Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1382 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1382 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE-STORY DWELLING WITH AITACHED GARAGE AT 1010 CORONADO DRIVE (MP 88-022) AND OVERRULING THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL. WHEREAS, on July 6, 1988, an appeal was filed by Chris Construction Company, mc" of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's June 30, 1988 denial of a one-story, four bedroom dwelling with an attached three car garage on property located at 1010 Coronado Drive (MP 88-022). WHEREAS, on July 26,1988 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 Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of June 30, 1988. b, Written communication submitted by the Appellant. d. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on July 26, 1988, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Commission finds that the structure is attractive and the use of materials is compatible to that in the surrounding neighborhood, A one story home and three car garage is consistent with contemporary standards of harmony and compatibility provided the design includes lowering the roof line and providing architectural treatment of the garage doors as required by the conditions set forth below, Section 2, That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the appeal and denies the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Boards denial of the four bedroom one story home with an attached three car garage subject to the following conditions: 1. That the garage doors be architecturally treated. Said treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 2. That a landscape plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Planning Department. -1- 1382 . . . 3. That the driveway be narrowed down as shown on the plans and that the driveway shall be enhanced with textured paving material, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. 4, That the roof be reduced to a 6:12 pitch. 5, That MP 88-022 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. 6. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit 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 July 26, 1988, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Clark 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 9th day of August, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund. Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: None ~ Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: k/lf(Y1/11~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -2- 1382 . July 26, 1988 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA 1. BUTLER, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: MP 88-022 - 1010 CORONADO DR APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNER AS5CX:IA nON'S DENIAL GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: Chris Construction Company, Inc. LOCATION: 1010 Coronado Drive . REQUEST: The property owner has appealed the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of a one-story four bedroom dwelling with attached three car garage LOT AREA: Approximately 9,362 square feet FRONT AGE: 65' on Coronado Drive EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling; zoned R-l & D SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: Properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with single-family dwellings; zoned R-l & D GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential D-6 du/ac . MP 88-022 July 26, 1988 Page 1 . .. . BACKGROUND On June 30,1988, a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board to consider plans submitted by Chris Construction Company, Inc" for a one-story, four-bedroom residence containing 3,245 sq, ft. with an attached three car garage located at 1010 Coronado 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. In summary the Board noted that: 1. The proposed project will not maintain the architectural character of the subject neighborhood. 2. That the Board is of the opinion that the proposed structure (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) is not compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood. The Board has not been provided with evidence as to the materials and appearance of any proposed walls or fences. 