Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1448 . . . RESOLUTION 1448 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY DWELLING WITH AITACHED GARAGE AT 717 CORTEZ ROAD (MP 90-013) WHEREAS, on September 25, 1990, an appeal of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of a two-story, 4,077:t square foot dwelling with an attached 784:t square foot garage on property located at 717 Cortez Road (MP 90- 0013), was filed by Robert Ho, architect, on behalf of David Jiann-Shiun Wu, property owner, WHEREAS, on November 13, 1990 the Planning Commission heard the appeal; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed and considered: a, The staff report and related attachments including the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's findings and actions, b, Written communications submitted by the Appellant, c, All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on November 13, 1990 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Commission finds that: 1. The proposed home is not in character with the neighborhood nor is it compatible or harmonious with other houses within the area. The massiveness of the proposed house is not in proportion with the narrow lot width, It was further noted that the size, as an element of architecture, is incompatible with other homes in the neighborhood, Section 2, That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal and sustains the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Boards denial of the two story home with attached garage, -1- 1448 . Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of November 13, 1990 and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Oark Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None Section 4, 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 27 day of November, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Amato, Clark Hedlund, Szany, Papay None C an Panning Commission ATTEST: · ~~J Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia . -2- (/k:. 1448 . . . . ,_ . I November 13,1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DONNA L, BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: MP 90-013 - 717 CORTEZ ROAD APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL GENERAL INFO~ATION APPLICANT: Robert Ho, architect on behalf of David Jiann-Shiun Wu, property owner 717 Cortez Road LOCATION: REQUEST: The property owner has apPealed the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story, 4,077 square foot dwelling with a 784:1: square foot attached garage Approximately 9,17o.t square feet LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: 65' on Cortez Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is vacant; zoned R-1 & D SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: Properties to the north, south and east are developed with single-family dwellings; zoned R.1 & D Properties to the west are developed with apartments; zoned R.3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential 0-6 du/ac MP 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 1 . . . BACKGROUND On July 3,1990, the Santa Anita Village Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Board denied plans for a two-story 4,133 square foot dwelling with an attached SOOt square foot garage for the property at 717 Cortez Road. The applicant, Robert Ho appealed the Homeowner Association's denial to the Planning Commission. The Planning Department after reviewing the proposed plans recommended denial based upon the design of the house which included a two story portico which staff felt was incompatible with the architectural style of the. homes in the area. On August 14, 1990 the Planning Commission upheld the Santa Anita Village's denial noting that: (1) the home was not in character with the neighborhood nor compatible or harmonious with other homes; (2), that the house was not in proportion and that the portico looked out of place and made the house look massive; (3) that the portico was out of proportio~ with the house and did not belong on the house; (4) that the lot was too narrow to accommodate the proposed house and (5) that the front wall of the second story lineS up with the front wall of the first floor adding to the bulky appearance of the front elevation. A resolution setting forth the Planning Commission's action waS adopted on August 28" 1990. 'On August 31,1990 Mr. Ho appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council held a public hearing on this appeal on October 2, 1990. The City Council denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission and the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association's denial of the proposed house, The Council noted in Resolution 5551 adopted on October 16, 1990 that: (1) the portico is incompatible with the architectural style of the homes generally in the area; there are no homes within the area which have a portico this size and the portico tends to emphasize the size of the building; (2) that the size, as an element of the architecture, is incompatible at that particular location; and (3) the lot is substandard in width (65'-0") and this house on this lot is too l~ge, On August 22,1990 