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