HomeMy WebLinkAbout1610
RESOLUTION NO. 1610
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA GRANTING AN APPEAL AND OVERRULING
THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S
ARCillTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED TWO-
STORY REMODEL OF TIlE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 301
JOAQUIN ROAD.
.
WHEREAS, the proceedings that are the subject of this Resolution are
authorized by Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 9272.1., et seq. (D Architectural Design
Zone); and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 5286 sets forth the regulations
applicable to the property within the Santa Antia Village Association's areaan~ to the
property at 301 Joaquin Road, Arcadia, in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code
Section 9272.2.3; and
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, Michael and Sharon Hwa filed an appeal of
the Santa Anita Village Community Association's Architectural Review Board's denial
of a proposed two-story remodel of their residence, which includes a requested
modification to permit a 5'-6" southerly side yard setback in lieu of 6' -6" required by
Code at the property commonly known as 301 Joaquin Road, more particularly described
as follows:
Lot 32 of Tract No. 12786, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State
of California, as per Map Recorded in the Book 263 Page 3 and 4 of Maps, in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County.
WHEREAS, the appeal to the Planning Commission was preceded by noticed
hearings before the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Village Community
Association on March 29, 2000 and April 13, 2000; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 23, 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:
.
I
a. A verbal and written presentation of the Planning Commission staff report and
related attachments including the Santa Anita Village Community
. Association's Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of April 13,
2000, and City Council Resolution No. 5286 which sets forth the regulations
which are applicable to the real property within the Santa Anita Village
Community Association's area.
b. A letter fonn Michael and Sharon Hwa, appealing the decision of the ARB on
behalf of the applicant.
c. All oral presentation, testimony, and documentation made and presented
during the public hearing of May 23, 2000.
d. Plans of the proposed remodel, and exhibits of the surrounding properties.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RE80L VES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds:
. That the proposed two-story remodel of the. single-family residence at 301
Joaquin Rd. would be architecturally h!UIIlonious and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood,. and would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties and improvements
that exist within the Santa Anita Village Association's area, because the proposed
remodel would maintain a compatible single-story appearance from Kingsley Drive and
would not change the orientation of the primary entrance which is currently facing
Kingsley Drive and further that the requested 5'-6" side yard setback is in alignment with
the existing house and would provide for uniformity of development on the site.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the appeal
and overrules the Santa Anita Village Community Association's Architectural Design
Review Board's denial, and approves the requested modification subject to the condition
that a landscape plan be submitted to Community Development Department for the
purpose of ensuring that the proposed landscaping will comply with the City's Visibility
Standards.
.
2
1610
.
.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions.contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of May 23, 2000, and the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners, Murphy, Sleeter, Kalemkiarian, Huang
None
ABSENT: Bruckner
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 forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of June 2000, by the following
vote:
~YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Se retary, Planning
City of Arcadia
Commissioner~, Murphy, Sleeter, Huang
None
Kalemkiarian
Bruckner
&A--t~
Chairman, Plannin ommi~sion
City of Arcadia
on
APPROVED AS TO FORM:'
~P.~
Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney
.
3
1610
STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
May 23, 2000
TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Candyce Burnett, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Santa Anita Village Community Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed remodel of the
existing residence at 301 Joaquin Road. In addition, the applicant
is requesting a modification to permit a 5'-6" southerly side yard
setback in lieu of 6'-6" required for a master bedroom addition
(Sec. 9252.2.3)
SUMMARY
.
The applicant is appealing the Santa Anita Village Community Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed remodel of the existing
residence at 301 Joaquin Road. The Association has determined that the
applicant's proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood because of the
proposed orientation of the front building elevation.
In addition, the applicant is requesting a modification to permit a 5'-6" southerly
side yard setback in lieu of 6'-6" required for a master bedroom addition.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Michael and Sharon Hwa (property owner)
LOCATION: 301 Joaquin Rd.
REQUEST: An appeal of the Santa Anita Village Community Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed remodel of the
existing residence at 301 Joaquin Road. This request requires a
modification to permit a 5'-6" interior side yard setback in lieu of
6'-6" required (Sec. 9252.2.3.).
.
.
.
.
