The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1352 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1352 A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 400 COLUMBIA ROAD. . WHEREAS, on October 30, 1987, an appeal was filed by Chris Construction Company, Inc., of the Santa Anita Village Architoctural Review Board's October 22, 1987 denial of a two-story, four bedroom dwelling with attached three car garage on property located at 400 Columbia Road. WHEREAS, on November 24, 1987 the Planning Commission heard I:.he appeal; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed and considered: a. The staff report and related attachments including the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of October 22, 1987 and Resolution 5286 setting forth the regulations for the Santa Anita Vi11age Architectural Design Zone Area. b. Written communication submitted by the Appellant. d. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on November 24, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section I. This Commission finds that the although the structure is very attractive and the use of materials is compatible to that in the surrounding neighborhood, the structure is not in harmony and proportion to the adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood because the lot is a hilghly visible corner lot in a neighborhood that is comprised mosUy of ranch-style, single- . -1- 1352 . . . story residences. The proposed structure including the garage is in excess of 4,000 square feet. Thus, it is substantially larger than other structures in the area and out of proportion to the size of the corner lot and structures in the neighborhood. Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal and upholds the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial ,)f the proposed two-story, four bedroom dwelling with three car garage at 400 Columbia Road. Section 3~ The decision, findings and conditions contained in this R,esolution reflect the Commission's action of November 24, 1987, and the following '70te: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Szany Section 4. The Secretary shall oortify 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 8th day of December, 19,~7 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Clark, Papay, Szany Commissioner Amato Commissioner Hedlurrl ~'1Jo Planning Commission ATIEST: /;lIik~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia - -2- 1352 . Novemoor 24, 1987 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT OONNA L. BUTLER, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: 400 COLUMBIA ROAD APPEAL OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL GE~ERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: Chris Construction Company, Inc. LOCATION: 400 Columbia Road (the southeast corner of Columbia Road and Cortez Road) . REQUEST: The property owner has appealed the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of a two-story four bedroom dwelling with attached three car garage LOT AREA: Approximately 8,240 square feet FRONTAGE: Approximately 80' of frontage on Columbia Road and Approximately 10,3' of frontage on Cortez Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is vacant; zoned R-l & D SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: Properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with single-family dwellings; zoned R -1 & 0 . 400 Columbia R,oad November 24, 1987 Pa@;e 1 . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential 0-0 du/ac BACKGROUN!;! On October 2 1, 1987, a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board to consider plans submitted by Chris Construction Company, Inc., for a two-story, four-bedroom residence witJl an attached three car garage located at 400 Columbia Road. Basoo upon the testimony received at the hearing and discussion among the Review Board members, the Board voted 5 to 0 to deny the proposed dwelling. In summary the Board noted that: 1. The proposed project will not maintain the architectural character of the subject neighborhood. . 2. That the proposed structure is not compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood. The Board had not been provided with evidence as to the materials and appearance of any proposed walls or fence<3. 3. That the proposed structure is excessive and substantially unrela~ld to the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed structure is not in harmony or proportion to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. The Board's complete findings are set forth in Exhibit A. