HomeMy WebLinkAbout1566
.
RESOLUTION 1566
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION'S ARCIDTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL
OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
1035 HAMPTON 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. 5288 sets forth the regulations
applicable to the property within the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association's
area and to the property at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, in accordance with Arcadia
Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3., and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 1998, Tom Dargan on behalf of the property owner,
Anne Ma, filed an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association's
Architectural Review Board's (ARB) denial of their proposal for a 10,199 sq.ft., two-
story residence and a related front yard modification request at the property commonly
known as 1035 Hampton Road, more particularly described as follows:
Lot 16 of Tract No. 11204, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles,
State of California, as per Map Recorded inMap Book 197, Pages 18, 19 and
20 in the Recorder's office ofsaid County.
WHEREAS, the appeal to the Planning Commission was preceded by a noticed
hearing before the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property
Owners' Association on March 18, 1998; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 28, 1998, by the Planning
Commission, 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 Cornmission reviewed and
. considered:
a. A verbal and written presentation of the Development Services Department
staff report and related attachments including the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners
.
Association's Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of March 18, 1998, and
City Council Resolution No. 5288 which sets forth the regulations which are applicable
to the real property within the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association's area.
b. A letter from Tom Dargan, Project Manager, appealing the decision of the
ARB on behalf of the property oWlier.
c. All oral presentations, testimony, and documentation made and presented
during the public hearing of April 28, 1998.
d. Plans of the proposed residence, and a map of the involved properties.
e. A scaled model and plan exhibit, prepared by the ARB, illustrating the
comparison of the proposed development in contrast to the neighboring structures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the information submitted by the Development Services
Department in the attached report is true and correct.
Section,2. That the Planning Commission concurs With the ARB's fmdings in
reference to the proposed front yard setback being inadequate, and that the design of the
home is incompatible with the neighborhood for reasons set forth, in the ARB fiildings
which are incorporated by reference. The proposed 10,199 sq.ft. residence is out of
proportion in relationship to the height and mass of the smaller neighboring structures
along Hampton Road; and the modified front yard setback of 55'-0" to 69'-0" in lieu of
the 86' -6" required by Code will not provide for a reasonable relationship between the
adjacent front yards. The proposed development is incompatible with the neighborhood.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal, and
upholds the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association's Architectural Review
BO,ard's denial of the proposed two-story residence at 1035 Hampton Road.
Section 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the
Commission's action of April 28, 1998, and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter,
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bell
.
.
2
1566
.
.
~
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 12th day of May, 1998 by the following
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter,
Murphy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
17J~ (/ Jfj~
Michael H. Miller, City Attomey
~~Le-~
City of Arcadia
3
1566
.'.
.
.
RANCHO SANTA ANITA
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA nON, INC
Meeting Architectural Review Board
March 18, 1998
SUBJECT: Project involving house, tree removal and front yard variance
1035 Hampton Road
Arcadia., California
~.
MAR Z 3 199!S
,.~
.
.
.
The application for 1035 Hampton Road is for a 9427 sq. ft. houg: on a
29,600 sq. ft. lot. The house will have a 27% floor to area coverage which is
twice or more than other houses in the area.
The proposed set back is 57'.
The existing set back is 71'.
The required setback is 88'.
The proposed home will be built 52' closer to the front property line
than one of its neighbors and 9' in front of the other one.
The home will be higher by 13' above one neighboring house and 15'
,
feet above the other one. It exceeds all other homes in the neighborhood in
height by at least 7'. See exhibit on file.
The home will require a front yard variance and the removal of a
mature oak tree. The home is massive and totally out of character with other
homes in the neighborhood.
The applicant gave no justification for the variance or tree removal in
the application. At the hearing the applicant's representative submitted the
plans and made no statement in support. The applicant's representative
totally ignored the city's oak tree ordinance and Resolution 5288 governing
construction in the neighborhood. The representative did not show any
/
.
.
.
deprivation of property rights enjoyed by the neighbors which would be
denied to the applicant unless the front yard variance is granted.
The city's restrictions on construction are applicable to this applicant.
Ordinance No. 1962 is intended to preserve oak trees and to preserve and
enhance property values. To do this the ordinance provides that no oak tree
shall be removed except in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance.
