HomeMy WebLinkAbout1689
.
e
.
RESOLUTION NO. 1689
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF
THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION'S
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF DESIGN
REVISIONS TO THE FRONT ENTRY ON A NEW TWO-STORY
HOME AT 821 SAN VICENTE ROAD,
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2002, an appeal was filed by Dr. Ibrahim
Irawan CnHomeowner"), appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents
Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of an as-built two-foot
extension to the front entry, and the proposed installation of iron and glass front
doors with a matching window area above the front entry on a new 5,788 sq. ft.
two-story residence, which includes an attached 925 sq. ft. three-car garage at
821 San Vicente Road; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning
Commission on February 25, 2003, at which time all interested persons were
given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development
Services Department in the attached report is true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission finds that:
1. The Homeowner was aware of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents
Association's Architectural Review Board's review process, and that any
changes to the previously approved plans for the new home would be subject to
the review and approval of the Residents' Association.
2, Compelling evidence was not presented by the Homeowner that he
would in any way be prevented from enjoying his property by adhering to the
Architectural Review Board's prescribed ruling.
3. The Homeowner's testimony did not clearly present an adequate
reason why the as-built extension to the entry was made.
4, The extended front entry and the proposed installatiOn of iron and
glass front doors with a matching window area above the entry are design
features that are not compatible with other structures in the neighborhood.
I
1689
e
e
,
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the
applicant's appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of the as-built extension to the front entry,
and the proposed redesign of the front doors and matching window area on the
new two-story residence at 821 San Vicente Road.
SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of February 25, 2003, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson
NOES: Hsu
ABSENT: None
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 March 11, 2003 by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Lucas, Wen, Olson
NOES: . Hsu
ABSENT: None
Wi<.@j
Chairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
ecretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~'r.~
Stephen p, Deitsch, City Attorney
City of Arcadia
2
1689
.
e
.
STAFF REPORT
February 25, 2003
Development Services Dep~ent
TO: Arcadia City Planning Commission
FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator
By: Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of an expanded front entry,
and the redesign of the front doors and matching window area for a
new residence at 821 San Vicente Road.
SUMMARY
The property owner, Dr, Ibrahim Irawan, is appealing the Rancho Santa Anita
Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of design revisions
to his previously approved architectural plans for his new home, which is
currently being constructed at 821 San Vicente Road. The revisions involve an
as-built two-foot extension of the front entry, and the installation of iron and glass
front doors with a matching window area above the front entry.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has determined that the scale of the
expanded front entry, and the redesign of the front doors and matching window
area are not in harmony with the surrounding homes.
The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the
extended front entry, and denial of the proposed redesign of the front doors and
matching window area.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Ibrahim lrawan (property owner)
LOCATION: 821 San Vicente Road,
REQUEST: An appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of an expanded front entry,
and the redesign of the front doors and matching window area for
a new residence at the subject location.
LOT AREA: 31, 132 sq. ft. (.71 acres)
FRONTAGE: 121.50' along San Vicente Road
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
The site is currently being developed with a two-story, 5,788 sq. ft
dwelling, which includes an attl;!ched three-car garage at approximately
925 sq. ft., and is zoned R-O&D with a 30,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area
requirel'J'1ent.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
The neighboring properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned
R-O&D 30,000. .
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated as Single-family Residential (0-4 du/ac).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In November 2000, the applicant submitted plans to the Ranchp Santa Anita -
Residents Association's ARB for approval of a new 5,900 sq. ft. two-story .
dwelling on the subject property. There were several meetings and redesigns
that followed including reducing the dwelling size to'approximately 5,800 sq. ft. in
an effort to bring the project into conformance with the existing architectural
character of the, neighborhood, However; on August 8, 2001 the ARB denied the
applicant's proposal because the ARB felt it was still not in conformance with
their guidelines.
On August 16, 2002, the applicant appealed the ARB's denial to the Planning
Commission because he believed that the new home would be compatible with
the neighboring residences. The majority of the adjoining property owners
supported the ClPpeal.
The Development Services Department favored the applicant's proposal with the
exception of the proposed two-story entry, which required a modification request
for its height to be 20'-0" in lieu of the 14'-0"requirement. Staff felt that the
proposed entry was too massive, and that granting such a modification would not
secure an appropriate improvement. Staff recommended approval of the
applicant's appeal with the exception of the 20'-0" entry height.
On November 13, 2001, the Planning Commission concurred with staffs
recommendation and voted 3-0 with two members absent to approve the appeal
Apl?eal, 821 San Vicente
February 25, 2003
Page 2
.
.
e
.
with the condition that the front entry height shall not exceed 14'-0".
Construction of the new home began during the summer of 2002.
In October 2002 the Building Inspector informed the ARB that "as-built" changes
from the approved plans had been made, which included minor design
alterations in the roof, windows, balcony area, floor plan, and a two-foot
extension to the front entry. The ARB determined that the changes were minor
and acceptable with the exception of the extended entry, which required a full
ARB review, and could not be verbally approved, Construction continued on the
home with the exception of the entry, which was pending ARB approval.
