HomeMy WebLinkAbout1350
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1350
A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA
VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A
PROPOSED 3,460+ SQUARE FOOT DWELLING WITH DETACHED
GARAGE AT 900 BALBOA DRIVE
WHEREAS, on October 2, 1987, a letter was filed by Greg Board, Du<lley
Ochsner, Jack. Saelid, Wes Slider, Susan Villalobos and Robert Green appealing tbe
Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's September 25, 1987 approval of a
two-story, four bedroom dwelling witb a detached three car garage to be
constructed by Rosalee Barton on property located at 900 Balboa Drive.
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1987 tbe Planning Commission heard tbe appeal;
and
. WHEREAS, as part of tbe record of tbis hearing tbe Planning Commission
reviewed and considered:
a. The staff report and related attachments including tbe Santa Anita Village
Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of July 23, 1987, August 26 and
September 8, 1987 and September 27, 1987 and Resolution 5286 setting forth the
regulations for tbe Santa Anita Village Architectural Design Zone Area.
b. Written communications submitted by tbe Appellants.
d. All oral presentations and testimony made during tbe public hearing on
October 27, 1987.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This Commission finds tbat Ule structure is not in harmony and
proportion to tbe adjacent structures and otber structures in tbe neighborlilood
.
-1-
1350
.
.
.
because of its massive appearance that is out of proportion with the size of the
corner lot and other structures in the neighborhood.
Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the appeal
of the appellants and denies the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's
approval of the proposed two-story, four bedroom dwelling with three car garage
at 900 Balboa Drive.
Section 3" The decision, findings and conditions contained in this RE,solution
reflect the Commission's action of October 27, 1987, and the following vo\)~:
AYES: Commissioners Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany
NOES: Commissioner Amato
ABSENT: None
Section 4. 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 lOth day of November, 1987 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners, Amato, Hedlurrl, Papay, Szany
l-bne
Commissioner Clark
L12z
Chairman /
Planning Co ission
ATTEST:
k~/7~~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
,
-2-
1350
October 27, 1987
.
TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DONNA 1. BUTLER, SENIOR PLANNER
,
SUBJECT.: 900 BALBOA DRIVE
APPEAL OF THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION'S APPROVAL
On October 2, 1987, the P'~nning Department received an appeal of the Santa
Anita Village Association's Arcbitectural Review Board's approval of a MW
dwe11ing to be constructed at 900 Balboa Drive.
G.ENERAL INFORM&TlON
PROPERTY
OWNER:
Rosalee Barton
..
APPELLANTS:
Greg Board, Dudley Ochsner, Jack Saelid, Wes Slider,
Susan Villalobos and Robert Green
LOCATION:
900 Balboa Drive
REQUEST:
The appellants have appealed the Santa Anita VillagE~
Architectural Review Board's approval of a two-story
four bedroom dwelling With three car garage
LOT AREA:
Approximately 9,240 square feet
Approximately 65' of frontage on Balboa Drive and
Approximately 145' of frontage on Golden West AVetLUe
FRONTAGE:
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The subject property is vacant; zoned R-I & D
.
900 Balboa Drive
October 27, 1987
Page 1
,
. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
Properties to the north, south, east and west are development with
single-family dwellings; zoned R-I & D
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
,
Single-family residential 0-6 du/ac
~ACKGROUND
On JUly 23, 1987, a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village
Architectural Review Board to consider plans submitted by Rosalee Barton
for a two-story, five-bedroom residence with a detached three car garage
located at 900 Balboa Drive.
-
Based 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 subject to the findings set forth in EJdlibit A.
On August 26 and September 8, 1987, public hearings were held before the
Architectural Review Board for consideration of revised plans submitted by
Rosalee Barton. The revised plans ca11ed a four-bedroom, two-story
dwelling. One bedroom had been deleted from the original plan,
architectural features were added and the height of the structure was
decreased.
Based upon the testimony received at the hearing and discussion among the
ReView Board members, the Board voted 4 to 1 to deny the proposed
dwelling subject to the findings set forth in EJdlibit B.
On September 25, 1987, the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board
held a public hearing to consider a second set of revised plans for a four-
bedroom dweUiag. TIle revised plans reduced the siZe of the dwelling from
3.732 square feet to 3,462 square feet.
Based upon the testimony received at the hearing and discussion among the
Review Board members, the Board voted 3 to 2 to approve the proposed
two-story dwelling with detached garage subject to the findings set fortlJ: in
Exhibit C.
