The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1665 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 1665 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPEAL OF THE OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL OF A TWO STORY DWELLING AT 821 SAN VICENTE ROAD. WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, an appeal was filed by Ibrahim Irawan, appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial for a proposed 5,800 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with an attached 926 sq. ft. three car garage at 821 San Vicente Road; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 13, 2001, 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 design, material and external appearance of the dwelling is compatible with other two story dwellings in the neighborhood; 2. That the multiple eave lines enrich the appearance of the structure; 3. The dwelling is in proportion and harmony with the other houses in the neighborhood; 4. That the house is designed to preserve a very large oak tree in the front yard area further enhancing the overall appearance of the dwelling and property; 5. That the house represents the changes that the City Council has made in the code, and that the overall design is what people are looking for in a dwelling; 6. That with the exception of one neighbor who changed their mind, the people that would be most impacted by this new dwelling are in favor of the dwelling and think it will Improve their neighborhood; 7. That the front setback ranges from 61'-0" to 81'-0" feet from the front property line which is compatible with other homes in the neighborhood; and 8. That the lot coverage is 16.4%, which is substantially less than the 35% allowed by code. -1- 1665 . . . SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the applicant's appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Architectural Review Board's denial of the proposed 5,800 sq. ft. home subject to the condition that the front entry shall not exceed 14'-0" in height. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of November 13, 2001, by the following vote, AYES: Huang, Olson, Kalemkiarian NOES: None ABSENT: Baderian and Murphy 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 November 27, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Baderian, Huang, Olson NOES: None ABSENT: Kelemkiarian ABSTAIN: Murphy ATTEST: Isl DonnaL. Butler Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Isl Stephen P. Deitsch Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia Is! David Olson Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia "2- 1665 November 13, 2001 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FROM: Arcadia City Planning Commission Donna L. Butler, Community Development AdministratoL~ An appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story home at 821 San Vicente Road. TO: SUBJECT: SUMMARY . The property owner, Ibrahim Irawan, is appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial for a proposed 5,800 sq. ft. two-story dwelling with an attached 926 sq.ft. three-car garage, at 821 San Vicente Road. The applicant also is requesting a modification to permit a front entry height of 20'-0" in lieu of a maximum height requirement of 14'-0", and an encroachment upon an existing oak tree that is currently within the front yard area. The Association has determined that the applicant's proposal is incompatible with the neighborhood because the proposed exterior design elements and materials are not in character with the surrounding development. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the appeal and the oak tree encroachment; however, staff is recommending denial of the requested modification for the front entry height of 20'-0". GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ibrahim Irawan (property owner) lOCATION: 821 San Vicente Road. . REQUEST: An appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story home at 821 San Vicente Road. In addition, the applicant is requesting a modification to permit a front entry height of 20'-0" in lieu of a maximum height requirement of 14',0', and an oak tree encroachment within the front yard area. . LOT AREA: 31,132 sq. ft. (.71 acres) FRONTAGE: 121.50' along San Vicente Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a 2,786 sq. ft., single-story residence constructed in 1939, and is zoned R-O&D with a 30,"000 sq. ft. minimum lot area requirement. 