In November 2002 the applicant submitted revised plans to the ARB for review
and approval of the expanded entry, and the proposed installation of iron and
glass front doors with a matching window area above the entry. The plans also
showed the other changes that had taken place since the original approval from
the Planning Commission for the purpose of having all of the changes reviewed
and approved by the adjacent property owners,
On December 12, 2002, a formal meeting of the ARB was held at which time the
ARB voted unanimously to deny the expanded front entry, and the redesign of
the front doors and matching window area (see the attached ARB findings and
minutes), It was the consensus of the Board that neither the entry nor the
proposed iron and glass front doors with the matching window area was in
harmony wittl the surrounding homes in their area because:
. The entry is not in scale with the surrounding homes,
. Traditional homes within the Association have an understated entry With
typically low or modest rooflines above the entry.
. The ARB is concemed about the style of homes in south Arcadia that
have come under heavy criticism because of the extreme entry design
and vertical appearance, which is further exaggerated by matching
windows above the entry.
. That the proposed iron and glass front doors with the matching window
area above the entry are not compatible with the design of the new home
nor are such design features found on any home within the Association.
. That the original wood door design with leaded glass windows were in
keeping with the design of the home and helped diminish the vertical
appearance that would be created by the iron and glass doors and
matching window area.
Appeal, 821 San Vicente
February 25, 2003
Page 3
On December 17, 2002, Dr. Irawan appealed the ARB's denial. The applicant .
has submitted a packet of information to address the issues that have been
raised by the ARB (see attached).
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant's new two~story home is currently under construction with the
completion of its entry pending the ,outcome of this appeal. The home has a
maximum height of 30'-0", and complies with all Code requirements.
There is an existing 35-inch oak tree in the front yard area ofthe .site, which was
evaluated by a certified arborist prior to the construction of the new home to
address a building encroachment into the tree's drip line. Based on a recent site
inspection by staff no further encroachment has been created from the two-foot
extension of the front entry since it only extends to the edge of the tree's drip
line, as shown On the submitted site plan.
Dr. Irawan has indicated that he has tried to accommodate the concerns of the
ARB, and believes that the subject entry is compatible with other homes in the
area, He has submitted attach~d letters from the adjoining property owners in
favor of his appeal as well as photographs of other homes in the area that have
enhanced entries.
The Development,Services Department does not oppose the two-foot extension e
of the front entry, because in staff's opinion such an extension does not change
the scale of the entry from a curbside perspective. However, staff concurs with
the ARB's denial of the proposed iron and glass front doors and window area
because the ironwork appears to be too ornate and would not complement the
appearance of the home, as would the original wood door design with the leaded
glass windows (see the previously approved building elevations).
REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas
that are subject to Design Overlay Zones, City Council Resolution No. 5287 sets
forth the design review regulations, procedures and' criteria for the Rancho Santa
Anita Property Owners Association (Lower Rancho). Said resolution requires
compatibility with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other
structuresln the neighborhood.
The Architectural review Board's jurisdiction, am:! subsequent reView of the
Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials
and external building appearance (Sections 3,5 and 3.6 of Resolution 5287).
.
Appea~ 821 San Vicente
Februaxy 25, 2003
Page 4
.
e
.
Section 3.15 of the Resolution sets forth the following standards that shall guide
the ARB and any body (Planning Commissionand/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 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 th.e 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 increases 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 extemal building materials 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.
CEQA
This project is considered ministerial and is exempt from CEOA.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the extended front entry, which fully complies with
the current 14'.0" entry height limitation, and denial of the prQposed redesign of
the front doors and matching window area. As previously mentioned, it is staff's
opinion that the ironwork on the proposed front doors and matChing window area
would not complement the appearance of the home.
Appeal, 821 San Vicente
February 25, 2003
Page 5
FINDINGS AND MOTIONS
.Aooroval
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 Rancho Santa Anita
Residents 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.
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 Rancho Santa Anita Residents
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 April 28th public hearing, please contact _
Corkran W. Nicholson at (626) 574-5422. .
nna L.
Community Development Adminis rator
Attachments:
1. Applicant's letter of appeal and response packet
2. ARB's December 12, 2002 findings, action, minutes, and
meeting notice
3. Resolution No. 5287
4. Land Use and Zoning Map
5. Letters in favor of the proposal
6. Response letter from the City's Building Official
7. Response letter and project history from the ARB
8. Entry elevations - revised and previously approved entry doors
and window areas
Appeal, 821 San Vicente
February 25, 2003
Page 6
.
.
e
· . .. ATTACHMENT 1
I
,e
.
.'PE-c - 17- ()oZ.
R-a::;;>I.('e"ST ~ ~~~ y
~w-..M _ J. ./t~Ic",,-: /~. ~ ~ ~
0/- ~2( JiI!"N fli~'x.J7T?:R4. tL./(fuld ~~ ~. ~
<H( .,./'~~ ~ ~ Lo~ ~CffO -If. ()..4,
t2ku;a.e O'l( 1>.12 ~ ~ I.z. - a 2.. .