LOT AREA: 7,930 sq.ft. (.18 acres)
FRONTAGE: 65.2 feet along Joaquin Rd.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a single-story residence, and is zoned R-1 &D with a
7,500 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-1&D 7,500.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated as Single-family Residential (0"6 du/ae).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On March 29, 2000, the applicant attended the ARB hearing on the plans for the
proposed remodel. At that time the ARB conveyed to the applicant their
concems on the inappropriateness of the location of the front elevation. The
applicant's proposal reorients the front building elevation to face the street side
yard along Kingsley Dr. It was also noted that the proposed building elevations
were not in harmony or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
hearing was continued to allow the applicant the opportunity to make revisions.
On April 13, 2000, the second hearing was held to review the revised plans. Said
plans showed a smaller second-story addition, which satisfied the ARB's
concerns about the dwellings proportionality to the neighborhood. The ARB was
still concerned with the front elevation and its orientation to the street side yard,
and a turret feature on the front elevation. The ARB discussed the possibility of
locating the front entry at a diagonal. The applicant at that time told the ARB that
he would file an appeal to the Planning Commission. The ARB voted
unanimously to deny the project.
0n April 18, 2000, the applicant appealed the ARB's denial. The public hearing
has been scheduled for tonight's meeting.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS:
Appeal, 301 Joaquin Rd.
May 23, 2000
Page 2
.
.
.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing a substantial remodel to the existing single-story
home which includes a first floor addition of 780 sq.ft. and adding a 340 sq.ft.
second floor area to provide a fourth bedroom with a bathroom, as shown on the
submitted plans. The proposed front elevation is designed to give the
appearance of a one-story home when viewed from the street elevation on
Kingsley Drive.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 5'-6" in lieu of 6'-6"
for the master bedroom addition on the first floor. This addition will be a
compatible continuation of the main dwelling's southerly side yard exterior
elevation which currently maintains a 5'-6" side yard setback.
The property to the north of 301 Joaquin Road maintains a street side yard
setback of approximately 13'-0" and a rear yard set back of 5'-0". The applicants
proposal shows the existing portion of the main dwelling to be in line with the
side yard setback of the property to the north, and the proposed
remodel/addition to maintain a greater setback at 17'-6".
City Council Resolution No. 5286 sets forth conditions to provide for harmonious
development within the Santa Anita Village Community Association which
includes a condition that the front of a dwelling face the front property line. The
Municipal Zoning Code does not address such orientations.
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. 5286
sets forth the design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Santa
Anita Village Community 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 external building appearance (Sections 3.8 and 3.9 of Resolution 5286).
Section 3.18 of Resolution 5286 sets forth the following standards which shall
guide the ARB and any body (Planning Commission and/or City Council) hearing
an appeal ofthe 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
Appeal, 301 Joaquin Rd.
. May 23, 2000
Page 3
.
.
.
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 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. These "reasons" will constitute the
"findings" upon which the decision is rendered.
Recommendations:
If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the appeal, the Development
Services Department recommends the following condition of approval:
That a landscape plan be submitted to Planning Services for the
purpose of ensuring that the proposed landscaping will comply with
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 Village
Community Association's denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate
Appeal, 301 Joaquin Rd.
May 23, 2000
Page 4
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 Village Community
Association'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 March 9th public hearing, please contact
Candyce Burnett at (626) 574-5444.
Donna L. Butler
Community DevelopmentAdministrator
.
Attachments:
1. Land Use & Zoning Map
2. Applicant's appeal letter
3. ARB's April 13, 2000 Findings and Action
4. Resolution No. 5286
5. Plans
.
Appeal, 301 Joaquin Rd.
May 23, 2000
Page 5
.
ARBQRETUM
"'"
8~
~~
.,
...
~
... '1'
0 "
lr
""
!~ tV' '"
""
>>~ "
".
,,'
z
5
~
-,
,.
"..7.t ",'
" ~'" "'" """
7A 1D
1> 1'1 7f
fb4> ,~" """ :l
,
'f1..",
, l"\lJClQ jjPJ
~ .- ",., ...., -
~ ~ 1
~ . . .
..' . ,
,. .. '. ,~
" W "
, ,,, , '.';'1
71 7.
iJ,1 'i
"
....
"
"
~
r_J
~,
iKINGsLe:.,.
;."-J
GUt.. ~
OR~
."'..
~ J
3~.I4Co'
"-
'"
(~
g~
'"
~~
1
",' r
0 ~
lr
""
>0 ~
~.
<Ill.' ....
"
45 i'
4A ~ ~,
. ,~
''''
71
.",
., .. ~p
.
" '"
",
~ ., .
K1 t>>
,..
.
