HomeMy WebLinkAbout1500
.
RESOLUTION 1500
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
OTY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
OVERRULING THE HIGHLAND HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION'S
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED
TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1863 OAKWOOD
A VENUE.
.
WHEREAS, the proceedings that are the subject of this Resolution are
authorized by Arcadia Municipal. Code Sections 9272.1., et seq. (D Architectural
Design Zone), and
WHEREAS, City CounCil Resolution No. 5289 sets forth the regulations
applicable to the property within the Highland Home Owners Association's area
and to the property at 1863 Oakwood Avenue, Arcadia, in accordance with Arcadia
Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3., and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1993, William Callagy filed an appeal of the Highland
Home Owners Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) denial of his
proposal for a 7,723 sq.ft., two-story residence which includes a 1,796 sq.ft.,
subterranean 3-car garage and workshop area at the property commonly known as
1863 Oakwood Avenue, more particularly described as follows:
Lot 46 of Tract No. 13367, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as per Map Recorded in Map Book
313, Pages 6, 7 and 8 in the Recorder's office of said County.
WHEREAS, the appeal to the Planning Commission was preceded by a
noticed hearing before the Architectural Review Board of the Highland Home
Owners' AssoCiation on March 30, 1993; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 11, 1993, by the Planning
Commission, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS,as part of the record, the Planning Commission reviewed and
considered:
a. A verbal and written presentation of the Planning Commission staff
. report and related attachments including the Highland Home Owners Association's
,-
.
.
Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of March 30, 1993, and City
Council Resolution No. 5289 which sets forth the regulations which are applicable
to the real property within the HighlandHome Owners Association's area.
b. A letter from G.E. Busse, Architect, appealing the decision of the ARB on
behalf of the applicant.
c. All oral presentations, testimony, and documentation made and presented
during the public hearing of May 11, 1993.
d. Plans of the proposed addition, and a map of the involved properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the information submitted by the Planning Department in the
attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. That the proposed two-story single-family residence at 1863
Oakwood Avenue, which shall have a balcony area added to the building's east
elevation, as requested by the Commission, would be architecturally harmonious
and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and would not be detrimental
to the adjacent properties and improvements, because the proposed building
configuration (Le., the setbacks, lot coverage, height and landscaping) complies with
all R-1 Zoning Regulations; and its architecture would enhance the diversity of the
architecture that exists within the Highland Home Owners Association's area.
That the granting of the requested modifications for 1) the relocation of the
existing pool equipment; and 2) to permit the subterranean garage would secure an
appropriate improvement.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the appeal,
and overrules the Highland Home Owners Association's Architectural Review
Board's denial of the proposed two-story single-family residence at 1863 Oakwood
Avenue, subject to the condition that a balcony area be provided to create further
visual relief to the building's east elevation and that the architectural treatment of
the balcony shall be per the review and approval of the Planning Department.
Section 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the
Commission's action of May 11, 1993 and the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Hedlund, Clark, Huang
None
Amato, Daggett
2
1500
.
.
.
Section S. 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 foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11 th day of May, 1993 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Hedlund, Clark, Huang
None
Amato, Daggett
~
~~
,,~~~-
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
~ L~d/
o{airman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
3
1500
.
.
.
MAY 11, 1993
TO:
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CORKRAN W. NICHOLSON, SENIOR PLANNER
CASE NO.:
MP 93-004
An appeal of the Highland Home Owners Association's
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story single-
family residence with a subterranean garage and workshop area.
SUMMARY
This appeal was f1led by William Callagy who is the owner of the subject property.
He is appealing the Highland Home Owners Association:s Architectural Review
Board's denial of his proposal for a 7,723 sq.ft. two-story single-family residence at
1863 Oakwood A venue. The proposal was denied because the ARB determined that
the residence's easterly elevation is effectively three-stories which is incompatible
with other homes in their area.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: William Callagy (owner)
LOCATION: 1863 Oakwood Avenue
REQUEST: An appeal of the Highland Home Owners Association's Architectural
Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story single-family
residence which requires the following modifications:
1. A 2'-0" northerly street side yard setback in lieu of 10'-0" required
for the proposed relocation of mechanical pool equipment (Sec.