~i~ I/..e. '
tv '2 I ~x-/4t.",~ JJj-- ,P~.
(3) '~OuA.. ~ t.rr:kc/oI Ii;;;' 10 . ~ ~
{//efiJ-e I~ ~~ ~ ~~ A~
for ~ IJ.~' 7?t1f7J,<.. Yth-t '
~~>
~.
/8~/'" I~.nv
~eo ~ ~ _11--
vr.te: l2 - I if - ()1-
(ZE.C~(Pr:{ft3'148 .
.
e
.
. ATTACHMENT 2
.
e
I
6/5 c'p r-.d 6)'5 / _' r-.d
~/iC'~ uewua J4?.r~ ~o ~abn
ARB File No. Jc.4 - '2DD~
Date Submitted ~
'^~
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A. PROJECT ADDRESS, ~
B. PROPERTY OWNER: ~
ADDRESS IF DI FERENT: -
C. ARClllTECT (~/ CONTRACTOR ( ) =.: Phone lilt,. *~r.,~ c.,
D, PROPOSED PROJECT (describe in detail)
EC'Tlt,) Ul
~
Phone
E.
Pit
N
~
OS (Only check those that apply and provide a written explanation for each check.)
]. The elements of the structure design ( ) ARE, (.{ ARE NOT consistent with the existing
buildings design because ~ee ~1T~\\~O W\\~u"te ~
.Me"~e'f) 12./1 ~/D'" . ,
2. The proposed construction materials ( ) ARE, (~ ARE NOT compatible with the existing
Materials because
"e"! A\,~t) IMW\U't~
3. The proposed project (~ S ( ) IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public ri hts of way,
because ~ \~~
~
4. The proposed project MIS ( ) IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
':IS -AeCOt:
J .
5. The proposed project ( ) IS (~IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site
or to improvements on the adjoining properties because -\eo
~ ."1T~~ ~u\1l S
6, The location of the proposed project ( ) WILL ( ) WILL NOTbe acceptable to the use,
enjoyment and value of the adjoining properties because . 0/ A
7. The proposed project's setbacks (~O ( ) DO NOT provide for adequate separation between
improvements on the same or adjoining properties because .
8. OTHERFINDINGS:
'3R' ,6..1TM~ ""t"".)~';"
E, ACTION
( ) AFPROV AL PENDING SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
.
( ) AFPROV ALSUBJECT"TO THE FOLLOWING CONDlnON(S):
.-
ci DENIAL - STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL:
~ ~~l~O 1).A.lL\~~
F. DATE OF ARB REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN ( ) ORCO.lVIMITTEE vr ACTION \":.I\1/l!)7--
G. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MIlMBERS(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING
THE ABOVE DECISION: ...
.c,
.
.~~a~
~[~ u.A~"rHtS
H. REPRESENTING THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION.
1. APPEALS.
, Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Co=ission.
Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the
requiremems,.feesand 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
Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. .
1. EXPIRATION OF APPROV AI...
Iffor the period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been
approved by the Board (C, ittee) bas been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall
become 1 an 0 no effect.
, .
DATE:
"A*!D'I-
I .
~u,. ~".~~
r" I~. *,*"1. "~~I
/"
;
SIGNED: {-/
PRINT: \.
TITLE:
ADDRESS: .....
PHONE:
FAX:
.
e
.
Rancho Sanita Anita Resident's Association
Arcadia, California
Date: De<:ember 14, 2002
Re: Architectura.1 Review Board Meeting - Regarding 821 San Vicente Road (Dr. & Mrs. Irawan)
Meeting Date:
Meeting Time:
Location:
December 12, 2002
7pm to 9pm
Home ofTony Henrich
432 North Altura Road,
Arcadia, CA 91007
Attendees:
Dr. & Mrs. Irawan
Colin Greene
Don Crenshaw
Tony Henrich
Bob Eriksson
Dale Brown
Steve Mathison
Neighbors & others (9)
Owners
Owner's Attorney
Owner's Architect
ARB Chairman
ARB Board
ARB Board
ARB Board
See attached sign in sheet
PUrDose & Backe:round: A fonnal meeting of the ARB was held with the ARB. homeowners, adjacent
neighbors, and interested parties, The purpose on the meeting was to review changes to the home which
differed from the plans previously approved by the City of Arcadia's Planning Commission on November
28, 2001. Last year, the ARB rejected the plans primarily because of the front entry design. The owner
appealed to the Planning Department and won. The. ARB elected to not appeal the decision to the City
Council and allow construction to begin in accordance with the plans approved by the Planning
Commission. The City of Arcadia in its lener of November 28110, 2001 (from Donna Butler to Dr, Irawan)
continned approval of the plans by the Commission and advised that any changes to the design would be
subject to the review and approval of the homeowners association.
