and appearance: S. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of ony structure, IncludIng roofIng, wall or fence greeter then two (2) feet lIbove the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the S8me lot and with other structures In the nelghbor1l00d. 6. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, Including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with exlsttng structures, roofing, walls or fences In the nelghbortlood. t1P 88-01 0 4126/88 Pege Z . Section 3.15 of this resolution sets forth the following principles which shall guide the ARB or any body (Planning Commission, or City Council) heering en eppeel of the ARB's decision: G. Control of erchitecturel eppeerence end use of meteriels shell not be so exercised thet individuol initiotive is stifled in creoting the appeor- ance of external feotures of any perticuler structure, building, fence, well or roof, except to the extent necessery to estebllsh contemporery eccepted standerds of hermony end competibility eccepteble to the Boerd or the body heering en eppeel in order to evoid thet which Is excessive, gerish, and substentially unreleted to the neighbOrhood. (perteins to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Meterials & Exterior Building Appeerence). . b. Good archltecturel chanlcter is besed upon the principles of hllrmony end proportion In the elements of the structure es well liS the relationship of such principles to lIdjllcent structures end other structures in the neighborhood. (pertllins to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior BUilding MlIterillls & Exterior Building Appellrence). c. A poorly designed extemeleppeerence of e structure, well, fence, or roof, clln be detrimentel to the use lInd enjoyment ond volue of odjocent property end neighborhood. (pertelns to Conditions Nos. 5 & 6 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materiels & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between ad1acent front yanlS Increeses the value of properties end mikes the use of both properties more enJoy8ble. (pertelns to Condition No.2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front Yards). In epproving or denying the proposed dwell1ng, the reviewing bOdy is to estoblish rellsons and findings as to whether the materiels end eppellf'llnce ere in confor- mence with the ebove conditions end principles. . I1P88-D1D 4126/88 PIQIl 3 . PLANNING COMMISSIQN'S FINQ.J!ffi.S Aoorovlll If the Plennlng Commission decides to epprove this eppeel, the Commission should move to Ilpprove the llppeel end overturn the Architecturel Review BOllrd's approval of the proposed 4,600 square foot, two-story residence end three car garege, and stete the reesons why it would not be competlble besed upon the guidelines set forth In Resolution No. 5287, end direct steff to prepare en eppropriate resolution Incorporating the Commission's decision and supporting findings. Oenlel If the Planning Commission decides to deny this appeel, the Commission should move to deny the appeal end uphold the Architecturel Reylew Board's llpproyal of the proposed 4,600 squere foot, two-story residence and three car gerage, and state the reasons why it would be compatible based upon the guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 5287, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution Incor- . poratlng the Commission's decision and supporting findings. Attached for your reYlew llnd conslderetlon are copies of the proposed plans, a YIClnlty mep, the eppeal petition, the ARB Findings of March 15, 1988, and City Council Resolution No. 5287. . . ttP88-010 4/26/88 1'IIfIl4 . ROOF PI.M , , , " c ..., I.EIEL OlE & SITE PI.M . LEVEL TWO .,...;" . f -4 ~ ~ " ".~ . - , I .:-___.~___. _._~~__._...J..-~ .____'-U_ . l~ i I . ~ i f :IE < () -.. (1).