HomeMy WebLinkAbout1441
-
..
.
RESOLUTION 1441
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL OF A PROPOSED TWO-STORY
DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AT 717 CORTEZ
ROAD (MP 90-009)
WHEREAS, on July 31, 1990, an appeal of the Santa. Anita Village
Architectural Review Board's denial of a two-story, 4,10W: .square foot dwelling with
an attached BOO:!: square foot garage on property located at 717 Cortez Road (MP 90-
009), was filed by Robert Ho, architect, on behalf of David Jiann-Shiun Wu, property
owner, .
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990 the PlanningCoIIUnission 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. Videotape presentation by the applicant and
d. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearing on
August 14, 1990
. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This CoIIUnission finds that:
1. Concerning the matter presented by Mr. Ho regarding the processing of the
plans by the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board, the ARB has
substantially complied with the provisions of their resolution.
2. The proposed home is not in character with the neighborhood nor is it
compatible or harmonious with other houses within the area. The portico is out of
proportion and scale with the proposed house and creates a massive appearance on
a narrow lot.
Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this CoIIUnission denies the appeal
and upholds the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Boards denial of the two
story home with attached garage.
-1-
1441
.
.
,
Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution
reflect the Commission's action of August 14, 1990 and the following vote:
A YES: Commissioners Amato, Clark 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 28 day of August, 1990 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany, Papay
None
Commissioner Clark
~~
Chair~
Planning C~mmission
ATTEST:
bLhJ~d
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
-2-
1441
.
.
--.
August 14, 1990
TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DONNA L. BUTLER, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: MP 90-009 -717 CORTEZ ROAD
APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION'S DENIAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Robert Ho, architect on behalf of David Jiann-Shiun Wu,
property owner
LOCATION:
717 Cortez Road
REQUEST:
The property owner has appealed the Santa Anita Village
Architectural Review Board's denial of a proposed two-story,
4,133 square foot dwelling with an 800 sqUare foot garage
LOT AREA:
Approximately 9,17Oi: square feet
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 Q-6 du/ac
MP 90-009
August 14, 1990
Page 1
.
.
,
BACKGROUND
On July 3,1990 a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village
Homeowner's Association to consider plans submitted by Robert Ho on behalf of
David Jiann-Shiun Wu, for a two-story, 4,133 square foot dweiling with an attached
800 square foot garage located at 717 Cortez Road.
In summary the Board noted that:
"1) the portico was too massive relative to the neighborhood and had no other
examples in the neighborhood for which it could be considered compatible; 2)
the lack of a set back to the second story at the front of the home contributed
significantly to the overall massive appearance of the home; and 3) based on lot
sizes in the Village, that no home in the Village should exceed 3500 sq. ft. in size
(ARB has approved several homes whose size was approximately 3500 sq. ft.)."
The Board also noted in the letter to the applicant that: 'While this proposal was
submitted prior to the adoption of the neW side yard setbacks and height
restrictions it should be noted that it does not comply with the 10% side yard
setbacks for the first floor nor the 20% side yard setbacks for the second floor..."
The Board voted 3 to 0 to deny the two-story dwelling based upon the above
reasons and the following provisions of the ARB Resolution 5286:
1. The proposed project will not maintain the architectural character of the
subject neighborhood.
2. The proposed structure is not compatible with existing structures in the
neighborhood.
3. The proposed structure is excessive and substantially unrelated to the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed structure is not in harmony or proportion to adjacent
structures and other structures in the neighborhood.
On July 18, Robert Ho sent a letter to the Planning Department ffiing a formal
complaint regarding the processing of their plans. The letter also questioned the
timeliness of the Board's action and requested that the plans be "deemed approved"
based on the information submitted in his letter. The City Attorney and the
Planning Department reviewed Mr. Ho's letter. Based upon our review, the City
Attorney wrote a letter to Mr. Ho advising him that
"Concerning your allegations with regard to certain procedural requirements,
although there appear to have been s!>me technical problems, the Board has
MP 90-009
August 14, 1990
Page 2
.
.
,
substantially complied with the provisions of their resolution and since you
appeared at their process there is not any prejudice with regard to your
allegations." also,
"Concerning your statement as to setbacks and the Board's determination
precluding houses over 3,500 sq. ft. we have advised the Board that these are
improper findings. The Board has not been delegated any authority to make
rules or in effect legislate with regard to setback requirements or house size."
The Attorney further advised that he did have the right to appeal the ARB's denial.
On July 27 Mr. Ho filed the attached letter of appeal.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant's proposal is for a two-story dwelling with a total square footage of
4,933 square feet which includes a 800 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 45'-0". The building height is a maximum of 25'-0".
