Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1392 (2) . . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1392 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REIVIEW BOARD'S CONDmONAL APPROVAL FOR AN ADDmON TO AN EXISTING GARAGE AT 936 HUGO REID DRIVE (MP 88-029). WHEREAS, on October 4, 1988 an appeal was filed by Dennis Marolt, of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's September 29, 1988, conditional approval of an addition of a storage room to an existing garage on property located at 936 Hugo Reid Drive (MP 88-029), a more particularly described as follows: Lot 46 of Tract No. 13313, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 268, Pages 33 and 34 of Maps, in the office of said County Recorder. WHEREAS, on October 25,1988 the Planning Commission heard the 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 Archtiectural Review Baord's findings and actions of September 29, 1988. b. Written communication submitted by the Appellant. c. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on October 25, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the addition with a 3'-0" side yard setback would be compatible, harmonious and consistent with the existing garage and surrounding neighborhood. The addition's appearance and exterior building materials would be compatible with the structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the appeal of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's conditional approval for the addition of a storage room to an existing garage subject to the following conditions: 1. That the exterior treatment of the addition shall match the existing garage (roof & stucco). 2. That a modification shall be granted for a 3'-0" easterly side yard setback in lieu of 5'-0". . . 1392 -1- . . 3. That MP 88-029 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant have . executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 4. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this modification shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of said permit. Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of October 25, 1988, and following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Clark Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of November, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay, Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None . Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia . 1392 -2- . . October 25,1988 . TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILFRED E. WONG, ASSOCIATE PLANNER MP 88-029 (936 HUGO REID DRIVE) APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION'S CONDmONAL APPROVAL SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: Dennis Marolt LOCATION: 936 Hugo Reid Drive REQUEST: The property owner has appealed the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's conditional approval for the addition of a storage room to an existing garage . LOT AREA: Approximately 8,580 square feet FRONTAGE: 65 feet on Hugo Reid Drive EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling and detached garage; zoned R-1 & D SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: South: East: West: Single family residences; zoned R-O D (15,000) Single family residences; zoned R-1 D (7,500) Single family residences; zoned R-1 D (7,500) Single family residences; zoned R-1 D (7,500) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential (0-6 du/ac) . . MP 88-029 October 25,1988 Page 1 . . PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS . On September 29, 1988, a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board to consider plans submitted by Dennis and Roberta Marolt to add a 7'-5" by 13'-6" (approximately 101 sq. ft.) storage room to the rear of their existing garage at 936 Hugo Reid Drive. The storage room would have a 3'-0" easterly side yard setback, consistent with the existing garage. Code requires a 5'-0" side yard setback. The Architectural Review Board noted at its meeting that "the plans as submitted require a modification of the side yard setback, which [they] do not feel is justified" and voted 4 to 0 to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans be revised to comply with all required setbacks without modification. 