Loading...
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