-- ffi.' ~Lr: -'I - 0.. f':: ..,:~ ... .... .... ~ . ZO - ~ CLIol! ~-:; "'" oj -'- ;2~'~: w o ~ g II) w _ II: II ::> !- ~ ~~ r _' .... ~. "\ e. . SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION . EAST ELEVATION '" WEST B..EVAllON J ". . ,~. . <::0 FOOTH'Ll. A. T. 8 - = "" . . 70.08 "SOI . . I -~ . ;; . 0 Ira " .. < - . 0 ; a: 2 ~ " Q " ... - '" ,..; 3 . '" -II .. .. '" :! . 4903 B. 5~-86 LOT I 37Z,87 '.'/J 7SU " ., '" :.. ., - . 5 :;... .. ~ ~ "0 ~ ,. ~,. , . ~ .. , ~ 7 '" S '0 ,. (031) 17 /8 .. ~ 1S'.SlJ 'HI ", (IIJJ) ~'3o'Y , . ,,~! ~-, {lnI" " .... VO'-!4NTE DR , .,,.. , (".eI ". ,,,,,. <. . " 1 lei IT 4' .':1 M.'. of' JOf1f IIIIJJ, vu,M ,. 0" "Oti " .,,., 1'10NTE VERDE ..M) .......~ .. -..... .r "" :::. S. F, R. R, R./W. - - COLORADO '~r , H A C -r " . . 7 . . , . . , lUll) ''''~. ("t1rl ("OIl (lftJI ,-, -, .' .. T'" .. 'CATALPA , NO. ; , 1 , , ,.... (,nJI kin, , " , ~> 0.. '. ."...' . a: j .. !' . . .w. " "N '. " . ~ :~ ~ 0 0 ;; .. , a: " 0 ..' (_.;;;o;_~ =a ~ . fl ; ~ .. - . .. .,.,,' ~ ,... 0'1 .. ~ fA .. < ~ i z I ~ g ~ <II .. !oJ Go ~ ! ~ t ~ or ~..'1. "., lJ. ~ ~ 0 , . .. . ~ j. JT . .. .. .. I " ! . . . ~ ! . , ... . .. . <. 07 " " , f/_~ -, "4.~ I~.I'J P~. (., "." '\:' ''''''1 SITE VICINITY SCALE .1- 200' ~-... L....l PROJECT LOCATION ~ NORTH . Mr. William Woolard Planning Department City of Arcadia March 20, 1988 ~&.L... 3~'24~B8 RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1988 ern' D' MtCADA We wish to appeal the Archi tec tura1 Review Board' s app't-e~,1J'''DE~. to bulldoze the existing 1400 + square foot house on 525 Campesina Road and build a two story 4600 square foot house on the property. The undersigned feel the house is not compatible with the ranch type houses which are in the area. Even though the new structure complies with the new building heights and setback requirements, the Architectural Review Board should reconsider, if the environmental impact is in character with the neighborhood. . SIGNATURES ADDRESS PHONE ~.u/.."~J..:. - - _,UJr..c.~.!j4.~~~_~~ _ __.?: ':E:L't I:'k .. ~.~ _t<2fC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ 1 :1_ h8nl ~_ _ i?~_ _ _ _ _ _'i'i-9_-;?::/f:;;c.. \.n ." Q . eo... - D ~ ,-('-(S-:;;> _:~v-- _ __'-}...~ ~ _ _ _SLO_ _.. _ _ ~~ ~~""""'_ _ _ _ __ _ _~iJ, ~~~~ & _9. ~ __ 5JL S='_~~_ ~ _ __ s:::z:t..: y!.:~.t r~_ ~-- - --.--- --- ~~ - ~~TL~~- ~,;_ _ - - -- -:\.~?~_~ _~1- -' tJ / &r-7 ~ ~_ .:> #J./J dtf6~'Z.:J'r--/ --- .. ~~_---~_~_~~I~S:iL~_~~_____T_______~'" I/o / ~ ca-~q, ;ed, J../l-f /. 0 72-7 - --------------------------------------------------------------- . _~ ~_ - - __ _.: __ ___~0 J_ _ _ ~--i::i.-- ___'jqJ,; $!2~2_ / ~ ~:#l~ ::: /.- A.' ,- #/--612...., ..---:~A ----"tZdA 'I _____ _ .________~ ~m~:. f~t-- __ _ __{ ~_~ L~~_ __ _ _ _ ___r:.'I:~___( :~~( .. --------------------------------------------------.-----_.------- r ( o.p2 . . . March 20, 1988 Mr. William Woolard Planning Department City of Arcadia RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1988 CITY M APlCAOIA PLANNING IX". We wish to appeal the Architectural Review Board's approval to bulldoze the existing 1400 + square foot house on 525 Campesina Road and build a two story 4600 square foot house on the property. The undersigned feel the house is not compatible with the ranch type houses which are in the area. Even though the new structure complies with the new building heights and setback requirements, the Architectural Review Board should reconsider, if the environmental impact is in character with the neighborhood. SIGNATURES ADDRESS PHONE 121:!-k~ r: J ;&~i!_ _1!<!,Lllilfk~fI- - __ft~ :f~L~_ ~: ~ ~_~ _ ':+__ Q~_ _ _ _ ~~ ~ I _~ ~J'!: ljAlW_ _ _ _ _ _~ ~rl~'7 ~~~ _}~~ ~\. -ili-l.\N-.IrB- _ _ _ ~ ~_ ~\. _ ~~~ ~_ _ _~-'-l~:1) 'i Cj _~~~__ _~~~...._5_l{;S:Jl~_f..J.._4lt (;be g~__~~.ce:L~e_ q?!!