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION There is an existing oak. tree located adjacent to the Columbia Road property line Which is proposed to be removed (the tree will obstruct the proposed driveway). The removal of this tree was not addressed in the Homeowner Association's findings. . 400 Columbia F~oad November 24, 1987 Page 2 . Subsection 6 of Section 3 of Resolution No. 5286 states: "No living oak, sycamore...with a trunk diameter larger than siX inches..., shall be cut dO'wtl, killed or removed in any manner, without first securing the written permission of the Board. Such permission shall not be granted unless it is shown that the tree is a nuisance, and that there is no practical way of removing the nuisance except by cutting down, killing or removing it: PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant's proposal calls for a 3,685 square foot two-story dwelling with a 711 square foot attached garage. The dwelling will be 27'-6" in height. There will be a 25'-0" setback from the Columbia Road property line and a minimum of 10'.0' from the Cortez Road property line. . The proposed dwelling complies with all current code requirements including lot coverage, building height and setbacks. Resolution 5286 sets forth the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association (see attached resolution). Subsection 18 of Section 3 of this resolution sets forth the standards which should be considered by the ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the decision of the ARB. The ArchiOOctural Review Board's jurisdiction, and subsequent review of the Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance (Section 3 (12) Resolution 5286 - page 5). Said resolution requires compatibility "with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhOOd". In making this determination as to "materials and appearance" and compatibility, the following principles are to be applied as guidelines by the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council): 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' . 400 Columbia F:oad November 24, 1987 Page 3 . avoid that which is excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 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. 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. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. Based on the above, the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council) is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are compatible with other structures on the same lot and With other structures in the neighborhood. d. . Approval or denial of the application should be based on the issue of compatibility With reasons that explain the decision. It is these "reasons" which constitute the "findings' upon which the decision is rendered. Attached for your review and consideration are copies of the proposed plans, the letter of appeal, the ARB finding of October 21, 19lH and Resolution No. 5286. FINDINGS Almroval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commissie,n should move to approve the appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial of the proposed two-story, four bedroom dwelling at 400 Columbia Road, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. . 400 Columbia Road November 24, 1987 Page 4 . Denial If the Planning Commission decides to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. . . 400 Columbia Rl~d November 24, 1987 Page 5 . I I C3 Z -. ....I ...J - I U ~ . , \ ).. ..... ~ ~ I I ::-0 .-:i? ~ Or. ~1--, ~ ~ I <") s""" " t') ) )..!.. V,,,", 01") 'l .r. ()~' ~'~ ~ - ...... "- ~ '" ' :.(,:~ r t:. .:1r:? '" ?\..../~..,.~r;. eo (l/d~.;"" O~ G .:lc- o~ J/ (//4/",1 ...., (~', 3?S4 ':Il"t) ~ ":?' '!l s -- -:0" .....v.~ . ~9 O~....r ~.?9 q",:~ - IdOl., "''' .. - '-"i ~ ~ 0 , ~~ S! 1"'<') 9'- .~ .~. -- de l"I " ' L)'~i;; 11 1')., <() ~ l~ r- CCi~ Q ') ~,Q~~ ",iI'// Q)q to"''?. ......~ ,.~.,~ ~:-.' "II!! ~ .~ "; ~ ~ ,. ~ ../ ~ ",.9e' 11 ~~~ ~ ~ ...."... is'J .. ....' ~ oLb ',/~..... 1. '/I.II)} '<t D~ <" I> ~ "..9 (!) '" oJ' VI r- ~ 14 c:> r '3 ..., DRAKE . -. l~' ~.3.":'O j IliI.; 1(;,;0' ~ 0 ~U ~i C" r:;: .!') J() ,\1 .;, ':'6 3~"7 3J.ll 01 j1 .:....;1 .I'I/J~) (I/J(J) (<//11 )' 0 0 0 .n 0 0 ." 0 ';.' ci ::: "7 3d 39 ::l. -:-t- .~ 7~ '...1 " " 3(, -:':'1 o 90 1.o.'\(~"2) ..,\,- ":::"21 CORTEZ (;0' o a:: ~~~~I ~ N "II'" f'~ _.' ~~ fi --""" o~o r-~ r3C (\ ~ ...\ ~ 1'2 (~o ..... r-~ -..:. .1../.?.t 'r t. <( III ~ 3 o u :i\~o \." ;; ~ ,,??~1.. .~ l~ . . AND USE AND ZONING . .:5c.: ill;::. 100'-011 . . V\C.t.IrTY M6.P ..... - I A I I -- ,...... ..- .- ~"z. ...- SITE PLAN !:i.~.r ~e:1f"f10N ........i'~...r. =-- ~..........