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 (0-2 du/ac). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: . In November 2000, Mr. Irawan submitted plans for a new 5,900 sq. ft. two-story dwelling on the subject property. According to findings of the Rancho Santa Anita Residents ARB, they met with the owner andlor his architect over a series of approximately five meetings in an effort to bring the project into conformance with the existing architectural character of the neighborhood. After several redesigns including reducing the dwelling size to approximately 5,800 sq. ft., the ARB on August 8, 2001 denied the attached plans (see attached ARB findings and minutes). The ARB in their findings noted that the elements of the structure design are not consistent with the existing building design because: . . The two-story element is not in character or scale . The two-story element at the living room visually conflicts with the two- story entry . The curved head at the garage doors is not consistent with other openings . The multiple eave lines at the second floor roof create visual clutter . There is no specific architectural design style . Incompatibility of horizontal and vertical elements in the front fayade . The use of a single exterior plaster finish in lieu of the usually two materials of stone, wood siding, shingle siding or other materials Appeal, 821 San Vicente November 13,2001 Page 2 . . . . The proposed material does not enhance the horizontal nature of the structure The ARB further noted in their findings that the "meetings focused primarily on specific design elements of the proposed structure in the attempt to create harmony and compatibility with the neighborhood. Although the applicant has made improvements to the design over time, the current proposed plan is still in nonconformance with stated ARB guidelines." On August 16, Mr. Irawan appealed the ARB's denial. The applicant has submitted a summary of the history of their meetings with the ARB as well as a history of their design review process (see attached). PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-story home and construct a two-story, 5,800 sq. ft. dwelling which includes a three-car attached garage with approximately 925 sq. ft. as shown on the submitted site plan. A maximum building height of 30'-0" is proposed. The proposed dwelling as reviewed by the ARB complies with all code requirements with the exception of the front entry. Per Section 9251.2.1, Subsection 1, no dwelling set back less than 75'-0" from the front property line shall have an entry exceeding a building height of 14'-0". The proposed entry is 20'-0" in height. The applicant is requesting a modification to allow the 20'-0" entry. A letter dated October 2 from Hanlon & Green, representing the applicant, indicates that the entry height has been reduced to 14'-0". A cross section has been included in their letter illustrating the revised entry design (attached). Also, there is an existing 36" oak tree located in the front yard area. It appears based upon the site plan that the paved area as well as a portion of the dwelling may encroach within the drip line of the tree. Based on the arborist's report (attached), the new dwelling will be located approximately 15'-0" from the tree and the driveway will be approximately 20'-0" from the base of the tree. Mr. Irawan has indicated that they have tried to accommodate the concerns of the ARB and believe that the proposed dwelling is compatible with other homes in the area. The applicant has submitted the attached letters from adjoining property owners in favor of their proposed design as well as photographs of other homes in the area utilizing simiiar types of material. Appeal, 821 San Vicente November 13, 2001 Page 3 , . . . The Development Services Department is in favor of the applicant's proposal with the