2. Exterior treatment and roof shall match the existing building. A Statement of Policy was attached to the Findings and Action of the Architectural Review Board. After review by the City Attorney it was determined that the use of Government Code Section 65906 (policy number 2) in the review process is inappropriate and should be discontinued. A letter was sent on October 20, 1988 informing the Architectural Review Board of this . determination (copy attached). The applicant has appealed the Architectural Review Board's conditional approval in regards to the setback requirement. The applicant would like to maintain the 3'-0" easterly side yard setback for the proposed addition which is consistent with the existing garage in lieu of offsetting the addition in order to comply with the required 5'-0" side yard setback. 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). Section 3.18 (page 8) 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 the Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance (Resolution 5286, Section 3.12, page 5). Said resolution requires compatibility "with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood". . MP 88-029 October 25,1988 Page 2 . . . . . 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. 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 dated October 18, 1988 with Exhibits (A, B, C and D) relating to similar modifications granted and Exhibit E a petition from adjoining property owners in favor of the proposed addition and setback modification; the ARB findings of October 7, 1988 accompanied by a "Statement of Policy", the Planning Department's letter of October 20, 1988 and Resolution 5286. FINDINGS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the appeal of the Architectural Review Board's conditional approval for a proposed storage room at 936 Hugo Reid Drive and approve the storage room as proposed with a 3'-0" side yard setback and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. 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 conditional approval, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. MP 88-029 OCtober 25, 1988 Page 3 " w 'J. -... G ,~ J:~ 0 , 0 ... 'J -";0 ... ~ ....J J ~= . o~ <>, 0 '" (,c/) 'VI <.:> 0 ') ,:'.' 'I:. '. '1 , " -. ,. .... PRNORRMR \t,~ ~ c...:.'2~ (906) (gee) ". :,.'? :1.:. 0 "- , ~~f' R-O 0- 0 "':.=1 j';.) -/ .,. 0"' -. .;.. o. 0 .. 0 ., ., 0 .,. , 0 0 " (!JtS) 0 O' (#"/ ,'9$1': -...~ (.J~f) (94/) . . .(#s/.. - - -~ .( , .'" HUGO REID ~ 'l' 6<> .~ (ha) (.Ii;J' ',' .....- (3",) ("~1) ;.~ /1.31 ~d.G9 . ' , (9.#4") Iii. '" (,,;0-/ (.nO; , J .) '. f!liIi'l '. J 0 ~' 0 , 7. 'II 0 Q <!I ., = 'J 0 0 '^ ~. ...,j " ~~0i:Jr '3 <Q .':"'\. ' ...,j -, "1 , 0'; ,,'" == ~ . V = . .; , .; R- e:: - I 0- 0 u ~ \ , ..;..:..; ~ ..~ ~ ....~.: ~~, C'd .l~ 0 J -G9 .'. d~.71 ~o . ~ 0 ., : 0 ~. .!':-- j (.-'" '\ " 0 ,::. 0" .... [": .00 0 7. ,. . (9S,,, ,r: ~ :...~.( 9?!)., .,., 0 r ,.1 ~: ~,,?) -! I. , ~ r: ~. 0 ," '9 ~"~ .. , "". (~--:.,l') ., .'oJ!,.. ~ ..::~, r~~/) _~ I NGSlf r.... d.11 . ""'''.1 ....s. ~oe..:. <.j' 3..,: ~-r41 103';/ (',go'S) ~V' .;. . ~S4) .: 5' y .~ 9' c'G7a " ? ~~- .~ 0 - ,~. [l~~ID) lUJ~[E ~~ID) Z~~ ~ lM(I MP 66029 ~1",:r-lOO' 1m . I \ ~ -.-----.. . .,. -,~.~,,-~:-~--_._-~.-.. .'.~- ..~....,...:.,_._.......... I I I . . . /" 4' ;:P"OM ?RC'?'=.K\'Y . U'-~E. ID RE~<:, ()<;: . l..DL\TION RE.AR . { \-. 2;,' fRo M PROP~RT'( LINE. 'TO S"lC~e OF I':' ~R~~E:. GARI'.GE HOU.SE '., ;..... FRoNr r \..8\'O)",qS-SB~o HOMEi \1.J~ b1.1 -<\<\1.l WOI\..~. . . , CD I- .~-7''!:;' .-- . 2.0' t II . II Dennl. Mo,.1I 936 Hugo Reid Or. Arcadia. CA 91006 \.81~,>4''''':i-'i~~t> t\o...E lZI~)"'1.""I- C:\'\1.\ wo"'" . . 1--4'b'~--- 1~\61\ ~ . . "ECEIVED OCT 18 1988 8 erN 0" AACADlA P\.ANNING 01."'