Loading...
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