3. That the proposed structure is excessive (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 4. That the proposed structure (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) is not in harmony or proportion to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood, The Board's complete findings are set forth in Exhibit A. It was the consensus of the Board that the structure should be modified as follows: 1. The height of the structure (i.e., rooO should be reduced to 20 feet. 2. The garage should be a two-car garage. (The Board would consider a proposal for interior tandem parking with a two car garage door), 3. The size of the residence should not exceed the proposed 3,245 sq, ft. It also was suggested that the applicant consider a larger back yard. MP 88-022 July 26, 1988 Page 2 . . . PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant's proposal calls for a 3,245 square foot one-story dwelling with a 618 square foot three-car attached garage. The dwelling will be 25 feet in height, There will be a minimum 38'-0" setback from Coronado Drive. There are 5'-0" side yard setbacks on each side of the dwelling, The rear yard setback ranges from 25'-0" to 39'-0+". The proposed dwelling complies with all current code requirements including lot coverage, building height and setbacks. Resolution 5286 sets forth the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association (see attached resolution). Subsection 18 of Section 3 of this resolution sets forth the standards which should be considered by the ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the decision of the ARB, The 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 (Section 3 (12) Resolution 5286 - page 5). Said resolution requires compatibility "with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood". In making this determination as to "materials and appearance" and compatibility, the following principles are to be applied as guidelines by the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council); a, Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, buildin~ 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 relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. MP 88-022 July 26, 1988 Page 3 . c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable, Based on the above, the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council) is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are compatible with other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood, 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 July 6 as well as a letter dated July 21 regarding the ARB meeting from Chris Construction, and the ARB finding of June 30, 2988, 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 denial of the proposed one-story, four bedroom dwelling at 1010 Coronado Drive, 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 denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. . MP 88-022 July 26, 1988 Page 4 llO' " -j( g ~ . ~. >;; :\'- ,~ ,.. J-\ L 0''' ,': . <; "' .. " . <;-1:;;' n ~. ~~t' e 'OOA'J M&~ (1':N1 . ;. " ~ ,.,'>1 -" 1. /{ot(j 4~'" ,~~ "",II i~1l " PORltlLA a DR . ~ . :~/... ,!.,J(JIt',t .. "WAI ~ .: - -1!..'-1It.r..'.!'..:'J--" ~ LOT ~" '" r~"hrI~G'= , I I I ~.I ~ il"'::;' ~ ~v'NI} I,.J I"""" ,~('- I 'l'> 40 ,-, ~'(~ , I I , I _I ~, , , I ~= I "00'7 I '1 ~ -r ~ " .. N '" I- a: 8 ~iil)i .. -. -. -->- --i- ;; " . 1.03 '''-:7'.' "1'" " ,,- 3'(4 9 ~ J' " ,. ;'':1'1 " , III,,) - ~ -, ., " ;.. J~ ~.l I,,'~ JO> " , F?' f{'!') i;;~ JO ~9 .,7 ~, ..004 GOClol 1.4 I~ "~"I '... & . '" , , I IIot.'. , I 1 I 1 I (NOR TH ROADWAY) c., ".~} 3 " '" " " I~'" " i;;., . ., ,. ., I'.,) ~4~7\ r~) r_J ff"/.t6. I'''') /"1.' o " 1 , I I , I I I , ~~1"1 ~t\ C P~IJ \ .. lA~rm ll!Jf5(E ~~lm Z~~ ~ ~I " . ;f/ f' 13fj-O ZZ " " l,~ C , . ~ (,0'''' ... .\ . 1,,,,,tJ 21S . ~'\) ,T' " c.. " " " -r' "tpl! " II<)(J~ ~ " 4'2 .11 ,,7 ~,. "<>< " './1'7 " " , , I,O(},} ~'., .~, , (,~) PORTOLA 1//JI'1 . , '-" J '" H , I I J-\ , , I I I 1 1(,tW~r~) "0 (I~" " -.; tSOUTH ROAOWAY'I ~lA ~ .,~ " .. ~ J. ru,) " ';;"J " " " .. . "".8. 7 -, N" (1/".)(11") mlli?'~" IIP.v " . , ,. ~'" =~ ~ (""1 ~ ,-, 2 . . ., !-~ ...."" -+-,'~ '" ".1-\' '~<I.N ., "<la,I Ni' ~': 17 " "n 17 1"'''1'/. ('V) ,.pJ i'~~ 1 , . ~ T '''*'J ~ ~ nu, ~'J -. ;, '._J7) ~" 'f:'.. " . , G'i.lrT ('1.61 6 , ...'> , I I I , I I 1 I OWl l(1l'f1 "" . ~ (HI) '" ".1.#1 , " ~ ~~ "J.<J " " , " . fYt,~ ". "I~I.-I.J ~ 4 " , I I I , , , II"'" II"'A' ,"'" ~~I I~ AlT .,~ '" 'm .... . , -, ~ N % " ,. ~ " " -'- ':>~ o , " " " "0 .,., ~ ;: I~''') ,~. OR 11UlI-I ,- i".-q+ ..., 8 . . " , '" 7 -, , ~ , , :9 I , , , , I , 1 II 1 " ' 11.4 : 't .1 II '$1 I, , :: I " , IIllff!: ~ "N ..." (fI,1 " W,J /)e. 1- = 200' . , I : I _,I C<Z>or~~ , . i , , ... , ,.. ! ?ilE f"l..M~ Ie. ".,',;;, e J'" tv .......v_.... ,....... \ \ f: . I\! ~ I . .:.-. . ._--=-'''-::... 1 .~ I ~-_., . , , ~ ! W,l.-....... I I ,: I . '.. ~ ... , '-! ", .' I -l ,....,. ilwClW'b - Wl,,",+ 11__' ---- ~..'". 0/ 1";'.""--- -+ - . ---l " 1--- t. r I~ ) , 1 ; . ." ~ u ! ~. ~1.1 ;;1 - - . FLOOR. PL,IloN - ll)tl"~ . fa , Lt .Ju J ~~Jf )I! ., Ii .. ~J! u..',.... - ~ --1L- (j q ~ 8 1 " 1 i> a u, ltiIAA ,.. . ~Ii. \\131 ....'.;"0. '1. . WE~T U.E.-'..110N ,,,....0. ~TH ~T,o-... .. ,'-0' e,":~T El..I1iV^TrON ....W' - , , J - i ii- 1.1 lo>>f,.TH ~"ATION lit- 1'.0' ~ . . . ,~~ Chris Construction Co. I Inc. 909 Santa Anita, SUite F Arcadia, California 91006 445-5491 574-7354 July 6, 1988 Planning Commission City of Arcadia Re: 1010 Coronado Dr., Arcadia, CA Dear Sirs: On June 30, 1988, the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board denied our request for construction of a l-story, 4 bedroom residence with a 3-car attached garage (approximately 3,245 square feet of living area) at 1010 Coronado Dr., Arcadia. We wish to appeal that decision, and by way of this letter, we do hereby request a formal public hearing on this appeal request at the earliest possible date. Sincerely, ~(?O~ ~ David K. Olson, CFO . . . Chris Construction Co. I Inc. 909 Santa Anita. Suite F Arcadia, California 91006 445-5491 574-7354 July 18, 1988 .