HomeMy WebLinkAbout1624
RESOLUTION NO, 1624
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN APPEAL
AND OVERRULING THE SANTA ANITA OAKS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL
OF A PROPOSED SINGLE-STORY REMODEL OF THE SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 504 GLORIA ROAD.
.
WHEREAS, the proceedings that are the subject of this Resolution are
authorized by Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9272.1., et seq, (0 Architectural
Design Zone); and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No, 5290 sets forth the
regulations applicable to the property within the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners
Association's area and to the property at 504 Gloria Road, Arcadia, in
accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2000, Stuart and Mona Jung filed an
appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's Architectural Review
Board's denial of a proposed single-story remodel of their residence at the
property commonly known as 504 Gloria Road, more particularly described as
follows:
Lot 25 of Tract No. 13345, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles,
State of Califomia, as per Map Recorded in the Book 270, Pages 19 and
20 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, the appeal to the Planning Commission was preceded by a
Short Review Process Procedure before the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association on October 2, 2000; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 24, 2000, at which time
all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, as part of the record, the Planning Commission reviewed and
considered:
.
.
a, A verbal and written presentation of the Planning Commission staff
report and related attachments including the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners
Association's Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of October 2,
2000, and City Council Resolution No, 5290 which sets forth the regulations
,which are applicable to the real property within the Santa Anita Oaks
Homeowners Association's area.
b, A letter from the applicants, Stuart and Mona Jung, appealing the
decision of the ARB.
c. All oral presentation, testimony, and documentation made and
presented during the public hearing of October 24,2000.
d. Plans of the proposed remodel, and exhibits of the surrounding
properties,
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, That the factual data submitted by the Developmen1
Services Department in the attached report dated October 24, 2000 is true and
. correct.
SECTION 2, This Commission finds:
That the proposed single-story remodel of the single-family residence al
504 Gloria Road would be architecturally harmonious and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and would not be detrimental to the adjacenl
properties and improvements that exist within the Santa Anita Oaks
Homeowners Association's area, Specifically, the proposed remodel complies
with all current zoning requirements; it accommodates several mature trees on
the site, and would be compatible with similar corner lot developments that are
within the subject area.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the
appeal and overrules the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's
Architectural Design Review Board's denial, subject to the following conditions:
.
2
1624
.
.
.
1, That a landscape plan be submitted to the Community
Development Department for the purpose of ensuring that any new landscaping
will comply with the City's Visibility Standards; and
2. The proposed masonry wall shall be decorative and subject to the
Community Development Department's review and approval prior to its
construction,
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of October 24, 2000, by the following
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners, Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Olson,
Kalemkil!lrian,
None
NOES:
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution
and shan cause a copy to be forwarded to the City COUncil of the City of Arcadia,
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution No,1624 was adopted at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on November 28, 2000, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners, Bruckner, Huang, Murphy, Olson,
Kalemkiarian,
None
NOES:
ecretary, Plan Ing Commission
City of Arcadia
Af>PROVED AS TO FORM:
s~ei~~h~~eY
City of Arcadia
~Ch~ ~PI ' ,~4
airman, anmng ommlsslon
City of Arcadia
3
1624
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT
October 24, 2000
TO:
Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM:
Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Corkran W, Nicholson, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT:
An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed remodel of
the existing residence at 504 Gloria Road.
SUMMARY
.
The applicants, Stuart and Mona Jung, are appealing the Santa Anita Oaks
Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of their proposed
single-story remodel of their existing residence at 504 Gloria Road, The
Homeowners Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) denied the
proposed remodel because of the applicants' desire to have a new detached
garage facing the side street. It is the ARB's opinion that such a garage is not
aesthetically harmonious with the neighboring homes,
.
Staff does not find the proposed orientation or placement of the garage to be
objectionable. The applicants' proposal complies with all current zoning
requirements, and appears to be compatible with several similar corner lot
developments that are within the area.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANTS: Stuart and Mona Jung (property owners)
LOCATION: 504 Gloria Road
REQUEST: An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed single-story
remodel of the existing residence at 504 Gloria Road.
LOT AREA: 20,982 sq.ft, (.48 acres)
.
, ,
.
.
.
FRONTAGE: Approximately 118 feet along Gloria Road
Approximately 208 feet along Arbolada Drive
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a single-story residence, and is zoned R-O & D with a
15,000 sq,ft, minimum lot area requirement.
