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