9252.2.5.) ; and
2. To permit a subterranean garage in lieu of on-grade parking (Sec.
9252.2.21.).
LOT AREA: Approximately 10,516 sq.ft. (0.24 acres)
FRONTAGE: 75.92 feet along Oakwood Avenue
139.99 feet along Grand View Avenue
.
.
.
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a single-story residence, which was constructed
in 1948, and is zoned R-l & D 10,000.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
The neighboring properties to the north of Grand View A venue are located
within the City of Sierra Madre, and are developed with single-family
residences; zoned R-115,OOO
The neighboring properties south of Grand View Avenue are located within
the City of Arcadia, and are developed with single-family residences; zoned R-
o & D 10,000.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single-Family Residential (0-4 dwelling units per acre)
BACKGROUND
On March 30, 1993, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Highland Home
Owners' Association denied the applicant's proposal. The ARB determined that the
residence's easterly elevation, which shows the subterranean garage, is effectively
three-stories; and that such a design would be incompatible with other homes in
their area (see the attached copy of the ARB's findings and action).
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
This application is before the Planning Commission due to the denial of the
proposed plan by the Highland Home Owners Association's Architectural Review
Board and the applicant appealing their decision.
The applicant's proposal consists of retaining the existing foundation and floor plan,
where possible, and constructing a 7,723 sq.ft., two-story residence which includes a
1,796 sq.ft., subterranean 3-car garage and workshop area, as shown on the submitted
plans. The subterranean garage area is not considered by staff to be a story which is
defined by Municipal Code Section 9220.56., as follows:
"Story is that portion of a building included between the upper surface
of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the
topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the
upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the
finished floor level directly above a basement, cellar or unused underfloor
MP9~004
May 11, 1993
Page 2
.
space is more that six feet (6') above grade as defined herein for more fifty
percent (50%) of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet (12')
above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement, cellar or
unused underfloor space shall be considered as a first story."
Grade, as used in the above definition, is the lowest point of elevation of the
finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and a point
five feet (5') distant from said wall.
BUILDING HEIGHT:
A maximum building height of 30'-0" is permitted for this project. The height is
required to be measured from the average of the lowest and highest point of the
existing grade of that portion of the site that will be covered by the building, as
shown on plan sheet "seven". A building height of approximately 28'-0" is being
proposed (excluding the chimneys which may extend 2'-0" above the roof line for
compliance with the Building Code requirements).
LOT COVERAGE:
.
In regard to the proposed lot coverage, Municipal Code Section 9252.2.15., requires
that the combined ground floor area of all buildings on anyone lot shall not exceed
35% of the total area of the lot for two-story homes. This proposal provides for a
ground floor area of approximately 3,379 sq.ft., which covers 32% of the total lot area.
MODIFICA nONS:
This proposal requires two modifications to be granted: first, a street side yard
setback modification for the relocation of the existing pool equipment; and second,
to permit the proposed subterranean garage.
.
The proposed location for the pool equipment is shown on the site plan, as Item No.
1. Said equipment would be screened from public view by being behind an existing
5'-0" to 6'-0" high masonry property line wall which is vertically depressed from the
street grade along Grand View Avenue.
The second modification is due to Ordinance No. 1986 which was adopted by the
City Council on March 2, 1993. This ordinance prohibits below grade, tuck-under
and subterranean garages in the R-O and R-1 zones because of the potential impact
on adjoining properties relating to excavation, first floor building height, etc.
However, this ordinance also provides for an exception, such as in hillside areas,
where this type of parking may be appropriate and allowed through the
modification process. The applicant is seeking such a modification because the
sloping topography of the site, as shown on the site plan, can adequately
MP 93-004
May 11,1993
Page 3
.
.
.
accommodate a subterranean garage.