Mr. Ho submitted revised plans to the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board. A public hearing was held on September 20 before the Santa Anita Village ARB, at which time they denied the revised plans. Mr. Ho appealed the ARB's decision on September 25. In summary the Board noted that "The denial was based on the Board's concern that the visual impact of this proposed home's mass would be overwhelming and not harmonious with the immediate neighborhood or with the Village in general," "If the massiveness of this home could be reduced, the following comments deal with specific architectural details that the Board felt would have to be changed: MP 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 2 1. The dormer (Alternate D) adds to the visual mass of the east elevation (front . yard) and should not be included. 2. Side yard elevations (north and south) second floor windows for the master bedroom, Bed #3 and Bed #4 should be high wall windows that would admit light but not allow a view of north and south neighbor's yards. Bathroom window on south elevation should be frost~ glass, 3. Master bedroom bay window should extend only 1'-6" instead of 2'.0" 90 as to restrict the view of neighbor's yards from the side bay windows, 4, Overall the comment was made that the extension of the second floor of the proposed house beyond the neighbor's into, the rear yard impacts the privacy of both neighbors, 5, Change front entrance from a double door to a single door with sidelights and the halfmoon window above so as to mitigate the "grand opulent entrance". 6. Concrete tile (CalShake type) color to be dafk earth tories. 7. Driveway to be flared so that at the curb it is the width of a single drive (12 feet) minimizing a concrete front yard and allowing for additional greenery, . 8. AIC condensing unit (applicant indicated there would only be one unit) would be located in rear yard against house and not closer than 5 feet from the south property line. . 9, It was suggested that a landscape plan should be provided." PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicant's proposal is for a 4,077:1: square foot two-story house with an attached 784:1: square foot garage (two car garage with one tandem parking space), The side yard setbacks are a minimum of 5'-0"+ for the first floor and a 11'-6" for the second floor. The rear yard setback is 45:1:' and the front yard setback is 36:1: from the property line (approximately 48:1:' from the curb line). The building is 25'-0" in height, including the chimneys. The revised plans were submitted to the ARB on August 22, prior to the effect date of the new setback and height requirements. The applicant indicates that the total lot coverage is 34.3%. Code allows a maximum lot coverage of 35% for two story homes. Resolution 5286 sets forth the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association (see . MP 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 3 attached resolution). Subsections 8 and 9 of the resolution set forth standards regarding "exterior building materials" and "exterior building appearance". . 8. 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. 9. 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. Subsection 18 of Section 3 of the resolution sets forth the following standards which should be considered by the ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the decision of the ARB: 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 appal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 8 &t 9 of Section 3 of this Resolution. Exterior building materials and exterior building . appearance). b, Good architectural character is based upon the prindples of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principals to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. (Pertains to Conditions Nos, 8 &t 9 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior building materials and exterior building appearance). 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. (Pertains to Conditions Nos. 8 &t 9 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior building materials and 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 Nos. 8 &t 9 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior building materials and exterior building appearance). . MP 90-013 November 13. 1990 Page 4 . . . PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Planning Department feels that the revised plans address many of the concerns raised during the public hearings on the original plans. The following is the Planning Department's resPonse to the ARB's findings and action: 1. The dormer (Alternate D) adds to the visual mass of the east elevation (front yard) and should not be included. Planning Department: Although the dormer provides an architectural feature which helps to break up the roof line, it also gives the appearance of a third story, Staff would recommend that the dormer be deleted. 