exception of the two-story entry. Prior to adoption of the new R-O regulations in October 1999, the Arcadia Municipal Code did not limit the height of front entries. However based on concerns expressed by the public regarding the massive appearance of many of the new dwellings being constructed throughout the City, the City Council addressed this problem when they adopted the new R-O regulations. The City Council determined that in order to lessen the impact that two story entries had on the appearance of new dwellings, it was appropriate to limit the height of entries to 14'-0". It was the intent of adopting this new regulation to visually reduce the massive front elevation appearance of dwellings and create more curbside appeal. The Arcadia Municipal Code allows modifications to the City's code requirements if one of the following findings can be made: 1. The modification would secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship (non-economic); or 3. Promote uniformity of development. It is staff's opinion that the requested modification to allow for the 20'-0" high entry does not qualify based on any of the above findings. 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 Residents Association (Lower Rancho). Said resolution requires compatibility with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. The Architectural Review Board's jurisdiction, and subsequent review of the Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance (Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of Resolution 5287). Section 3.15 of the Resolution sets forth the following standards that shall guide the ARB and any body (Planning Commission and/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, Appeal, 821 San Vicente November 13, 2001 Page 4 . . . , fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board of the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. c. A poorly designed extemal 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 adjacentfront yards inc;:reases 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) must determine whether the external 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 exempt from CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's appeal with the exception of the 20'-0" high entry. As noted above, it is staffs opinion that the modification to the height limitation on the front entry does not meet anyone of the criteria for approving a modification. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious and compatible, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Rancho Santa Anita Appeal, 821 San Vicente November 13,2001 Page 5 , . . . Resident Association's denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. In addition if the Planning Commission intends to approve the modification for the front entry height the Planning Commission must make one of the following findings: 1. The modification would secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; or 2. Prevent an unreasonable hardship (non-economic); or 3. Promote uniformity of development. 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 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 November 13 public hearing, please contact Donna Butler at 574-5442. Attachments: 1. Applicant's letter of appeal and project history 2. Site plan and elevations 3. ARB's August 8 findings and minutes from various ARB meetings 4. Resolution No. 5287 5. Land Use and Zoning Map 6. Letter from Colin Green representing the application regarding the front entry 7. Arborist's Report 8. Letters in favor of the proposal 9. Information and photographs regarding other neighborhood dwellings 10. Plans submitted to the ARB Appeal, 821 San Vicente November 13,2001 Page 6 , . . . ATTACHMENT 1 ') . ) . . Jr~~ ~ /0 - .:2tn / Ic) . 1'~"'''''7: C#k,J.i/~r ~ 7" /lrCA./f/Oo..- . if<€1'€- ~ I J, Jil'~ .r,..~, cv-.rL ~ tk/e Ett; ~ ajJ/, '-A~'~ Ie p/41Rj ~t'{f'lrJ'M4 I . Ut ~~ tj ~. ~ a/~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:4e-V'~ ~ ~ fR.B ~ ~ kc~d..~.1 -,y'~ ~ . ;JnlPi~. 07I-e-I' a2. ~~d' bo ~ ~~ /l6lvvc. ~ ?2/ JhrI V!Qi=HTr:=- /!4 IrrCttJU;f.' G1-- C{I()O 7 A--ffi-f!