During 2002, numerous changes were made during construction, which were not preapproved by the ARB
as required by the City. The City inspector discovered the changes and called the ARB chainnan, Tony
Henrich, Mr, Henrich considered most of the changes as minor and verbally approved all changes, except
the front entry expansion. The entry design was the main issue of the previous ARB,
Construction was allowed to continue except for the entry whicb was "Red Tagged" by the City. Mr.
Henrich immediately met with the city, the architect and the owner after the red tag. Mr, Henrich and the
City advised that the owner co4ld either construct the entry per the approved plans, submit an alternate
design for consideration by the ARB, or request a formal meeting with the ARB and adjacent neighbors.
No such request was made or were alternate plans submitted. Construction continued until the city stopped
work on the roof advising the owner that the adjacent owners must approve the revised roof design even
though it was verbally approved by the ARB.
A meeting with the City attorney. City staff and ARB was held to determine appropriate action. The City
attorney ruled that in fact the adjacent owners must review and approve all changes and that the ownerâmust provide plans showing the original design and the revised plan (with a list of all changes). The new
plans for the first time showed a change in the design of the entry doors (and window above). The doors
and windows were changed from wood doors and leaded glass windows to sculptured iron doors and
windows with glass behind, The ARB considered the iron doors as not in harmony with other Association
homes. The owner obtained the approval and signatures of tbe adjacent homeowners as directed by the
City.
A formal meeting of the ARB,neighliors and owners,was held on December 12" to discuss the. main Issue
regarding entry expansion and proposed iron/glass doors and windows. The doors and windows were
purchased in October 2002 without the approval of the ARB or the knowledge of the owner's architect,
Don Crenshaw, Mr. Crenshaw advised Mr. Henrich in a prior meeting that he was aware of the owner's
interest in the iron/glass doors but he wassutprised to learn that the.doors had actually'been purchased and
delivered,
Heidi Elder, the next door neighbor, advised Tony Henrich, that she had not seen the brochures of the
iron/glass doors prior to approving (signing) the new changes in December 2002. The owner said that he
had shown the brochures. Mrs. Elder also advised that she did not like the iron doors or matching
windows, Mr. Henrich also asked tl)e owner if the city ssw the iron/glass door brochures, The owner said
, that he had shown the brochure to Corky Nicholson who thought !hat they were beautiful. Mr. Nicholson
advised Mr, Henrich that he had no recall. of seeing the brochure. The owntlfgave the brochure to Mr,
Henrich when he was questioned on the design of the iron/glass doors and windows,
The Association Board (which governs t,he ARB) recently reviewed the entry expansion and the brochure
of the iron/glass doors and windo\Vs at their December meeting. The Association Board voted unaniously
to reject the entry expansion andiron/glass doorS. The Board felt that neither was in harmony.
December 12th Meeting Discussion: The meeting ofDecernber 12, 2002 began with an overview of
the issues and history by the ARB chairman, Tony Henrich, Also presented was a review of the ARB's
goals and responsibilities'asstipulated in the City's Resolution,No. 5287, which established the ARB and
the Homeowners Association.
The attending neighbors then voiced their opinion. Each of the nine attenaing neighbors were in support of
the owner. Each felt that the entry extension and iron/glass doors looked good and were in,their opinion in
harmony. Or, anP Mrs. Irawanboth express their belief that they felt that the entry was in good taste and
asked for the ARB's approval.
One neighbor felt that any home design should be acceptable if it met City code. Dale Brown (ARB board)
advised thatthe ARB's charter under the City's resolution mandated that the ARB act as an advisor to the
City in detennining harmony within.a neighborhood and entire Association. Henrich advised that the
Association had developed an Architectural Guiaeline for the ARB to help determine harmony, A copy
had.been given to the City Planning Department and City attorney for cOmments in 1999 - no comments
were received. Bob.Eriksson, prior ARB Chairman, gave a copy of the Guideline to the owner's architect,
Don Crenshaw, at the beginning of design work in 2oo!.
At the meeting the owner also gave a copyofa letter from neighbors supporting the entry and iron/glass
doors. A video of two other supporting neighbors'was also shown. One' attending neighbor felt that
harmony should only be considered within the home and neighborhood - and that exterior harmony was
not important. Another asked if an ultra-modern . home would be accepted, Mr. Henrich slated that 50's
modern homes are within the Association and are considered in harmony. Dale Brown further stated that
an'ultra modern home, in good taste might be considered in harmony. Bob Lwn, a neighbor and,registered
architect, felt that the entry and iron/glass doors were in harmony, Mr, Henrich also,gave Mr. Lurn a.copy
of the Guidelines for his review and comments, Dr. Bill Spuck, Presklent of t1ie Association, said the
Association BO!lfd ,voted to reject approval of entry expansion and iron/glass doors, Mel Dang, Association
Vice President, also expressed the Association's concerns regarding the, harmony of the entry. The owner's
attorney was asked to comment. He said that he had intended to speak but thought it would not make a
difference. '
Each ARB'board members then summarized their belief that the entry scale was not in harmony with other
homes in the area. Primary reason for rejection was that traditional homes within. the Association had an
understated entry with typically low or modest rooflines above the entry, ARB. members' also. discussed'
concern about the style of homes in South. Arcadia that have come under heavy criticism because of the
extreme entry design and vertical look which is further exaggerated.by matching windows above theenuy.