.
900 Balboa Drive
October 27, :1987
Page2
"
. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant's proposal calls for a 3,462 square foot two-story dwelling
with a 625 square foot detached garage, The plans indicate the dwelling will
be 26'-0" in height; the plans scale 29'-6". Staff has been unable to contact
the architect to confirm the correct height of the dwellins. This information
will be available at the Planning Commission meeting, The dwelling will be
set back 36'-9" from the Balboa Drive property line and a minimum of 10'-0"
from the Golden West property line.
.
The proposed dwelling complies with all code requirements including lot
coverage, building height and setbacks.
Resolution 5266 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 16 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 Architectural Review Board's jurisdiction, and subsequent review of tJle
Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building
materials and external building appearance (Section 3 (12) Resolution 5266 -
page 5), Said resolution requires compatibility "with materials and other
structures 011 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 g,uidelines by Ule
reviewing body (ARB, Pl::lnning 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
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
.
900 Balboa Dri.ve
October 27, 1967
Page3
-,
. relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other
structures in the neighborhood.
c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fencl~, or
roof can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of
adjacent property and neighborhood. ,
d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the
value of properties and mues the use of both properties more
enjoyable.
Based on the above, the reviewing body (ARB, PIl'lnning 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.
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.
-.
_ FINDINGS
Ap-p-roval
If the PIl'lnning Commission decides to approve the appeal the Commission
should move to approve the appeal denying the Architectural Review
Board's approval of the proposed two-story, four bedroom dwelling at 9C10
Balboa Drive, and state the reasons why it would not be compatible based on
the guidelines set forth above. '
Denial
If the Planning Commission decides to deny the appeal, the Commission
should move to aeny the appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Village
Architectural Review Board's approval, and state the reasons why the
proposed two-story, four bedroom dwelling would be compatible based on
the guidelines set forth above.
.
900 Balboa Drive
October 27, 1987
Page4
-
-
Attached for your review and consideration are copies of the proposed plans,
the letter of appeal, the ARB findings of July 23, 1987 (Exhibit A), September
8, 1987 (Exhibit B) and September 25, 1987 (Exhibit C) and Resolution N<o.
5286.
e
.
900 Balboa Drive
October 27, 1987
P<lige5
.
e
.
"
RECEl'\lED
OCT 0 2 1987
CITY 0" ARCUliIA
PLANNING alt.,.,.,
APPEAL OF DECISION OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
,
We, the undersigned, hereby appeal the decision rendered
September 25, 1987 by the Architectural Review Board of 1:he
Santa Anita Village Association concerning plans by Rosalee
Barton for construction at 900 Balboa Drive.
It is our opinion that the proposed construction is not
compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood ciS
required under Resolution No. 5286 of the Arcadia City Council.
September 3D, 1987
~~
,o~
~,(~"~
Dudley ochsne:- .,. ';;j'fif'
901 Balboa Dr~ve - - .'Jl
'1 :
\ -~-
'. ,
I .... /.
, / '
/_......~ ')
//1
,!/,,", ".:{tt.-.
Wes Slider
921 Balboa
ck Saelid
21 Balbo,a Drive
Drive
-:.- ~ .".<.~
=-...........
RJi~~
500 South Old Ranch Road
~J 1t/~/dk)
san Villalobos
860 Palo Alto Drive
?6!:'e7,tT 3-315
/t?/2'/~7
"
. ~ .
.
.
'WI, ,.'"
~
i
00' 0" 'm
,
,...,..., 8 7
'.'
.
\"'~} "
~'"
ro. , {'~71 '-
"' "' "' ,;:~ ~
(I#>',J u_ ,- II.', 'U.' ~
21S "'9" ,..., "'"
2
. . . .
47 48 .. '" ;
" " "
, ... ~
"
" 44 47 .. 49 >0
-( , R' "
A'
;
W /,cxnJ u_ "~IJ ,- ~.
~ ~ "'" furl
"
" ..~
..., -, u_ ~'"' ,-
,,- a..
a_
4t ~
L' " ~ .0
" , " "
'OM "'..
'0 " " "
c
,
.
(~/1I#7J
~"'J
,
Nt... 2 ,.../' (/~
,
,
'-J
~41J
,,.,,
('~/h flU)
... \ ',:"J (Y~/J t~
(JII)
t,f,fJ
"'.
