Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1481 . .. . RESOLUTION 1481 A RESOLUTION OF lEE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPLICATION NO. MP 91- 014, AND UPHOLDING A CONDmON OF APPROVAL TO REQUIRE A LESS IMPOSING FRONT PORTICO IMPOSED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR A NEW 3,400 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 940 CORONADO DRIVE. WHEREAS, on November 25, 1991, Mr. Ken Burgess, the project architect, on behalf of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Yuan-Ching Lu, filed an appeal of a condition of approval imposed by the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Village Association that requires a less imposing front portico for a new 3,400 sq. ft. two-story residence proposed for the property commonly known as 940 Coronado Drive and more particularly described as follows: Lot 37 and the westerly 2 feet of Lot 36, Tract 11688 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California as recorded in Map Book 214, Pages 15 and 16 in the recorder's office of the said County. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 10, 1991 by the Planning Commission at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing on December 10, 1991 the Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Santa Anita Village Association's Architectural Review Board's condition of approval to require the less imposing front portico for the new 3,400 sq. ft. two-story residence proposed for the lot at 940 Coronado Drive. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: A. That the proposed residence is in proportion with the subject property and the neighborhood and is consistent with contemporary standards of harmony and compatibility; B. That accented porches are the exception in the area of the Santa Anita . . . Village Association; and C That the less imposing front portico is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal and upholds the the Santa Anita Village Association's Architectural Review Board's condition of approval to require the less imposing front portico for the new 3,400 sq. ft. two-story residence proposed for the lot at 940 Coronado Drive. SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of December 10, 1991, and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Szany and Oark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund 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 foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of January, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany and Clark None None man, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: ~&tMAL;~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -2- 1481 . . . December 10, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner CASE NO.: MP 91-014: An appeal of the santa Anita Village Association's Architectural Review Board's condition of approval for a new 3,400 sq. ft. two-story residence. SUMMARY This appeal was filed by Ken Burgess on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Yuan-Ching Lu. They are appealing the following condition of approval imposed by the Santa Anita Village Association's Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a new 3,400 sq. ft., two- story dwelling at 940 Coronado Drive: "c. The structure and portico shall comply with the revised plans (Exhibit 2). The large portico design (Exhibit 1) is specifically denied by the Board." This condition requires that the house be constructed with a front portico design that is smaller than a design preferred by the owners. The basic design of the house has been approved by the ARB. The only item at issue is the design of the front portico. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANT: Ken Burgess, Architect for Mr. and Mrs. Yuan-Ching Lu ADDRESS: 940 Coronado Drive REQUEST: An appeal of the Santa Anita Village Association's Architectural Review Board's condition of approval for a new 3,400 sq. ft. two- story residence (9272.2.4) The condition of approval being appealed is the requirement of the smaller front portico (Exhibit Two) as opposed to the design preferred by the owners (Exhibit One). LOT AREA: Approximately 10,220 square feet (0.235 acre) . . . FRONTAGE: 64 feet EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is improved with a one-story single family residence. The zoning is R-1&D/7,500. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential (0-6 d.u./acre) SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: The surrounding properties are all developed with single family residences. The area is zoned R-1&D/7,500. BACKGROUND The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Santa Anita Village Association has held three public hearings to review the proposed house. The attached ARB Findings provide a synopsis of this review process. The initial design of the house is shown on Exhibit Three. After the first two hearings, the design was revised by replacing the stone veneer with brick veneer, the diamond window panes were replaced with standard rectangular panes, and the height of the front portico was lowered. At the third ARB hearing, two drawings of the front of the proposed house were presented (Exhibits One and Two). The ARB approved the proposed house subject to the following conditions: "a. The applicant shall submit sample materials for the brick facade, walls and roof to the chairman of the Architectural Review Board for review and approval. No additional public hearing will be required for this approval. b. The proposed structure shall comply with all Municipal Code requirements and shall not require any variances. c. plans (Exhibit 2). the Board. The structure and portico shall comply with the revised The large portico design (Exhibit 1) is specifically denied by d. The applicant shall plant two four foot box trees in the front yard at locations to be selected by the applicant." MP 91-014 December 10, 1991 Page 2 . . . The proposed new house will be two-stories and 3,400 sq. ft. in living area. It includes an attached garage. The new house will cover 29.9% of the lot. The proposed design complies with all zoning requirements. Resolution No. 5286, which is attached, set.s forth the regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Association. The ARB has approved the proposed new house with the smaller portico as shown in Exhibit Two. PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this appeal, the Commission should move to approve the appeal and overturn the Architectural Review Board's condition of approval no. C, state the reasons for finding that the design preferred by the owners (Exhibit One) satisfies the guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 5286, and, direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and supporting findings. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this appeal, the Commission should move to deny the appeal, uphold the Architectural Review Board's condition of approval no. C, state the reasons for finding that the design preferred by the owners (Exhibit One) does not satisfy the guidelines set forth in Resolution No. 5286, and, direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and supporting findings. MP 91-014 December 10, 1991 Page 3 , " .JJ. " -:1 iFI ~ --""O:;"1.~, F-:. -.'" 'J01 ;. V.... ~'A.- .:\ ',Ii.. ~ 'lO4~ ~... l ~ ~ T' ~ 54 \~ [S \ 55 ,__ I "'~~ to. "'.n... ... . ~ .\ fA" " C j~ f Tn I "I · T 5 :- ';l ~ l1'. ~.. A ..1 .. ;l. -.. ~. -- ~ 1 ... .. ~ ~ _..~ .... .'jft, - - - . . . . -'a.J.!!j 'c _~ r ....,,~..... ~.;l.o "'.: ';1'. r:.r -=0:.. ! ol:o. 1 III. 1- _ ,.... ~ .. "1-'!.. .~ \ I. .3 ,2 '-r__r.....7~ - III - .. .,'\'" .. .. .. .. ~ .. '" :' .. 51 54 51 ....l Q ..... ..."......"...10 ..... ('l II ~ .".... I ; -I IRe;' 01.......... so ~ ~~ ........ A ..;:.. ~~ ~.._- "~..... " ~ ..011.. _ "!:' - - i tr' - 1- 1_ ,,;,. C .. 0"",,_ ~ _ ~ . .._' .'- '..../~ .." i-:'~")'6 ... ._.... \ . ~ ,;ii."J~'" - I. - .'./~ ~ . . .~ !".. 'Jt>r 1~ .. .>41;'-- · 1J \~ ____""';,:-- -'11 ,..1' II _, I..... ....,"'. ~ I"'~"~ _ '; VI g ....,.... .:"J ~ _ ' '" ,H .. d""Ji -, "~\'_ "tJl ~" ...,,1 ~ I~ I..".,~ \II ~ - Cl ,.. _nl!""""'- ~ - .., \ 'li--,:v-~~~~:~" 'Y~'~" r>~' '~IIWO -- j l.:t.. ;:J 1'6 ~ 8 ~ t, ..--:~I~ . CA' ',/ I t I Ii ~ !' I I -:- r ' 'It JO II _I! ~! e ...!'" ~ .!.. . · , . , ~;.! '__OIl,Tr.T.Ulod_' __AlI__ I ..;. ,"..... I '0: I - I :" ' il. . .' I AcT ' , ",9 1'4' 9 LOT. I eo T, R: : I': i I ,I' ~. ~..-,,--Jl.~"" I I ,....IY." lit II ..f ,..nd'" N Ii I I ' "," · I I I 'i l I I I I 1-, 'I I:: II ,d I I .__~-,: :..,-;~ I=:'''' :: ll_~ "'.$.'L~l,.1 ~P'= = I -.., 11/WIttI,e:- I -::---,... I~ ,~! ~ u.:~. r- 17 Ii ..0:<1 I jo;MltiWCl,-T ::;;; ~ I~ [ Ar ~ rob OO:=: == :=: ' . lo ]".1 =-- .