The attached Exhibits "A", "5" and "C" were submitted by the applicant to expand
upon the site's grade variation, proposed landscaping, and how the addition of a
balcony area can create further visual relief to the building's east elevation. These
Exhibits have not been reviewed by the ARB.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas which
are subject to Design Overlay Zones. City Council Resolution No. 5289 sets forth the
design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Highland Home Owners
Association. 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 3.7 and 3.8 of Resolution 5289).
Section 3.17 of Resolution 5289 sets forth the following standards which 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, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent
necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and
compatibility acceptable to the Board or 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 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 increase 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 external building materials and external appearance are
compatible with other structures in the neighborhood.
MP 93-004
May 11,1993
Page 4
.
.
.
Approval or denial of the application 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.
Attached for the Commission's reference and consideration are copies of the appeal
letter, the ARB's March 30, 1993 Findings and Action, Resolution No. 5289, and the
proposed plans.
FINDINGS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the applicant's proposal, the
Commission should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious
and compatible, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Highland Home
Owners Association's ARB's denial, and adopt Resolution No. 1500 which
incorporates the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision.
Denial
Hthe Planning Commission decides to deny the proposal, the Commission should
find that the proposed project is not architecturally harmonious or compatible,
mOVe to deny the appeal and uphold the Highland Home Owners Association's
ARB's denial, and adopt Resolution No. 1500 which incorporates the Commission's
decision and findings in support of that decision.
Note:
Because there will not be a May 25, 1993 meeting, resolutions of approval and
denial have been drafted so that the applicant may avoid any inordinate
delay in the processing of this application.
MP 93-004
May 11, 1993
Page 5
.
.
.
l1i
~
4
1'"
...
Z.
4
f
80
~ O~ .l)
0
ti3 7
1'25.'18 ~
!oJ
~ '01 ~..l .-l
iJ'1" Ii'
,f 1"'!1 "
· 11'2 111.310 \
o
It
CdAMD
.
..
~tRR.A ~!.
--
~ 114. 4
..
~fr'''''O I
iIi~
~
o 7~t 950
I L
I
) 03 . ~
-1 to
~l Q 4 t
~05)1 420
AND USE AND
~
r
z
.(
\P
440
14
4.30
155.'27
IA'~. tJO
--
..l ~
~~ ..
~o ,-
.....
~'.O
~~
'Z40 ..
, lOCI .I'!
~
I"l
"'01
"'",
'25 0 ~
, 10S. '70
103.105
.s.
J} 0 5 8 '2' to
\' 0 ,.
.'
~.J' 50 G'I 94 ..,....
;0'
'4'~ .
-- ""
..1..__
"" I," la~
.~
.'~f' 0
~(:'.
o
,.,I '200.0'1
47 l!!
g~
~
o toOL p~
I'IO.G"
OIl 0
Iii.
."
-
4~ ~
o
1'7'1.i5
50 ..l~
11'",
~
Il'
ZONING
30ale: 1"-1 00'
G.E. BUSSE
ARCHil ECT
AlA
architecture
. APRIL 2, 1993
planning
development
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE
ARCADIA, CA. 91066
RE: CALLAGY RESIDENCE
1863 OAKWOOD AVE. AT GRAND VIEW AVE.
APPEAL OF DENIAL BY THE
HIGHLAND OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ATT: CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ARCADIA COUNCIL MEMBERS
ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 1st, 1993 AT +/- 8:50 A.M. MR. RALPH
BICKER (CHAIRMAN OF THE HOMEOWNERS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD)
STOPPED AT MY OFFICE TO RETURN PLANS SUBMITTED FOR THEIR REVIEW
WITH THE FINDINGS THAT THE PROJECT WAS RHOT APPROVEDR.