~~__ __ _ _ _~2'_ _~~'?:7 ~_ _ L~_~/.t2~3..__~7?!f~!t____#..Z-::~?:!~ \ - ~~ - _: R4~ _ _ _ ~ Q ~~ _ _ <;cl[~~ _ _ ~ _~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 ~!:-_ ~ f! ~__ ----------------------------------------------------------------- r 20(' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COHMlTTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION FILE NO. Bs I:> DATE~e8 ~ A. PROJECT ADDRESS 5Z5 ~ PE:<;IN~ 12." B. PROPERTY OWNER ---.tfa. VIi'lL 7UIHt. Lvii /620 ACP.C/A Sr i:t \ ~"'Alol"l2.A '1'ff'ol ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) I" l/)"ml"~A"I" c. '5'2.-5 Pflf'lD"'lT~ c:~o^'" Mn. !:r;;7....Afl!J a,..USC/-l C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials [tot ARE, [] ARE Nar compatible ",ith . the existing materials, because 2. The proposed materials [] WILL, ~LL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 3. The proposed project [-t IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of ",ay, because 4. The proposed project ~IS. [] IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties. because 5. The elements of the structure's design [~ARE. (] ARE NOT consistent ",ith the existing building's design. because 6. The proposed project tr IS, [] IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because 7. Tha location of the proposed project [) WILL, (If WILL NOT be detrimental to the uaa and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks ["fDO. [) DO NOT provide for adequate aeparation between improvementa on the same or adjoinin8 properties, because 9. II pt:-Q.so",;r A-rreMC7e.~ l'\..V) ~ f\toi-.~ Me'M"~ ,.AnCI1.-rfc T, I'A t. PJl.E't:I"I"f~" DrLPwIIf'> "'(1r 'iAPf".M ~OI!I... or- 1-l.0M<: I '1 110";(7 PQ)'.lA<I"'~2 t-' ' erz., MR "" v wl>5 fl,cqv!;;;"/'1Ep ~f'14"P7.,.c )-r'?:PQ./OI$t::" &kl' r~'c.li' ,Qllt~......) FROM E )('5<111<' 4 flft'.,. OTHER FINDINGS -'6 ~ FeET. ~l.AIv-.or,o..;l/.lrlr" ro11+i~ r2eQ"~T. OnALvlMt..c;. tOi'JNC'I..:IAA. 70 NC:"'" 'Sloe "'fp..fl.n ~p."'t"t?Jo.c:."- (U:OVlrtEM(',......,.~ A#-to ()neL(J-1'N.l1IN OaALNIH~ S A, P12.0lle0 . &:", A.l..il I WOAwNt.. OQ.6I.I"IH l. C. wiLl ~t='" f'cMPAnl="""l"J 7"0 PlZfL. Dr2~W'M" 5 At-ID IF 5IMII.AfL.. CAN ~E' ....Pf'(I.()t-eC D. ACTION H" APPROVAL [] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) PIZ~L. VI2O,,,,,_'NL, c; .. ~\l'" !-lAKE" ~oM()AI1.I~Or\ (..,TU- FINAL lA...OI2.\'.IM(. DQAt.u',..,L.... FOI2. FIMI/t.<<... p..PPI1OV IJ. L [ ] DENIAL E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION _, 'SMAn B~ F. BOARD (COMMITI'EE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION vl""fllM.l.G EOf-fl- u...., L L1PoM. LA.-- ~ An e~.Al t.A-1 An -rr-o ~~D.-J~~O r:3or:a. E:1211Ll.,~oN G. REPRESENTING THE Y^""Ci.J C,Arr...." A-.'Y~ ~-"=~Ot!')o<T'<" ASSOCIATION H. APPEALS Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the requirements. fees and proceedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Deparement. 240 W. Huntington Drive. Arcadia. CA 91006. within five (5) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. I" EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval. any project for which plau have been approved by the Board (Committee). has been unused. abandoned or discontinued. said approval shall become null and void and of no effect. .~ . . !)J U ~\OC::"'1T c.t:-.... 1~M~B A L(r:=:~O(rtC; - . t4t!.ft NAMI?" UfJ4/J~ - R~d- J-J" U~"'1-fttt ,et 'I Yr, .J 7" Tk ~I CJ.IAN 1 >~ ~ Pr. ,5,(/2. z"iZ---1~7 f/ ~..~~ f'z-J:" {j.~~ ""Yr-~~.i!-7 fJy 6'~-,,~~ 511 &AlI'~:!N1I ~ .57t!-9~ V~~~ ~..~ R~_:';;:;. - ~ - 't:?s/~4- q.tlb-/oS-/ M'6~ (~ ~J..'f AtlJJil~___ _ 'f.Y7- Jc:'?V ARo vW~~ .::!;. /J//- ~- LL#/ ..ff := ~ -p-.- ~7i:Ji--~_:-;;';:; ___'<_ _ L/~'f ~ __ _ __.,__ .f/-C/. 7 ~ ra s> / t.cr>~~ lGL. -- ---. ...... .- ~~~__, _n ~ ~ oJ ,_ __ - ___._, ,'Ht...t~--~~..1J~- ~h-__ ,_ .___Uh _, __ .