HomeMy WebLinkAbout1480
.
RESOLUTION 1480
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN APPEAL OF
THE SANTA ANITA OAKS ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE-FAMIT..Y RESIDENCE AT 115 WEST SYCAMORE
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. 5290 sets forth the regulations
applicable to the property within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owner's Association
Area and to the property at 115 West Sycamore Avenue, Arcadia, in accordance
with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3., and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1991, Tom and Maria Spata filed an appeal of
. the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) denial of
their proposal for a 9,420 sq.ft. two-story single-family residence at the property
commonly known as 115 West Sycamore Avenue, more particularly described as
follows:
Lot 66 of Tract No. 11074, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as per Map Recorded in Map Book
197, Pages 27, 28 and 29 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 Santa Anita Oaks
Home Owner's Association on November 4, 1991; and
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, 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 Santa Anita Oaks Association's
.
.
.
Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of November 4, 1991, and City
Council Resolution No. 5290 which sets forth the regulations which are applicable
to the real property within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owner's Association Area.
b. a letter in opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Gino Roncelli who reside at 1250
Ramona Road, Arcadia.
c. All oral presentations, testimony, and documentation made and presented
during the public hearing of December 10, 1991.
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 115 West
Sycamore Avenue is architecturally harmonious and compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties
and improvements, because the proposed building configuration (i.e., the setbacks,
lot coverage, height, on-site parking and landscaping) complies with all R-O Zoning
Regulations; and its architecture would enhance the diversity of the architecture
that exists within the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owner's Association Area, provided
that the requested fence and wall height modification for the front yard area be
eliminated from the applicant's proposal.
Section 3. That the jurisdiction and authority of the Santa Anita Oaks
Association's Architectural Review Board as set forth in Resolution No. 5290
pertains to the specific factors in said Resolution including the requirement that any
decision by the Board shall be accompanied by specific findings setting forth the
reasons for the Board's decision. However, the findings that were submitted by the
ARB are deficient, because the Board did not elaborate on their reasons for denial.
Section 4. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the appeal,
and overrules the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board's
denial of the proposed two-story single-family residence at 115 West Sycamore
Avenue.
Section 5. 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, Clark
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hedlund
2
1480
.
.
.
Section 6. 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:
ATTEST:
Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany, Clark
None
None
irrikAMlimnld
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
ChaIrman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
3
1480
.
'.
.
DECEMBER 10, 1991
TO:
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PL~ING DEPAR~
CORKRAN W. NICHOLSON, SENIOR PLANNER
MP 91-012
An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural
Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story single-family
residence at 115 West Sycamore Avenue.
CASE NO.:
SUMMARY
This appeal was filed by Tom and Maria Spata who are the owners of the subject
property. They are appealing the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural
Review Board's (ARB) denial of their proposal for a 9,420 sq.ft. two-story single-
family residence at 115 West Sycamore Avenue. The proposal was denied
because the ARB determined that it would be architecturally inconsistent with
the neighborhood.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Tom and Maria Spata
LOCATION: 115 West Sycamore Avenue
REQUEST: An appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural
Review Board's denial of a proposed 9,420 sq.ft. two-story
residence which requires a modification to the fence height
requirement within the front yard area (Sec. 9283.8.7.).
LOT AREA: Approximately 26,000 sq.ft. (0.60 acres)
FRONTAGE: 128 feet along Sycamore Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is developed with a single-story residence, which was constructed
in 1941, and is zoned R-O & D 30,000.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
.
.
.
The surrounding properties are all developed with single-family
residences; and the area is zoned R-O & D 30,000.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single-Family Residential (0-2 dwelling units per acre)
BACKGROUND
On November 4,1991, the ARB of the Santa Anita Oaks Associations denied the
applicants' proposal. The ARB determined that the proposed two-story dwelling
would be architecturally inconsistent with the neighborhood; and it shows no
harmony or compatibility with the surrounding homes (see the attached ARB
findings and action).
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
This application is before the Planning Commission due to the denial of the
proposed plan by the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board
and the applicants appealing their decision.