~L-t .' Cory 7 ~~. ~ ~~ ~ r-t .;keA!~~ ~. ~ Jet ~. ~ Iv_ ~ or ~~It.J. ~ . ~p~'~h.~~ frJ; l' ~ ca.,. :r ~~.. /'8.R.#t;,~' I~. ?u, Ji:J c.-d.c ~ '\ . ~')'\ ~ff'~ A~\ ~~ lJ eP '. . . . ~ September 30, 2001 Re: Proposed NewHouse at 821 San Vicente Rd. Arcadia CA 91007 HISTORY We started to show our plan since August 2000, due to no documentations have been made, and we cannot recall the exact date. However according to the minutes issued by Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association Arcadia, California dated April 2, 2001, there was the first official meeting held on November 30, 2000, but no minutes has been issued until April 2, 2001. In between those time many small meetings has been made at Mr. Bob Erickson's' Home, corrections and suggestions also has been given by Mr. Dale Brown. But there were always something one after another reason the plan could not be approved. Most of the reasons are "The architectural design does not fit, blend or harmony with the homes in neighborhood, without clearly describing what the actual harmony supposed to be. In the mean time, Mr. Steven Lam, our architect felt exhausted with those rejections, later he gave up, and decided not to continue the plan that has been taken almost one whole year of his time. One day I came to Mr. Bob Erickson, and begged him to give some suggestion since we have been waiting so long to have our dream home. He suggested one architect named Mr. Don Crenshaw, which has office at St Joseph St, Arcadia. Right after that, we have Mr. Crenshaw did our plan. Mr. Crenshaw checked all the set back and height of the house, which he found no problem to comply with city building code. Mr. Crenshaw enhanced the esthetic finish to the front elevation, and schedule an architectural review meeting that was held on June 13,2001. Lot coverage 16.4% was stated here. (Note: by the city building code lot coverage could be up to 35%), that's mean our proposed house just less than half of what city allow to build. ARB comment, the house is large in relation to other houses in the neighborhood. (See attached minutes of July 19, 2001) July 19, 2001, again meeting was held at 400 Vaquero Road, Arcadia. And again subjective comments such as fit and harmony were stated in the minutes, which are reported on July 24, 2001. This time the president ofHOA (Home Owner Association), Mr. Tony Henrich made a sketch on the front elevation as a suggestion to Mr. Crenshaw. Also the. issue of our oak tree in the front yard has been brought up. They said a condition for approval was an arborist report on oak tree, and that particular oak tree needs help. (Note: we regularly trim our tree every year, since we have plan to build a new house we have an intention to do also on the 3 California Sycamore which already too tall beyond the limit of safety. We planped trimming upon we demolish the old house. Since our plan has not been approved therefore we postpone the trimming job. Who know the process of ARB to approved the project will take years. Minutes of August 8, 2001 meeting has been reported on August 13,2001 with the result of denial. Again the reason of denial is too subjective, (see the attached copy) and we . . . . want the higher commission canjustify this matter, also we want to question to whom has the authority about, how the ARB (Architectural Review Board) of Home Owner Association operates. Do they have such a great authority to limit property owner's freedom to have their dream home? We have spent a lot oftime and financial try to accomplish the plan, not to mention a lot of damages has been occurred in our business since we simply can not concentrate to run our business due to this matter. lrawan's Family. ~ . . ATTACHMENT 2 """ . / I .___41:c1 } .:. . t~~ '\ iClOt~____ '.' : =~..:f' ;', 1> 'I~W-.'Vo'~ ~QjIl.~.- . .' .~ ,. ". . '. ,',,' ',' . ~." lDT6lUi 'tIt.t!:r2'et:1rr'! "fI'I":or'~'S'V.'" .~ fffCl~'l tuI~ft:C'rft'jrtf ~~"!Ph ~ UU 1 I run' 'M'o fJ '1 MR. "1". '16&'5Q ,., -- ~j ~-"'""~ tar Cl'4.Ia&;C 14t".,t""ll~" -I/ohf1-t:f__ . . .., . ',,' i .~ . ',' : . .. .". - [!] W \. 'IQ'c-. .. .... (7~j . . '.liTE f'LAl'I I'-IO'.O~ .' en if Q,) ~ till 0 'u .l!.!! C> en en -c: c"<::l == 0 -= en ~li! = Q,) .L- :=;J c:...