~ lo ---,; . -4-- lo -.!...... .----.. tNORTll IlDADNAYl ':uTH PQNNi'" f{UNT'INc,,70N OR . MP "-Ol't V'C'N'1Y MAP 5CALE: 1"=2.00' "JlOJECf. . . . A. B. . . c. New! 3400 SF, 4-bedrooms and study, 6 bathrooms, 2-story residence with 76Q SF. 4~car tandem garage FILE 10. DAtE 11/19/1991 AllCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEV IOARD (COtt11TJ'EE) FINDINGS AND AcrIOI .. PROJECf ADDRESS PROPERTY 0\.'NEIl 940 Coronado Drive Yuan-China Lee ADDRESS (IF DIFFEREN'l') t." " '. FINDINGS (on17 check those that app17, and provide a written explanation for each check) s. The elements of the structure'. desian () ARE, () ARE Nor conslsteat vith the existina buildln.'s deslan, becau.. Not applicable - new construction . 6. The proposed project t) IS, () IS Hor in proportion to other improvements on the sUbject site or to improvements on other properties ift the neiahborhood, because See attached . 7. The location of the proposed project () VILL, n VILL Nor be cfetrllllental to the use and enj07ment and value of adjacent propertJ and nelahborhood neiahborhood, becau.e See attached . I. The proposed project'. setbacka F1 DO, () DO Hor pr~vide for adequate separat10n betveen improvements on the aame or adJoinin, propertie., becau.e they must comply with existing Muncipal Code requirements. . . ~;.: E eEl V E 0 NOV 2 5 1991 er'iY OF ARCAO/A ?L.<\""SING OS:PT. (VIl.l.A4E. ARB nNOIN€4s: . . . . .. 9. DnIER FIt.'DINGS See at:ta~}u:ltf . D. ACTION - See attached for findings. n APPROVAL of Design 2. IQ APPROVAL SUBJECT ,TO THE FOLOWlNG CONDITION(S) See attached for conditions of approval. -' . -.-.............. PI DENIAL of Design 1. E. DATE OF ARCHlTEC'l1lRAL REVIE\/ BOAllD'S (C~I1TEE'S) ArnON 11/14/1991 F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING nlE ABOVE DECISION GARY A. KOVACIO Diane Lucas Charles George John Sc:ol1nos c. REPRESENTING 11IE SANTA ANITA VILLAGB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION B. APPEALS . Appeals from the Board's (Coc=ittee's) decision shall be made to the Plannin, Commission. Anlone desirina to make such an appeal should contact the re~uirementl,.feel and proceedures. Said appeal must be made 1n writina and delivered to the Plannina Department, 240 V. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006. within ~ workins daJ8 of the Board'. (Co~ittee'.) decision. seven (7) J. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (1) Jear from the date of approval, anJ project for which plans have been approved bJ the Board (Committee), has been vnuaed, abandoned or discontinued, aaid approval shall become nvll and void and of nO effect. . . . . . ATTACBMDl'l' TO 8AJl'1'A ANITA VILLACJB ARCHITBCTURAL JlBVIn BOARD ~IKDIBCJ8 O~ BOVBKBBR 1., 1"1 Re: 940 Coronado Drive . Three public hearings were held by the Architectural Review Board to review the proposed construction of a new two- story, 4-bedroom with study, 6-bathroom residence and attached 4- tandem garage at 940 Coronado. The applicant's architect represented that the proposed residence is 3400 S.F. and the proposed garage is an additional 760 S.F. Ms. Yuan-Ching Lu (owner), Ken Burgess (architect) and various family representatives spoke about the proposed project and answered questions. Several neighbors spoke in opposition or expressed their concerns about the size and/or architectural appearance of the proposed project. The subject lot is an interior lot in a neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranch-style, single-story residences. There is one two-story residence (an addition) on the block and it tends to "blend in" with the adjoining properties. The Santa Anita Village Area is comprised of approximately 600 homes, 30 to 40 of which are two-story homes. The single-story homes average approximately 1700 S.F. in size and the two-story homes range in size from approximately 2600 S.F. to 3500 S.F. At the hearings, many neighbors stated that the proposed structure was too massive and out of proportion with the limited size of the subject lot and the neighboring residences. A proposed portico was specifically identified as a feature that significantly contributed to the overly massive appearance of the structure. No neighbors spoke in favor of the project as proposed. The Board felt that the proposed structure was