. Members of the Planning Commission, . The Santa Anita Village Review BOard said they would apprOve an additior. to the-rear of my garage if I change the side yard setback from )'-0" to 5'-0" and if the exterior walls and roof match the existing garage. My house is stuccO and wood siding. I would like the addition to be wood siding to match the house. For the roof I would like to use Cal-Shake on the addition and the existing garage. Cal-Shake is an apprOved roofing material in the Village. In reference to the side yard setback, attached is a list of 42 mOdifications referring to side yard setbacks on property throughout Arcadia (Exhibit A}. Three of these mOdifications are in the Village and were apprOved by the Village A.R.B. They are located at ~20 Hugo Reid. 815 Balboa and 711 Cortez. Copies of these three are also attached (Exhibit B.C and n). Most of the 42 mOdifications were approved to maintain the existin~ side yard setback and to keep the addition in line with the existing exterior wall. I feel setbacks are important. but more important is the way the structure looks. Offsetting an exterior wall by 2 feet betw~en the existing building and the addition is not being constistent with the existing building nor is it compatible with the exterior wall. From the research I have done of the Planning DePartments records it seems to me that the Village A.R.B. ignores the wishes of the property owners and ignores neighbors who had a full understanding of the setback mOdification (Exhibit E). When the City changed the side Yard setback from) to 5 feet I don't think they meant it.to be used to punish ~roperty owners with existing 3 foot setbacks. Each Part of the City is unique. that is why there were sO many side yard setback mOdifications. The builders. architects and planners who built the Village in the late 1940 and early 1950 felt that for the size of the lots and the location of the buildings on the lots a 3 foot setback was adequate. The Village is one of the most desirable areas of Arcadia to live in. One must think they knew what they were doing. sincerely ~~m~ Dennis Marolt 9)6 Hugo Reid Dr. Arcadia Ca. 91006 . rage 1 . . . 1987-1988 SIDE YARD SETBACK MODIFICATION APPROVED IN ARCADIA TO BRING ADDITION IN LINE WITH EXISTING EXTERIOR \IIALL Administrative Side Yard MOdification No, Address Setback MOdification ~la-88-042 1025 Paloma 5' setback in lieu of 10' r:'a-lJ8-04) 224 E, Floral Ave, J' setOack in lieu of 5' ~1a-8'3-04 5 464 Cambridge Rd, 8'-9" setback in lieu of 10' Ma-88-047 2)27 SWanee Lane 4' setback in lieu of 5' 1'1a-'313-056 210 W, wistaria 5.98' setback in lieu of 10' 1';a-88-027 42) Monte Vista Rd. 7' setback in lieu of 10' /,)a-88-02'1 217 E. Laurel Ave. 4' setback in lieu of 5' r':a-R8-0)0 520 Catalpa Rd, 9' setback in lieu of 10' . Ma-88-0)2 )47 Haven Ave. 4' setback in lieu of 5' Ma-88-0)7 1019 Encanto Dr. 5' setback in lieu of 10' 1.1a-8S-0)9 22 E. Floral Ave. 4' setback in lieu of 5' ~la-BB-006 l1S \II. Pamela Rd 4' setback. in lieu of 5' ~ia-88-007 5Jl Monte Vista Rd. 6'-7" setback in lieu of 10' r~a-88-014 2529 S. )rd. st. J' setback in lieu Of 5' Ma-S8-01S 206 E. Haven Ave, J' setback in lieu Of 5' 1.1a-BS-OlS 25 W. Naomi Ave. 4' setback in lieu of 5' 1\;a-88-021 III S. Old Ranch Rd. 5'-6" setback in lieu of 10' 1\:a-8S-022 4)0 Monte Vista Rd, 7' setback in lieu of 10' . * Am-f37-71 820 Hugo Reid Dr, )' setback in lieu 5' of Am-S7-75 145 'II, Wistaria 5' setback in lieu of 10' * Am-'37-% 711 COrtez Rd. ) , setback in lieu of 5' . * NOTE: Homes lOcated in Village EXHIBIT A t':.Lg'~ 2 . . . A"mi:-:istr-ative .. ,,'..' 'tio No. :,.O.,;"lca~ n j':a- ~~;; - 001 129 E. Camino Real ) '-6" setback in lieu of 5 ' Am-"7-57 2'1 w. Magna vista ) '_9" setback in lieu of 5 ' Am- '::7-60 1511 Hyland Ave ) , setback in lieu of 5' Am-;:7-6~ 247 E Newman Av,e. )' setback in lieu of 5' Am-':7-40 J46 Fairview Ave. 5' setback in lieu of 10' Am-"7-u2 1010 Panorama J' setback in lieu of 10' Am-;>7-44 61J Sharon Rd. 4' setback in lieu of 5' Ar.1-:7-4~ J15 E. La Sirra Dr. J' setback in lieu of 5' .. Am- ~ 7- 5 J 8i5 Balboa Dr. 4'_4" setback in lieu of 5' Am- "7 - 2 ~ 1046 Paloma Dr. 6' to 7' setback in lieu of 10' . Am-"7-~:; 129 'II. Leory Ave. J' setback in lieu of 5' Ar:l-"7-29 422 'N. Walnut Ave. J' setback in lieu of 5' Am-~7-JO 1010 Panorama Dr. 6' setback in lieu of 10' A~-:: 7-; ~ 2225 Greenfield Ave. 4'-6" setback in lieu Of " ... Am-'37-JJ 865 Volante Dr, 5' to 7' setback in lieu of iO' Am- "7-)4 717 Camino Grove 4'-6" setback in lieu of 5' . . Ar:l-:7-J5 210 W. WOOdruff Ave. 5' setback in lieu of 10 Am37-J6 17JO S. 2nd, Ave. 4'-4" setback in lieu of " ... Am-~7-2 J7 W, Sierra Madre J' set back in lieu of 5' Am-:7-10 1518 Cambury Ave. J'-J" setback in lieu of 5' Ar.l- "7 -11 J14 S. Old Ranch Rd. 5 ' setback in lieu of 10' .. NOTE: Homes Located in Village . EXHIBIT A . . . ~dP-/t;, ~-~ ~.---" ...,ll> ......,;>, ~ . I1JIr'"'" '3 ~ ::~-t.' ,~~ ."'oill"''I'aO GEORGE J. WATTS em' MA..