> = iif i C> <:::::> MilllkOti ,.,.,... --? ~ 9 I !; '" i .., l!l =--= - rl .,; "'r J~i ~ .. ... ME' 1 . . .. .wefltU!"1aa- .. ~.__ ___.'__P__ _. ....... __,n.._ _.~ -..".--- - ..... . ._.,."'" h. _._ . . -.. - :,,<-'-"'"'-=-- ~ D D NOl'-TH ELEVATION I/t'~(.O' ..- ... ,.,. '. - -. -- "- .... -. mgm; I .' ::l . .k"....._ --- ~"5DU:r.H.:.::.E:t:E.'V~ LJ uN:--" .. 1J.j~,1..d' ItHm mmmm ElBB8 . 8BBB g DODD . DODD OQ i ooon en ~~ Q.) ~- -- 1C..:t C> J:1.a '<:3 o ::€.: en en <C ~ ~ C> x::. ~::Jl! Q.) .0;; ~_ 5'; <...:> ~~ c- .F. a ~ e c:::J ~.1;. ..;:;t -~ :.c-ll f<l'l ~ eJ tt ~ i~ l-! "': ji il~~ ~-~~ ::& ~<. ~;""" ...... i.~~!i4 "~ ." 11)"' 1. ... v.~~ ~~ii ..G -.< )a:t .", 5 . . . -- ,-; . [8IB] , ffiE."" . ~.. ~_... . . , _."..~ ..- - --. --.. .-" .- . ___ u.._. ._. .,~':"-'-:::;-"~'~ --." ... - .,:..n.-- -< __d'. ...--- . - -...-.. ","""':".:.' EAST e~ EVA, , ON '/f-".<J' m 'tJt!ST eL-e\JA."r'lnH" l...- _, D 88 ''(.''.{.O' , "'Ii! r en co --- <::> 'u o en en -<C .;;0 ~ <::> -= ~ ~i co ~ c:s ~I 5..., c::::.~ .15 -=> .:;: J;I ~ ~ d!.!! ')11 !Ju .. ... saUl (J . . 'd" .1 Q -.. IFAM!lY RMI .lO!r1\H:oiRD:MJ 1'WOfUI..~l 11JVI'OoJ.l'ZlM1 I~.'li 1~'l::f'\"'~"'.II1 II'!. -' .." ,-.; FIl"\ST FI...(.Y:)F\ ~N "'"I'-Ila- "JDIO~ '.,: ,....0 . ~ . ...'-' ! I!I>CAII..~I i' :t ~ ol!.l! en Q,) ---- o '<:3 C> en en <C .:0 == o -= ~ Eli 23 ~I 5.!!lf <= ~ - ~~ !; ~ - I !J J!i ~ !j h U ... ... .." 2 . I o[ '~:-:",'" , ..s m!I N=~r""'l ~ Moo ''''f;!fd'''''''': . -.-r-- ..-- // / ltE~~ ~I ". .'. \ \7v......:,;.- ". .......,- ...--'- I l .:lPWt1'!.KalI'tI ,,_.to , ,.,/ .' ./ tmI '. ',- ~Sa.JND I='i ()Qf'\ rLAN \It"I'd 1176 . ijll! r ~'" en CJ.> -o-J = .0 o en en -<C Q;::l ';: = -= en ::Hl ~ :2&; <:> ~I g .!!!! t:::l~ ~~ !:I ~ ~ olJI~ at -- """) . . .. en ~ ~ Q.) t' ~ . ~Q _1 g t!, en en --=c 08 ;;: = -= I en ~. = ' Q.) , "- 6' I c..;> u = C> j!!' I " =~. I :.~ -;:) ~. !; , I . . :~ I I ! I , ... , I '\. I " I ~ '. I , ", I ''', . I ~II I " I I I I ]dJ I I I ~ I I I I II I I :1 I L I . . . ATTACHMENT 3 . . . File. No. 9.2. '7/10 I Date Submitted Uav ?',!Jl:JO ARLWUCTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMI'lTEE) FINDINGS AND ACfION A. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 821 San Vicente Road, Arcadia, CA 91007 Mr. & Mrs. Ibrahim Irawin B. ADDRESS (if different) C, PROPOSED PROJECT (describe in detain nAmnl it- I n.. nf' "" A"I gH "9 one-story ranch style home. and construction of a Drooosed two-story structure. D. FINDINGS (Ooly check dloae lllat apply alld provide a written esp1aaatloo tor eacb check) 1. The elemeots of die stnlelUre dalga ( ) ARE .Jt!ARE NOT coDJislllllt widl die uisllPC bulJdillp deslga because R,,"..r t-n lrt-h...h......t- 1\ 1. The proposed collltnlcdoo materials ( )ARE. lCll ARE NOT compadble widl die edstiDg materials because Refer to At.tachm~nt. B .1. Tbe proposed project ( ) IS () IS NOT bl&bJy visible from die adjoillilll pubUc rigbts ofwa)', because ... The proposed project ( ) IS ( ) IS NOT highly visible from adJoJoiag properties because 50 The proposed project ( ) IS ( ) IS NOT ill proportioo to otller Improvements OD die subject site or to ImprovelDCDts OD die lldjolDinl properties beuuse 6. Tbe loeatioo of tile proposed project ( ) WILL ( ) WILL NOT be delrimeala/ to die use, enjO)'1DCDt aDd YBlue of tile adjoiDiug properties becauae, 7. The proposed project's setbacka ( ) DO ( ) DO NOT proWle for adequate HparaClo4 betweeo Improvemeats 00 tile same or adjoioioll propertlu because . . . . 