~~c ElliE: JUL 211988 0 CIT"r'O "'l..A.^'':'~''r:A.Of... OEpt. Planning Commission City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Re: 1010 Coronado Drive, Arcadia Dear Planning Commissioners: On July 6, 1988, I sent a letter to you requesting an appeal of the decision by the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board denying our proposed one-story, 3245 sq. ft. dwelling with an attached three-car garage. Subsequent to that date, I received the ARB's official "Findings and Action" report on this matter and I feel that some elaboration is necessary for a full and complete understanding of what took place at the ARB meeting. At the start of the public hearing~I presented our proposal and then answered several questions from various neighbors in the audience. No one asked any questions concerning the three car garage. After I answered' all ,'questions, ',the ARB then opened the hearing for those in support or opposition to our proposal. No one spoke in either case. The ARB closed the public hearing and began their discussions. Essentially, their discussions centered around their dislike of a 3-car garage and the height of the roof. After all ARB members stated generally the same objections, I was asked to respond. I stated that we could minimize the ARB's preceived impact of a 3-car garage by maintaining a narrow driveway approach and then swinging the driveway out to pick-up the 3rd car garage on the right. Additionally, with proper landscaping in front of the driveway where it would swing out to pick-up the 3rd garage, we could essentially block the view of that 3rd garage. Finally, I stated that there are different types of garage doors'we could use, such as roll-up sectional doors with glass in them which would help mitigate the "look" of a three car garage. .. . . As to the matter of the height of the roof, I stated that, although we preferred to keep the roof as is due to various architectual and design reasons, we could lower the pitch of the roof from a "7 and 12" to a "6 and 12" which would lower the roof by approximately 2 feet (i. e. the roof would not exceed 23 feet). The ARB then stated that they would not allow a 3-car garage on this lot nor could our house exceed 20 feet in height. We were given the choice to either continue the hearing so that we could revise the plans showing only a 2-car garage and a house no higher than 20 feet, or being denied. We opted for denial as we felt that the ARB was incorrect in their findings and that they did not take into account any of the mitigating factors nor proposed solutions I had suggested. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~,tP kt:f11eJ ~ - David K. Olson, eFO - 2 - . . . FILE NO. 345 DArE June 30, 1988 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMIITEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 1010 Coronado Drive Chris Construction Co., Inc. B. ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction msteriala [] ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with ~he existing materials, because not applicable because proposed pro;ect J.s a new structure . 2. The proposed materials [) WILL, tq WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because . 3. The proposed project pg IS, () IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rishts of way, becauae . 4. The proposed project pq IS, [] IS NOT aignificantly visible from adjoinins properties, because . , s. The elements of the structure's design [] ARE, () ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design, because not applicable because proposed pro;ect is a new structure . 6. The proposed project [] IS, pg IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvementa on other properties in the neighborhood, because see attached . 7. The location of the proposed project pq WILL, (] WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neishborhood, because see attached . 8. The proposed project'a aetbacka pq DO, () DO NOT provide for adequate separation betveen improvements on the lIme or Idjoinin, properties, _eeIIl'~ if they CXIl1Plv with current Mw1icipal COde requJIerrents without modifications. . . . o -- 9. OTHER FINDINGS see attached D. ArnON [) APPROVAL [) APPROVAL SUBJECf. TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) E. ~] DENIAL (5-0) DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMI'\IITEE'S) ACl'lOM June 30. 1988 (findings prepared and served on July 7. 