The applicant indicates that the total lot coverage is 32.7%. Section 9252.2.15 "Lot
Coverage" includes: "Lot Coverage shall mean the combined ground floor area of
all permanent and temporary buildings and structures, including but not limited to:
covered porches and patios (including trellis covers), carports, porte-cocheres,
storage sheds, playhouses, etc., on anyone lot."
Based upon the gross living area and garage area of 3,007 square feet and the covered
ground floor patio (at the rear of the building) and the covered entry portico, the
combined ground floor area is 3.233+ square feet. The County Assessors maps
indicates a lot size of 9,170 square feet. Based upon 35% of 9,170 square feet the
maximum lot coverage allowed is 3.209.50 square feet. The plan, as submitted,
would require a modification for the lot coverage, or the building area would have
to be reduced to comply with code.
Resolution 5286 sets forth the design overlay regulations, prqcedures and criteria for
the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association (see
attached resolution). Subsection 18 of Section 3 of this resolution sets forth the
standards which should be considered by the ARB and any body hearing an appeal
from the decision of the ARB.
The Planning Commission in their review of this proposal should disregard the
Architectural Review Board's findings regarding noncompliance with the proposed
setback regulations and the house size.
MP 90-009
August 14, 1990
Page 3
.
.
--.
In reviewing the proposed plans, staff concurs with the Architectural Review
Board's findings that the portico is "too massive relative to the neighborhood".
The design is not harmonious with any of the homes Within the Village area and is
not in proportion to the house or the lot. Mr. Ho notes in his letter that "harmony
does not need to preclude diversity. While uniformity is the regulator's favorite
easy way out, strict uniformity stifles creativities, and often leads to monotony - a
common sign in dictatorship and communism."
It is not the purpose of the design overlay to discourage creativity. However,
homeowners and developers should be sensitive to the character and style of a
neighborhood. The City has been diligently working towards reducing the visual
bulk and mass of houses. Section 3, paragraph 18(b) of Resolution 5286 notes that
"good architectural character is based upon principles of harmony and proportion in
the elements of structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent
structures and other structures in the neighborhood." The two-story entry portico
creates a more massive appearance, especially on the narrow lot.
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 on the same lot and with other structures in the
neighborhood.
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.
Because of the procedural problems in the processing by the homeowner's
association, the applicant is requesting refund of the appeal fee of $257.00
Attached for your review and consideration are:
1. Mr. Ho's letter of appeal dated July 27, 1990.
2. Proposed plans,including an Alternate design A of the street elevation.
3. The City Attorney's July 24th letter to Mr. Ho in response to Mr. Ho's July
18th letter.
MP 90-009
August 14, 1990
Page 4
4. Mr. Ho's July 18 letter which includes the Architectural Review Board's
. findings, notice of public hearing, plans, etc.
FINDINGS
.
,
The Planning Commission may:
1. Approve the appeal and reverse the Santa Anita Village Architectural
Review Board's denial. The Commission should direct staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings
in support of that decision. Because of the unusual problems associated with
this application, the Commission may recommend to the City Council that
the applicant's appeal fee of $257.00 be refunded.
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. Because of the unusual problems associated with this application,
the Commission may recommend to the City Council that the applicant's
appeal fee of $257.00 be refunded.
3. Based upon the information submitted by Mr. Ho, remand the application
back to the Santa Anita Village ArchitectUral Review Board for re-review and
appropriate findings.
MP 90-009
August 14, 1990
Page 5
~
.
.,0
~
cO
~
'"
%
':)
cJI
~,
G~
,9.97 Co' ~
,.,
\
\
'\ 00000
o ~01.J)
(10/.1) (JO/~ (I()II) (1()()4)
'IIOJI) .,_ ,.~ 1 S
\ Co'- 4-;;1;1
~':l, ...;;
~ ;'.
<:\Il'
~
.
~
~1~ 0
..
-~
- ..
~"
__IJ'
<::.
--
------
6~~
,:,,~~16'
~ '.::::J
oJ
.. g
--
O ;:t~
<:!!
i\I
o ~~ tV
4 /:!
~
o
u
....
POR "'oLA
.. /)l . 4.70
i ~ l@~
- - - - _.J_ - __ _;/
s~f
!JOlf)
0\0 0 00
rCo !>
,"0
GO
58./7 57
79.~
o 0052
(1011) (lOll) I4.SS)
.:: ) <!l!> I ,
~(IO,.I ~
.., .
PR.