~ACER .~~~ . ROBER:- C H.\RB:c'H-;' ',Ic\.IG~ ?R.) :-t~\PCRt. 240 West Hunt1n~[On Drive Arcadia. California 91006-0060 (8IB) 574.5??OO ROGER CH \'OLi:R OE:>;:>;15 .\. LOjESl't .\IAR Y Yt1I.'\,'G eOl'selL .\tE.\iBlRS CHARLES E. GILS MAYOA. CHRISTINE VA." MAA:>;E~ ClTI a.ux ADMINISTRATIVE MODlFICAT1QN AM 67-71 SEPTEMBER 24, 19a7 APPLICANT: Donald H. Rollins ADDRESS: REQUEST: FINDINGS: ACTION: 820 Hugo Reid Drive A 3'-0. easterly side yard setbadt in lieu of 5'-0. required for a proposed single-story addition to the main dwelling (Sec. 9252.2.4.>. The applicant is requesting a 3'-0. easterly side yard setback in order to have the proposed addition become a compatible emmsiOll of the easterly ezterior wall 01 the maiD dwtWng Said dwtWng presenUy maintains a 3'-0. to 4'-0. t easterly side yard setback. The santa Anita Village Home owners' Assodation and the adjoining property owners have reVieWle<S and approved this request Also, it is staft's opinion that approval of this request will secure an appropriate improvement. ApprOVed There is a five WIOrktng day appeal period for this application, building permits cannot be obtained until October 2, 1987. . . Please contact the Building Department at 574-5416 to determine the number of building plans required for plan check and proper permits to be obtained before construction. AIly modification granted by this application must be USf<l wtthin twelve months or this application shall become null and void. CORKRAN W. NICHOLSON ASSOC I ATE PLANNER EXHIBIT B . . . . RECEIVED SEP 14 \987 . FILE NO. 30cf DATE 9 -9 -/<JR:7 CI'N D' ...cADlA P\"A..nNCl 0&"' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) 9:J () /-k.J tTO 1<e'lJ 7J L./ lit; l>ON ItulJ .If t)/...t,.../;u5 B. C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written axplanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials ~ ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible ~ith the existing materials, because 2. The proposed materials [] WILL, C( WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 3. The proposed project 0( IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of wey, because 4. The proposed project~ IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, because 5. The elements of the structure's design p( ARE, [) ARE ~OT conaiatent with the existing building's design, because 6. The proposed project D\ IS, [] IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the stibJect site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because 7. The location of the proposed project [J WILL, ~ WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks N DO, [] DO NOT . provide for adequata separation between improvements on the aaae or adjo1nina proparti.., because EXHIBIT B .. . . . . 9. OTHER FISDINS;S ~#2.~ ~ ~~.I~/ : ~ D. ACTION [] APPROV AL JO APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) /. /1/~ ~ 4\1'..rb~ ..L.LI./ Ic.L ~ ~(dflzh,,~~ ('hW). F J+. -id~, a,u.. ~). ~~~~~~~~~ALL,iJk [] DENIAL~ tW_~ #U;<<y ~ a.tA-d ~t~~{~~ E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COHKIT1'EE'S) ACTION ,!-9-/?t7 F. BOARD (COHHI'ITEE) HEHBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION h.&. ~nf.l~J G. ~ ~ I/.<~(,~ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE H. APPEALS Appeals from the Board'a (Committee'a) deciaion ahall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make auch an appeal should contact the requirements. fees and proceedures. Said appeal must be ~a 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 period of one (1) year from the date of approval. any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee). hes been unused. abandoned or discontinued. said approval shall bacome null and void and of no effect. . . ... "/~ ?,:...l. ~1I'" ~ '? I '.. ~-./,,"- / ,.....1"--0 "'e.) p:c,f- ";&1# fe'vI t4',/'.; A'VI/'~;ti N z '. . I I .,. I I .--.' I - ", ...... -:-:-:-:11 i -. .: ,"'.~:<:..~'-i;.,,~ ~~. , _ _ ~P:~ IT.. ~'~~ l~ >It . \ ~ ";..:.~ :....:,,~I. I :.".: 1"''- " ) I _ ... "l! ~ ~ . I e, t !(>1(_~ "" 1'(Kl ~t1~.:? ~ l ~ lJ\ . J - \'1\ I r-.:-:- .-'1.- _ ~ : II +-Jr"--'~-' .\ I ~ I' . v i . ~ I ~ t ~.. -i- II' , ;; f' . r : ~' ! . . : 1\.11- ..; . ,'1- ' --~ " ~,?> I ~ ?:J, . ~~~ ~~. ~~~.r" , ~~'~f~t11fL-;\ N . 'tl () ~... ~;' .' .,r. " .