There is no applicable exception for the removal of the mature oak on the
property. The applicant offered no explanation as to why the trees removal is
necessary.
A garage is planned where the oak is now located. There is already
another garage on the.plans. The storage area which the applicant proposes
to construct above the garage and in place of the tree could better be placed
in the patio or balcony areas to which the adjoining neighbor objects. The
second garage is not necessary. A car space is provided in the rear per the
plans and the applicant parks in front now anyway. See Section 9704.b.l
Screening to the West would be provided by the tree. Note Section
19.d of Resolution No. 5288 which suggests a good relationship between
adjoining yards.
Furthermore, regarding the oak tree ordinance, there is an
.z
.
.
.
encroachment proposed into the "protected zone" of the oak tree at the
Southeast comer of the house. This was not requested by the applicant but
shown on the plans. This is an additional reason to deny the applicants
requested front yard variance.
The applicant points to no injury to the use of his property ifnot
granted the variance requested. If granted there will be an obtrusive
protrusion into the front yard in relation to adjoining lots and the
neighborhood. See Section 19.b of Resolution 5288. The front porch simply
makes a bad case worse.
The existing front yard set back is 71 '. This set back would not disturb
the oak trees and would permit the user to continue to park in front. Some
thought was given by the Board to redesign the house only if it were less
obtrusive from the stand point of height as well as bulk. The house as now
proposed juts out, is too massive and is much too high for the neighborhood.
The houses on either side are 28' and30' respectively above the curb
at their high points. The homes on the South side are 22' and 24 '
respectively above the curb. The applicant proposes to build a home 17'
higherin height than the neighbors and 41' above the curb. The applicant's
proposal is totally out of scale in height and mass and front yard proportion.
.8
.
.
.
In 1988 the Association approved the construction of a home on the
property with a height 35' above the curb, but that action was predicated
upon the existing set back.
The'applicants proposal is totally incompatible with the neighborhood
which is basically Singingwood to Dexter. See Section 13.b of Resolution
No. 5288. The applicant's proposal will have a detrimental affect on the
surroundings. Not only will it be a detriment to adjacent homes, but the view
of the mountains for the many walkers will be blotted out.
It will be a gross sore thumb in an otherwise uniform neighborhood. It
will harm the property values and architecturaI character of the residential
environment. The full utiJi7.J1tion of the property can be achieved without
detrimentally affecting the harmony of the neighborhood.
The applicant's representation was asked by the Board if the applicant
would consider the limitations described above, a lesser mass and the time
needed to develop a harmonious plan. The applicant's representative refused.
Letters and statements were received in opposition to the application.
The applicant's representative advised the Board that the neighbors on either
side approved although the representative did not lrnow who they are nor did
he present any written support.
.If'
.
.
.
In rebuttal the applicant's representative advised the Board that all it
can do is to decide whether the building materials are suitable and since
wood, stone or brick would be compatible the Board must approve the
application. The representative also stated that the applicants proposal and
circumstances should be considered unique and that the FAR was low. The
Board determined that the FAR exceeds other homes by two to three times.
The property is rectangular in shape. IUs simply not large enough to
accommodate what the applicant desires in ,a manner harmonious with the
neighborhood.
The Board does not agree with the limitations on its authority as
outlined by the applicant's representative.
Accordingly the application is denied.
The request for a variance is denied.
The removal of the oak tree along the westerly JXlrtion of the property
is denied.
The encroachment into the "Protected Zone" of the oak tree at the
Southeast comer of the proposed house is denied.
These denials are based on the facts and reasons set forth above. The
applicant was advised that the Association would consider a house of lesser
3"
.
.
.
mass, not exceeding 35' in height above the curb, with a set back of not less
than 71 ' at any point, a plan which would preserve the existing oak trees and
other conditions to bring the project more in hannony with the neighborhood.
Any subsequent application will be. reviewed for:
landscaping
exterior building materials
front, rear, and side yard requirements
trash receptacles areas
temporary toilet placement
height
compatibility with nearby homes
construction fencing
other factors relating to the hannonious relationship with other
properties in the area
ARCHTIECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
BY Ii!:: t7Jd~_, e~....u
, ~
~
6