2, Side yard elevations (north and south) second floor wi1ldows for the master bedroom, Bed #3 and Bed #4 should be high wall windows that would admit light but not allow a view of north and sou!h neighbor's yards. Bathroom window on south elevation should be frost~ glass, Planning Department: First and most importantly, the building code requires at least one bedroom window be of certain minimum dimensions and not more than 44" above the floor to provide for emergency exiting. The retention of visual privacy is not an issue which has been legislated by the Council. Staff does not believe that such a requirement should be imposed unless it is legislated and applied equally to all two story single-family construction throughout the City. 3, Master bedroom bay window should extend only 1'-6" instead of 2'-0" so as to restrict the view of neighbor's yards from the side bay windows. 4. Overall the comment was made that the extension of the second floor of the proposed house beyond the neighbor's into the rear yard impacts the privacy of both neighbors. ' Planning Department: In regards to 3 and 4 above, the Planning Department does not believe this is a reasonable or equitable requirement, The retention of visual privacy is not an issue which has been legislated by the Council. Staff does not believe that such a require11lent should be imposed unless it is legislated and applied equally to all two story single-family construction throughout the City. Also, based upon Resolution 5286, staff does not believe that this is an appropriate finding. 5, Change front entrance from a double door to a single door with sidelights and the halfmoon window above so as to mitigate the "grand opulent entrance". MP 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 5 . . . Planning Department: The total height of the entry area including the halfmoon window above the door is l1:l:'. Staff does not agree that a "grand opulent entance" has been created by the applicant. Requiring a single door with side windows would have little effect in changing the visual appearance of the front entry. 6, Concrete tile (CalShake type) color to be dark earth tones. Plannini Department: Staff concurs with, this recommendation. 7. Driveway to be flared so that at the curb it is the width of a single drive (12 feet) minimizing a concrete front yard and allowing for additional greenery. Plannin~ Department: Staff feels that the driveway could be redesigned to reduce the area within the front yard and thim flared to provide adequate access from the garage. 8, AIC condensing unit (applicant indicated there would only be one unit) would be located in rear yard against house and not closer than 5 feet from the south property line. Planning Department: Staff concurs with this recommendation, 9. It was suggested that a landscape plan shouid be provided. Plannini Department: The resolution does not authorize the ARB to require landscape plans and unless it is required to mitigate a specific design feature, requiring a landscape plan is not appropriate. The Planning Department believes that the revised plans are a significant improvement. Eliminating the large portico significantly reduces the massive appearance of the structure, and the overall building height of2S'-O" reduces the scale of the building. 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 (Section 3 (12) Resolution 5286 - page 5). Said resolution requires compatibility "with materials and other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood". 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 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 6 . . . Approval or denial of the application should be based on the issue of compatibility with reasons that explain the decision. It is these "reasons" which constitute the "findings' upon which the decision is rendered. , Attached for your review and consideration are:' 1. Mr. Ho's letter of appeal dated September 25, 1990. 2, The Architectural Review Board's findings. 3, The Santa Anita Village's Design Resolution 5286. 4, The proposed plans including a diagram submitted by the applicant providing a schematic section of the revision as compared to the original plan. FINDINGS The Planning Commission may: 1. Approve the appeal and reve.rse the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial, The Commission should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision lll).d findings in support of that decision, 2, Deny the appeal and sustain the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision, If the Commission approves the appeal, the Planning Department would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. That the dormer on the roof be eliminated. 2, That the concrete tile roof be dark earth tone CalShake type material. 3, That the driveway at the curb be a maximum of 12'-0" in width and that the driveway on the property be designed so as to minimize the concrete in the front yard area, Approval of the design shan be subject to Planning Department approval. 4. The the Ale condensing unites) be located in the rear yard area against the house and not within the required setback areas. MP 90-013 November 13, 1990 Page 7 . ...;' " .: , .Pl~: '. ...~ ... 