The applicants' proposal consists of clearing the site and constructing a new two-
story residence which will comply with all setback requirements, The two-story
floor plan will provide approximately 9,420 sq.ft. (i.e., 6,235 sq.ft. for the first floor
and 3,185 sq.ft. for the second floor), and would have an overall roof height of 30
feet (excluding the chimneys which may extend 2'-0" above the roof line for
compliance with the Building Code requirements).
In regard to the proposed lot coverage, Municipal Code Section 9251.2,11.1.,
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 6,235 sq.ft., which covers 24% of
the total lot area.
One oak tree will be remove from the site, as shown on the submitted landscape
plan, to allow for the construction of a proposed "motor court" area. The plan
indicates that two new oak trees will be planted to mitigate the loss of the existing
oak.
This proposal requires a modification to be granted to permit a proposed
fence/wall height variation from 4'-6" to an overall height of 7'-6" within the
front yard area. The proposed fence would consist of 4'-6" to 5'-6" high wrought
iron fencing with 5'-0" to 6'-0" high masonry pillars and would extend along the
front property line, as shown on the submitted site plan. Also, to enhance the
MP 91-012
December 10, 1991
Page 2
.
driveway entrance, the applicants' wish to install 1'-6" high accent lights on top of
the pillars (see the attached street view of the proposed residence). A height
variation from approximately 4'-6" to 5'-6" is expected for the east and west side
property line walls. The maximum fence/wall height that is permitted within a
front yard area is 4'-0" (Municipal Code Sec. 9283.8.7.).
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. 5290 sets forth the
design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Santa Anita Oaks 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 3.6 and 3.7 of Resolution 5290).
Section 3.16 of Resolution 5290 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 91-012
December 10, 1991
Page 3
.
.
.
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
proposed plans, the appeal letter from Tom and Maria Spata, the ARB's
November 4,1991 Findings and Action and Resolution No. 5290.
FINDINGS
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the applicants' proposal, the
Commission should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious
and compatible, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Santa Anita Oaks
Association's ARB 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 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 Santa Anita Oaks
Association's ARB denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution
incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that
decision.
MP 91-012
December 10, 1991
Page 4
.
.
.
o
o
o
o
",If
,'" (67.
\~1 :
~ '(?A ""O~~
1041C
~
~ '?..- 0 ti?
ce., ~ T
'!! t"
~ -e.o,~
~
~
~
~
g.s
~
--f
o
M.
o
-i:
1,)0
100
USE AND ZONING
M~ '1"'012
~cale:1"-100'
.
.
.
E/'{
;~~~:~ .
.'~ .
'.
.......
":'-~". "
~, /
'~';.f' ~i
.'- - ....
r/
/Y'
...,.,\ .
:. .1
?!,,::
.. .
-;~
: ~ . .::.;:~.-
.;' ':;.\'0):,'-'7. "
'.
....;"'::.~.--:.:'.;:)...
','
'.'
::;;.~~.~,;,;~ ~r""""'"
.", .~1" ;"
:;. " "'H"'IJ'I:1't1.~4fl'o'"
.~! ~ 61 'flY 'f ~^
; ,:-"
.'
...',
......,...c.,~,
W~~'.~~ ,-..':.
-
::.:."..
~:;:,.
":"1."_0
- ....
rt~
i '
I
I
I _,
../ I I ~ -- (.
, 01 /
I
{) I lit --. -,
.
.
-
-'
~~~~-
o ",-v
........
.,
+G
~
I
B
~~~~~1wrl:.M#~
-t,2,PT IILi\N II!Uol:' IIIrAtJ.
...-...~=:~-=-"l==-~.:--~...:..n....::=~. SHUT TItlE: f'l...v[ f'L.I.I.I J P"*""' f"L-All
..:r:...............~1li!l,.................." JOB TITLE 'fl''f'"'' "0 0 '" II .'PIffI' <I.