SURROUNDING LAND USE& ZONING:
The neighboring properties to the north, south, east and west of the site are
zoned R-O & D 15,000.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated as Single-Family Residential (0-4 du/ac),
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicants submitted, their proposal to the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners
Association's Architectural Review Board on August 26, 2000, On 'September
12, 2000, the ARB Chairperson, Clyde F, Stauff, sent a letter to the applicants
(copy attached) conveying the ARB's concems on the inappropriateness of the
location and orientation of the new garage, Mr, Stauff stated the following
reasons for ARB's disapproval of the proposed garage:
"t. It is a detached structure that would be directly facing Arbolada, which is
not as aesthetically attractive as attaching it to the house.
2. The garage would be set back 20' from the street, which means the
probability of cars in the future being ,parked in front of the garage doors is
very likely. There is no other parking area or paved area for cars on the
lot, and it is a 2-car garage that is planned."
Mr, Stauff also informed the applicants that in reference to similar corner lot.
,developments within their area there are a few garage doors facing the street but
almost all of the garages are attached to the home so there is some existing
design continuity among such developments. In addition, the applicants y.Jere
informed of the ARB's recommendation to attach the garage to the home, as the
existing garage currently exists, and having the driveway approach on the west
side of the garage with a turn-in, rather than having the garage doors directly
facing Arbolada Drive,
Appeal, 504 Gloria Rd.
October 24. 2000
Page 2
.
.
.'
In response to Mr. Stauff's letter the applicants informed the ARB that they did
not wish to have an attached garage because in would be detrimental to the
functional design of the proposed remodel. They requested that the ARB
proceed with acting upon their proposal as submitted with the detached garage,
On October 2, 2000, the ARB voted unanimously to deny the project (see the
attached ARB Findings and Action), Their specific reasons for the denial are as
follows:
"Proposed structure is riot aesthetically harmonious with neighboring homes,
particularly north facing neighbors on Arbolada. Ultimately, cars will be
parked in front of the garage door right on street as no turnout is provided
for."
On September 19, 2000, the applicants filed an appealed to the Planning
Commission regarding the ARB's denial of their proposal. The public hearing
has been scheduled for tonight's meeting,
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS:
The applicants are proposing a substantial remodel to their existing 2,974 sq.ft.
single-story home, which includes a first floor addition of 497 sq.ft. to expand the
family room and kitchen areas; the conversion of the existing garage into a
master bedroom and bath addition, and constructing a new 528 sq.ft, detached
two-car garage, as shown on the submitted plans. The applicants' proposal
complies with all current zoning requirements, and appears to be compatible with
several similar corner lot developments that are within the subject area,
The ARB denied the proposed remodel because the new garage would be
detached and facing the side street which in their opinion is not aesthetically
harmonious with the neighboring homes, However, the applicants feel that the
proposed detached garage is a very compatible feature of their proposal,
especially when compared with similar corner lot developments within the area
(a vicinity map with photos of such lots will be provided by the applicants at the
public hearing),
Staff does not find the proposed orientation or placement of the garage to be
objectionable. The detached garage, as proposed, would accommodate a more
functional rear yard area; would reduce the amount of driveway, and further
enhances the new master bedroom addition by exposing more of its exterior to
provide additional window and door areas for natural light and air circulation
purposes.
Appeal, 504 Gloria Rd,
October 24, 2000
Page 3
.
.
.
REVIEW CRITERIA:
Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas,
which are subject to Design Overlay Zones. City Council Resolution No. 5290
sets forth the design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Santa
Anita Oaks Homeowners' Association, Said resolution requires compatibility with
materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the
neighborhood.
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 extemal building appearance (Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of Resolution 5290),
Section 3,16 of Resolution 5290 sets forth the following standards which shall
guide the ARB and any body (Planning Commission and/or City Council) hearing
an appeal of the ARB's decision:
a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be
so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of
external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except
to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of
harmony ~nd compatibility acceptable to the Board of 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,
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 increase 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 elevation and external
appearance are compatible with other structures in the neighborhood.
Approval or denial of this appeal should be based on the issue of compatibility
with reasons that explain the decision. The~e "reasons" will constitute the
"findings" upon which the decision is rendered,
Appeal, 504 Gloria Rd,
October 24, 2000
Page 4
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the appeal, the Development
Services Department recommends the following cQndition of approval:
That a landscape plan be submitted to Planning Services for the purpose of
ensuring that any new landscaping will comply with the City's Visibility
Standards,
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission
should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious and
compatible, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Santa Anita Oaks
Homeowners Association's Arct:titectural Review Board's denial, 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 intends to deny the appeal, the Commission should
find that the proposed project is not architecturally harmonious or compatible,
move to deny the appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners
Association's 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.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions
regarding this matter prior to the October 24th public hearing, please contact
Corkran Nichols(i)n at (626) 574-5422.