'ORTOLA
;
'IJ"
~. , j
,
. 8 7 .
... '1'11 y
'"''
,,"1) "':iw ,- "
S 8 ~
, . .
~ , ; ..
,
. 4 1 = ,~
.
'-
'"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1(dtuJ(#ICIJ
,'0
I
I C
1"",.. "./J
I I
I -r :
I I
Ii=. .. a:
I I
, (JIlJ I
I NfJ(?m I I_I
~ (WI, fnRMJ , r~
9
9
-r
TRA GT
,1"05
"",~".I".I
I'nil.
t.t t )
...
6
"
,
,
,
If",'J
1'....Al
, =.,
Iw
" I
" I
11..4\
.,
~
I
I
, I
"~i~~"
,
.
--
I-h.lt.\~lrlc!aTCI N
OR -
.
qoo
BAL.SoA.
'D~,"e
SG-
1.1.:: Zoo'~o"
AND USE AND ZONING
.
.'
'----
"
,
!
........4...._...,-..
.~I
It.....
-
b
;
.'
.:z '.
. __J
---
...., ....--,......
..';J . ,.,
'I' . I-
,,~-~~ ~.
,
.
.-,
~ ~ e.t.1ID
,
Ji
.
"':410_
.'-
-.....-..-
--
-,~ -
~sm..~~
~.
.
:'
~
.
,
--
~~I
"~
at
- .
~~
Q .
I
j ~ ]
~d
~~
.
~
1
~
. .
2
0(
.1
'-
\'!
iii
w
.
OOO~ ~C.ME::>l,;:...E
-,,,,.,.
:>0:0..*,,,,,,,,,
, "
.~
.......,...
:.......,...
~_.. .
"""""""c-.a
I.."......
1""-""
,.......'..
'-'''''''''-'':'
-~"
"..l." 0 ,...
-'" :',,-",,"
..."--.....~
......."..,..
,......
~.,,~.._-, ,,-',.ap
~' .~.
.....,......._.~
,.....
~O.:.:AI ...I$AJ'~
~._...,
-'-..!:.....~._~
, ,
"',"INDO\.\.'
5<:r1E.D:.H...E
~~ ..~ ~"'''lIQo.l
'" , , ,,' ~--<IJ:l,""'IL&C~W","""'~\
, " ,~ ~,-
. , "...... -
"-It" -
4'. ~. -
. - ,.' ~-
, .' ,,'
" ,~
- ~'. - --
,'-
" .. ,', " --
.. ," ~ .- -~
.' r -
. , r. -
,......
, 4"~_
. ~ ,r -.
-" .' -...-..
.'.1' ~
. . " ,.'
. .....
I
<b
r[ !]
I ,.J ;
i
I,~
~
i.
~
,
.
I...jl'~-
'.. 'z.
-,-.,
1'<)1
". -:l
,
-;V, I
:<. ;.jl
, /.
.../t'
"~Il
-'ij~~.
~,- ''kf'" ,::
" 1/ j;>.
:~"_/ .;
I;,;:,;,!,."
II..". 1.....
"'".'1:
1--'
.
r
r-
~
"".-
-
,I
.
"
'- :.:;
;
"
,.
,
_..:!.::L
.'
I
-.......
T
t~ tt
-
.
....~-
.. ~
n,
/../ ':,.;,.
,
4~:No!li'
7 IT;
.r
"
-::r"'--'-
-:-. .~~
,..)
'F~
1 "
I .
--~-
,f
- - ~:
'~I'<
.1/ -~'~-::i
.'i-
Jrl.
1.1)
1...;;",1
~
I I
~)
'''f
'!3i...- _ _
---~-~~-
_!'!:.~.
~ f"11t~T FL~ f'L...'\N
j\
"
I
,il
"
.~,
'r
"
-;\1
~:
'.'
...;..,'-------4t
",-'I
:~.
"
,
"Z!
,!
,
.
.
"" "
; ,
@
,
b
';.
'1
..,
~ 2 ~
.' i
"
" .
~8J
.' <
~
'0
.
(b
2
of'
,
"
if -ll
R "I
~! K
"'
~I \ ;)
1/.\f1
ii. "J
1m
.
.
......
l'
I
f~.. . ".. I
~:<I=rf:I-"-'nrj
II 1 r
-!!