8. OTHER FINDINGS; D. ACIlON () APPROVAL ( ) APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDmON(S): (It DENIAL - STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL: Refer to Attchment C Eo DATE OF ARCBITECIURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMlll!!;';') ACIlON z.ng;' "to 8, 2001 BOARD (COMMlTfEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING TIlE ABOVE DECISION; Robert Erikson Greq Kealey LOll Pappas Dale Brown F. G. H. REPRESENTINGTBERancho Santa l\.n1ta Res1dentsASSOCIATION. APPEALS. Appeals from tile Board's (Committee's) decWon sball be made to the Arcadia PIaD11ln& C011l1lliu1oD. M)'One desiring to ma.... sueh an appealshoulcl eonCad the Plannlne Depa......eat 10 delennine the requiremenlll, f_ and prooeedurea. SaId appeal must be made ID wrltln& witbin linen (7} -kina days of the Board', (Committee's) dedalon and dclfyered to tile Planning Department at 240 West HundDgton Drivem, Areadla, CA 91001. L EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (I ))'ar from the date of approval, aD)' projeet for whkb plaJU have been approved by the Board (Committee) baa been unused, abllDdoned or dbeODdoued, ..id approftl ....U become lluJI8l1d void and of 110 effect. . . . .. ATrACHMENT A lIemD ( The elements of the SlI1Ictun: design ARE NOT cOnSislenl with the existing building design because: Two-SlOly elemenl nOl in character or scale Two-stoty element at the Living Room visually conflicl. with two- stoty entry Curved head at garage doors nOI consistent willi other openings Multiple eave lines at second floor roofcreale visual clulter No specific architectural design sryle is evident IncompatibiUry of horizontal and vertical elements in lbe front f8fllde. ItemD2 . . . rhe proposed construction materials ARE NOT compatible with exisling 'oaterial because: Use of a single exterior plaster finish, in lieu of the usually two materials of stone, wood siding, shinglcsiding or odIer materials, commonly used in lbe neighborhood. The proposed material does oot enhan"" lbe horizontal nature of lbe structure, again, Dot maiotainingone of Ute character defining elements of the neighborhood. . . . ATIACHrvlENT C DENIAL The ARB has met with the Owner and/oT his architects over a series of approximately 5 meetings in an effort to bring the proposed project in to confonnancewith the existing architectural character of the neighborhood, as required by the Rancho Santa Anita Residents Association. The meetings focused primarily on specific design elements of the proposed structure in the allemptto create hannony and compatibility with the neighborhood Although the applicant bas mnde improvements to the design over time, the current proposed plan is still in non confonnanc:e with stated ARB guidelines. Specific,conditions of non eonfonnance are identified in items D 1 and D 2, herein incorporated by reference. . . . . CJ?sr.nc/io Santa}lnita CR..gsU[ents' }lssociation }lrcaaia, Ca{ifornia Minutes of August 8, 2001 Meeting Date of Report: Augus6 13, 2001 Subject Property: Mr/s Ibrahim Irawin Residence 821 San Vicente Road Arcadia CA 91007 Location: Home of ARB Chairman Robert Eriksson 400 Vaquero Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Date/Time: August 8, 2001 7:30p.m. Attendance: Bob Eriksson, Greg Kealey, Lov Pappas, Dale Brown Removal of aone.story ranch style house and construction of proposed two- story structure. Project description: Issues to be Decided: The architectural character of the proposed residence and how it relates to the immediate neighborhood. The revised front entry and living room windows; and, Exterior materials, colors, and roof materials. Neighboring Homeowners Comments: Still is not in favor of the project. Architect reviewed the changes made to the project since last meeting. The issues reviewed include: Lowered cwo.story window Lowered eave at living room and aligned some of the second floor roofs Eliminated the stucco reveals at the wall left of the' entry Modified the width of the columns at the two story entry Simplified entry door paneLdesign The tree report as requested at the previous meeting was not provided. There remains concern for the health and viability of the tree. The architect representing the owner confirmed that the owner had not yet seen or approved the porposed changes made to the project since the previous meeting. There was diSC).lSsion confirming that earlier suggestions by the ARB related to alternate exterior finish materials, modification to the cwo-story living room window and'cwo story entry were not acceptable to the owner. . . . Motion made by Bob Eriksson to approve the plan as presented subject to: Arborist report The presented materials and color board Dale Brown Seconded the motion. Limited dis~sion occurred. The question WJS called by Dale Brown. The motion failed to pass one vote to three Votes. . . . ~~,.