Approved by:
Donna L. Butler
Community Development Administrator
Attachments:
Land Use & Zoning Map, applicant's appeal letter, ARB's Findings and Action (dated October 2,
2000), a letter from the ARB Chairperson to the applicant (dated September 12, 2000), Resolution
No. 5290, and the proposed plans
Appeal, 504 Gloria Rd.
October 24, 2000
Page 5
, 5
\Yk
"
R-O & D
~
~
I.)l
<208.::;<0
~~
i;>~
0>
'2
~'\
'1.~'
~'
-g
'214,01
.
0)
90
(570)
90
(.56Z)
5iD.9 43,05
CS~4)
8 ARBGLAnA
100.'1\ 100,
(;4r.) (5JtJ)
J
8'2.57
(5ZIJ)
J
a> 0)
ai
t: ~
G4
'"
d "
<1' '" -;
R-O & D ~ "! 0
("
., '!.
""
'..;,.'
G.3 G'2 GI (;,0
100 100 100 105,5.3
<05
90 90
O~
LAND USE & ZONING MAP
t NORTH
504 ,GLORIA ROAD
1 inch = 100 feet
.
.
Stuart and Mona lung
504 Gloria Rd,
Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 836-9225
September 19, 2000
City of Ar~dia Planning Commission
240 W, Huntington Dr,
Arcadia, CA
Dear Planning Commission:
This tetter is to infunn you that' we are appealing the decision: of the Santa Anita Homeowners
Association denial of our proposed remodel located at 504 Gloria Rd. We were informed verbally
of the denial- by the. association, on September 12th. We have oot I'eCei.ved' anything in writing.
The Homeowners Association feels that the proposed remodel is not visually pleasing since the
garnge door is facing a side street. Although t1ieremodel: meets. a.\J of~e association's written
guidelines, they will not approve the plan with the garage facing the street,
We feel the proposal is. consistent with, the smroundiBg homes. and if'meets all written guidelines.
. We would appreciate an opportunity to formally state our case to you at the earliest possible time,
Sincerely,
~"'"t!WM-ff
.
FAX ND. : 7146349067
CONN. DEY, 01V. '
Oct, 02 2000 09:26AM P2
626441""73
FRDM : SEELEY ANAHEIM
, . '~u~p ~~ ~u 11'3S~
.
.
.
p.t
FileNo.
~o Submitl$d
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REView
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A. PROJECT ADDRESS: SO~ Glori a Road
6. PROPERiYOWNER: Stuart and Mon. Ju,,!!
ADDRESS (if diff9nln~ ,
C. PROPOSED PR~ (desa'ibed in detail): 2 car rte'Caehp.d l'HlraDA Mrt ""uf:...,. hp.rtrQom ,.~mnde].
0., FINDINGS {only chedc !hose 111m appiy, and pm';". . wriII.n e""lAn...ion fer ....en en9d\}
" TI19 elements oHhe slr\lClure's design { 1 ARE., (X) ARE NOT consistent with tile eXlSllng
buildings design beCause garage (ex" st; nq) ; $ attached to house and. don,... tin Mt"
'tilt".. cr.'!""'A."
2, The procosed construcllon materialS rx J ARE, r 1 ARE NOT compatlb!e wi1Il the slClsting
rnalSI'aIs, becalM
$, The proposed project IX liS. [liS NOT highly vi"ible from the adjoining public rights of
W8f. ~tSEl The garaqe doors would d;r"e~t:lv face Arbnhda
4.
The e>roposerJ projed (x J IS, (J IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
Carage doors and st~uctu~e will directly race southerly ,residents orie~ted to north
6.
Th~ propoll8d plOjea [,liS, [XJ IS NOT In plOportlon to ath.erlmprovements on tM
subject $lte or to improvements or. the adjoining propenles because.
detached structure {2::car.~9arage} does not have enoYQh mass to be con3is~ent with
,
adiacent !t:ruct'ures
7.
The location 01 the PlOposed project (xJ WILL r J Will. NOT be deuimen!aJ to the use, :
enjoyment and value of adjacent property because,
Nortnerlv faaina neiahbors will 100k nf~~~T.lv intn n_w nArAn. door and oarked car~
ft"sm'1ivina room!.. I
B. The proposed projeot'S setbacll& Ixl DO, (J ,00 NOT,prcvida tQr,~te separatIOn
b&tween Improvements on the same or adjoining properties because,
12112/89
FRO"i : SEELEY RNFlHE I M
. . \...