THERE ARE THREE (3) ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED RELATIVE TO
4It THE SUBJE~T PROJECT, AS FOLLOWS:
ONE
REQUEST APPROVAL OF 'THE POOL EQUIPHEU LOCATION WITHIN
THE SIDE YARD (STREET) SETBACK OFF GRAND VIEW AVE. THE
AREA IS DEPRESSED FROM STREET LEVEL AND SCREENED FROM
VIEW. THE RREVIEW COMMITTEE" GAVE VERBAL APPROVAL AT
ITS "SITE MEETING" BUT NOT WRITTEN APPROVAL
REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY SLOPE. THE "REVIEW
COMMITTEE" APPARENTLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND THEREFORE
. MADE NO DECISION FOR OR AGAINST
REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE EXTERIOR ELEVATION OFF OAKWOOD
AVE., THE ONl.Y ELEVATION WHICH THE "REVIEW COMMITTEE"
DID NOT APPROVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.
TWO
THREE
4It
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
C?~J(J
~USSE ARCHITECT AlA
GEB/sh
ATTACHED FIND:
TWELVE (12) SETS OF PLANS
CHECK FOR $310.00
100 FT. RADIUS MAP FROM PROPERTY
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REFLECTING ABOVE MAp
.,
140 West Olive. Monrovia, California 910'16-3405' (818) 358-8835
PL3Jl,O~
.
.
.....:\~ '.
.~t~r:~... :
r.-;:.. .
"-~.> ~.'.'
-,
'?"
. ~i:.4.
:.j'
,.
.
Illghlaud IbDe Owaers AasocIaUOIl IDe.
.&rcn1 teetural Beview and
Area Plam11Dg CaaIIl1ttee
RECEIVED
APR 01 1993
:
C,lY OF A.RCA.O'A
*'UNNING OEPT.
rue ,
/f9J-tJ:J5,
/g~ l'7~ ~
;?~~Y
..
'.
PropertT Address
PropertT Owner ~ U./I'1-M
Subll\18s1cm Date ~'l/9J
The ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE of the HIGHLANDS HOME
OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., acting in accordance nth CIn of ARCADIA Ordinance
fJl479, have met at /8'3 ~O/7~ d:f-.E" on 3~3o-93
and do hereb;y _. CGR>4l-'" _le ~Isapprov!) $'.;J:;,,/orking
drarings and spec1tIcations identified b;y the above fUe nUlllber & '!l'!!t! <$ .
. . I .3,;. '11'1.3
This COMMITTEE bases its decIsions on the material submitted by the applicant
whose responaibility it is to provide accurate material in all respects. Any
material changes made subsequent to this COMMITTEE's approval must be
submitted for additional approval.
"
In case of disapproval, detailed findings for the COMMITTEE's action are
attached.
CaaditlO1l'S for approval, if~: ~11.'S ~..I~ -~
I"Ar'Y or' A~.. PIN'P/~~.tf 4c..170'" ~I-(e;p
OOIAlITTEE JDelIlbers present:
~d ~ ~,e,r1/~
-:lr=r=' ~3 OW~N
~1/1C:S' ~4-1--S'
AJ .... A 'l--$' J... C-'1
,..--
I"r- ... ..,
PRO~
..
~ .~
~<9=~
....p;t~~ .-41~~..r.KG=- ~/~.;7"6".,t>
.:r Po ~ac:Wc::" p,-r..- c:: ~ ~-
.I/V /?G"en,v6~
-
.
..
. D.
'.. ,
.
.
rile No. /9 f.!- Ot<s
Date Submitted 319-:1fi3
,
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A.