- "\"' . ,. I .' . \ ,. I \1 - 'I~+ '- :- ;;; Lll , ~1I'?'i ',,"~. . b'J,() ~vt1t7 f\e;!~ , I ~.- , - vP t - '"/'20' .- EXHIBIT B i~Av1'- I t.1~(/00" . . . .. ~~~ . ROBERT C H.\RBICHT .\1\)OR PRO TLIwiPOR( 240 \Vest HunLJngton Dnve Arcadia. California 91006.()Q60 i818) 574.5'100 ROGER CHASDLER DE:-;:-;IS A. LOJESIU MARY YOL:NG COt;SOl MtMBERS GEORGE J. \\'.\ITS CHARLES E. GILS CITY "KiiMfNJ ITRA TlVE MODIFICATION Atta7-'53. August 12, 19~7 CHRISTINE VAS MA.o\."EN CTY Q.tU APPLICANT: Alvarez Construction ADDRESS: REQUEST: FINDINGS: ACTION: a 15 Balboa Drive A 4'-4" t. ~terly side yard setback in lieu o! 5'-0" reqUired!or a proposed single-story addition to the main dwelling (Sec. 9252.2.4,). The applicant is requesting a 4'-4.! W'eSter1y side yard setback in order to have the proposed addition become a compatible extension o! the ~terly exterior wall o! the main dwelling. A ~terly side yard variation from 5'-0. to a'-o. eJ1st on the site, and the requested deviation from this ellisting setback is due to the site.s ~terly property line not running parallel to the building. The Santa Anita Village ASSOCiation's ArctUt.ectural Review lloard and the adjoining property owners have reviewed and approved this request. Also, it is stalf's opinion that approval o! tbis request will se<:ure an appropriate improvement. Approved There is a five working day appeal period for this appllcation. building permits cannot be obtained unw August 20, 19a7. Please contact the Building Department at 574-5416 to determine the number o! building plans reqUired for plan check and proper permits to be obtained before construction. Anf modification granted by tbis appllcation must be uSed Witbin twelve months or this application shall become nUll and void. LfA1::QJlrul CORKRAN W. NICHOLSON ASSOCIATE PLANNER .. EXHIBIT C . . . . . FILE SO. 2..80 DATE 1'1-1 (a/I5"'- ARCHITECTURAL DESIG~ REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS 81'i ~~ E'orn-\. v.J.Al-iEL B. PROPERTY OI,NER 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 2. The proposed materials [].WILL, ~ILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 3. The proposed project [] IS, ~S NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because 4. The proposed project [] IS, [~S NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, because 5. The elements of the structure's design [~E, [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design. because 6. The proposed project ~, [J IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood. because 7. The location of the proposed project [] WILL. ~ILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because s'. The proposed project's setbacks [M-'OO. [] DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because EXHIBIT C . . . 9. ,-,-'C~~ :;'P'Dl"- v..._.. .. ....1 .,1!! . D. ACTION H"" APPROV AL [J APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) E. [] DENIAL DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION BOARD (CO~~ITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISI~Nl J~'( ~. Vr:;:;.A4 - 01?ts.L F. 1~/11/8~ ~ G. REPRESENTING THE ~ll.-JWAr;;;? H . APPEALS ASSOCIATION 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. Huntington Drive. Arcadia. CA 91006, within five (5) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which 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. . . . ~~ :b=... .,r~ ~l' ,....... --- It.; ~ "~O....f.tl .~r~ · R(jAERT r. H \R31r:HT '.1 ,'il".JR Pit,.; rE.:.lprJiU 240 West Huntington Driv~ Acadia, California 91006-0060 (818) 574.5400 ROGER CH \"DLEK DE~"15 .\. LO)E51\1 .\fAR Y YOL'"C; . COLISOL .\iE!oofatRS GEORGE J. WAITS c.rn MANACER CHARLES E. GllS MAVOR CHRISTINE VA:-; \fA..