(lOll)
'(;008;
....t:>
~"'
~~
~O
o
000
"75
---',--- -
LAND
USE. MAP
MP 10-00<f
'GoO
-r
r-
II ,
Sc.Al-!: t I . 100
.
.
^ . ~J/3.iZ /9j?d
L?1f<i,btt.tl/~ j.~~
~ r t/
~,~04-/ -. ~
J710 ~U/}~" '. "vl /~
d-1'11-- ./f.<-t,U VJ-; Uf ~~! <Z ~ ,A/
. d!~ 4/33/01'
!f: d~ ~~ f'tu,af
(j....;f M' ,Lk ..t<- hlf- #
~J 7 /' vJTJ~ 1:' .
. '~i7fJi:(~
RECEIVED
AUG 1.1, 1990
CITIO'~""
PL..4JJJIMJMPf.
--
.0
.WL 3':' 1990
ARCHITECT
ROBERT I. H. HO, ..
(OH'O NO. &481 CALlP NO. C100ee)
DO CORPORATION
ArchitectUre' P1aming'Urban Design'
lJ;t~'::CEiVEr::
3LIl Y 27, 1990
r:~TY Of' M~CJ\OIA
'~1,.;\I";"'J''''~ DS'PT.
Planni,ng Commission
City l:lf Arci;;idia
240 W. HLmtington Or.
Arcadia, CA. 91006
i"'~r mal App"al
re Santa Anita Village ARB
File # 458, Wu ?esidence
717 Cortez Rd., Arc~cia
Atten: Mr. Bill Wglard, Director
City Planning Department
Dear Sirs/Madams:
Pursuant to our lette~
letter from the City
appeal to the Planning
We are enclosing:
1. Compl'eted ~'\pplication form ~'< c:clde sections
2. 12 folded sets of drawings
3. A filing fee of $257, l~f whic,~' we are ~eqLtesting
due to procedural violations of the ARB.
4. ARB denial lett.er and plans
5. Clear p.c,sitive films (8.5"~.(11") of each sheet
dated 7-t8-90 and 7-23-90 and the
Att,~rney dated 7-24-90, tf,is is
CQmmission on the subject matter.
response
a for mal
a full refund
Per reasons noted in the above referenced lettersi i~e. due to
various noted procedural violations of the ARB, we are requesting
first of all that the drawings as submitted to the ARB be deemed
approved per resolution 5286.
In addition, the justifications for requesting the overturning of
the ARB's Find.ings and Denial are as follows:
A. The written denial dated 7-10-90 expanded beyond the two (2)
and only 2 reasons actLla1ly cited by ea.:h ,;:,f tf1e 3 b';:,ard members
at the voting in the 7-3-90 ARB hearing, namely:
A.l. Size of the house - which was t~e major issue on which the
ARB's opinion differed from that of the applicant and owner.
Per City Atterney's letter, this should no longer be a valid
reason for ARB denial.
A.2. The size of the entry portico. (Please see rebuttals below
and other supporting photos/slides/videos to be presented in the
appeal hear i ng. )
All three board members said in the hearing that they had no
problem with the front facade (down stair bay-window, 2-car
garages and the added 1st floor roof line in Alternate "A" )
except and '~nly except t.he entry portico being too high. Such
otherwise clearly positive and important statements were left out
in the denial letter and thLIS misleading for the record.
.
(7141
94'J-743~
P.O. Box 2006. Upland, California, U.S.A. 91786
.
-
~
B. Philosophically, harmony does not need to preclude diversity.
While uniformity is the r2gulator's favorite easy way out, strict
l.lni'f'Jl"mity ntifles. creativities, and often leads to monotl;)ny - a
common sign in dictatorship and communism.
The strength .:.f ,t,merica, the "melting pot", is her cLlltural
diversity. The spirit of the U.S. Constitution as represented by
the flag, protects the individual's freedom, even the freedom to
burn the flag! (Although I love the flag and will not burn it in
any event, the recent supreme court ruling made me realize the
true greatness of this Nation and her flag.) And of course, it
also SLlppc.rts t~le freedom of an individual t.::. live in a C'ne or
two story home; the freedom t,o buiLd a rustic/humble house or a
more elegant/dressed-up one (provided one does not detrimently
affect the property value or the ~uiet enjoy~ent of the neighbors
- Please kindly note that the pr.:.posed ele~ant hC'LIse can only
increase the valLIe .:.f the neighbor" 5 properties, not decreasing
them. Please alsc. not,e that there was n.:;> neighbor at the ARB
hearing against the proposal.) The proposed house is not exactly
the Same as the neigflbor's, it is not the eKa}:t same in size, it
is not a one-story ranch as the AR9 prefers, but it meets all the
city's zoing/set-backs/coverages and will be~ and can e.ist, very
harmoniously in the neighborho.:;>d. (Please see slides of the
neighborhood to be presented in the appeal hearing.)