- - .'1.~"''::-...::.:.r''' OWN1R ~ ~"f.c. , 'I- W/'Il'''' -
.
--
;11
~ (
o'
=;
<I
i:ollt.
;;
1o?i " CJ
~gi
~~
1o?i1:1
1Qi!!
~~!i
<"'C
:~i
~~~
~~
1ooI~
~..o
c !;
~
i
,J
;\-1
....~
.
~1,::::'~.;-'.""_'h""- - - _. ,
..
t
1...._
r'
..
,
,
\
,
.'
~ -
,---
--
.., I
r :' '" : =
j.' ...
I ...
,
~j:
'-- :.--T~- ...." - -,
I-- r;J' ':Dl..;..,~, ' I
; j.---
r. .,,' ',"
.. ..... ~~~,n7l/L..
',L ~~ "'-'<->-',v:.,
,...: - *" " - ;: ""
_=........f. ,....-..i.
n _:. ~""p_!
-.J . . L
- )~ ,.~;~ .--
,!.
.
-:>
..
-- IIUDt RAIl
.
..... ~ f--""-.
. .~'I
.. mr ~7
, _ -/'1 ~ ..:::..., II<?- _ ~
~ ~ :' .~/ ". ,~ , -
I~ '~', ~ n ri:. ~ _vw ",
/_ _- w~e:~
1/ I~~, ~~ ,
~ -:xI'\'> ~ ~ ~
~, .."
.-.p r ,'I 't?"
.~
I
-""--
_.
IfIn'r.nWh I'UIdt .. ...
~- *.. .........:.,.~:.::..-:=a.,:.."'=-"T'..:.::"I.'..:.":,"I...:'=t.&.: 15HII.1' TIlU: ~~" ~i;JrL.~~!
--;-~-';",-"'~a"""""''''''' JOI TIILl '"-'l""'I> ./. · '10 " . "1"
__, _~r-=-....:.:.:z:-". aWNIR : MA' tfP4. "'M<I '~A .w....y...
.
i
",' ~ "'T -:';.- ."...
0; ',',..:..t.
--
!II~
!B I'
i.,
..I.
. ii'
;11 ~
~i!!~ '
~J i'
:~ i - ;
l:11:
~c e
~j
0;0:::',",'.
l~'"
k'
"
'I'~:.
~
. ,t.-.
~.,
~;;
~:
Il.
G:'
~~~ '
..'.'
n
I'
.~;
~;.
,
(
~.
",
i'l,'
"
~:
':-.1.
r-.
.,
;.
}:~
...,
-
"
i'~.
:-';
.
..-r ...... ("'"111'I
UIP'fIIIIItL.IIW'DI (1.&1)
.lIImllILlltIllA
.
.
RIEAR ELJr'IATI)N (~\
J!DfT ID..K'MIIaN c.u.cr)
,.
::. lIIl.\'f~~1lil""""'=""'"
-........
SHut 1\t\.I.~ 1&-l.~/~
J08 TITU f'f.4I'r~ 'fP "I~ U 4rtA~ 'f
OWNER I . TA
--
;11
~ I
o'
;1
;e~1
100('1
ill
~ i
~"I
~II
i:i.
~
~\-J
-
.
~
@(
~
-~. """"
.~~........~
.
.
~~''*'4-_,
r"" _ .
: R-r$!~IjNc;.1! .."
.f
.."..........
-t. flO!:\>...-....I"t<,
' ~
/.
-<
u
>--
I'l
"""'...'
~.III...
....~.I(~ ' .Gf"1rM
1:=~"
_.
.. ,
-~
iP... .c"""'"
Jt.
"'f"T""",,-'I--
1Q
"~".:'1'f'~~
w. 1I.....lll>'
'.W'Nl~ ~I'I~
. ~ t:4II(t"q'Ir.-l.\ .-,
'l}'...;J:;, _, ..." , "
~D r;~= NDSCAPE' PLAN
PRELIMINARY LA
..l::iIZ:p':l ~1M(.'" !re.qs~.~.
.u..to ',..,........... ...w....