\SE:" CITY cr.! RL NISTRATIV December 11, 1987 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: REQUEST: Timothy D. Baker, Architect for Cha~Hsiun8 Wu 711 Corta Road 92522..4. Minimum 3'-{)" side yard setback alonl the northerly property line in lieu of 5'-{)" required for a proposed addition The applicant is proposinl to add twO bedrooms and a new ldtthen to the house. The existinl house has a 4'-4" side yard setback. The front of the lot is wider than the rear of the lot and. the northerly property line angles back. The proposed addition which will be located at the rear of the house has a semack ranging from 6'-{)" co 3'-{)" , FINDINGS: The Santa Anita ViDale Review Board has reviewed and approved the proposed plans and. adjolninl property owners have approved the requested modification. Approval of this modification would secure an appropriate improvement. ACTION: Approved There is a five worldnl cia, appeal period !Dr this appUc~onn, buildinl permits C8Dl1Ot be obtained \mal Dtcl'rnher 19, 1987. Please contact the Bui1dInI Department at 574-5416 to dctezmine the numba of building plans required !Dr plan chedt and. proper ptnnits to be obtained ~ tMlS1IUction. Arly modification granted by this applic.alion must be used within twdve months or this application shall bWlme null and void. ~L NINO DEPARTMENT ~~~ ONNA L. BUTLER. . SENIOR PLANNER. EXHIBIT b M;")/T7CN (ID5D ~): .:>UC.ED Yflil-b ~~ TO ~ . (TZrr~{, ~ ~ OF ftOtJC:;E A1JD ~- t.~9o~) . ( 'SIDE AECE. .'D DEe 8 1987 FILE NO. B..7-3 DAP-J/--i-Iq'iq ~I"" or '''CAat. -...,... DI--.. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COHMImE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS -, 1/ c..of2:n::~ fk.A-"D B. PROPERTY OWNER ~ - !f?IU!oJ qUI U ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) ~ 5 ~. ~tJ 1'r'J~. _HMJ~ fAtUL.) CAu~. 'l/1~ C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide. writt.n explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materi.ls ~ARE, [] ARE HOT compatible vith the exhting materhls, because . . . 2. The proposed materiels [] WILL, [~LL NOT bave . eilnificant adverse impact on the overall .ppe.ranc. of the property, bec.u.. 3. The proposed project [] IS, ~S HOT silnificantly'vi.ible from the adjoining publiC right. of vay, because 4. The propoaed project ~S, [] IS NOT significantly v1sibl. fral adjoining properti.., bec.us. 5. The elementa of the .tructure'. d.a1lft ~, [] ARE HOT con.1ltent with the exi.t1nl buildina'l d.I1aft, becau.. . 6. The proposed project r~s, [] IS NOT in proportion to other improvementa on the lubject lite or to improvement. on other properties in the ne18hborhood, beeau.. 7. The location of the proposed project [] WILL, WILL HOT be detrimentel to the uae end .njoyment and value of adjacant property .nd neiahborhood neighborhood, bec.u.. 8. The proposed project'a setbecka DO, [] DO HOT provide for adequete separation'betveen improvements on the same or .djo1nin8 propert1el, becaule ElCMIBIT D . . . D. I) . 9. ~~,I:~~~ ~~~~~4)~~{~IJ7i[;~~~~~ -~~~~)'D OFM~{U/tftl~~~~7r:1J.;~~'~ ACTION ~~(.(~ ,~ NO'- V(~I~ fil.<)M ful?ue.. ktrtff OF WM{, [) AFPROV AL ~APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) lD()~~ ~ M'IJJJ\J~ J s::t"JL ~~(~ ~_ .IJ..JVJL M/lbl r:1 u..n./lt.J;6; u.c::-w fUJ[)r:: -ro M ~T' L.4+ ~Ic.cr/~br ~1TA-lU:: ~:'(';)~~(Lt.lJM1J4 J 'DMfLb ~~ W/t.j"bl)l~""tf") M~ [) DENIAL E'i-lt:ff'/ Nt,. . E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COHHIT1'EE'S) ACTION ~ F. BOARD (COHMIT1'EE) MEHBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION ~i 1+. UlVWiL. G. ~~ ~I~ \llll~ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING TIlE H. APPEALS Appeals from the Board'a (Committee'a) decision ahall be made to the Planninl Commission. Anyone desiring to make auch an appeal should contact the requirements, feea and proceedurea. Said appeal muat be ..de iD writ1nl and delivered to the Planninl Department, 240 W. Huntinlton Drtve, Arcadia, CA 91006, within five (,) workinl day a of the Board'. (Committee'.) daciaion. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plana hava been approved by the Board (Committee), hea been unuaed, abandoned or diacontinued, aaid approval ahell become null and void and of no effact. r-J; 1,J.' -"c.....;; . : r.~~' f{~~~t..: ~,.~ ~::.>...~..:~5.* ....- :;.- ... . ~..,- """ . ( : It'. " . ~~'.; r :. ~ i-r I , '1.' .I,', , , . I. t. ':'.'. .. I'~:, . f 'I.,. .. " '.. .' .. J . . , ..~. . ::1 - .. '. i ~ . ~ 'Z IIll l .. . : ~ , ... ". '. ., I . I,: i ,'~. !... J :..;~.t;..~ . ~.,.. . ""A..' . .' ~' .' . " .11- I I ..-t. ~"-i. . . ~'I. : .... t, ...." " N .' ~I"~ 1&'\01 ~.I"t . -- 11 , c;fi~::~~S~~~ If':,~}~''';:'.{n \.~'.f:~ ,j.., .... .~; '~'f'v... <{:G: ~) :>:':~'::' 1..-., .......~.~. . 'I .:.', '. .".: .f"~.. ~. . '; -, "';". ,. .:T " )#.:: :~r.o~:t;.:~.:;~:;.~.~ ... ,,,.t>CIlT'I4!>N "....." '~b~M;f!;~:J;;;; . ,l... '. "j'iioJ '. ',: -.' - ~.J,' ",':,:-, 'C ~'...; ';," . ~"'J'" .;,.,~ . .:. ,',' , ....ft. :.;' :. ;..... I'. .....,. ..... 