- ~ I """'.:NO =~",.,.". UllilII _ rv<lI' --- ~ ~ -'-8/ .. -- . - i . Ji . ~.! ~I: II 5 ~~ lis ~ d e- m , . til! I=~ i!1 i;i .~~ .~ I~e~ .g; bii .. _'I!'-"~ I ..- .1 - " - ; I' . --- -f- J~iLt r---- ' I . I I I I L.____-,.--, I LMI..,..aw~ I I I I _...--.~ ..0aQQ. . I' f- I i ....00. t SECOND . 01 FLOOR '#;... -J "'t, ;i ..D....... -1. .,UT'. .IDIOO. PLAN (- M,IA'" r- 'I I r.; , , t--" 1;111 ...'" . ... .....0. 'I- f. " AU.D. --- --t1-- , " t 1\ L1YI.. DI...ca '"01 . ' -. :-1 u I I ,......" ~; ~__J\2.~~ - 1...1 0f}J.. ~~~ ~ f'( ~.11'''1'''' ~n ~,'''' ..,,.,: FIR S T F L 0 0 R P LAN ~41 ~.I't" '-' '" " Y, ( . -- . .~ . ..!g G . G.. w~ll Ig.. ~~ .~ r ~:! I=~ Ii =8 So: GCG !~~~ ~oG x~; I = I BJ . . ..~ ~ fRONT ELEVATION J (, /'" t e-.r, " >-< -, LEFT ELeVATION . --:8 e _ es. I~~ sBi ~!~ .. ~~ 1=; I!~ i-: ee. ~~i~ ee_ .... U~ ~ o . :t+'; -"-',. ., .-y. :. ~ . I . ~ , . . ,. , \, " !'\,.- -, A .'f .;"~": -\ ~ 1...... ~ :::J...~ --"' .' IIIGHT ELEVATION -- '. 0: (4..: . ~. .... "_: ~~ ~~ REA.li ILEVAYION . ..!i D _ -ii Ill" ~I , ~ ~~ I=D " I!~ i.. ..: I@ii~ is i~; ~ IEl . m Chris Construction Co., Inc. 909 Santa Anita. Suite F Arcadia. California 91006 445-5491 574-7354 RECEIVED OCT 3 0 1987 October 29, 1987 A:IIW'......~.... ... ..- ...... Planning Commission. City of Arcadia Re: 400 Columbia Road, Arcadia, CA Dear Sirs: On October 22, 1987, the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board denied our request for construction of a 2-story, 4-bedroom residence with a 3-car attached garage (approximately 3,685 square feet) at 400 Columbia Road, Arcadia. . We wish to appeal that decision, and by way of this letter, we do hereby request a formal public hearing on this appeal request at the earliest possible date. SS;~ . 'k~ David K. Olson, CFO . ~ /~~7 ~,p~ A'CUl',ar- 3-3?'/' . . .. RECEIVED "OV 0 2. 1987 FILE NO. 312 DATE Oct:ober 21. 1987 CIT"f' 01' AKA"'" ......NII'NC1 GC~' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECI' ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 400 Columbia Road Chris Construction Co., Inc. B. ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply. end provide a written explanE,tion for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials [) ARE. [) ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials. because not aooU,."h1e ho>t'"n..., orocosed proiect is a new' st.nlcture 2. The proposed materisls [) WILL. DO WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because ____ 3. The proposed project DO IS, [) IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of vay, because 4. The proposed project oa IS, [) IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, because 5. The elements of the structure's design [) ARE. [) ARE NOT consistent vith the existing building's design. because not aooli,."h'c keca"..., PI'OlXlsed proiect is a new structure 6. The proposed project [) IS, oa IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because see attached 7. The location of the proposed project oa WILL, [) WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because see attached 8. The proposed project's setbacks oa DO, [) DO NOT provide for adequate separation betveen improvements on the same or adjoining pro~lert1es, if it lies with Munici 1 Code Sections 9252.2.2 (front yard - average o nearest eve ots , ., Sl - teli'Ieet for . two-story portl.Oll 0 the st.nlcture , s y. corner lot - five feet for side yard adjoining the interior lotI ten feet for side yard on the street side; EXHIBIT "A" 9. 0TIlER FINDINGS see attached :"' _.~ .. . I .:.. "f M . .( D. ACTION .',", ...... [ ] APPROVAL [] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO TIlE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) &d DENIAL (5-0) E. DATE OF ARCHITEC'I1JRAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COHMITl'EE'S) ACTION October 21, 1987 (fWings prepared and served on October 28, 1987) F. BOARD (COMMITl'EE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING TIlE ABOVE DECISION Gary A. Kovacic Wes Slider Charles E. George ... George T. Campbell Michael Kaiser G. REPRESENTING THE Santa Anita Village .