'~
LEGEND
'" 19"
CD
:r
.
1i""C-""l'-1Ui!J
fM"9" o!l/I!ICt>'
1""'1-'" ~
f'\ll'fI>5<l'__
"""""'"
~~11ft"
I(#)
nsoH.~""
~~l2L'..... N ".C~rTII;CTU.:.:!
b~H.2!S."-. __
-
--
1&1
U~c
z.R
1&1. a
QC..
-0:1
02c
1&1 C 'C)
II: C) , .
"1
'c....c
L.. "0
~..c
c ..i~
D... 'c
0p,
..
-LJ
.
.
.
~(l)
q'
I -~--..Ofr
/iIOU.-QUlIlOlf,~
-- .. - ~*
I ~..,~,....'
UlUfet'll"
__. 14'
ttIIIMT..~..
~-I'-
\
, \
--t-
--
.-1-
/
~TE DEVELOPMENT ~
.
~.._.._..~-- ..., .. -......-....-...-.
1m- - ".- ..._...____'1::=-..,.....:::ro:.~';.....:"=...:.: SHEil TITLE:
;5,~ -, "i'i--...:Y.;!C'ili!l"""""""'........ Joa lITLE .
__, _ _ _. ...':l:.:"-=-':::':~ OWNER;
--
~il
~i!
~ Ii
O'
~:
~I
~~ I
.
... . 3
~II
~...r
~ c
:il
~t~
~iR
<'>..0:0
,... C ,.
~
51)-1
.
.
.
.,'
November ~~ 1991
rHE I~'HAIRr~AN
PLANNING C0MMIS~IuN
PLANNING DEPARMENT
BUILDING 8, SAFETy
CITY UF ARCADIA, CA
RE: 115 W SyCAMORE AVENUE, ARCADIA, CA
SIR:
We wr 1 t.e t.e. appeal the Santa An1 t.a Oaks "D" Archi t.ect.ural Review
Boat~d' s ne'3at.i ve Ijecls10n -t.o our Pt.CIF'cl~.ed Pt-oJect. l:.n 1;:.he ab,:.ve-
mentloned property address.
HS vet.eran reSl.jel"'lts elf t.he el t.y of Ar.=a.dl a;l we st.t.on.;.l y feel
'Chat. the Pt-oposed arch i t.ect.IAt.ct! ,jes i 9t-, rl i g~.tl y conf~rrns WI t.~-I t.h~
BOi:lrd's clbjective t.() promot,e EWld mait-,t.a.in t.he qt..~alit.y Slt-..:ale
family res1dentlal env,lronment of the City, protect the property
vall...les and Ci.t"chlt.ect..........al charactet- ,=,f s'..fcrl enVlrl::trlrnerlt..
Frl:lro t.he Pt-Qcess elf corlcel=.ticn:- t.,=- t.h13 preser-.t. prelirnlnary des19n
phase, WE! met. wlt.h t.r-Ie At.c;.....,it.ects c:ot"'lst.ar.tly tel erISI..<I....e that.
the ,jeslgt1 ':t-eat.e(j is c,ur corlcept t.rarlsf,=,rrned irlt.o plat"Js and t,he
feaslb1l1t.y of SlKh .a p,-oject., The A,-chit.ect.s, kne.wn few 1tS
~nt.e'3rlt.y aY"llj pr.ofessional..i::rn, researched:o cc,ndl_<lcted oCIAlat-
inspections, gathered CIty codes and regulations and finally
p,-esented a splendid ar"j breat.f",t.aku)g at-cfute.=t.ur-al design that.
adhered 1:.0 all cit.y rule.s ~nlj r-egulat.1Qrls.