01"'" ,. "~;.I ~~: ,.y. '\ '.- e.r.""""..Go I'L..ae..lG... '. ,. , --~-_...__._... r:../IoIf. .......... .,.............7 ..( e,..MIN(o TIlLu..' " '.- 'F. ......,..-.l,7 '.. .... .. -~;' . ., .". ~ . . \ 'r :C'" ..... ...... , ',' . ... .-..... " ,r . , ~'C ~TA [;o:.e.TIc::>i-l' .,. ~n.::t. rza ....~:.:.., .. IeT~.. 1'''-.".. ,." ~ I."'" ~1IbCoe.' ~r ":II%~' "I, t'l<! ....,. " i ~.,r - :r ~ " ~ ~ ....- %..616 """""~CI' 1~_........ Z,O-,!c::> ,.._" . ~I': EjCHIBIT D . . I) 'l/E. THE UNT)ERSIGNED (SIGNATURES) OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL TO ENLARGE THE ~ARA~E AT 9)6 HU~O REID DR. AND ARE IN FAVOR OF THE MODIFICATION TO PERMI'T A )'-0" EASTERLY SIDE YARD SETBACK. , SIG~RE ~F O~NER &tfI J4. .Ju-!'--jL '~tl~ dt;;::t ~ ~~Lt ~ , -/I-.:-?/...J. "'~ /) f?~~.P-;.J ( AD~RAt f3b 4r; ';Ifv{/~. ?30 ~~~~:~~Y?;. ~ 9' fL-3 y/j-L .qo K~';/_~'/ if II . . EXHIBIT E . . . tJ ROJECT : ';ddition (101 Sa existing detacr., i'ard garage. fILE NO. 363 ) to rear . RECEIVED OCT 11 J988 CI",v 0,. .-..cAD "I...A,""'NGOC",A DArE October 7, 133: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (C0Ml11TI'EE) fINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY O\,'NER ADDRESS (If DIFFERENT) 936 Hugo Reid Drive Dennis and Roberta Morolt B. C. FINDINGS (onl, check those that appll, and provide I written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materlala ~ ARE, [) ARE NOT compatlbla ~th the exiatina materiala, becauss . 2. The proposed materlals [J WILL, p! WILL NOT have a slanlflcsnt adverae impact on the overall appearance of the propertT, becauss . 3. . The proposed project [) IS, ~ IS NOT alanlflcantl, vls1ble from the adjoinina public riahta of vST, because . 4. The proposed project t4 IS, [J IS NOT slanlflcantl, vlslbl. froa adjoining properties, becaua. . 5. The elements of the structure'. desian t4 ARE, () ARE NOT conslateat with the existln, buildln,'s design, becau.. . 6. The proposed project ~ IS, [J IS NOT ln proportlon to oth.r lmprovementa on the subject slte or to Improvements on other properties ln the nelahborhood, becau.. . 7. The location of the proposed project [J VILL, ~ WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent propert, and neiahborhood ne1ahborhood, because see condition *1 . B. The proposed project's setbscks id DO, (J DO NOT provide for adequate aeparatlon between lmprovement. on the aa.e or adjoinina propertiea, because see Dondi tion # 1 . . . . . . ...9. O11IER FINDINGS The plans as submitted require a modi c, "~~ion 0: the side yard setback. which the Architectural Ppvl.w Board ~ce3 not feel is ;ustified (please see attached stat~mpnt of ooli~j') . D. ACTION [ ) APPROVAL [~ APPROVAL SUBJECT.TO THE FOLOWlNG CONDITION(S) (4-0) 1. The plans shall be revised to com~ly with all required setbacks without modification. 2. Exterior tr~atm~n~ ann rnnf ~h~" mA~~h py;~t;nQ [ ) DENIAL E. DATE OF ARCHITEC'ruRAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMItTEE'S) ACTION September:?9, 1988 F. BOARD (CO~ImE) HEHBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISIOIf Garv Kovacic John Senlinos Charles George Jim Blackburn c. ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE Santa Anita Villao@ R. APPEALS . Appeals from the Board'. (Committee'.) decision .hall be made to the PI,nnins Commission. Anyone desirina to make .uch an appeal ahould contact the requirements, fees and proceedure.. Said appeal must be made in vriting and delivered to the Plannina Department, 240 W. Huntinston Drive, Arcadi., CA 91006, vi thin five (5) vorkina da,. of the Board'. (Committee'.) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) ,ear from the date of approval, an, project for vh1ch plana have been approved b, the Board (Committee), haa been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval ahall become null and void and of no effect. . . . . . SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD c/o 947 Coronado Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 ATTACHMENT Statement of POlicy During the last two years, the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board has held numerous public hearings concerning various applications for the construction of new homes and the modification of existing homes. In addition, the Santa Anita Village Home Owners Association conducted a survey of its members to determine the concerns and goals of the residents of the santa Anita Village area. Based on the above, the Architectural Review Board has tried to conform to tne fOllowing policies: 1. All matters requiring a modification of a setback or otner zoning regulation require a public hearing even if tne applicant has Obtained signatures of the adjacent property owners. The Architectural Review Board instituted this policy when a neighbor in a previous matter claimed that he had been mislead by an applicant about the setback regulations. 