Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1474 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 1474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE HIGHLAND HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDmON AT 2050 VISTA AVENUE. 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 Owner's Association Area and to the property at 2050 Vista Avenue, Arcadia, in accordance with Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9272.2.3., and WHEREAS, on August 29,1991, an appeal was filed by Norma M. Iovine and Gina P. Chodos of the Highland Home Owner's Association's Architectural Review Board's (ARB) approval of a second floor addition at property commonly known as 2050 Vista Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Lot 23 of Tract No. 18702 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California as per Map recorded in Map Book 590, Pages 5, 6, and 7 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 Owner's Association on August 22, 1991; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on October 15, 1991, and November 12,1991 by the Planning Commission at which times 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 Owner's . . . Association's Architectural Review Board's findings and actions of August 22, 1991 and City Council Resolution No. 5289 which sets forth the regulations applicable to the real property within the Highland Home Owner's Association Area. b. Written communications submitted by Norma M. Iovine and Gina P. Chodos, the appellants; and Richard C. Wilson, a neighbor at 2066 Vista Avenue. c. All oral presentations, testimony, and documentation made and presented during the public hearings of October 15, 1991, and, November 12, 1991. d. Plans of the proposed addition, and maps of the involved properties. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE 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 second floor addition at 2050 Vista Avenue is architecturally harmonious and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and, would not be detrimental to the adjacent properties and improvements, nor those in the vicinity of the subject property. SECTION 3. That the jurisdiction and authority of the ARB as set forth in Resolution No. 5289 pertains to the specific factors in said Resolution including compatibility of external building materials and appearance. The ARB decision is consistent with Resolution No. 5289. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal, and upholds the Highland Home Owner's Association's Architectural Review Board's approval of the second floor addition at 2050 Vista Avenue. SECTION 5. That the decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of November 12, 1991 and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany and Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Daggett 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. -2- 1474 e . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany and Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: !&JJA~ ~il1lft0yjd Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ~ airman, Planning Commission . ty of Arcadia -3- 1474 . . October 15, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MP 91-006: Appeal of a Highland HOA ARB approval of a second story addition at 2050 Vista Avenue SUMMARY This appeal was filed by Norma M. Iovine and Gina P. Chodos, the owners of 2058 Vista A..enue. They are appealing the Highland Home Owner's Association's (HOA) Architectural Review Board's (ARB) approval of a 1,689 sq. ft. second story addition to the house at 2050 Vista Avenue. GENERAL INFORMATION APPELLANTS: Norma Marie Iovine and Gina Putkoski Chodos LOCATION: 2050 Vista Avenue OWNERS: Robert and Jacqueline Cooley REQUEST: An appeal of the Highland Home Owner's Association's Architectural Review Board's approval of a 1,689 sq. ft. second story addition. LOT AREA: Approximately 23,230 square feet (0.53 acre) FRONTAGE: 90.00 feet along Vista Avenue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is improved with a one-story residence, an attached garage, and a swimming pool. The zoning is R-l&D 10,000. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are all developed with single family residences and the area is zoned R-l&D 10,000. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: . Single Family Residential (0 - 4 dwelling units per acre) BACKGROUND . On June 4,1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5588 which denied an appeal and approved a 1,120 sq. ft. second floor addition, with side yard setback modifications (MC 91-017) to the rear portion of the house at 2050 Vista Avenue. The requested modifications were as follows: A) A 13'-O"northerly side yard setback in lieu of 18'-0" for the main wall of the second floor to be directly above the existing first floor wall. (9252.2.4) B) An 11'-6" northerly side yard setback in lieu of 18'-0" for a 6'-8" wide bay window in a sewing room. (9252.2.4) PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicants, Robert and Jacqueline Cooley, have reconsidered the design of their second floor addition for the house at 2050 Vista Avenue. This new second floor proposal was submitted to the Highland HOA ARB on July 18, 1991. After changing the roof slope to reduce the overall height by about 2.5 feet, and minimizing the windows along the north elevation, the ARB approved this new second floor proposal on August 22,1991. Norma M. Iovine and Gina P. Chodos, the owners of 2058 Vista Avenue, the adjacent property to the north, filed this . appeal of the ARB approval on August 29, 1991. The new second floor proposal consists of approximately 1,689 square feet, complies with all setback requirements, and has an overall roof height of approximately 24 feet. In comparison to the design approved under application number MC 91-017, this second floor addition is approximately 569 sq. ft. larger, has a 17.5 foot longer north elevation, and, will have a more substantial visual impact upon the street view. However, this proposal does present a more comprehensive design solution by centrally situating the second floor over the existing firs t floor. REVIEW CRITERIA City Council Resolution No. 5289 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 Owner's Association. . MP 91-()06 2050 Vista Avenue October 15, 1991 page 2 . Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of Resolution 5289 set forth the following conditions for exterior building materials and appearance: 7. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materials used on the exterior of any structure, including roofing, wall or fence greater than two (2) feet above the lowest adjacent grade, shall be compatible with materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. 8. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood. Section 3.17 of this Resolution sets forth the following standards which shall guide the ARB or any body (Planning Commission, 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 Committee or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Condition Nos, 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). 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. (Pertains to Condition Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can be detrimental to the amenities and vlaue of adjacent property and neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 7 & 8 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Building Appearance). d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (Pertains to Conditions No.2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front Yards). 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 91-006 2050 Vista Avenue October 15, 1991 page 3 . . . Approval or denial of the 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. Attached for the Commission's reference and consideration are the following exhibits: a. The appeal letter from Norma M. Iovine and Gina P. Chodos b. The Highland HOA ARB's August 22, 1991 Findings c. The Highland HOA City Council Resolution No. 5289 d. A letter from Richard C. Wilson, a neighbor at 2066 Vista Avenue e. A Vicinity Map f. Plans of the proposed second floor addition g. An aerial print of the vicinity PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS Approval of Project If the Planning Commission intends to approve this second floor addition, the Commission should find that the proposed project is architecturally harmonious and compatible, move to deny the appeal and uphold the Highland HOA ARB approval, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. Denial of Project If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should find that the proposed addition is not architecturally harmonious or compatible, move to approve the appeal and overrule the Highland HOA ARB approval, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. MP 91-006 2050 Vista Avenue October 15, 1991 page 4 . Norma Marie Iovine Gina Putkoski Chodos 2058 Vista Avenue Arcadia, CA. 91006 August 28, 1991 !RECEIVEO AUG 2 9 1991 eny 0,. ARCADIA. J.lL....NNING DEPT. ~ #5/08 Planning Commission Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA. 91007 Re: File # 1991-023, Cooley house--second story addition 2050 Vista Avenue Gentlemen: . My mother and I are co-owners of the home at 2058 Vista Avenue in Arcadia, the property immediately to the north of and most adversely affected by the Cooleys' latest