't.:., ... t.:. ~ '.. c u -, . .0 RO CORPORATION Architecture, PIaming'Urba'l Design' ARCHITECT ROBERT I, H, HO. _ 10"10 "0. lI..1 CA"I~ "0. ClOO..) Sep.25, 1990 / , Planning CI~mmis5ion City of Arcadia 240 W, Huntington Dr, Arcadia, CA. 91006 rormal Appeal re Santa Anita Village ARB ,rile # 467, Wu Residence 717 Cortez Rd" Arcadia Atten: Mr, Bill W01ard, Director and Ms. Donna Butler, Assist,Director City Planning Department Dear Sirs/Madams: Pur'suant t';:J the received '3/25), Commission on the ARB's denial dated 9/20/90 (post-marked 9/22 this is a formal appeal to the Planning subject matter, 'We are enclosing: ' , " 1. Completed application form . co~e sections ~. "'- - .". . 2, 12 folded sets of drawings , 3. A filing fee <:of $257, <:of which we are requesting a fulF"refund due to the ARB's apparent bad-faith and/or its ignoring of the City Attorney's 7-24-90 advice on the ARB's authority limits, 4. ARB denial letter and plans ., 5. Clear positive films (8,5"xll") of each sheet , .. ...... ,'. " As the drawings shOW, this 'design p'roposal is a good faith (re)submittal in.:c.rporating all appllcable comments of the ARB as well as the Planning Commission re previous denials (rile #458 and Planning Cc.mm Res,#1441), In fact, we made adjustments in gc,c.d faith beyond what was called for and/or required by applicable criteria. We respectfully request your good-faith review of this appeal and a fair action considering all applicable circumstances of this project, _ " In addition, the justifications for requesting the overturning of the ARB's Findings and Denial are as folloWSJ A, During the 9-20-90 public ~earing, (ta~e recording avaiiable) it was apparent that at least :2 of the 4 ARB members were not advised of the City Attorney's 7-:24-90 interpretation regarding the proper responsibilities/authorities of the Board, B, Size of the house was verbally noted again and again by the ARB members as the main (real) reason for their "concern'" and reiuctance for approval. Although in the written denial,' ,the ARB writer' (name unknOWn) avoided the recording of such statlj'ments as same would be invalid reasons and could be evidence.;i,of. bad- fai th. ':..'i......,:t-:.. P,Q, Box 2006. Upland. California. U.SA. 91786 (714) 0 \8 1181 94-'}-7439 ..~~~1.-:. ,":- '. " , :~ .1 :1 ',." . . , " '~1 . ..; ,. ~,; ';' ,~ ,)j, ~,~ 1< .~ .. ,.'l< ~ :"~ J.y ;'" , . .' " .. I i -.'.'~ .,~! ~ 'ii: ,. l' " ft . ;! 1. ^' .. " " ... $ v - - ,~ " '''-'''''-'.-. : ..~ ~'f.~~~:...~ .. ~ . 't'"',,.' - \ ':~~'.' .:"i:~~.!: :' '~.' . .' . '. ..~. '. ! 9-25-90 Arcadia Planning Commission, continued: . . page 2 Co The front (street) elevation and street-side set-backs were nc.ted by the ARB members as being very acceptable' ..(w/o the i~ dormer). This again failed to be recorded in the ARB ,written denial, (Jape recording by the owner available) ~" .' . ~. . ". As the Planning Commissioners may recall, the front (street) elevation with the entry portico was the only majo~ remaining '" issue of the last submittal, While we made our good faith efforts ~ '~.:) wcO\"k with the ARB in making the corrections (and the ARB'. . members even acknowledged same verbally in the hearing), it is -:' very dishlrbing to note that the ARB writer chose not to,:,~! l"e.:ord/recognize same on its official record, ."J'.. .:":?? . D. In additic,n to the misleading records of the hearing noted' ,..,. ab,:.ve, it ' is also disturbing to note that an apartment owner was',/' allowed to participate in the ARB Board discussions after'the,~}. J close of the public hearing and' subsquently allowed to ,"vote" on'".>< the denial until the applicant's questioning/objection, While'1 . . . '.'otl, vc.lunteerlng t.~ serve on the ARB 1S commandable, we bel1eve the ,:, Board needs to respect the due 'process of law and' to have the' .- gracefulness of having the common decency of good-faith, . The applicant still appreci~tes the ARB's legitimate conc~rns for protecting' the puaiic interests, but ~ust respectfully take excepticln to it'!> persistance on carrying' out, its now "hidden", illegal and arb.itrary "policies" on size arid Set-backs which were ':,bviouly still the Llnderlining reasons for its decision,' . ~. ,...,., " The appl i,:ant c.f our appeal Thank Y.:lU for trusts the Planning' Commission will see the and a.:t fair~y and favorably thereupon, .,: -. .. y':lur cl:lnsiderations, mer i t -If '}3. I . :~ OM,' -"'- ";\ :~ ~ · tt#o Robert I,H. Ho, Architec~ Applicant of Project " . ,'-' .' 9007-Wu3apeal ,.'3: ~;~. ,,: " ...,. .~, ',' ....~ " "~ '. .' "./:-' ",:, .~ .of , - ~-", ~~~~":'- ~. . ...."'. '-"I~ , , ., :~ , t.~ ~ ':, ~ ':- " . w' k . .~1 '. ~. ..- . '- . ~-;'..;.~.,. ~ 1 . .......-:,.... ........ ',.~.-..../ '/., ,'- ,. '....;...,' ......'. .,.::'!-.. I I - \{\ ~ . i I I L___~. ----..""'..----.... ~ . . J" ....., I '.0 1" " ~" ! cr- i~" w' yJ '. _'. : i", ../! "'. \ ~.I J J.I -, '., ../1."/ . ....... I OL-V Dr::~/'i1,~ ~tst.1ovt;:v/ f<~Pv.:.;;?, (~H,APr;.p PbR'nON) ~ ....;.... " ,.' "J":'" ." '1 I~/, I.~.J 'X,j '%1 ~ - -" 'l-OVJ~I<.E.D poR""IC~ -~--- - -~-' -.. . \ .' t::,.(j~~~ CUF~f3 I k---.. . ." .1~. o!.:P T?F?(4lH, ,- ..-...,-- '-1 l _. __.._48' 04" W f' V IS'" .l>",~ 1,,,j - -.--- J ~H~ATI<::.- ~e.GTlON ~F ReVI~,oN MAt7~ R~. ARB ~MMe.Nrb 7/90 -7/7 CORTEZ I ARCAT?/A \\'U Rt=.