'1
-~:.o.l
.
,,..~.
.... t
1_4 ,-.'
, ~ i
.-. .,~
I ~
[
---
.--
1>
'.
;
)
','
"i>
tH
"
;'.:
.~
1J
"".
"
"
,"2.
I
J
.... [".:
, ,
;.'ci -f
tl, ~.
-1,;1
r-'
-,
~-
.,_to
J5ECOND ~~~ fV\N
"
--
.
<V
""
,
~
"g .~
.~ ~
hi
~~ i
~ ~ 1
--~
":if"
"
.,.
d:
8
,
"
D
2
r;
"
:g
w
1-
.
/~....
.~..........
~-~,.</. " ..........'.
,./~;;_/ - / ... ""-... .
('1':---+"-- - '
'If m !~-:L:qj
I. ,'. ,I
.....
=
\ '
I'
nv;.;
LJ.[JJb.
r:
:"\
..
'~,.'. ..,~-......
... ----...--
I e-iS1"'" I!JlLa..........T10.J
-l
-"> ]
-.~
/hJ r_-----. ~-~ 0_ "
~..:.., 1::-,- - ~: :,'-;..- , ',::\ "
11'-' m"'=-'~C/
'.'---"""'.~T
ill
_~':::!I-! =l~V/"::-IOI./
.
I~OI"LTL-l !::.L.Ev,o.ilC't..j
,
~.,.. ..1'-.:.
, i:\,:
.......
..'-...........~
I I ..........
o
-
.-
"
L... [[]
"UJ
,
Q Q B
I m ~::- ~.~-o'--
. - ....-
-: ." - .
I!IJ
_...1--=>>, ~
-, - -~~-'~
,
-1I..vEST :=:....:....5.:,.::..,r../ 1
.
.
~
"
Q <
~ ~ ~
,I ~ 1
7 ~ ,
r. ,
~; R '
j., ,
~
C
F
?
"
ii'
lEa
.
..
4)
"
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 1987
FILE NO. 303
DATE July 23, 19B7
CI-rr 04" ARCADIA
PL.,ANNING 01PY'.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER
900 Balboa Drive
B.
Rosalee Barton
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for
each check)
1. The proposed construction materials [] ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with
the existing materials, because not appl i.....~le 1)ean,'3e prop:>sed project
is a retl structUre
2. The proposed materials [] WILL, J] WILL NOT have a significant,adver~e
impact on the overall appearance of the property, because
3.
The proposed project 81 IS, [I IS NOT significantly visible from the
adjoining public rights of way, because
4. The proposed project 8] IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from
adjoining properties, because
5. The elements of the structure's design [] ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent
with the existing building's design, because not accli.....hl~ ~~~
orooosed PrOiect is a nE!lf st:ructuxe
6. The proposed project [] IS, UI IS NOT in proportion to other
improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties
in the neighborhood, because -~ a~~hPd
-
.
7. The location of the proposed project ~ WILL, [I WILL NOT be detrimental
to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood
neighborhood, bec,ause -~ ",~",,.hPd
8. The proposed project's setbacks tid DO, [] DO NOT provide for adequate
separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties,
because if it oatplies with lU'Iicipal Cede Sections 9252.2.2 (front yard -
averaqe of the bio nearest n......l~ lots). 9252.2.4 (s;n.. Valn - ten feet
for tIo'o-story portion of the structure), 9252.2.5 (side yaJ:d, comer lot -
five feet for side yaJ:d adjoining the interior loti ten feet for side yaJ:d
on the street side, and Resolution 5286, Section 3, Paragraph 3 (comer lot -
twenty-five feet frem side street property line for separate garage).
EXHIBIT A -
JULY 23, 1987
9.
OTHER FINDINGS see attached
.
D. ACTION
(]
[]
APPROVAL
,
,
APPROVAL SUBJEct TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S)
Dt]
DENIAL
E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COM!uuu'S) ActION July 23, 1987
F. BOARD (COMMIITEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING TIlE ABOVE DECISION
Garv A. Kovacic
Wes Slider
Charles E. Georqe
Michael Kaiser
.
Georqe T. Campbell
G.
REPRESENTING THE Santa Anita ViJ.l.aqe
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 Department.. 240 W. HuntinSton 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 plans halIe been approved by the Board (ColIIIDittee), has been unused,',
abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no,
effect.
