Loading...
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