However, in trle November 4 rneet.1r,g, the Board den1ed
t:.eCalISe it felt t.he arci'nt.ect.lwal deS1gn is ince.nslstent
.....lei'3,..,t,c1rhood and does r,':lt. shl:'w r,arrnot-IY ct- cornpatibi 1 i t.y
$urrOundlng homes.
apprCtva 1
wi t.h t,he
wi th t.he
We we'llld like t." t.ake t.t-lis c.ppewt.l_lnit.y t.o C'.ppeal t.he Boards
decls10n ar,.j '9st.at:.lish t.h'9 validit.y t.hat th1S proposed project. is
<<dherent and 1n ce.rnpliarlce t.o t.f-,e Be.ards objectives and all cit,y
t"eglllat.ions.
pI of 3
.
.
.
~
r=lNDLNGS:
v.::; ~~ j).4
The proposed prOject
I=,utd Ie r 19Frt.'E.. elf wa.y
15 highly viSIble from the adJoining
and f'rom adloinlng propertles
- l"he proposed proJect IS a 2 story struct~~re, and WOUld
t.nerefore t.1I::! Vlsltde as any :2 s:tor"y bt~ildlrl':3 WQt~~ld be;'l wrlll=t~1
15 t,t"t'€:' reasor. for- ii(:klpt.lr,g Mlt.i';Iat.1-rtg rneaS1Ares such as
wlndc.ws, wal1s~ hetj';les t.o preserve t.~le I='rivacy amon'3
neignbors. As to V1Slbl11ty from adjOining publiC rights of
way, a It.~s.h s..t~ld vet-dar,-'t. landSl=ape p Ian was pr"epared tl:\
t)'....ff.er t.he f....111 view of t.he house. Tber-e are 17 e)~ist.it19
't.rees wlt,h 6'1 t.t-'-.Wl~~ Cot" over, 5 oak tTees:o 1 of wrl1er. is to
tn2' removed arfd t"epla.=ed try 2 4811 box t.r-ees.. Plan also
In,=lude 41 11edge plant.s \1:0 gal each), flowet" 'I',rees and at.
least, 10(1 pla.nt.s of Vat-ICtUS size and cedar t.l~ surround t.he
~'roper1:,y , isola't,e(:l frc'm t.t-P5:~ nelghbors.
V.6
rr-re pt.c,pc'5eo pr'~Ject. IS
1rnprt:-v'=.ment.s C:ln t....I-= SI....lt'Jeci::.
adJOlnlng propertles.
riot
51 t.e
pn~PCtl.-t1c'n to
t,l:1 1 rnprovernerit,s cln
1n
,:,-c.her
the
':'t.
- n'-,e '=It.y has:. set. all t.e91...~!at,iorls IF"lcludlrl'3 J.CIt. '::':lvera'3E: of
lrnpt-QVemen"t. 1"-1 relat l':Wl t,e, Ie't. size. This pt-oJe'::1:, '=ornp11es
W1U", Send C1t.y code. "'he archit.ect.clral s1:.yle .=,f t,h1S
Pt'eti91Ct'~S nelghttl:lrhctc,d Cc:'vers t.he :30' s arid 4(1' s -=r'a~ t.,:,
adopt. t.his type c.f ardll1:.ect.cH"e ir, t.h1S mO:'C1e,"n t.Hnes
wocdd do very lit,t.le t.c. enh;;.r.ce t.his privat.e ele';:Jat"'1:.
residential area. The p,-c.pc'seCl ,jeS1gn is compat.it.le Witt1
severa-1 e"~lst.in9 st.rt..ct.ures~ Cttie elf whil::t"l was cC'fnplet.l9d very
recently. (Severa.! phot.os beir'9 present.ed as exhitOlt.)
- Tr,is proje,::t is a q'.lalit.y slrl'31e family r'eslder",ce 't;.hat. do:.es
not pC1se ,jlSrtarmony t.o t,he pr-eser,'tt. reslderlt.ial erlvirclnment..
On t.~..e cc'r)trat-y:, we belIeve t.r-Iat. a home wit.h t.his propc'~e,j
arcf',it.ect.cwal des.ign woclld er,r'eW,,::e and I.lpgrade t,he F'roperty
value and architectural character of th1S very ~nfluential
nei9ht";:.rhood.
p;2 elf 3
.
.
.