.
,
.' ....
.
.
. .
.
ATTACHMENT TO
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FI~DINGS OF JULY 23, 1987
\
Re: File No. 301, 900 Balboa Drive
A public hearing was held on July 23, 1987 to review the
proposed construction of a two-story, 5-bedroom residence and a
3-car garage at 900 Balboa Drive.
Ms. Rosalee Barton, owner, and Richard Polumbo, c:ontractor,
spoke about the proposed construction. They answered various
questions.
Approximately ten neighbors spoke in opposition. Ms.
Barton and Mr. Polumbo responded.
The Board considered the factors involved. Ms. Elar'ton
represented that several changes had been made to the plans
submitted for consideration. Both the circular driveway i.n the
front yacd and the leaded-type windows as depicted on the plans'
submitted have been deleted. One problem that the Board had in
analyzing the plans submitted was the failure of the plansl to depict
the parkways along Golden West Avenue (12 feet) and Balboa Drive (12
feet). It also was difficult to determine whether the proposed
structure complied with Municipal Code Section 9252.2.15 (Lot
Coverage) which provides that the combined floor area of elll
buildings on the lot should not exceed 45 percent of the total area
of the lot. It is the Board' s understanding that the par~:way area
shall not oe considered in the calculation of the percentage of lot
coverage. No detailed plans were submitted for proposed ~Ialls or
fences.
The subject lot is a highly visible corner lot in a
neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranch-style, sin~lle-story
residences and a few two-story residences that tend to "blend in" or
are compatible< with the adjourning properties. The propo!lal gives
the appearance of a massive structure that is out of proportion to
the limited size of this corner lot. It is substantially larger
than all other residences in the area. The massive appearance of
the proposed structure is exacerbated by the large, expanuive areas
of roofing material and turret-type features.
There al.so was considerable concern about the impact
structure on the neighbors to the south, southwest and west.
the Board's opinion that the structure as proposed will bl!
detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property"
Spec if ically, the placement of the second-story windows should be
of the
It is
.
.
. .
.
>
ATTACHMENT TO
FINDINGS OF JULY 23, 1987
Re: File No. 301, 900 Balboa Drive
Page 2
reconsidered to preserve the privacy enjoyed by the neighbors. The
plans also depict the south and west elevation~ to be onlY' stucco,
while the north and east elevations depict building materials of
brick veneer and wood siding. The Board would prefer a consistency
of bUilding materials throughout the structure. The Board is of the
opinion that there is substantial detail in front, and little or no
detail elsewhere.
There was considerable public concern about the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms in the proposed structure and the alppearance
of a third or split-level floor on the south elevation of the
proposed structure. The Board is not concerned with work inside the
structure that does not substantially change the external appearance
of the building. However, it is the Board's opinion that the number
of bedrooms and bathrooms as presently designed results iT. a
structure that is excessively massive and out of proporticln with.the
subject lot and neighborhood.
The Board stated that it is not necessarily opposed to
Tudor-style design or second-story structures. 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 properties
in the neighborhood.
The Board voted to deny the application for the reasons 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-residential environment
of the City of Arcadia and to protect 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 subjec~neighborhood.
2. Section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution prov'ides 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 structuires in the
neighborhood. The Board has not been provided with enough evidence
as to the materials and appearance of any proposed walls or fences.
e
It
e
ATTACHMENT TO
FINDINGS OF JULY 23, 1987
Re: File No. 301, 900 Balboa Drive
Page 3
3. Section 2, paragraph 10 of the Resolution provides that
"plans for the erection, placement or replacement of any structure,
roof, wall or fence, showing the precise locition on the lot of the
structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board." Plans
submitted do not snow the precise location of the structure as it
relates to the parkways on Golden West Avenue and Balboa Drive. In
addition, the plans do not adequately depict any proposed walls or
fences.
4. Section 3, paragraph 181a) 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, building, 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.
5. Section 3, paragraph l8lb) 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.
-<
.
. ..,
e
.
. .
: I
-:
.
RECEIVED
SEP l' 1987
FILE NO. 30S"
DATE . 9-? -/1 ~1(<
~""w__
--_.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMHI'ITEE) FINDINGS AND ArnON
A.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
-.
900 Balboa Drive
B.
Rosales Barton
'.