1988) BOARD (COMI1IITEE) HEI1BER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION F. Gary A. Kovacic .Wes Slider Charles E. George Michael' Kaiser James Blackburn c. REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION San~~ Anit~ Ui"~O~ B. APPEALS Appeals from the Board'a (Committee'.) decision ahall he made to the Plannina Commission. Anyone desirina to make such an appeal ahould contact the requirements, fees and proceedures. Said appeal must he made in writ1ns and delivered to the Plannins Department, 240 W. HuntinBton Drive, Arcadia. CA 91006, wtthin five (5) wark1ns days of the Board's (Committee'a) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) ,ear from the date of approval, an, project for which plans have beeD approved hy the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, aaid approval shsll become Dull and void and of DO effect. . . . ATTACHMEN'l' TO SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS OF JUNE 30, 19~8 Re: File No. 345, 1010 Coronado Drive A public hearing was held on June 30, 19b8 to revi~w the proposed construction of a one-story, 4-bedroom residence (3,245 S.F.; 25 feet in height) and an attached 3-car garage (618 S.F.) at 1010 Coronado Drive, Arcadia. Mr. David Olson of Chris Construction Co., Inc., owner, and Don Crenshaw, architect, spoke about the proposed construction. They answered various questions and stated that the tree in the front yard (Chinese Elm) would be preserved. The Board considered the factors involved. Mr. Olson and Mr. Crenshaw represented to the Board that the site plan depicts the subject property exclusive of the parkways along Coronado Drive (12 feet). It appears that the proposed structure complies with Municipal Code Section 9252.2.15 (Lot Coverage), which provides that the combined floor area of all buildings on the lot should not exceed 45 percent of the total area of the lot. It is the Board's understanding that the parkway area shall not be considered in the calculation of the percentage of lot coverage. The proposed structure, including the attached garage, is slightly in excess of 3,800 square feet. No detailed plans were submitted for proposed walls, fences or landscaping, which would be a condition for any approval. The subject lot is an interior lot in a neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranCh-style, single-story residences. The only two-story residence on the block is located next door. The second floor of that residence is set back considerably from the street and is compatible with the adjourning properties. The proposed structure is dominated in the front by a three-car garage and extremely high (25 ft.) and massive roof. The proposed structure also is sUbstantially larger than all otner structures in the area. There was considerable concern about the impact of the structure on the neighbors. There also was concern about the limited area of the back yard. It is the Board's opinion that the structure as proposed is not compatible, harmonious or in proportion with existing structures in the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property because of the high massive roof and three-car garage that dominate the front of the structure. 0582f -1- . . . ATTACHMEN'j' TO FINDINGS OF JUNE 30, 19B8 Re: File No. 345, 1010 Coronado Drive Page 2 The Board appreciates and prefers the effort of the applicant to propose a single-story structure in a neighborhood of single-story structures. However, it is the consensus of the Board that the structure should be modified as follows: 1. The height of the structure (i.e. roof) should be reduced to 20 feet. 2. The garage should be a two-car garage. (The Board would consiaer a proposal for interior tandem parking with a two car garage door.) 3. The size of the residence should not exceed the proposed 3245 S.F. It also was suggested that the applicant consider a larger back yard. It was the Board's preference to continue the hearing to a date certain (10 to 15 days later) to give the applicant the opportunity to propose plan revisions that reflect the specified modifications. However, the applicant stated that it preferred a denial under the circumstances. As a result, the Board voted 5 to 0 to deny the application for the reasons set forth aoove and based on the following provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5286: 1. Section 2 states that the purpose ot the Resolution is "to promote and maintain the quality single-residental 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 suojecc neighborhood. 2. Section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution provides that "[t]he appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood." The. Board is of the opinion that the proposed structure (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) is not compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood. The Board has not been provided with evidence as to the materials and appearance of any proposed walls or fences. 3. Section 3, paragraph 18(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 0582f -2- . . . ATTACHMENT TO FINDINGS OF JUNE 30, 19B8 He: File No. 345, 1010 Coronado Drive Page j 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 (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) is excessive and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. 