.
e
.
.
e
,'.0
"'.
.
It was pointed out that the city is likewise concerned with this extended look by designers trying to get
around the 14-foot entry height limitation. ARB members were even more critical of the iron/glass doors,
which are. not in keeping with the design of the home, nor are iron/glass doors found on any homes' within
the Association.
Bob Eriksson felt that the original wood door design (with the leaded glass windows) looked good and
helped diminish the extent of light and vertical look that would be created by the iron/glass doors. Steve
Mathison felt likewise that the original entry doors and window above were in keeping with the design of
the home and that the iron/glass doors and window were not in harmony with the owner's home or any
home within the neighborhood or the Association.
Motion and Vote by ARB: Dale Brown moved that the ARB reject the entry extension and iron/glass
door and matching window above,. Bob Eriksson 2nd the motion. Henrich, Eriksson, Brown and Mathison
.voted for the motion. Board member Lou Pappas could not altend the meeting but previously advised Mr,
Henrich that the doors and windows were not acceptable because they were not in harmony.
Follow up: Henrich promised to contrac(the City to detennine if there is any hold up on other changes to
the home which were previously approved by the ARB in their letter to the City dated November 17, 2002,
The owner was advised that the decision of the ARB could be appealed to the Planning Commission as
before, .
These minutes are subject to the review and comments by all parties. The minutesare,intended to cover the
main points made at meeting and do not necessarily cover ~Il comments made during the meeting. Any
additions or corrections are appreciated, No recording was made of the meeting by the ARB or advised of
by others, We thank all that attended the meeting. We appreciate their time and interest. The ARB hopes
to represent the interest and opinions.of all 800 homeowner within the AsSociation.
Comment: This entire problem could have been avoided if the owner had followed the directions of the
City as outlined in their H'tter dated November 28, 2001.
....
f\
~L~j ..
.',
Sincerely,
~
, c.~_
Tony Henrich
Architectural Review Board Chainnan
431 Altum Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
Ph 626-446-3543
Fx626-447-6271
-"'--'"
-.
Nk;tt?
~O~S
.
rUoIJE=" tJ 0
.
~~ 5~~ ~2-r' ~ v~ ~
-vGG2B{t ~ Jtn n S. ?{"J rf.. e ~ tR. ,f'--'(
~~ U bO~ _fVa..oR~J.!R'D
p,ne ~(-'ofv;V ~o7 Wf/ff v Js-r-,tr (L-o
~k9~~tiL.~' 4-60 U~<J<:::fb CC:D
\b\. &~"'"" Sr-J<. $ ..., I L<:3.. ""'f<:!... ~ ~ rJ
~ J,f'r--i2A-t.Jc.HI <6's-s $i>..o lJICEV~ QI:\.
, Wtf'H"AC- p~~"fft-- ~a I ,'{j/l~ .v:U?,......,~ IZ-O' '11/<... - '30 7~
~ C:::-...L~ \JJ...~~~ "XI Pt i(!)N~tlI l!L/5'-g-01(' e
/ ;/cn"<f:.- ;1t2-i<..1-I-veZ' ~57 !/- ord ~ tU1.c.4.- 1/~f-03CJ-r::'
/ feW).u1P! . ~ )0, & /J. f.-h 'N;- ~a8
J~. (fJ\ (~A ~~{~N vi~'1 ~ ~ -44-6 - ~C1.62-
~ ~ I-z,~ s{. jc:9~W (':,Jz;,rnl ~.;' ~ 4(.,18>
Cetl^' G\'e..e.rQ..- 2..(:) N, k.<..r~ol,).,.oJ-I'.' $.,;>.<..\"\<" (lO1-~ S8'S-KC>O~
~0-.5 ..~"-C- c.A. ~ (\D~
lO!il~~~~ 4 ~ \ ~. ALl.I-lJ..tJ.- ~ .
~ N~70,j qoo ?~~""C>? (d"h4-419117
r-
(~) 11 ~ -'&r6 2-
Co 1.-~ J-SC(--1-7!.t..
bZb t/'I<5> 5""/2-;S;
ty1.b V7't ,- D '-f'-f J
447 ,1-z-3
'\ ,{ ~ -'l31CC
44 C6 4S'4 or
&2.(.... <f<f(t1.? /-i:?
.
~~.~~~.
~~""'-<- ~s~
cJ:'il70L~~y :
<XJ-'L..6JUl.- ..ll ~ ~ -br ~~ ~
~ a:.... ~ .
~~Cb".....~~
..-- ~~ ...
-to..rO ~ ~
~d..N-A ~ ~~
a--~~a-~
~~~J:",-~~~~
1: ';:::-t:;:~.~~ ..