. ,
C. FINDINGS (onl, check those that appl,. end provide a written explanation for
each check)
1. The proposed construct1011 materials lJ ARB. [) ARB IlC7I' coall'8t1ble dtb
the exbtin8 IIIIIteriala. becauae not ClPH....t.1., ~- 1Kt1'- . PEOj~
is a new stzuctunI .
2. The propoaed IIIIIteruls [J WILL. aJ WILL IIC71' haft a aipiUC:aDt sdverae
:Llllpact on tbe overall appear811ce of the propertJ. llec:au..
.
3.
The proposed project BJ IS~ IJ 15 HOT slSBiflcaatlJ Y1albl., from tbe
adjointn8 public r18hts of va,. because
4. The proposed project BJ IS. [J IS NOT si8niftcantl, vlsible from
adjointn8 properties. becauae
.
5. The elements of tbe atructure'. dea18n [) All. [) ARE Nor canal.tent
with the edstin8 buildln8'. de.18n. because not. MY>H.....t.1,1lI --.,-
.................... mo1ect: 18 a new stz'UctUI:8 .
6. The proposed project [J IS. [j IS Nor in proportion to otbel"
improvements on the aubject aite or to :LIIIprov_nta on othel' properties
in the nelpborhood. because --- 11-............
.
7.
.
The location of the proposed project k1 WILL, (J WILL Nor be detrimentsl
to the use and enjo,ment and value of sdjacent property and nei8hborhood
nd8hborhood. bec,ause -- M+............
.
.
8. The proposed project's setbacks k1 DO. [J DO NOT provide for adequate
separation between improvement. on the ..... or adjoinin8 properties.
because if it CCIIpl1es with Ibl1ciP8l Cede Sections 9252.2.2 (frent: YlI:t'Cl -
averacse of the two nearest: deYeloced lots). 9252.2.4 lside vard - te'I feet
for two-stDry port1cn of the stzuctule), 9252.2.5 (side yard, c:amer lot -
five feet for side yard adjoining the interior lotJ ten feet for side yard
at the street side, and ~solution 5286, Sect1cft 3, paragrapli1 3 (comer lot -
twenty-five feet fran s.t4e ~ prcperty line for separate qarac~).
EXHIBIT B . SEPTEMBER 8. 1987
e
.
.'
.
-l
,
,
I
9.
OTHER FINDINGS
See attached.
D. ACfION .
[] APPROVAL
[] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S)
U DENIAL 4 - 1
E. DATE OF ARCHITECTlJRAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMHITIEE'S) ArnON 9-9-1 CU17
F.
BOARD (COHMITIEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION
Gary A. Kovacic Wes Slider
George T. Campbell
Michael Kaiser
Charles E. George (voted for approval)
G.
REPRESENTING THE
Santa Anita Village
ASSOCIATION
H. APPEALS
Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision ahall be made to the. Planning
Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal ahould contact the
requirements, fees and proceedures. Said appeal must. be made in writing Bnd
delivered to the Planning Department, 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 perio4,of one (1) year from the date of approval, Bny project for
which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused,
abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no
effect.
.
e
, .
e
.'
ATTACHMENT TO
It
~C'
.~
S(p 7 I If ~
c:~ · $1.98" 0
,,~. .,
~~
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FINDINGS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1987
,
Re: File No. 305, 900 Balboa Drive
Public hearings were held on August 26, 1987 and
September 8, 1987 to review the proposed construction of a
two-story, 5-bedroom residence and a 3-car garage at 900 Bctlboa
Drive. A previous proposal for the sUbject property by the,
applicant (File No. 301) was denied by the Board on July 2~1, 1987.
Ms. Rosalee Barton, owner, and
spoke about the proposed construction.
questions.
David Quye, designer,
They answered var iClus
Several people spoke in support of the project.
Approximately 15 neighbors spoke in opposition. Ms. Barton and
Mr. Quye responded.
The Board considered the factors involved. Between the
two hearings, Ms. Barton made several changes to the plans
submitted for consideration. A fifth bedroom was eliminated,
architectural features were added, and the height of the st,ructure
was decreased.
The subject lot is a highly 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
still gives the appearance of a structure that"is out of
proportion to the limited size of this corner lot. It is
substantially larger than all other residences in the area. The
massive appearance could be mitigated by placing the second-story
five (5) feet in from the first-story on the easterly side,
similar to the dimensions of the first and second stories on the
westerly side. ~
There also was considerable concern about the impact of
the structure on the neighbors to the south, southwest and west.