4. Section 3, paragraph l8(b) of the Resolution provides that "[g]ood architectural character is based upon principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacenc structures and other structures in the neighborhood." It is th~ opinion of the Board that the proposed structure (especially the height of the roof and the three-car garage) is not in harmony or proportion with adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhooo. 0582f -3- . . . PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, the undersigned, certify a3 follows: I aiD over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and not a party to the above-entitled cause. My business address is bOO South Figueroa Street, Twelfth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2~21. On July 7, 1988, I served a true copy (copies) of the FINDINGS AND ACTION, FILE NO. 345, DATED JUNE 30, 1988, the original of which is affixed hereto, on the person (persons) hereinafter mentioned by depositing the same in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, in a sealed envelope (envelopes) with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed (respectively) as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date hereinabove set forth in this Certificate. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ~~~~~ \ MAXINE CINTRON . . . SERVICE LIST SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FINDI~GS AND ACTION, FILE NO. 345, DATED JUNE 30, 1988 Mr. Steve Phillipi, President Santa Anita Village Association 804 Balboa Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 Mr. Gary A. Kovacic, Chairman Santa Anita Village ArchiteCtural Review Board 947 Coronado Drive Arcadia, CA ~1006 Mr. James L. Blackburn, Member Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board 1031 Coronado Drive Arcddia, CA 91006 Mr. Cnarles E. George, Member Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board 331 South Old Ranch Road Arcadia, CA 91006 Mr. Wes Slider, Member Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board 921 Balboa Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 Mr. Michael Kaiser, Member Santa Anita Village Arcnitectural Review Board 870 Victoria Arcadia, CA 91006 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 Cnris Construction Co. 909 S. Santa Anita, P-l Arcadia, CA 91006 . . . FILE NO. 345 DA!E June 30, 1988 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMIITEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 1010 Coronado Drive Chris Construction Co., Inc. B. ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) c. FINDINGS (only check those that apply. and provide a vritten explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials [) ARE. [) ARE NOT compatible with ~he existing materisls. because not applicable because proposed proiect ~s a new structure . 2. The proposed materials [) WILL, tq WILL NOT have a aisnificant adverae impact on the overall appearance of the property, becauae . 3. The proposed project pq IS, [J IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of va" because . 4. The proposed project pq IS, [) IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, because . 5. The elements of the structure'. design [] ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent vith the existing buildins'. desisn, because not applicable because proposed proiect is a new structure . 6. The proposed project [) IS, pq IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvement. on other properties in the neighborhood, because see attached " 7. The location of the proposed project pq WILL, [) WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because see attached . 8. The proposed project's setbscks pq DO, [) DO NOT provide for adequate separation between impro~ements on tha ~a~e or adjoinin, properti~s, ~ if they canply w~th current Munic~pal Code requlrernents Wl.tl1out llDdifications. " . . . -. 9. OTHER FINDINGS see attached D. Act'IOH [) APPROVAL [ l APPROVAL SUBJEct' TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) E. tl DENIAL (5-0) DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMIUTIEE'S) ACTION June 30. 1988 (findings prepared and served on July 7 1988) BOARD (COHHIITEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION F. Gary A. Kovacic .Wes Slider Charles E. George Michael Kaiser James Blackburn G. REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION Santa Ani~~ "i"~Qo B. APPEALS Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shsll be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the requirements, fees snd proceedures. Said appeal must be made in writ!na and delivered to the Plannina Department, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcsdia. CA 9'006, wtthin f~ve (5) workins da1a of the Board's (Committee's) decision. I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) Jear from the date of approval, anJ project for which plana have been approved bJ the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, aaid approval shall become null and void and of no effect.