~~..~ ~.~~ MimJtes of1uJy \9, 200\ MeeliDg DllleofRepon: July 24,200\ Subjecl JlrcJpmy: Mt, ADd Mn, Irawan Res.idcllce 82\ SaIl VIllc:ellleRoad An:adia. Ca. 9\ 007 MeetiJIg Loc:aIion: Home of ARB Chairman Robert Eriksson 400 Vaquero Road Arcadia, Ca. DatclTime: 7:30P,M.-]uIy\9,200\ AttendaDce : See AttaclIed Project DellcripliOD; Removal of oae Blmy nmcll style bome and c:olllbUClioa of proposed two sloJy struclure Issues to be resolved: TIle arcbitecIuraI characrer of the p.6....,.d _ and bow it reImes to the immediate 1Jeiabborbood, Deletion of JlIU'8IIeI waIJ and flat mot 0Vlll' 8llI1I8C and ins1allation of mot pitdled to matd\ rest of bo\dc. Exterior materials, colors IIIId mot material. An:hiaoc:ta Pr-em~riOll: An:hited Doll CllllI5baw reviewed revised mot plans and e1evationsindk:aling roof cIIaD8cs which balanced the appeamnce 8II"""",iqUy as well as minor c:hanps to !he &out_. Ponioda of !he pluulr 011 tile &out elevation indicated depJessod horizonlal lJues in liew of tile p~ BlODl!. ARB CoIDJDtlll\ll: Dale BIUWII Lower tile two IlIlKy window in IivinS room. PIn band iawiDdow 10 minimize heishL Conceme4 about the apparenI verticaJ appearance of!he CIlIJy _to !he vertical Window to the immedille rigbt. Tonv Henrich ARB. Pn!Rident TIle house as..-Jy desiped does DOt provide die borizontaIlooll: that is a dllitinsuisbins feature of masr ... ill !he Lower Randlo. Roofliaes and eaw lines do _line upend !he 1".Af 'llIl &olIt CIlIJy with tile window above ,--_!he venicalily. . GteR Kea.lev. The house is completely out of harmony with the adja&:elll houses and could not approve. LouP""ll"" The orcbitect bas made many improvemelllS however the proposed home does not fit the neighborhood. Bob ErihQAft The house is large in relation to other houses in the neishborhood, however Jots in Ihis tract are Jarse and u time goes on larger hollll!S will be built. These homes need to be understated and in harmony with other homes in the neishborhood.. The matwe trees on this site wiD help mitigate the bulk, especially the large Coast Live Oak. This tree bas not been cared for in rec:ent yean and needs help. . Motion by Bob Eriksson, Approve the plans with the addition of stone being added to the front elevation and the Jjvin8 room window be dropped in heishl. Prior to IinaI &pprowl, a landsgrpe plan for the from yard be approved. The owner shall retain an Arborist to ......... the condition of the Jarse oak lnle and submit a repon to the Board. The motion was seconded by Dale Brown with an amendment to have the Mhitec:1 make the necessary changes and submit them saBin for finaJapproval, The Motion was appro-t ) to I, Respec:dblly submitted, Robert M. Eribson ARB Chairman . " . . . , 1(ancfio Santa J/.nita 1(esiaents' .9l.ssociation .9I.rcaaiaJ Ca{ifomia Date of Report: June 13, 2001 Subject P,operty: M'/ s Ibrahim Irawin Residence 821 San Vicente Road Arcadia CA 91007 Location: Home 'of ARB Chairman Robert. Eriksson 400 Vaquero Road Arcadia, CA 91007 Date/Time: June 13, 2001 7:5(}p,m. Attendance: Refer to attached attend,m.ce sheet., Project description: Removal of a one. story ranch sryle house and construction of proposed two. story structure. Issues to be Decided: The a,rchit~ctutal character of the proposed residence and how it rehl.tes to the immediate neighborhood. Review the revised design, exterior materials, colors, and roof materials, p,esented by the Owner's new archilecl. Neighboring Homeowners Co,mments: The project is too bog and tall fOf the ndghborhood and concern over the trees she wishes to remain next to her property. Architect (Don Crenshaw) reviewed the changes made to the project since being engaged by tbe client. The changes reviewed include: 1. General Comments. a. Flqor plan a little large, - 5764 'q ft living area ar this time. b. Lot size 31)132 sq ft, 16.40/0 lot coverage. c. 7098 TOlalsq ft. 2, Specific changes a. Still problem arc a in 2nd 'fioor west end roof b. . C~lorl?'!'