substantially larger than the adjacent residences and that its massive appearance was exacerbated by the large, high and prominant portico. . As a result of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and/or Board at the first two hearings, the owners arid architect made several changes to the proposed plans to make the proposed structure more compatible with the neighborhood. A "cultured stone - European Castle Stone" facade was replaced by brick. Triangular leaded-type windows were deleted. A third door was eliminated along the easterly elevation, the front chimney was reduced in . . . width and a screening feature was added to the second story balcony. The applicant also indicated that she was planning to construct a block wall along the easterly, southerly, and westerly property lines and plant two large trees in the front yard. At the first two hearings, the applicant also was asked to reconsider the size of the portico. At the second hearing, the architect suggested that the roof of the portico could be lowered and tied into the roof of the attached garage and that one column could be eliminated. At the third hearing, two plans depicting the portico were presented, but the applicant stated that she preferred the larger portico. A copy of the larger portico is attached hereto as "Exhibit 1" and a copy of the revised portico is attached hereto as "Exhibit 2". Notwithstanding the changes made to the plans after the first two hearings, many neighbors were concerned about the impact of the structure on adjacent properties. There also was considerable public concern about the number of bathrooms in the proposed structure and the size of the garage. The Board stated that it was not concerned with interior design so long as it did not substantially change the external appearance of the structure. However, the Board did note that the number of rooms (especially bathrooms) and the size of the garage resulted in a structure that was large and dissimilar with the adjacent residences and immediate neighborhood. The Board stated that is was not necessarily opposed to second-story structures but was greatly concerned about the large portico (Exhibit 1) because it was excessive and out of proportion with the subject lot and neighborhood. The Board felt that the revised portico (Exhibit 2) was more compatible and harmonious. The Board felt that the proposed property-line walls and trees in the front yard would tend to mitigate some of the visual impact of the proposed structure. However, no detailed plans were submitted for the proposed block walls or landscaping. In addition, the applicant was not able to identify the specific color or style of the roofing material and brick facade. It is assumed that the proposed structure complies with all Municipal Code requirements concerning lot coverage and set backs. The Board voted to approve the application with the revised portico (Exhibit 2) and deny the proposed application with the large portico (Exhibit 1). The decision was based on the reasons set forth above and the following provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5286: 1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resolution is "to promote and maintain the quality single-residential environment of the City of Arcadia and to protect the property . . . values and architectural character of such residential environments in those portions of the City in which the residences have formed a homeowners association. . . ." It is the opinion of the Board that the oriqinally proposed project did not maintain the architectural character of the subject neiqhborhood. However, as revised (Exhibit 2), the proposed project was closer to beinq compatible with the architectural character of the subject neiqhborhood. 2. section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution provides that "[t]he appearance of any structure, includinq roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existinq structures, roofinq, walls or fences in the neiqhborhood.. Aqain, the Board was of the opinion that the oriqinally designed structure was not compatible with the existinq structures in the neiqhborhood. The revised portico desiqn (Exhibit 2) was more compatible and acceptable to the Board. The Board was not provided with any evidence concerninq the materials for the proposed walls, roof and brick facade. As a result, a condition was added for final review and approval of these materials. 