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 wl,it1ng and delivered to the Planning Department, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006, within five (5) working days of the Board's (Committee's) dl!cision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any pro.ject for which plana have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been lunused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and voU and of no effect. . . . . ATTACHMENT TO SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS OF OCTOBER 21, 1987 Re: File no. 312, 400 Columbia Road A public hearing was held on October 21, 1987 to review the proposed construction of a two-story, 4-bedroom residence and attached 3-car garage at 400 Columbia Road. Mr. Chris Bade of Chris Construction Co., Inc., owner, and Rob Patterson, architect, spoke about the proposed construction. They answered various questions. Approximately ten neighbors spoke in opposition. Approximately 2 neighbors spoke in support. Mr. Bade and Mr. Patterson responded. The Board considered the factors involved. Mr. Patterson represented to the Board that the site plan depicts the subject property exclusive of the parkways along Columbia Road (12 feet) and Cortez Road (12 feet). It appears that the proposed structure complies with Municipal Code Section 9252.2.15 (Lot Coverage), which provides that the combined floor area of all buildings on the lot should not exceed 45 percent of the tot.al area of the lot. It is the Board's understanding that the parkway area shall not be considered in the calculation of the percentage of lot coverage. Although there was some confusi.:m about the total square footage of the proposed structure, it appears that the proposed structure, including the attached garage, is slightly in excess of 4,000 square feet. No detailed plans were submitled for proposed walls, fences or landscaping. The subject lot is a visible corner lot in a neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranch-style, single-story residences and a few two-story residences that tend to "blend in" or are compatible with the adjourning properties. The proposal is is very attractive two-story ranch-style structure. Obviously, considerable time and effort was used to design a structure .that had materials and design features similar to houses in the a~ea. However, the proposed structure is substantially larger than all other structures in the area. The size of the proposed structure is out of proportion to the limited size of this corner lot and the structures in the area. There was considerable concern about the impact of thl! structure-on the neighbors to the south and east. It is the Board's opinion that the structure as proposed will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property because of its size. During the hearings, neighbors also expressed concern about the trend to develop large structures in the Village and the need for a maximum square foot limitation. . ATTACHMENT TO FINDINGS OF O~TOBER 21, 1987 Re: File No. 312, 400 Columbia Road Page 2 The Board stated that it is not opposed to two-story structures. However, it is the consensus of the Board that the structure is simply too large for the subject lot and neighborhood. The Board is more than willing to consider plan revisions that are more compatible and in harmony with the size of the subject lot and the other structures in the neighborhood. The Board voted to deny the application for the reasc.ns set forth above and based on the following provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5286: . 1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resolution is "to promote and maintain the quality single-residental environment of the City of Arcadia and to pr'otect the property values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residences have formed a homeowners association. . . ." It is the opinion of the Board that the proposed. project will not maintain the architectural character of the subject neighborhood. 2. Section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution provides that "[t]he appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls, or fences in the neighborhood." The Board is of the opinion that the proposed structure is not compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood. The Board has not been provided with evidence as to the materials and appearance of any proposed walls or fences. . 3. Section 3, paragraph l8(a) of the Resolution provides that " [c]ontrol 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, buildillg, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board . . . in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood." It is the opinion of the Board that the proposed structure is excessive and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 4. Section 3, paragraph l8(b) of the Resolution provides that "[g]ood architectural character is based upon principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood." It is the opinion of the Board that the proposed structure is not in harmony or proportion to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. 0403f