"
.,
''''
!3 ~ " dO ~
, '" .",
3f "
,.. a~
"" ...,
~
~
~
~
~ ""
- ~
.". "'" ~
", '"
...., '"
r .,. ""
,," ,
100 ...
ea
........ ('.u,) -,
, ",
~
,
,
"
VICINITY MAP
301 Joaquin Road
MP 00-014
t NORTH
1 inch = 200 feet
.
.
.
.
.
.
JOHN SHENG & ASSOCIATES
5926 Temple City Blvd., Temple City, CA.91780
Tel: (626)451-9988
April 18, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive,
Arcadia, CA.91006
Altn: Ms. Candyce Burnett I Planning Department
RE: An appUcation of requesting appeal to the Arcadia Planning Commission
from the Santa Anita Village ARB's (committee's) decision
Job address: 301 Joaquin Road, Arcadia, CA.91007
Owner's name: Michael& Sharon Hwa
Phone No. : (626)823-3007
Dear Commissioners,
The existing house is situated on the comer of Joaquin Rd. and Kingsley Ave. with
3 bedrooms, family room but without living room
The existing long shape of floor plan with the garage at one end gives the difficulty
of adding a living room and locating the front door at the other end in keep with the
functions of the house Please refer to EXHIBIT A - orientation of existing home.
The home owners of the property intend to keep the orientation of existing front door
facing north to save the existing concrete walkway along with the shrubs on the sides
leading to the front door.
In order to properly utilize the property, the applicants have made a great deal of efforts
on compromising the design in regards to the scale and mass of the structure. /
The revised plans now show the appearance of a one-story house with dormer windows.
There is only one bedroom on the upper floor which is made out of the higher portion
of attic space. The long facade .on the north side is elaborated and broken down
by placing bay windows on each side of the front door.
The side yard setback (North) of the addition is greater than the average ofthe two ( 2 )
nearest neighbor's setback and no portion of any s~cture shall encroach through a plane
projected from an angle of thirty (30) degrees as measured at-tbe ground level along the
property line.
Page 1/2
r:1 r (.3' r:: - \"7 ~: -/)
u" ._ , , ." '-~ ~ ~ . I . ,..
APR 2 0 200n
w_...~ ,.
.
.
.
.
.
The proposed addition is in compliance with the city zoning code requirements and
should not lead to any negative aesthetic impact nor have significant adverse effects
upon the neighboring property owners.
The structure should not be highly visible from public view because there will be a
substantial amount of Jandscaping to the satisfaction of the village ARB to soften
and screen the windows and walls.
There are homes in the viJIage facing the narrow portion of their lots, such as
702 Joaquin Rd. at the corner of Coronado Dr., 801 Coronado Dr. at the corner of
Balboa Dr. and 200 Cabrillo Rd. at Hugo Reid Dr., etc.
The applicants do not see the existing home nor anticipate the addition creating
disruption to the neighborhood. The quality materials to be used for the renovation
shall enhance the community's property value indeed.
Your consideration of supporting the said appeal is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
~:::::r
Page 2/2
.
.
.
,
'.
(,~ I
4_
.,.
--..-
~-
-"""';',-
-~..
~"e.
~V:,s\e~
.
j~
E~IT A':" orientation of existing home-:-
.
ATTACHMENT TO
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
FINDINGS OF APRIL 13, 2000
Re: 301 Joaquin Road
BACKGROUND
.
At the applicant's request, a conference was held between the architect of
this proposed project and the ARB chairperson prior to the first public
hearing. At that time concerns were shared regarding relocating the front
elevation to the north of the property which has the nonnal setback of a .side
as do all the other corner lots in this neighborhood and in the Village as a
whole. Other concerns were expressed regarding the proposed style, which
was out of harmony with. that found in the neighborhood and the
proportionality as it relates to compatibility. The plans of the last two
projects approved by the Village ARB were shared and discussed in order to
establish a benchmark of the criteria seen as harmonious and compatible in
the Village. Also spared was the statistical data Qf the distribution and
proportionality profile of the Village.
.