proposal for a second story addition. I am also an attorney. This letter constitutes our appeal from the decision rendered August 22, 1991 by the Architectural Committee of the Highland Oaks Homeowners Association which conditionally approved the Cooleys' plan to build a second story addition. The Architectural Committee findings described the addition as comprising 1,689 square feet, but, we believe that it is substantially larger since Mr. Cooley said at the hearing that the addition would bring the total area of his house to about 6,800 square feet and his present one story house has an area of about 4,000 square feet. Iovine and Chodos appeal the Architectural Review Committee findings and oppose the second story addition on the grounds that the Architectural Committee has improperly applied the criteria of the Homeowners Association and on the premise that the Planning Commission, as the agency vested with appellate authority over the decisions of the Architectural Review Committee has the power and the duty to protect view and not to rubbers tamp any development proposal regardless of its adverse impact to the residents, neighborhood, and property values as a whole. FACTUAL BACKGROUND To place this appeal in proper historical context it should be noted that the current second stoxy addition is the Cooleys' second request for permission to build a second . . Page 2 Iovine appeal August 28, 1991 . story addition. The Cooleys already received permission to build a somewhat less onerous plan. The Highland Oaks Homeowqers Architectural Review Committee approved the Cooleys' first request for a second story addition comprising 1,016 square feet on February 25, 1991. This Commission also approved that plan. However, Iovine never actually received notice of either hearing and the approvals were granted without any input by Iovine. At its June 4, 1991 meeting, over Iovine's objection, the Arcadia City Council adopted resolution Number 5588 that approved the second story addition of 1,120 square feet and sideyard setback modifications. The first plan blocks 30% of the view of the San Gabriel Valley previously enjoyed by the two properties to the north of Cooley (2058 Vista and 2066 Vista owned respectively by Iovine/Chodos and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Wilson). Less than six months since the Architectural Review Committee's approval of the Cooleys' first plan and two months since the City Council's approval of that plan, the Cooleys have proposed another second story addition which is more than twice as large as the first and eliminates about 75% of the view of the San Gabriel Valley from the two adjoining properties to the north. II. THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE CRITERIA OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN APPROVING THE COOLEY SECOND STORY ADDITION . In pertinent part, Resolution number 5289 empowers the Highland Homeowners Association to implement real property regulations as follows: .SECTION 2. In order to nromote and maintain the QUalitv sinale family residential environment of the Citv of Arcadia. and to nrotect the nronertv values and architectural character of such residential environments. . . . SECTION 3. In order that buildinas, structures and landscaping on property within ~ area will be harmonious with each other and to nromote the full andnroner utilization of said . Page 3 Iovine appeal August 28, 1991 . DrODertv. . . . 9 . APPRO~AL OF COMMITTEE REQUIRED. !iQ structure, roof. wall or fence areater than two (21 feet above the lowest ad1acent arade, shall be erected. olaced or replaced unless approved bv the Committee. Plans for the erection, placement, or replacement of any structure, roof, wall or fence, showing the precise location on the lot of the structure, wall or fence, shall be submitted to the Committee. No structure, roof; wall or fence shall be erected, placed or replaced except i exact conformance with the plans approved by the Committee. SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community require the adoption of this Resolution. It is determined that the various land use controls. and prooerty reaulations as set forth herein are substantially related to maintenance of Arcadia's environment. for the ouroose of assurina that the apoearance of structures will be comoatible and harmonious with the use and en10vment of surroundina Drooerties. Desian controls and aesthetic considerations will helD maintain the beauty of the community, protect Drooertv values. and helD assure orotection from deterioration, bliaht, and unattractiveness all of which can have a neaative impact on the environment of the communitv, effectina orooerty values. and the ,auality of life