!.t(1 OK'd. Double Eagle Gray b,own blend. c. Stucco~ smooth X-97 Pacific Sand d. Marvin windows & Doors - white e. Entry still needs work to meet scale and proportion requirements. f. Change- to balcony over garage area - bring roof up to cover - small 'Q,'aU.. J. Don agreed to make changes 'and being'plan back. . ATTENDANCE ROSTER DATE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE U'~ l'V~1. ~",\ 1\'21. ==-1 ij, J.l. I..;I./.,C ~1(,.,J . /;/" ~ /-/~/ ..&2.2,/ / - , '.1/ -- '/ ~~ "" #, J1-' IN ~ 51>7 """rn: v/~rlt I-Q 'Zc;<f~ " '~("<t"'- \(<1.'" <I..... !\, '-\S -.:?}u.. 0:;- n . t::n II 0 \2, 4. d'61 I /-, ~J ........,,/7 '7'"4-'6 /::J 0(. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . .I~~l "<.-> 1i~ I <:> !;. ~ en en <c ~ ""' C> ..c UJ ~~ a3 :200 '- 61 '-...:J u~ ~ -",f =!rl" -?U ~ ~ ~ . j" 'I' ~ttr'~4.1t>:l'f.>..... ~;",<l.u.1 \.:7 u . ''''::'''-' I'\()t)f PLAN 1'1'-"'0" 1-1 fill ~H ~ 1 M,1 ~3 H 'g~ t ... ... .5N[(1 L -~ . . . ....;!:;i;~'..~~, '..:::j, ~~~~~~q~.,~,-L~~':O::;"~: .. . ..._':;'::._.. - _... _. ~____ .0-::..- -< ~. .- ~ -. ,--.---' .,.. . .. - _...~ -0 ~ .0. ," '. -'-+' --.---. -. _~.,.u;~. .._._:--_,. _0._- __ __ u... __ - . ,....- _. _0_+_-. ___ ___ ~m~~ mm pqB!J ':;.r L. . __D ...:J ;}F3RR D lBl [fIHB NO,I"'TH ELEVATION If1'~I"O' . . . 'N.O_. _ _.~.., ~~_ ~.'.' '_; ~~l~~-:~=:_:;;:~;>:~.n.-_. DI ?OUTH eLEVATION 1;l._'ilO'<I'. "'1 en ,.. 2'9: o ~r ..,;u .:.: o en en <C ~ ;;:0 = -= en ~! 53 t2i -- -,! <-)~~ , ~ ~i =l!l' :E1 -=i J: j ~" - ~ ~~ i! ] Jllf ~ M ~ 1, d J:J H ..~'! ~< - ,.. ..,. 5 ~ . .... -~_..--_.- -'.--':.::... -- ---~.....-.'.-.~..... 8 .EA5T ELEVATION .'~"'I!o' " . m l..~ SJuD,"\"- 88 1= ~ weST El EVATl(')N .-- "'--I/"r".J~o' . 1_, -_~I .,g .J.'-a U "'''' en "-' ~ = "u o ~ -< "'<:S :3= = ..c: ~;;Hl ~~j 8 ~f -::> II ~ ::: ~ !!; ~ ~ ~j ll~ . -1 a< ~ D "" .... au, Ii . ~g''''~~''<A'~ '~'I ,,~ ~,~ ~ . ... Minutes of April 2, 2001 Dace ollleport: April 7,200 I Subject PropcrCy: IiaWllll Residence 821 SlIII V_Ie Arcadia, CA 91007 Loeatioa: HOIllll of AllB Chairmm Robert ErikSSOD 400 Vaquero Road Arcadia. CA 91007 AttaadaDce: Ilefer to attached attendance sheet. Project Detleripdoa: Removal of one story rancb st)'te bouse IIId coDstructioD of proposed two story structure. . Delip PracDutioa: This was the second .......n..ll of the ARB coavCllcd to n:vicw the inlltallt project. The first meetios WIll held on November 30,2000. The minutes olthe November 30.2000 meeting are incorporated by refimmee. Architect StcphCII Lam p_ted the latest plans aad explained the chaagcs that had been made siDce the Novcmbcr30. 2000 pr-~.riDD The focus of this meeaog was the frout facade. AIlhougll requested at the 1ir&t meeting, 110 story board displaying all of the proposed bui1dillg materials aDd colors was provided Nci&hborltoodB__ers Co_eats: IIeid1 Elder: M~ E1c1er didn't lIIIve any substantive colDlllalts at the cuneot m-n.ll conccmiog the frODl facade. ARbltec:taral Review Board CommeDts: Greg Kaley: Mr. Kealeythmked Mr. IraWllll sad Mr. Lam for IDlIIlY of the changes made since the last preseoialioll. However. there was sti1l CODcem that the ftOltt facade liWed to blClld into the commwlity. , \ , Dale Brown: Mr. Brown also aclalowledged that subliWltial progress had been made Bee the initiaJ p........tatioo. However, eYeIl after making numerous ch8llgcs, there arc snll problems with the CUlTCIII plans thaI will need 10 be addressed. . Bob Erikalon: Mr. Eriksson questioned whcd1er the house lit architecturally inlo the nci8hborhood. Lou Pappaa: Mr. Pappu concumod with the cormnentsofthe other board members and emphasized thaI the size of the project wam'l the issue. The problan with the CWTCIlt plan is that it is Dot compatible or in harmany with the other existing strUctUf'cs in the neighborhood. Motion: Motion was made by Mr. Eriksson to DOl accept the existing plMs as cutratly designed. It was again requested thaI attempts be _de so that the bouse would be in harmony with the neighborhood, AD example wa. tbal lID attmupl be made 10 use less lltUeco aDd to considcr using wood siding or stoDe. Whatever direction is choSGl, a &lory board would b hclpful.in the next prcsenUtiOD. Meeting was adjourned. RcspectfWly llUbmittc:d . ~~~ Robert ErikS80D ARB Chairman Pholle447.7123 . . . . . ATTACHMENT 4