'D1e first public hearing was held on Wednesday March 29, 2000 at 7:00 PM
in the City Council Conference Room. The issue of the inappropriateness of
locating the front elevation on a side yard set back was clearly expressed by
the board and neighbors attending along with proportionality as it relates to
harmony and compatibility. ~tatistical data was shared regarding the
specific profile of the 300 block of Joaquin and Armada and the 800 block
of Kingsley. The story and a half structure proposed for the north corner of
the proposed project was pointed out as a vertical element which emphasized
mass and disrupted the horizontal plane of the house. The front entry was
not an issue other than it was located on the side yard set back and not the
front yard setback. The major and overriding concern was the relocation of
the front elevation to the side setback. This places the proposed front
e]evation much closer to the street than that of the neighbors, creates a front
street face (north) of over 80 feet compared to the 40-50 feet of front
elevation street face of the neighbors and disrupts the carefully planned
pattern of the neighborhood and the Village. Homes in the Village face the
narrow portion of their lots. Exhibit I was presented to illustrate this point.
--'- ~
.
The applicant and the board agreed to continue the hearing for consideration
of revisions.
.
The continued public hearing was held on Thursday April 13, 2000 at 8:00
PM in the Arcadia Recreation Department Conference Room. The issue of
proportionality as it relates to harmony was ,:"ell satisfied by the revised
plan's reduction of the second story. However, the front e]evation remained
located on the side elevation of the property which did not solve the 80+ foot
long front e]evation street face and inappropriate setback for the front
elevation (it encroaches too close to the. street). Additionally, but not the
main item of discussion, the story and a half comer structure (resembling a
turret) remained unaltered and an additional similar but shorter structure had
been added creating a vertical flank to each side of the front entry. The
front entry had been revised and has the appearance of a two-story entry. .
Both of these revisions add substantially to the vertical, which is
incompatible to the style established in this neighborhood. The board gave
several suggestions about how the applicant cou]d create a north facing front
door along the true front elevation of the property (Joaquin side). The board
is not opposed to the applicant having a typical understated side door
providing ingress to and from the driveway located on the north (Kingsley
side) as this is common practice on comer lots in the Village. Another
option discussed was to have the door located at a diagonal. The board
offered its willingness to continue to work with the applicant but the
applicant expressed his preference to file an appeal. Subsequently the board
voted unanimously to deny the proposed project. The applicant was
informed of the appeals process and will pick up a copy of the board's
Report of Fmding on Sunday April 16 from the ARB chairperson.
SUMMARY
This proposed project would re](jcate the.fronte]evation of a substantial
remodeling (all 4 elevations are completely or substantially expanded and
architecturally revised) to the side yard (facing north) All comer properties
on the south side of Kingsley face either east or west which would make this
the only north facing property along Kingsley from Golden West to South
Old Ranch Road.. The board and neighbors see this as bringing disharmony
to the carefully constructed pattern and flow of the Village.and to this
particular neighborhood. See the arrows on Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1
demonstrates how the pattern and flow would be disrupted by approval of
. this project. Permitting the front elevation of a property to shift to the wide
.
.
.
instead of the narrow portion of a lot creates front elevation street faces that
are close to double the width of what is found in this neighborhood and
throughout the Village. This also creates front yard setbacks that are
substantially narrower permitting inappropriate encroachment on public
right of ways. Finally, approval of this project sets a precedent that has the
potential of creating large out of scale appearing "bookends" at the corners
of blocks. Finally, this proposal has architectural elements that are out of
harmony as discussed above.
.
A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3D; ~
B. PROPER'TYOWNER:~
ADDRESS Of different) ~--' (~~) 8 ~/ -6039
C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): ~ - 1
, .
'i)
. . '
File No. {p{tJ 'J.}
. .' _~SUbmitted If--j/r(J.O
. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ' .
~OARD (COMMmEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
AP~, \ ~; 2nml
. v-AI
D. FINQINGS (only check those that apply, and
.3.
..
1.
The elements of the structure's design [ ] ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design because It ~ ~
1V_-~'1P P
The proposed construction materials [ ] ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing
materials, because 11- ~ ~
IV_ ~1'~b'LL,_
The proposed p,rOject.l)( IS, [] IS NOT hig ghts of
waf. because . .: ~ ~ (i..o
2.
4.
The proposed project 0J IS, [J IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
6,
7.
.A.?P. aA:::ID-t'-<I0.L...
8.
The proposed project's setbacks [ ] DO, 'M DO NOT provide for adequate separation
between improvements on the same or aa~ning properties because,
4.e-i-- a...-U...~--,
12/12/89
9.
<?THER FINDINGS: .
.
.
D. ACTION
[ 1 APPROVAL
[ ] 'APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
.
. .
~
DENIAL. #J;J~FIC REASONS FOR DENIAL:
.1.1,,__ /7 .