1
We also WIsh to dIrect the CommlsSlons" attentIon to ~nother of
the Board's ob1ectlves "............Conerol of architect~~ral
appearances 2b~11 nQ~ ~~ so exercIsed th~t IndIVIdual initlatIve
15 st.lfled In creat.lnQ the appearance of external features". But
we feel t.hat. t~H':! B.::war-d is 9()1n'3 ~9alnst, t.his vet-y obJect.ive
because we IndIvldual creativity in this case IS stlfled.
We seek 'trle Ct:)rnrnlss1cw,'S uncJet~standlt...g =nd kindness f.:lt" a
favcfraole cClnsldet"'at.ic,t"'1 t.o ellH'- iEl.ppeSt.l.
Sincerely;-
TOM ANV MARIA SF'ATA
c; 8-"" ~~
;MaNA ? Jfa1ii
IV() I/. ! ~ Ie; 'lI
F.3 of 3
FileNo.
Date Submitted
.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Rr:VIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS ~ND ACTION
A. PROJECT ADDRESS: II S' tV. S V~ 14M d ,€I..-=-
B. PRQPERlYOWNER: ~,c.c.~' M,IJttIA 'sPAT1'I
AODRES$(ifdifferent) ~cJS" HIJ',Y _. .
c. PROPOSED PROJECT (Qesaibed in detall): vSUa I,,"~^, tJ,r E'Jl.IJl1^,"
~:.~~ E <UJAJS~ U'!()A) ffJ~ .l s,,~ S I~(., f5
/-==='~~"""" m::.. A~ ~S-~__'
D. FINDINGS (only checl\ lhose Ihal apply, and DroV1d8 a wtittl\n flUllllnal10n 1m e&etl. ehllCkl
1.
The elements of the structure'fl.qslgn ( ) ARE, (...fARE NOT consistent with the existing
buildlng's design because Il~ "
2. The proposed construction materials [ 1 ARE. (1 ARE NOT compatible with the ellis\lng
, materials. beca~ ~'<" .' . .
.
3. The proposed pro'ect
Wfly. beC8use
4, The proposed project l~. r) IS NOT highly vlsibla from adjoining properties because
6. The proposed project (liS, M1S NOT In proportion to other Improvements on the
subject site or to Improvements on the adjoining properties because.
1. The location of the proposed project [ 1 WILl. ( 1 WILL NOT be detrimental 10 the use,
enjo'yment and value of adjacent property because.
-,
8. The prO~sed project's setbacks (~ (J DO NOT provide for adequate separation
between Improvements on the same or adjoining properties because.
?
.
12/12/89
.
D.
f
.
.
9.
[ ) APPROVAL
{ 1 APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLO~ING CONOITION(Sl:
~
DENIAL. STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL:
Ir I~ i#E. .eeE'-"^,," "I=" nlE NA3tlILo'f ~j!:
1Vf!!/~.1tI3 IHJb THe A7L~ 71IJIW" ~e P.l!.lJA1JEiIJ
P'..I'l~ ;e A~C.H/~'fVf.AU"/ IN@NfJ;,~>7f"""
UJITII E S'< ;.,I4t1,eNd'~ I'" SHOp./S (J H"~/JY
~~~'A~~LI!,/ WI'" PI~ S,vIltUUNI),AA,
DATE OF ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMInEE'S) ACTION NO" If 1f91
BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER{S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING
THE ABOVE DECISION:
~~,:,~
~L.rtJtJ ~elkle~
G' REPRESENTING THE 'S. A. () ~s
F.
71JI-c..Rs:.t:..
H. APPEALS.
t9-U ASSOCIATION.
~~_4'~ -e... j
I.
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 Ihe requirements, lees and procedures. Said appeal must be made
in writing wilhln seven (7) wor1<lng days of the Board's (Committee's) declslon. and delivered
to the PI~i1njng Department at 240 West Huntlngton Drive, Arcadia. CA 91007.
EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL
, ..
" for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which 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.
t2lt2/89