which is characteristic of Arcadia. It is further determined that the Duroose and function of this Resolution is consistent with the historY of the City and continued efforts throuah various means to maintain the City's land use. environmental, and economic aoals and to assure Deroetuation of both the Dsvcholoaical benefits and economic interests concomitant to an attractive. well maintained community with . . page 4 Iovine appeal August 28, 1991 emchasis on residential livina." (emphasis added). . It is apparent from the language of the resolution that the Architectural Review Committee has the authority to exercise discretion and to app'rove or disapprove any structure that is visible from surrounding properties and affects property values, architectural character and harmonious use of property. However, Ralph Bicker, the chairman of the Architectural Review Committee, has repeatedly articulated the idea that he is powerless to consider view despite the fact that in the Highland Oaks area, aesthetic considerations clearly encompass view as a main component and the use and enjoyment of the property and the value of the property is intrinsically tied to view. Nevertheless, the Architectural Review Committee mistakenly concluded in findings 3,4,6,and 7 that the proposed project is highly visible from adjoining public rights of way "only to the extent that it is a second floor addition similar to those on each side of the subject property" and "will not be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, however it is a second story and will affect the view of the property to the north." . The homes in the area (including the Cooley home) are predominantly Ranch style architecture. The houses on either side of the Cooley property are of split level construction with the second story of each home located on land of such elevation and grade as to not interfere with the aesthetic enjoyment of any of the properties surrounding it. Examination of each home progressing northerly on the street indicates that the original design and placement of each home, unaltered for approximately the last 30 years was designed to conform to the unique elevation, grade and configuration of the particular property and to keep to a minimum any interference with the view of the San Gabriel valley of each of its neighboring homes. The execution of this well thought out, deliberate development plan i8 most clearly exhibited in the homes at 2042, 2050, 2058 and 2066 . . Page 5 Iovine appeal August 28, 1991 . Vista Avenue. The configuration, elevation and grade of the property and dwelling at 2042 Vista Avenue (Bell property) was specifically designed to maxiJnize the view from that property without infringing t~e view from 2050 Vista (Cooley home). The positioning of the L shaped ranch style home at 2050 Vista (Cooley house) was specifically designed to maxiJnize its view of the mountains and valley. By the same token its roof line did not extend to a level that would iJnpinge upon the view of the adjacent Iovine property from its second story or the properties to the north of it. For almost 30 years since the properties were developed, no alterations, modifications or iJnprovements have been erected which have altered or disturbed this delicate balance thus ensuring that each property has continued to retain and enjoy its maxiJnum view, use and property value. Granting the Cooleys a second story addition as described in their latest proposal would destroy about 75% of the view of the San Gabriel Valley from the two adjoining properties to the north and diJninish the property values of those homes substantially. To ignore the fact that aesthetics and property values encompass view in a mountainous area like the Highlands defies reality, logic and shirks the resolution's mandate to protect and accomodate all property owners and residents. Further, legal authority supports the conclusion that aesthetic considerations can take precedence over subjective criteria. In Clark v. Rancho Santa Fe (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 606, 265 Cal. Rptr. 41, a Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Association and Art Jury was empowered to exercise .subjective as well as objective criteria in making judgments upon applications by property owners to subdivide or otherwise iJIIprove their lots." In that case a homeowner that met all objective criteria set forth in the covenant, eODDDunity plan and subdivision guidelines was properly denied pe:rmission to subdivide his land because ". . . M...A matter of law the Association had the DOwer under the covenant to aDDrove or disaDDrove aDDlications on subiective 9riteria related to artistic, aualitative or environmental merits even if all obiective covenant and reaulatorv standards had been met," (265 Cal. Rptr at 46, emphasis added). This decision of the Art Jury (Architectural . . Page 6 Iovine appeal August 28, 1991 CODDDittee) and of the referee was upheld by the Superior court and the California Court of Appeal. In short, a reasoned decision that the Cooleys' proposed addition is unharmonious to the area, diminishes surrounding property values and destroys views and aesthetic features of surrounding properties would be sufficient grounds to deny their application. III. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY OF ARCADIA HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT AESTHETIC VALUES WITH VIEW AS AN INTRINSIC COMPONENT OF THOSE VALUES WHEN ASSESSING. APPROVING AND DISAPPROVING BUILDING PLANS . The Architectural Review Committee has repeatedly, albeit incorrectly, stated that it is powerless to protect view or to consider view as a criteria when making building decisions. As noted (supra II) view can and should be construed as one of the criteria under the existing regulations to be considered. In any case, whether or not the Architectural Review Committee is vested with the power to protect view, it is beyond dispute that this agency and the City of Arcadia has both the right and duty to its property owners, residents and cODDDunity at large to protect and preserve view. Beyond aesthetic values, view forms the core of property values in the Highlands area. My mother and I circulated a petition among residents of the Highland Oaks area and acquired over 400 signatures advocating preservation of the view. These signatures represented about 98% of the people that we were able to contact. The petition was presented to the Arcadia City Council and is incorporated in its record and the minutes of its meeting June 4, 1991. The petition entitled "Petition for Preservation of View in Highland Oaks" provided a "I live and own a home in Highland Oaks. I believe that the maintenance of the mountain and valley views from each property, and the tract as originally developed, is very important for the value of each property and of the neighborhood as a whole. I believe that the Highland Oaks Homeowners . . Page 7 Iovine appeal Augus't 28, 1991 Association Architectural Committee and the City of Arcadia have the power and should use their powers to protect these values, and should ensure that all developments and improve~ents are done in such a way as to minimize the damage to the view from neighboring properties. " . Three important points must be recognized as regards this petition. First, the residents in the Highland Oaks desire and expect that the City agencies responsible will protect view as an aesthetic component and as an integral component of property values in the area. Second, I discussed with each signer that we advocated that the least restrictive development alternative be adoptedi meaning that if an addition could be built on grade that that alternative be exhausted before a second story be entertained. Further, if a second story was permitted, the development should be done so as to minimize the damage to the view from neighbOring properties. Third, the response to this petition was overwhelming. Only six of the over 400 people contacted declined to sign. We are aware that some City officials have taken the position that the impact of a residen~ial improvement on the view from neighbOring properties should not be considered, and even that it cannot legally be considered. However, the signa'tures on the petition show that the citizens in the Highland Oaks area are virtually unanimous in believing that view can be considered and the Clark case shows that aesthetic considerations, if authorized by .agreement or (as in this case by ordinance or resolution) can lawfully be used to impose additional requirements in particular cases, beyond those imposed by general building and safety regulations. . . page 8 Iovine appeal AUgust 28, 1991 :IV. IF THE COOLEY PLAN IS APPROVED, THIS COMMISSION SHOULD REOUIRE SPECIFIC SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES . If the Cooley plan is approved, this Commission should require that it comply: (A) with the building and safety requirements of the City of Arcadia (B) Rule 1403 and other pertinent provisions of the Air Quality Management District regarding asbestos emissions from renovation activities. The subject property is over 30 years old. Most construction materials in that time period contained asbestos. The Cooleys should be required to adhere to pertinent A.Q.M.D. notification, removal techniques, clean up procedures and waste storage and disposal requirements (C) the regulations of all other government agencies having jurisdiction over projects of this kind and (D) take necessary steps to see that the actual construction is in strict conformity with the plans approved and covered by the permit. I enclose a check in the amount of $294.00 to cover the cost of the appeal. I also enclose a copy of the Architectural Review Committee decision. Sincerely, NORMA MARIE IOVINE :~~fJf~:~ GINA POTKOSKI CRODOS enal. cc:Robert and Jacqueline Cooley Ralph Bicker beCI Richard and Priscilla Wilson Pat and Lee Englund . . Illghi_nd no.e Owneu h"oe1dlon Areh1t~etur.1 Re.l~. "od Are. Pl.onlne ~lttl!l! lne. '1P i L E:CE'IVto AUG 9" <{i 0 19&' C/11- / ,. o~ ~"c ~"""l'jQ '1Ct" Ot,." fU.' 199/.....