3. section 2, paraqraph 10 of the Resolution provides that "plans for the erection, placement or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showinq the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Board. " The plans submitted by the applicant did not show the precise location of the proposed walls. However, it was represented to the Board that the walls would be erected alonq the easterly, southerly and westerly property lines in compliance with all Municipal Code requirements. 4. section 3, paraqraph 18(a) of the Resolution provides that "[c]ontrol of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creatinq the appearance of external features of any particular structure, buildinq, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board . . . in order to avoid that which is excessive, qarish and substantially unrelated to the neiqhborhood." The applicant provided photographs of three residences in the Santa Anita Villaqe Area that had larqe entries or porticos. However, the Board felt that the larqe portico design was excessive and substantially unrelated to the vast majority of residences in the neiqhborhood. In fact, the Board felt that the photographs tended to establish that the actual appearance of a larqe portico (rather than merely as depicted in plans) was substantially unrelated to the vast majority of residences in the Santa Anita Villaqe Area. 5. Section 3, paragraph 18(b) of the Resolution provides that "[q]ood architectural character is based upon principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neiqhborhood." It was the . opinion of the Board that the proposed structure was larqe and easily could have been viewed as not in harmony or proportion with adjacent structures and other structures in the neiqbborhooci. However, the Board felt that the applicant had made a qooci faith effort to revise some of the architectural features of the proposed structure to mi tiqate some of the concerns expressed by the neiqhbors. It was the Board I s opinion that the larqer portico desiqn was excessive and not in harmony or proportion with the adjacent structures and other structures in the neiqbborhooci. As a result, the Board voted to approve only the plans with the revised portico (Exhibit 2). Conditions of approval were added to document certain representations made by the applicant that were not depicted on the subject plans and to mitiqate the visual impact of the proposed structure. The conditions are as follows: a. The applicant shall submit sample materials for the brick facade, walls and roof to the chairman of the Architectural Review Board for review and approval. No additional public hearinq will be required for this approval. b. The proposed structure shall comply with all Municipal Code requirements and shall not require any variances. c. The structure and portico shall comply with the revised plans (Exhibit 2). The larqe portico desiqn (Exhibit 1) ~ is specifically denied by the Board. d. The applicant shall plant two four foot box trees in the front yard at locations to be selected by the applicant. The final vote was four (Georqe, Kovacic, Lucas and Scolinos) to O. The applicant and neiqhbors were advised about their riqhts to appeal the overall decision or any of the conditions imposed. . . . . -~. .,,~-::""'-'-.1'.~ t....... ...~". ~ ;:>t ~ ti ~ ~ '(:. ..~ .; ~: .~... . . . ..- ... . . ~ .,..t;..::'~(::I-:."-" . ...;:.........."... ~..""""" .~"'-- .-.,.'.... ..... t l , I 1 , I . ... f:~ . .. '.~ ~ ~ G:i ...... "i i ~- - _ A..~ . . . 7 ~~ ~ >( ~ 1:1 .... 'i ~ ~ -I I I i.." 1 .': t~ l , o ,.c ,I .~ () ., 11, . . il TI . it r . r 'L'. D T :J .: I, , I' " . . . "-4. '00 " ~ c:\t' t ' . I ! ' . ., I ~. ... c-.D"UI...I&""e. -... "...-. , ..... ...... 1\!lli:l! , \ I '. !illil! . n~r' .. \ \ :.p ". ~!',r \ & ~~~ r---' . I I I I I \ I !IS... -.. ' I "'in,","" ~'i~.,.~";..........o I ! .,..,~~ I '" . i~ b ~ i r;~ i.. )1" H . !' Jc...B. 4J3' . H...... , ".t ' ~ i8~i~~ 1 ~~! .\ 11ilh Ill! Lt, I ~~ '" ~ MR E. MRS YUAN-CHING LU RESIDENCE B4D CORDNADO DR ARCADIA bA 01DQ? KEn BURGESS ARCHITECT '1311 "'..,. L_.aV av.' DRCIU::IIA cRLlpORnUI IiIIDD7 Ia.. 447.;dlibeo __..h_______ ..____________.__ ._ ...._ .__ ___ ~_. ... .__ _... _ _ _ _. _ ." _.._ _ .