B.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERlY OWNER:
/-&{,3 //AL.wOO/'J hI/€"
~ 1(,. (.. I /9--"'1 ('! ,q l.L." Go y'
~ac<fJt:'/1'J-
ADDRESS Qf different) ..5'" ,.q..-"., e
C. PROPOSED PROJECT (desaibed in detail): ~ 5'-m~ Y A~-SI()tffiY~ /t€ /I1d/Uftj
R~-CdAl..frtl!.tlCr70N tf ,-<W)OI:T7tJ'\J w/rH ,/t/c/c'- {/A/~~
c:'vt!J 7 et<l.A ...+qt!'!:~~ r Y"e- j ~ t?/!W.2-~
I
./
FINDINGS (only Check those that apply, and D~vfde ~n eXDlanatlon lor each eheckl
1. ~he elements of the structure's design [ ] ~~~ ] ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design because ;O~ c;I~ "'oS
77M ,P/f2.Q'Jecr J.6 /4- 77J~ ~e--CdN.5ne.uc::-n()1V
AlIt1-
2. The proposed construction materials [ ] ARE, [1 ARE NOT compatible with the existing
materials. because ..5'~G 4_<; iF- / ht!CTlle
3. The proposed project'lltf IS, [] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining publiC rights of
'n/. because 'CIL.'E"', C7~c.v-~ c:1:::~/8-,ZZf7~
.3 $771f!l-1 E:5 111611 /A/(Y.C/L)/q(; r~E .1 ~ S'd~~ 7*e
4. The proposed project~ IS, [ IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
-ME" ~ .
6. The proposed project [ ] IS, ~ IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on ...
9u5iHI1'.'t' ':' t4t im@!il\'SRl8Rts'sfltheadjoiningproartiesbecause,.
~ '/'I1'M-I7n!:c NtJT ""..0 ~ e$ N:7~ I^I 7I{G
H/i. ~ tv""q. ~/ft)~ ~v. 'f7Ii H~/)
r&:~L./N& op AJ~S77JI!-Y Sr4UCrt.'~~ I o~..;.;.~ "O~fl!l'[)Od'ld4J,t.(1N(;.
7. The location of the proposed project)C1 WILL, [] WII..L NOT be detnmentalto the use, ~:::
enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, rHeF ,:St':/9t.&" f7'p rHG: 6'7
O~ClLJ A-V"6' G:'C.f<:V4{f"tQN /.s Al'tlT" OJPZI'ArJlBCE NIp.( AN r
o7#G;';Q '€<5II!:J~ Oq CJ~(}-t?.L) /9~tE:. O'~ /9A/'VNlleYtEt.;;.t..SE.
/4 ~e- H/t>-H.,(.~~ a~/C& /Tt'<..&1fJ..
8. The proposed project's setbacks)<! DO, [] DO NOT provide for adequate separation
between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because,
S~r1' ~~ ~ ~~ F'dSE17J /7fUft Nt7 r- r.r r-:',aq"c..er"1
12/12/89
9. OTHER ANDINGS. Earof' S':r~rl!J!F A7f:::F"'" r $t'=-r...QO/
-
. ACTION
[ I APPROVAL
[ ] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
~ DENIAL. . .STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL:
?Her e~r- 6Z.E!VAnf7AJ( MI::MnD A-YB Frt2QN~ O~ 'Pki /'~
4/./ ~ A {/e;Q 17C4(.. tV,,"L.L.. ~g I_"I{/~ ,ei'2.q", 77-1 iF AODI1..l..~ ~ .r;tI~
.$bAn"..e.~. 70 me G"hVe.0MF Or me ~~ is e,q=.6'C.{nvs..~
3- S'T7JtQ.re:s ""'IVD I~ /AlCeAls/.sr~","r A-,v.D H'dr~41r/&l..&
tW/'hl ~nI'e-1L Hd/P'7e$ /A../ ~ ~~H~ o~ ~
E.
~
DATE OF ARCHITECTU"RAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION .:J/J(J/~
BOARD (COMMITIEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING
THE ABOVE DECISION: /' " "
~J./ L. 6/,c/CeR. L{;.;(~~ .
.Jq;:~F &N8""'7V 1<<//c..C-I''''''''' m4aG'H'~r
.,)n-me-s /) rH<1m4..!; ~/A-#t~ /no ~~
G. REPRESENTING THE IffORUdddS r/(lMt;; O'WI</'~
ASSOCIATION.
.!
H. APPEALS.
.'
Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning
Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning
Department to determine the requirements, fees and 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.
I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL
,
If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project forwhich plans have been
approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said
approval shall become null and void and of no effeCt. "
.
12/12/89
a