It is the Board's opinion that the structure as presently proposed
will be detrimental to the use and enjoymen~ of adjacent
property. The Board welcomes the elimination of the fifth bedroom
and the lower roof height. The Board is concerned about the
placement of the large chimney within the westerly side yard
setback. This could be mitigated by designing a corner
fireplace/chimney that would not encroach into the side yard
.
e
, .
.
setback area. Because of the size of the structure and chimney,
the Board feels that the chimney should not be in such clolle
proximity to the adjoining property on the west.
The Board is not concerned with work inside the structure
that does not substantially change the external appearance of the
building. However, it is the Board's opinion that the intE,rior of
the structure could be redesigned to produce a structure that is
not excessively massive or out of proportion l(ith the subje'ct lot
and neighborhood.
Adequate landscaping with large trees also could mitigate
some of the concerns expressed above. As a result, the Board is
of the opinion that any approval of revised plans for the
structure will be SUbject to further Board approval of plans for
landscaping, walls and fences.
The Board stated that it is not opposed to the style or
two-story nature of the structure. The Board is more than willing
to consider plan revisions that mitigate the concerns expressed
above (e.g. redesign of second-story, west chimney, etc.).
The Board voted 4 to 1 to deny the application. Member
Charles George voted to approve the application. Member Gary .
Kovacic voted to deny the application, but indicated that he would
vote to approve the application if the second-story and west
chimney are redesigned to eliminate the concerns expressed above.
The denial is based on reasons set forth above and the following
provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5286:
1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resohltion
if -to promote and maintain the quality single-residential
environment of the City of Arcadia and to protect the property
values and architectural character of such residential
environments in those portions of the City in which the res.ldences
have formed a homeowners association. . ..- It is the op:lnion
of the Soard that the proposed project as presently deSigned 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 th~ neighborhood.- The Board is of the opinion that
the proposed structure as presently designed is not compatible
with existing structures in the neighborhood.
3. Section 3, paragraph 18 (a) of the Resolution pJ:ovides
that -(c]ontrol of architectural appearance and use of mateJ:ials
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 extant
necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony
-2-
.
.
, '
.
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 as presently designed 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 st~ucture as well as the
relationship of such principles to adjacent scructures 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.
F
-3-
.
.
, '
.
",.0
~.t
_f, ~'1.~:.
~.-~
FILE NO. 309
DATE September 25, 1,
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITIEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A.
PROJECI ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER
900 Balboa Drive
Rosalee Barton
"
B.
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT)
C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for
each check)
1. The proposed construction I118terials [] ARE, r] ARE NOl' compatible with
the existing I118terials, because not appli~~h'A ~'aA prcpcsed project
is a new structure
.
2. The proposed I118terWs [] WILL, De WILL Nar bav. a sip1f1C81llt adverse
impact on the overall sppearaca of the property. because_
.
3.
The proposed project VI IS, [J IS NOr s1p1ficaJltl, v181bls :frOlfJ the
adjoining public rights of wey, becauae see attached
4. The proposed project DI IS, [J IS NOr aignificaJltl, visible :rr~
adjoining properties. because see attached
5. The elements of the structure's design [] ARE, [] ARE Nar cOlna18tent
with the exi8tinl buildinl's desiln, because not ~i~hlA ~,~
praJOsed PJ:tliect 18 a new structure
6. The proposed project DG IS, [] IS Nar in proportion to other
improvements on the subject 8ite or to improvements on other properties
in the neighborhood, because see attached
7.
The local:ion of the proposed project [j WILL, DO WIIJ. Nar be detrimental
to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood
neighborhood, becauee see attached
8.
The proposed project's aetbacks ~ DO, [] DO Nar provide for adequate
separation between improvementa on the same or adjoining pro~rties,
because if it lies with Munic COde Sections 9252.2.2 (front yard -
avera 0 the t:I<<l nearest ots 9252.2.4 side aDi - ten feet
for boO-story portion 0 the stxuct:ure ,9252.2.5 s , corner lot -
five feet for side yam adjoining the interior lot; ten feet for side yam
on the street side, and Resolution 5286, Section 3, Paragraph 3 (corner lot -
t1Nenty-five feet fran side street prcp!rty line for separate garage).
EXHIBIT C
SEPTEMBER 25, 198!
"
9.