FRX NO, : 7146349067
,. ---. .......
Oct. 02 2000 09:26RM P3
~~~44~8173 p.2
.
.
.
9. OlHERFlNOtNGS:. Proper-t.v has adeQuate- room.to re"orilH'lt new OAr-aOe in stmi hr
fashion to existi:ng oar-age. eliminating IIgarage door and cars on the s.treet" ,appearance
U pl"'opiOsed.
D. ACTION
(I APPROVAL
[ 1 APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
~~ DENIAl.. STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR D~NJAl:
propG$e4 ,tructure is not'a~$thetic811y ~armonnQu~ with ncigbboring homes,
pal"'t;cularly ~rth fa~ing neighbors on ArboTada~ Ultimately) cars ~;\1 be par~ed
tn' front of garage door right on street as no turnout is provfded tor.
E.
DATE OF ARCHllCCl'UfW.ftEVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION 10.,2 .00
BOARD (COMMI'tTEE) MEMBER{S) PRESBlT AT THEMB MEeTING AND RENDERING
THE ABOVe oeclSlON:
F.
Jst::!w lvne}o,
Thomas 8ech
John Woo
Clyde Seauff
Carlton Seaver
Q, REPRESENTING THE Santa An; t. 0...
ASSOCIATION.
Ii, APPeALS.
Appeals 1rgm the Boants (Committee's) decision shall bernacle to the ~dia Planning
Commission, Anyone desirino to make. such en,appealstIouId coatact the Planning
Department to determine the I8qUll8mems. fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made.
in writlng within lI8Ven ,(7) worlclng days of the Boan:I's (Commltte9's~ decision. and delivered .
to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntlngllln Drive, AIcadla OA 91007.
/, exP1RAl1ON OF APPROVAL
If for a period of one ,(1) year. 110m the da1e of.appcoval,. any pl"ljeet 101' which plans have been
approvea oy me BOarct (COmmittee), ha5 been unused, abandoned or d1llCOntinUeQ, said
applOval shallOecome null and void and ot, no effect..
12112/89
.
.
.
Sepllll1lber 12, 2llOO
Mr, stuart Jung
504 GlOlla Rolid
Arcadia, callfCllTiB 91006
R8: Garage InslIucliOOB
~$1\11!rt:
Per our conversation, lh& lilafllaAnila Oaks ~ Reriew,Baard.1las declined \D approve ~
CCIf\SIIUl::lIon otllte garage,as pllII1l'lell forllle follCMing. IE :_15:
1, Ills a dellldled SII\lCIUI'B \hat \WUI4 be direclly facing ArboIada, ,\lA1lch is no!, as aesU\e1lcallY BI\raCIlVe
as atIaCi1inlI ilto lite /loose,
2. The garage V\IllIIld,besatback 2(1' from lite SI/'llBI, v.tlklI1 meanslhe probIlIliIiIy: arcars in the future blllng
pat1<Ald lnfrord afllte QllTlI08dollr.llSvmy likely, mere Is l1Oothel'lilllfcing - or paved area for cars
on the lot; and Ilia a2..a-garaQ8 lItaUs planned.'
Althouglllher8 anrllfeWgaragedoor.l fadng the sInIeI, sat llack,20' in tile area, lItey ere almost all sltaOIled to
\/Ie hOme 1IO \herem same continuity,
\
The Board's ,scommelldaliol tis to configure tile, garage simlfarfy fa the way it now aldsls, and !fnee 1!r y,
puslllIle garage clOSer \D Ar\lClada (within 20') in order to 8OCIlIIIll\OdlIe a larger back yanl area ThEn aretv.o
lllCisllng ash treIl5ln the way v.ttIch can be remcwed. The .eco...ntendeCf dilve lJI)IlIOIldtv.ouftflie on the ~
side of lh& garage WtII a lUITHn, rat/ler than hailing \/Ie doom dlredly facing ArbOIaclIl.
I regret tllat'Yf9 lire unable fa agree on tl\fs ill8ue, but lite Board isempowered'tolqOk for a SOIIJIlOn mat bllSl
preselVB5 the aeslhElllo quality m me area. , '
,P.leaselet me'ktlOlIa<i[you liave any ~
Sincerely,
Clyde F: SfaufI.
Co: Corley NlcMlson