Loading...
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-