E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITIEE'S) ACTION ~ J~ o?d?O
BOARD (CO~MITIEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETI G . NO .RENDERING ~
THEAB~~DECISION:~~.' ~~J' ~:Mt/~
~If;. I hum :s /7 . . . s . tf!.
W,,~ ~~ 'I .
~Qu5ky .
G. REPRESENTING THE d~ ~ tftLatkb
~ 0
H. APPEALS. . .
F.
ASSOCIATION.
Appeals from t~e Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning
Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning
Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures. SaId appeal must be made
in writing within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. and delivered
to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drlve, Arcadia, CA 91007,
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.
1 ~12/~
Ey: hi~d I . .!-tu~o 12e\ ~
-
~
1
J<in!j8 letoe~*e~ ~{r~~St
"'rl- ~.__ .' .' gJtO\IJ~ . )--
( ...... .,-' '(\o.!&::- r
~ . .' '.-". -.. ~
.~ ~ ~ \:3- - )
l,t}~
\ > ~ . \ ).
c. ( 7' \ '>
\\.l s:
G 7 . -
- ::::l ')
c:J C::f" ~ ~
< r l:S
<J ~~ )-
/" <::s
~ ~ E
..- '-,.., ~
7 "t
V' i (
/.0 01'"(0/ ')
..
<
/
'"
/
"
f-
~
'/
S!
()
-:to
d
.'<:1
'-... V)
r.
L
"
<
<-
<
. .......
7
)
,
. I
t) Hen(//t{;nt~
) I
4A-RB ~
, /3
..~.~~
:B:/( k/"fsie.t'h lfo{ -l. ()/;()fQ"c.~ /(0(
!Milts JJ. o.s()<Atc- ~d- L s, 6/ q ~ lid t
4 ~ ~L~s 6#f!5 G~ 5P-
:~~ n~/~t)-\
v(j'c;~t1er !(t/C! . \ 30t J&,CfffUl/1 Rei.
l(A'~~ /T1AJ~ ~. . .
. ~
:V9WJ S/1E;N&; s1~ "It.! rf.e.. u, ~ <1 - T-~.
~. ..~ 9J11~~~. f'~lJR.f
. ~ . ~'~R.U / ..' I"=fP /(I""!",, ~.::>> ~G ~..6-/?(3
~I:<ffmke!~. qtf:1o Co(owdo ~ t.N7-fSZS
"~ ~q c;,tl.ttzuwRl tf'i.f7-5U12-
. . '
1~~'Y~.~khl
I. ~ l.. /
Ye. '2. _IVY'
c;crs - 66SlJ
402 -c? /2Z..
E-ft[7-16tg
g;)./ - 0 6 $5
.
.
,
.............._....._.--..___0#....__
=':.~:--- __0:;,.,.,-:"'.__1-'___.
""
l2..... ~
. .~"I I!J'.. ;;
1 ~ '" 0
0- . 0. 0';'
::J (5;' Gl
. lil.,. 'IDa
z , 0
l!I ~.'" ",...
d " z @- .@
I!f".. 5
em a 0_ @
, ~u "@<n ,
) @G @'
-,
... ,
.
ILIlilI'
'=.,,:-
-''-'1
....
~,
.
,
\.
........."
1~~~ __0:) 00~ ~--
\f>l""" =
,-..
--
CD ~lTe PLAN
I'IlOJZCr I1IllOWlY
..............-
......-._e.-
.....--
~..:urcrDDClUPllllft.
..._''*-4......,..4......................
...
......................(........)
Lurr...''"'U.
c..-aNO'''''
.. ftftOlJ........--.._...,.,.
.. ocmr.u.a calKlI'. aM
1, QlIl&'1",ac,.ltt7tl1l1l;""GlC.IWI...c..
--
t..-zAD:IAJIJlIOMI.
........- .........
......____..... *&1-
~.....~-~.
--......... ,......
.",............. ,..U.
"""'......_ .._ILP.
~....-. ...........
..~IISICIIJ'I......
.u.-.t~fCIIIQ (~~......c)
~1"'<io""e1 ..
o
"
-;
-,-
Sott~"'i{
u.... I_I
....oI'IH'I_
--..,j
N
(D
.r.......r.d
.
.;
.
z
5
.
<
~
- -
s
oZ
<(0::
Ofc
0::_
z;;!
50
o .
<(S
00
-,<(
_0
0.0::
M<(
(1)
l:ll\! :
f
li:~ .
Co ~
Ow ~
::It:
cc:x: .
ollU 6
ex:
< I
" .
z" Ii
~~ i
"'z
zz fi
"'< I
0....