. ~~O-- -. ~
~~~-k '
~-8 ~
1~M- ,:tW~. · , ,
1:1..-/D-6:J..
ROBER T MOORE
--
+~J~~ "'
~~-
~ . ~of-~
,.~~ ~
I
: ~a+A1:v~
! '
" .
, '
ROBERT MOORE
,~~91(~
December 12" 2002
Mr. Tony Henrich
ARB Chainnan '
Rancho Santa Anita Resident's Association
431 North Altura
Arcadia, CA 9.1 007
.
RE: New Home Construction 821 San Vicente
Dear Mr. Henrich:
Due to the short notice of your recent letter regarding the special meeting on December 12,
2002, we are unable to attend the.meeting, however, we would like to express our opinion
through this letter in support of our neighbor, Dr. & Mrs. Irawan, for their new home
construction.
The reasons for our support are base on the following:
a) the construction plans meet the city requirements regarding set back, height, living
area to lot ratio, etc.
b) the proposed changes to the Front Entry do not change the overall structure/impression
of the house
c) once completed, the new house will add more value to the neighborhood.
e
While we do understand from your letter that "the purpose of the ARB is to assure that
buildings, structures and landscaping within the. area will be harmonious with each other". as
we look around our neighborhood, we see houses of various sizes, shapes, elevations. There
are new dwellings among older ones. There is even a house on Old Ranch (Old Ranch x
Murietta) that iooks like a rectangular box with a tiny front entry.
Our point is that these variations reflect the true freedom of choice that we have here in this
great democratic country, the United States of America. As long as our neighbor's plans
follow the city requirements, we have no objection, but total support. Afterall, beauty is in
the eye of the beholder. The sooner the construction is completed, the better the
neighborhood will become. We would rather have a completed new stru~e than have an
empty lot in the neighborhood (as is the case currently at the end of Old Ranch Rd.)
S~jfl~
Victor Luu& Nicole.Pham
878 San Vicente Road
cc: Dr. Irawan
ctrM,~ )
.-
.
e
.
r
~.~,
1 .
..~ Oif~
)
Rtzncho Santa Anita Resident's Association
I
Nov 2', 2002
Re: N+ Ho~e Construction 821 San Vicente - Cbange Order Meeting (Thursday December 12"')
r '
Dear Association Resident,
i
Your f' 'ghbor, Di. & MrS'. Irawan, ba.. ve requested various changes to their new homewhich is currently
under onstruction. Your Architectural Review Board (ARB), has approved all requested changes -except
for tw . These non-approved changes are:
I · Froot Eotry Expaosion The entry was expanded 2 feet forward without pre-approval -'.
I · Froot Entry Door & Window Owner proposeS heavy sculptured iron bronze doors with glass
I
At.1d for your infonnation is a broc. hure. copy .showlng the Pr.Oposed "Affordable Iron Doors". .These
glass ors hB.ve a thick/sculptured metal design. This same metal design would be incorporated into the
large 'ndow above the extended entry. The effect would bea two-~ry entry design of glass and brOnze
colo metal - as shown in the attached drawing (elevation) provided by Dr. Irawan,
In~d . on. the front entry was expanded two feet during framing, The City of Arcadia stopped further
co ction of the entry pending the review and approval of the adjacent homeowners and the ARB,The
ARB Iieves that the enlarged entry, coupled with the sculptured-metal glass doors, are not in harmony
with architecture of the homes within the associall. '0. n. .previousty, the ARB rejected.the home design
bec of the large entry design - but was ovenuled by City's PlaoningCommission. However the City
in theiq attached letter stated that any changes to the design would be subjectSO review by the ARB.
We a~ your attendance On December 12 to discuss the entry design. The time and place is:
ARB Special Meeting
Date:
Location:
Tlwrsday December 12, 2002
Home of ARB Chairman - Tony Henrich
431 North Altura (AlturaRd@MonteVerde)
Phone 626-446-3543 Fax 626-447-6271
7 pm to 8pm
Tune
As yo may know, the purpose of the ARB (as defined in the City Resolution) is to assure that "buildings,
stru es and landscaping within the area will be harmonious with each other", The Resolution also states
that" ood architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements
of the . tructure as well as the relationship of such prjociples to adjacent structures and other structures in
the neiShborhood. " Your ARB believes that neither the expanded entry or s(:Ulptured metal doors and
windo,s are in harmony with the home within the Association. Hopefully you can attend the meeting and
share rur ideas. If you cannot attend, please call orwrlte.
Sincel1 1y,
..}
-
City of Arcadia
Dr, Irawan (Owner)
Association - ARB Board
Association - HOA President
Don Crenshaw
... ... ,...
- :.'~ .,.....-:,.-,. ....~; :;,..:... 'N'.: ,.~:~"'-'-
.-..,. ,.- ,'-, .;.;;~ ,:.=~,";.,.:. .. ~~'~-:~:,:,:.,._:,,~:.~. ~
. ......- -'..: . - '.-.-:;. .:. '. .' "0.. "0.-- .., "" ..:...