OTHER FINDINGS See attached.
.
D. ACTION
[] APPROVAL "
DQ APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) (3-2)
The applicant shall sul:mi.t and the A.R.B. shall "M'Lu\le plans for land"""'ping,
walls and fences prior to camencing constructi.an.
Georqe T. Campbell', Michael Kaiser and Charles E. George voted for
approval. airy A. Kovacic and Wes Slider voted for denial. ,
.
G.
REPRESENTING THE
Santa Anita Village
ASSOCIATION
H. APPEALS
Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shell be made to the Planning
Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contect the
requirements, fees and proceedures. Said appeal muB~ be made in writing and
delivered to the Planning Department, 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 per1~ of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for
which plans bave been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused,
abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no
effect.
.
.
.
. '
.
ATTACHMENT TO
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FINDINGS OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1987
Re: File No. 309
900 Balboa Drive (Barton)
A pUblic hearing was held on September 25, 1987 tel review
the proposed construction of a two-story, 4-bedroom residence and
a 3-car garage at 900 Balboa Drive. The first proposal for the
subject property by the applicant (File No. 301) was denied. by the
Board (5-0) after a public hearing on July 23, 1987. The second
proposal for the subject property by the applicant (File No. 305)
was denied by the Board (4-1) after public hearings on Augu.st 26,
1987 and September 8, 1987.
Ms. Rosalee Barton, owner, Richard Polumbo, contractor,
and David Quye, designer, spoke about the proposed project. They
answered various questions.
Approximately 15 neighbors spoke in opposition. Ms.
Barton, Mr. Polumbo and Mr. Quye responded.
The Board considered the factors involved. Since the
original filing of the application, the applicant made several
changes to the plans submitted for consideration. A fifth bedroom
was eliminated, square footage was reduced from 3732 to 3462,
architectural features were added, and the height of the structure
was decreased.
The subject lot is a highly 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
larger than other residences in the area.
During- the hearings, neighbors expressed considerable
concern about the impact of the structure on the neighborhood.
The neighbors also expressed concern about the trend to develope
large structures in the Village and the need for a maximum square
foot limitation.
.
A majority of the Board feels that the elimination of the
fifth bedroom, the added architectural features, the reduced
square footage and the lower roof height sufficiently miti9ate the
concerns expressed by the neighbors. Adequate landscaping with
large trees also will mitigate tne concerns expressed.
The Board voted 3 to 2 to approve the application.
Members Charles George, Mike Kaiser and George Campbell voted to
approve the application. Their approval of the project is subject
to further Board approval of plans for landscaping, walls clOd
fences. The approval is based on the reasons set forth above and
the following provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5286:
1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resolution
if "to promote and maintain the quality single-residential
environment of the City of Arcadia and to protect the prope,rty
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 a majority of the Board that the proposed project as presently
designed will 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, ",a,ll or
fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, ",aIls
or fences in the neighborhood." A majority of the Board is of the
opinion that the proposed structure as presently designed, subject
to an approved landscaping plan, is compatible with existing
structures in the neighborhood.
, ,
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, building, 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 a majority of the Board that
the proposed structure as presently designed, subject to an
approved plan for walls and fences, is neither excessive nor
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 a majority
of the Board that the proposed structure is harmonious with and in
proportion to adjacent structures and other structures in the
neighborhood.
.
-2-
.
.
, '
.
Opposition:
Members Wes Slider and Gary Kovacic voted to deny the
application. It is their opinion that the revised proposal still
gives the appearance of a massive structure that is out of
proportion to the limited size of the corner lot and the ot.her
structures in the neighborhood. It is their opinion that t,he
structure as presently proposed will be detrimental to the use and
enjoyment of adjacent property.
They are not concerned with work inside the structure
that does not substantially change the external appearance of the
building. However, it is their opinion that the interior of the
structure could be redesigned to produce a structure that is not
excessively massive or out of proportion with the subject lot and
neighborhood. A redesign should include a reduction of the
overall size of the "shell" of the structure. One suggestion was
to reduce the size of the second story by placing the second-story
five (5) feet in from the first-story on the easterly side (i.e.,
similar to the design of the first and second stories on the
westerlY side).
They stated that they were not opposed to the particular
style or two-story nature of the structure. They indicated that
they would vote to approve the application if the second-story was
redesigned to eliminate their concern about the massive appearance
of the structure.
-3-