~Q.
~ a
-
A-I
- -
.
.
.
-'4"0'\0"
,.~_.\
<(
~.~'
lff2
z.~
50
o.
<($
00
.....<(
_,0
0'"
M<(
1lPPER FLOOR PLAN
.. 0
lIVING "'"
,., :aM! I
~:> !
.
01- j
a~ ~
GO:!: ~
.U
III a: fi
< I
" .
ZC) i
"'z I
...- ~-
Z
- -~~. zz !
- ... ...... :1:< !
O...J
----- .......,.. --...... ...a.
~ .
.
LOWER FLOOR PLAN
~.~..(-o. (~..,.JlCI'O'fllg..,
A-2
.
.
.
~\~o\''SII&'i,~
"i~""Q'~" '
'..1'\ \ ~- . .
~;\~!,:<ic~'~~
~..' !Af/ii:'-
. I'. It f.;
I
NORTH 'IlUWA'mlN
-~...~.
~.._.-
J~=":_._ .
I ~-=-=~-:---
i~~"-
:--....-
. = ...
! - '"
! ===~_..:.'=
i~--
E:tl====r---
!.5"'..=.-...::::..
=!$::.--
~-;;...;.._-
;:,........;;,.
~ g,'\m'----
ill~
--
=-~.
.".
EAST IlUWATlON
'k. ........_..
<
O~.
<(0
AU.
a:_
z;;!
50
'Cl .
<~
00
-'<(
~O
oa:
"'<
o
~~ ,
~:J :t
g~ g
1:1.... ~
G:I t
oll~ fi
l!l ~ i
~Cl .
=?;<
'" z j.
z z E
=<( .
Q~ I
......
v~ =
A-3
.
<'
-
~...~A_
,-- -
fi..~':;:==,._
i ~----_.-
:,-
arsi'o:""-
~~4r-
I =sa:-
. s:a...,===-__
... ===---
~ =:.~--
t_.~___
-="---
~~.= --
~ =-~--
:.=-~_._-
:~~
!'E~'----
.
.A
III
III
mIl
II
III
-l!!1
SOlJTl[ 'ELEVATION
.
WEST ELEVATION
~.
~t. ,-'
II
~t;;;...<
..
.
.
- -
S
9&
-.0
0,,-
a: _
zci
50
c .
<l:S
00
-'<1:
~u
o.a:
'" .c
0
"'w I
...a:
l;;=>
0" !
o@
~!:: -
a:x i
1I/U
a:
<( I
l!l .
Z" i
"'z i
"'-
"'z
zz t
"'<( I
0--'
~..
~ .
.
A-+
"
00
'tA..
lM..72 ...
;O/~ ~.. ~".
1< 73 7' 70,
7'Z
- -\ .
,,,., ";l' .- ,-
00
~
Ii>"
.'" '"'' '-'
~
. ; . 0
,.. .
..
~ ....
~~ ,.' .7
.. 11 .0 ." .J
.
.
.
~,
('!'/. ~'t> .!'''i.n~~ ~ - ~
Q" .... W
.
ARBORETUM
~
.
,
.
i
,.
.
11/
I!'&u qdlw.cl
'"
· KfNGSLE,"
'"
,~
.
;"'MqI
~ J
~...:'
-.3
g ,~~
I- 70
rn "'''
....
~ 8~
~~
3D .
-!,S
17
'.
~ 1,0 J-\t:i l
,,. ..' o!
$ nl' I ~O Z
'11 :... 5
~ g
rnJ"
,., ... -,
107 - 106
"'"
o.
o
10'
10()
.,.,~...
~..
,.~."
J.
<'It
~ r~
"
I'llILQ .
~,...'" . .At.1tI
. ,
~ 54 ..
-,
,
r~"
~' l'
0 "
a:
""
_~Y' .. ~
.'"
.'
."
~
0,
"'1~ ..'
0 ~~
,. a:
-u .,.
'" i~ .0
$"
,,. ,~
., !g M ~ .. g~
..
'" J3 .' ~~
~s "" -~ ..
. ,,. r
lC.3 -r.~'8 '.. u
'~O. ~ ~
,.., . ~
.... r
'0' 'S7 t
0
0 cr
'so r
'.on
~
.
,
lbS ~;,;
"Ii
~
gJ
3S ~
,,.
~ .1
.~
~
o
.
",
VICINITY MAP
301 Joaquin Road
MP 00-014
.
t NORTH
1 inch = 200 feet