&>/OE-Nc.e. Ro~K" HO, ,AJ<a111J ~/z-/I~CJ . . ..e No. 1/6"7 Date Submitted '1/=/ qo ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION. A. PROJECT ADDRESS: B, PROPERlY O'NNER: -WI C:OIl'T(~ /lAIl,b A/l~IloA :1>""'1) J. "oJol . S.,Uol >.JU rr A\.. ADDRESS Of different) .,11 C:o/l.'l'(~ ItAA') AI1.CA~,Il, C, PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): NN:l. S"1't4'1 '10.,,, S& r-r HOMt "'.'ill 3 ~M, 11. eM T"..llC...) ClII'tAGoC D. FINDINGS (only cheek those that apply, and Dmvlrlllll writtlln Ilmlllnllllonfof Illld! ehlldt\ 1. The elements of the structure's design [ ] ARE, [J ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design because 2, The proposed construction materials [ ] ARE" [ ] ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, because . ...,.~- -- - -'-' -- --" . 3. The proposed project [Xl IS. [] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of wrry, bec:alJse Mil"'"; l3Ul~ rP ,^"uc" .sT",.'lIlM' _ 1$ .so <AllAr CoMP,"/!) "7b o'Tllf'l "'Ol't(~ IIJ IMM.;1),AY( \'\C.I-"'''''''' 4, The proposed project OdIS, [] IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because SOAt'\( lIS I'mo\ "3 -~ - 6, The proposed project [ ] IS, [X] IS NOT In proportion to other Improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because, tJt:' .~( MASSMf ~lJ_LI~_.!""OfOt.l'l) _J:'",r,,"flJA/ ,~ 7, The loca1Ion of the proposed project 1XI WILL, [] WILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, ' \I.NS n..... 1"t) "'-"II Dlf ,,,"porr) .r~''''\lI'r I/o1PA"" "-u'i" ""'"A''1 00:' In>Jo,J..( r M'l4N,..j ReAli. \jA~1>' ... , - -, -, 8, The proposed project's setbacks I ] 00, I] 00 NOT provide for adequate separation , ., between Improvements on the same or adjoining properties because, .....-.-..- -, . 12/12/89 9. OTHER FINDINGS: S~{ A,.,-MN;!> -- ~~--- j ACTION , [] [ ] APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): [X] DENIAL. ST~J!; SPEClfI.C....fleASOm; FOR DENI~L.: srr A't'.,.Ae~;l:) e, DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITI'EE'S) ACTION ct/to/qO . BOARD (COMMITIEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: "T"O'" e...S4'" CHAIlLlf G~Oj\'( VIVO".! ~IP ellA''- LyeA S " G. REPRESENT1NG THE SANTA AN''''A' VILLAG.r f.Io,..1CWJ(~1 ASSOCIATION, H. APPEALS. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Commission. Anyone deSiring to make such an appeal shoulcl contact the Planning Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made In writing within seven (7) worl<fng days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. I. 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 unusecl, abandonecl or dlscontinuecl, said , approval shall become null and void and of no effect. . 12/12/89 . . . SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION UCBITEOTtnU\L REVIEW BOARD fINDINGS AND AC'rION The ARB spent quite some time reviewinq the application with the applicant, We received cOllUllents frqm,the property owner of an apartment located behind 711 Cortez and the Chairman of the ARB reviewed for the benefit of the applicant and the other members of the ARB the contents of a note received frqm Mr, Robert Bash the owner of 723 Cortez (the property adjoininq 717 Cortez to the south), Mr Bash was unable to attend the pUblic hearinq because of another engaqement, The members of the Board then asked the applicant questions about specific ar~hitectural features. After lookinq at specific chanqes to certain architectural features noted below (this is somethinq that the Board does with every application it receives), the Board made the decision to deny the application. The denial was based on the Board's concern that the visual impact of this proposed home'S mass'would be overwhelming and not harmonious with the illUllsdiats neiqhborhood or with the villaqe in general. If the massiveness of this home could be reduced, the followinq cOllUllents deal with specific architectural details that the Board felt would have to be chanqed: 1) The dormer (Alternate 0) adds to the visual mass of the east elevation (front yard) and should not be included, 2) Sideyard elevations (north"ilnd south) second floor windows for the master bedroom, Bed #3 and Bed #4 should be hiqhwall windows that would admit light but not allow a view of north and south neighbor'S yards. Bathroom window on south elevation should be frosted qlass, ' 3) Master bedroom bay window should extend only 1'-6" instead of 2'-0" so as to restrict the view of neighbor'S yards from the s~de bay windows, 4) Overall the cOllUllent was made. that the extension of the second floor of the proposed house beyond the neighbor's into the rear yard impacts the privacy of both neiqhbors, Chanqe front entrance from a double door to a sinqle door with sideliqhts and the halfmoon window above so as to mitiqate the "qrand opulent entrance", , " , ' 5) . . . , .., 6) Concrete tile (CalShake type) color to be dark earthtones. 7) Driveway to be flared so that at the curb it is the width of a sinqle drive (12 feet) minimizinq a concrete front yard and allowinq for. additional qreenery, .', B) AIC condensinq unit (applicant indicated there would only be one unit) would be located in rear yard aqainst house and not closer than 5 feet from the south property line. It was suqqested that a landscape plan should be provided, 9)