Loading...
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