& ~3 I'I'opertJ Ad"rellll i 0 <( Cf /Ai..,.-r,J- .l'{hrC Propert, Owner /Y11l g /11M ~ ~ SUbal..lmt DIu -?-1f"4) . ~A-O/4- The ARcllITECTURAJ. RlVUW AND AREA PLAHNIIIO COMMlTtU: of the 1I10llLAHOS IIOMP; ~~F.~ ASSOCIATION INC., eatlng In eaeordftnee with CITY of ARCADIA Ordinance iilh~~ hllVe IIlllt lit c::J .' . 15.,-&":::- on ~ '1..-1- -r.!...- end do hl!rebl~"r_.f aondltionllll, Ipprove ~~PPf.4'lI the workLng drulngll end lIpealrte.Uooll identtrie~ bT Ii lIbove rlle nUlllber .. dated >t/z,z..jc/, This COMUITTII bllsell Its decillIons on the materiAl submitted by the Bppllcllnt "holle r.llpon91blllt, it III to prodde IIceurllte mllterllll In III re!lper.t.lI. Any mil ter 11\1 ehlng'!ll ",lIde subsequent to this COAlMlTnl'lI llppr09,,1 ",ust be submitted for additional ApprOYIII. . '. .:. .. In eRse of disapproval, detailed rlndlngs for the COMMITTEE's aatlon lire IIttached. -," f. . "/ . ,:;1:- " :.:. .~" . CondUlmt'. for epproval, lr 11I\7: ~Iu;rf /tJ c;,~1tu~ Y.JlI/(f:tD (lA.o.j r.:t#y=,-O atJ j2"lY "'~FFe-,"./-I'-'''''' GLrJW'':'~ j,:'(~ '-::'- r"..,.".,...';+-.A:4 A~ . . . aMllnEl IIll!llbers present: COAt.unr.r; ArrnOVAL: .~rl 1- /i,~fu<~~, ~ ~. --rM~r.. --~/II'II. M ~ ""'S~tfl) 'Jr;FFICE''f.' (0(, 13......:..... . ...~_..s .h1..AL~_JA. E-- ~ K.fJ....J. . A. B. ,'i1e No. /99/ ~CJZ 5 Date Submitted _ 7 - Itf'- </1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: f).O$o VlsrA- AvE /r1fl... ft,m/Uj ()...6~,q.\ ^ Q...C IH) I Ie C.JII:JoLe i ADDRESS (if cflfferent) S 1\ I"'l t:' C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detaiij: '21111) <; -rd/J....,,- r4'OJJ I rid IV /t1;f" /' 4d)( /r;, J"'1 - <) c) p-r D. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and Dl'llvide a wriIIen eXDlanatJon lor each checkl · 3. . 1. The elements of the strudure's design )<1'ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing - building's design because - 2. The proposed construction materials)(f ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing materlals. ~ lse 4. The proposed project [ ] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining publiC rights of way, bet'J:I!'~ t.r; ::' ~x. -.:rP'. .,-/1.., I S' -C 1M - '/(!/t.. '-+i1LJ/T7dN $//*1/t.."A. '7'"'0 -TNu'sG' cJlI/ tS;<1CI-(S'/Jfj/::: r:1r-" :rlle- SVAlff:;-.:!T F-'~P~A:T"" The proposed project)>4 IS, [] IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because 51! "'~ As ::r.. It A4Jller 6, The proposed project MIS, [] IS NOT in proportion to other Improvements on the subject site or to Impr6vements on the adjoining properties because. Ht7iJ!::l!S o;v .Bo-roll S'/'/JErS ,"1~E' /U.A..e40:::I :L SJ<7R.'/' HOAtc:i 7. The location of the proposed project [ ] WILL, ""'WILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property ~, ~()-'N4~i/r ~ ~ ~ C~~ r.u~,-~ ~~~r "ll~ I o. J..i ~Pt!:{ "1(1 H - :1 ~ The proposed project's setbacksM DO, [J DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the lam. or adjoining properties because, 8. 12/12/89 9. OTHER ANDINGS: - . ACTION )<t APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): 7HRJ rnf/;1L C<1";5" :tl?.:;cru N 1/1Z..t1V'./~ "3~ 5'U.e.""/~/J 7?J TJltS r--4 _".,., I ~e jC~.e /GeV/~;"1 t1 A-/P~V4'- ,B~.eiJ~e .n /3(H~ OI4'C: tPe~m,;,- /~ 1.55" e:~ ' DENIAL - STATE ~PEC'FIC REASONS FOR DEHIAL: [ ] E. . DATE OF ARCHITEClURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION 8/2-2-/ q I BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: /' ,-e",c..;?H ,!Jrc/.t<T,e ~/fI,{!"""'4') ...Ie:~~~e y /SdW~AI - . LdAf. ft1 nt/LS H;I'J-C L. _ / A ;Y1 tfS rH d ,." A5 JA-Me'5 A t'.L A-l/U!!' G. REPRESENTING THE ,,#/~H~~NiJS' HtJW1E. Ow;f/c:45 ASSOCIATION. H. APPEALS. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Plannir,g Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contad the Planning Department to determine the requireme,nts, 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. L EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If 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 shan become null and void and of no effect. . 12/12/89