2. There shall be strict compliance with setback requirements unless the applicant can demonstrate special circumstances (consistent with the statutory standards for the granting of a variance as set forth 'in Government Code Section 65906). In addition to the legislative mandate, it is the position of the Home Owners Association and the Architectural Review Board that the special character of the village area is in large part the result of the requisite setbacks. In File No. 368, the Architectural Review Board unanimously decided that the applicant did not demonstrate any special circumstances to justify a modification of the existing setback requirements. The applicant correctly pointed out that the addition would have the same three feet setback as the existing garage. However, the former three foot setback was increased to five feet because it apparently was decided by city officials that three feet did not provide an adequate setback. In addition, the applicant can easily construct the proposed addition . . . . . in compliance with the current setback requirements. demonstrated by the following diagrams, which depict structure (A) and a structure that complies with the requirements (B): This is the proposed setback A B Finally, the applicant states that he has been informed by the Planning Department that the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board is the only review board that would have denied his request, The Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board believes that all architectural review boards in the City of Arcadia are concerned with maintaining the setbacks in their areas. It is ~specially important in the Village area where the standard lot is relatively narrow in width. Based on the foregoing policies and the facts in this matter, the Architectural Review Board feels that its decision is correct. ~~~ '. ROGER CHA1'DLER MA.VOR PRO TEMPORE 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia. California 91006,3104 (818) 574,5400 CHARLES E. GILB DENNIS A, LOJESKI MARY YOUNG COUNCIL MEMBERS GEORGE .I, WATTS CITY MANAGER ROBERT C. HARBICHT MA VOR JUNE D. ALFORD CITY CLERK October 20, 1988 Mr, Gary Kovacic 947 Coronado Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Re: Statement of Policy Dear Gary: The Statement of Policy which was attached to your File No, 368 for the addition at 936 Hugo Reid Drive (Dennis and Roberta Marolt) was reviewed by the City Attorney and myself. . The use of the finding criteria setforth in Government Code Section 65906 by the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board is inappropriate and should be discontinued. Architectural Review Boards cannot legislate by making policies to determine standards, The Association has not been delegated rule making authority of the type signified by Policy No.2 (attached), The powers of the Architectural Review Board are spelled out in Resolution No, 5286, Subsection 12 of Section 3, In Subsection 12,d of Section 3 standards have been established for modifications, which are similar to the City's standards. Note that Subsection 12.e of Section 3 does allow your Board "to establish rules for the purpose of exercising its duties, subject to review and approval of the City. Copies of such rules shall be kept on file with the Secretary of the Association and the City Clerk," As of this date your Board has not made any requests for additional rules. Further, these rules pertain to procedural functions and not to the substantive standards and criteria already set forth in the City Council Resolution, If you have any questions, please contact myself or the City Attorney, Sincerely 'BILL- William Woolard Director of Planning . cc City Attorney