"", ~ '-..-. ....- - ~:_.. . -~,.----
. <~. . ....:.~_.- :~- '-..,..-... -. -".:-
~.. ill-lItE." \! 1-;~- .
..~'" ~~
':; m
. ,
-m'...
~.- ..
~
Ec-W
~-. ,"
A
L'.;;;:
~.~-.'-:-
~-~
~'-'.' .-~.~.,
, .
N01.....TH El EVATIO.t-J
J KJ.o' r
L 1 , '
~ -ok. ~ -'"" -,
. r====t '<!Ii -'- --.
""1("l""<-'J.~~'.."
~-_. .. ,-
LE. , ."
~-':':::"-- .... .- -
!/tl:".O'
=..""'~
~.~
... .'":0 . .---.
, ,~~_:,,-
-
.,. ~ '''--
- ~,,-
"'"
.... __..__n..
-
--
..
~8" =
.~ ...b7f.. -
: ....._1
:.,.~'t~r~ ;:;
~,
~
..
~ag .-
" =' '. .~_1
=- -r-. '-'- ~ .=. o=l
';-- ':7::=
-I- - - '"""'" =;!J
- -,.:.; -..;. mi'F"'-J =
, :l-.
~
" y
"
~-
=
=
=
;=
=
=
=
"'"
e.
;.' Illl!' \'
,
<
;
.~,
=
=.
=
I=-
L..::
.
~.
.r.
1='
.
- .,
,./
J;
~
i.
.
m~m~ ,II~),
"Pl. .~-, IE
l~/~~ ~I~OW "'W)
~.~ ~
. f'\>::><lQE. Ql
flIfEI'- :\1l~
~a,,;; ~ .
"~~'"
~U\.>o:q
lSnJow"'.....
~lt:JI.~O..&I~\JJ\.,.
S'/lIO< iJUI<.":q e...1'l1'"
c~ "'3101' '3 lb
EA<:ilJs <>;He ,,'" ~
e>l4&
12
ft1CW .J"
,...l"""
:/", ,?
. "'--.J
b
'=
=
=
..~=;;;;
;- "'""
.~
---+---
---
'J =
:='= f
6 '$1-
= ~.
-~
.-
""1=
.= i E;
....
.dj
"'"
:1 D
=' f=9'I=iF"
. = 0 ".,. L-lLJL..
= 9t:Jwrl
t~~~;~ ~~~~ :~~~
-?r)1 iT!'" t::'" I r=:\..j/,S-rl-O'N 1,'4 ti". p-C/I :
.'\!'..
,i'
,I' ,I,
<.,',,:,
:Ji, '
,"t,'.
'__,1'1
,'Ili"
i" "
"11.(..... I' ~
'1 ~,"... \
. ~ .. . . L
"
~~
,t
~,
J' "
t'i;':fl:n
...'f'",
'II':.',
lit'.
'i>I;~
'j,'1
Ill,,:
fl.'.
,
,
'f"..
II/I J~
~ _ i \ _'I
:'Iff,~ /
~~I'
ii'
I~:,:- :
'.. .
i
~ : 1 "",":
II . (' :" -, ~ I
" '
:;-"1'--:,-- 1'~~: 'bi: I
:>. :'\," . 'J ' :
~'1~I;<"""'"
1_1'1 .. j D
rfi:, ,i,
1,__,"
I~~_r. fl' ~", \'~:I
; t 'J ~. r ~ ,~'-':'~II;,I'
, ;; r r: t. - ~ : ;' ~:, r. ' ~':
1>'( ,
,',1",
./
,
i1i
,
:rlf
'0 i' , -, I I-
. . ',' ., -' ~ '.' I . ," , _ . I _Ii -"__, :'-
g~~,~,(ID(f ~~~ lL1tIDrID lD)(fu)~ ,
~~(Jj;~fll " .'"t" ~
"..0:' .,~' . ~" ',I ,',~-,
. ""r.
:~<>"./.i' ".,~-,., -1 ~~ ~_.' · ,. .:1 · , " . ..",~ ,I I~' ,\ .0 . "',I,~ ,1~j~,lt I ~-4,'"
iJ, do< , ,<' 'CII.' - ' ~' .,,' .
rf '" Gl,b:.:~9\l;41 ,,90 :8~ fJ!!-"o~" It
Q'1,
"
6 STQCK SlwLEs
4',STOCK SIZES
"
,
O.-SlNGLE 3'0" ,39112" X 8S:?'~R 391/2" X 96" IN ,'.
o,JOUBLE.3'0" 75112" X 85>'--6R 75112" X 96" BRONZE
, (~IMENSIONS ARE 0.0. OF JAMB) (COLOR SHOWN)
.
, ,
"
~r'
.,:.'
.,J.
'.>
Malibu
,'.
www.hubbarddoors.com
Madrid
e
.
