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.