1":
"\
.l'~
':~~I
:'1
~.
'k
,:t
'"
,
/-~
J:~
..
,11
,1.1'
.
"..,-l;
,"I]
l",
.~, ,
~,
<Y
i'
.
P\
,
"t
I <"1
d.".,."
' r"'lot
\' -
. \'. ...
, , ,.~
.... -
1
., o1:t
~~>t ?-"
,. Ii.'
.... '"'
~r.
l.
'~
.-
-;;;"0" .....
.~~-::~.--
-,'
.,..
-
c...;,.. ...
i";.
V,,
\~~
\~
;.",
~:.r
:) or...
-'r
:.~....~.--;'"..
,
1
.,
......
,>.
.:...~~
. ,
'.
~
'.
Rancho Sanita Anita Resident's Association'
Dr, & Mrs, Irawan
821 San Vicente Road
Arcadia, CA 91007
November 7, 2002,"
Re: Planning Commission Resolution. 1665 - and Changes to Desigtl
Dear Dr. &Mrs.Irawan:
As'l'ou maw, Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, City of Arcadia, in her letter of
November 28; 2001 stated that the PIsnning Commission approved your home desigtl: Her letter also
stated that - "Any chllD!les to the desigtl would be subject to review and approval of the homeowners
Associl!tion". Changes have occurred as,noted in part in your letter of October 26,2002,
The City Attomey and City siaff advised On November 5th that the adjacent homeowners must first review
and approve any and all changes before the Association can review;these changes. Further, each and all of
these changes should be noted (i.e. circled & or marked) On an original copy of the plans to clearly show
each and every change - not just the major changes, A review of the marked plan submitted to date, as
well as the changes described in your letter dsted October 26, indicates that the changes noted may not be
complete or are in error. For example, the plans are not clearly marked to show such changes as the:
. Roof flattening to meet the height limitations
. Garage floor lowering to match the driveway height
. Location of air conditioning units
Also, your letter states that the,"D, epth of the porch from th, e affllroved cross, secti,,' 'aD, September 30, 2001, e
originally was 6'6" to 7'8" (1'2" step forward). OUr review of the original plans (provided by the City of
Arcadia) and your revised plans shows that the original the front eotty porch has bee,! extended from 5' 8"
to 7' '8" - a 2 foot extension,
Like you and your fiunily, we wish to~edite this lI!atter as quickly as possible in accordance with city
regu1ations and procedures. We ask thatyol1 meet with the city to determine the' steps and fonnsrequired
for theinpprov1il. The city should also advise on the homeowners that must be notified for their review
and the exact documentation (marked plans) needed to clearly show all of the changes made,
As discussed in our meeting today, our review of the infonnation submitted to date is incomplete, It does
not list, all changes, nor does the marked plans submitted to the Association clearly show all changes noted
in your letter. We ask that you provided a completed Short FOrDI'and.signatures from your adjacent home-
owners in accordance ,with the attached letter from ' the City Attorney (Stephen Deitsch) dated November 5,
2002. Please return the completed form. (and signatures) for our review together with a copy of the
originally approved plans and the revised plans showing all changes. Ifanyone refilses to sign, then the
ArchitecturalReview Board must hold a regular review with proper notification to all interested parties in
accordance with City regulations. If you have any questions, please call me at 626-446-3543.
Sincerely,
,
-
l(~- ,~
I Tony Henrie
. Review Board Chairman
CC: City ,Attorney
City Planning Department
Architectural,Review, Board
--
-
.
/\
=ity of i
:\rcadia I
f.'
)evelopmen,t
;ervices
)epartment
on Penman
uimsnt Ci? .ltJJIlno,r/
rpdupmnll S""';U.f
';J'tc~r
e
W 1I''''s<'>nDri'~
:m Office Box 60011
raw:!. c." 91061' . 6021
12fal574.5414
121\\ .....:- . :;5Q9 fu
November 28, 2001
Ibrahim Irawan
821 San Vicente Road
Arcadia, CA 91006
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Resolution 1665
Dear Mr. 'Irawan:
-
-~.
The Planning Commission at its November 28,2001 meeting voted 3-0
with one member absent and one member abstaining to adopt
Resolution 1665.approving the appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita
Residents Association's denial of a two-story dwelling at 821 San
Vicente Road,
As noted in our November 14 letter, approval is based on the
design presented to the Planning Commission with the condition
that the front entry height shall not exceed 14'-0" as illustrated in
the cross section submitted by Colin Greene in his letter dated
October 2, 2001. Anv chanaes to the design.would be subject to> Ai28
review and approval of the homeowners association. Revl~
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision'to the City Council ~t~
may be made in writing by any interested party, accompanied by an
appeal fee of $500 within five (5) working days after adoption of
Resolution 1665 (no later than Wednesday, December 5).
If you have any questions regarding the process, please contact me at
(626) 574-5442.
Enclosure: Resolution 1665
cc: Tony Heinrich, President ARB
.
e
.
ATTACHMENT 3