C. Please nc.te also that in addition t.:;> the garage c.:.mpromise,
the applicant ,:.ffered an alternate A design of the street
elevatic.n. In resp':.nse t.:;> tfle AF~B .:hair's verbal ,:omments pri,:;>r
to the hearing, the alternate shows a roof line added between the
first and 2nd floor, visually breaking the facade. The ARB
members voiced favorable comments during the hearing but denied
the said design primarily due to again the ARB's inproper
"pol i ,:y" on the si ze c,f the hOLlse and the entry per A ab':'ve.
The applicant appreciates the ARB's legitimate concerns for
protecting the public interests, but must respectfully take
exception to its persistance on arbitrary size and set-backs
which were the underlining reasons for its decision. The
applicant trusts the Planning Commission to see the merit of our
appeal and act favorable thereupon.
o rt I.H. Ho, Architect
Applicant of Project
9007-apeal-Wu
...... .-..j,.')f""
~ r.
. '.." .'.
-~,' '",".. . ;.,
.<'~. .,l"':?'"
. '''2~,,;--,,.''''''4t'j'' ';M\t" i ,.
-..; . . ,:6' ...... I'
. ~ . r.,~. _ ,;,!! -{("'Pi'
/t4w~Trr;:1f "~9'~"': r}/; II
,U ..-~ d>~.~"Li fi:(j,'
"'! , .... 7-'~"<"" . ,,,,,'
I ::.;. '.- r~ ' 1;.1 .
r j :: ~'~i.:':li' .~. ~.
I' .
f" ...
. ." I F. =1'
, . -.....
. '. ~ ", t. .
" ,,:
". r~~
1-; ;.
,
r
e
.
- ~,..
,
- /'
'0<'
"'\_.
.'i....
~
I
.'
,
.1,1-
.; ;". \"
.... ~ I'
.;.~ ....: .,\ .
.~~-~ .
;. ....\.-.,:.,
..::',:,~'
. ': _;:f,!: ~
/
1 :.
r'"
~
~.'I
- ..'":.:-..
.~;'
.'.
,
:?
~
=~":of
'.
. ",'
."'
-:':'.c'.:_~.:::,i~' .
-. :-;._..:.
~",., .:.'
. :.::'< /-~
.~;t. _r=:~:.:: co
: ~. ~'"
... ..;- t;.~--<.
. .;~t.lJJS."'..
;..,:.. ~ ...-
::'L i": ~=-
. .. ~ r. --~~-..-
:- :~"..,,;:.~._.,~
;u:..~~ L.- ~-~
.,~~ -.:...--:. ~-
',> ~--;;:, ~
~,.. '-f>.'-""'-=--
__~ __.~~ V"1....!I2.'
1;......--; L~. .~...-,'\I .2.-. "-
V ~ l..-.. - ~M_ -: "",--:..C"
,;::-"- ,\' -.... ."J......, -, .
....... 2...:->" ' 'c:.' ~.. ~ ','..
. i"'- .'/. I ..~--L-;~ _.. '."-- -,1< ..- - <::~ - ,-
"1,,;: ..' .' <::,''''T' ..,""" . -" ....:j'
.~. ~ " ~ . ,- - .;c;- ?...~.. :-:-::~- ':; -
~--~ '*::' - ~.~. ' '- . 'j} .'
\:~_ ._ oS: _ ';:;-' .~~ ,.{.. "7-_
~ .-",.. -"
.F;:.-~)- ...~..'-<>- -'
., 11~b,/tb,h<!.i.!"
tffD
~ t-.. ,..
~ ;;..0-:': ..
. . ..t~...""'"
'Ily:' '-''''
~~'-<-'.4-~' c~. .. ...,~~_-::::...,- .t,.
.';;-. . ., <...,'.' .=.... ,._,.,.,.~. ...~.
. _ / . ,,~_,.. . .' ,~n
_~ ~--....'P'~- ..~C _,,-~.~~1:F-=-'"'::-':' -.. ,-" ...>........~
. ~. '':''' .. -,~' .Y'" . -..'
. . ,,1.... ..-.-
_ .:. ,., , _' J" .... .
/' ;'~.i' -0-
... ,,~.. ~.:r" .
/ ....._~-.
~
.~
, .
"'
'-
2~ i
or i
....1 ~;
!;i ~;
~i ~.
0.. t .!
cr' ,!,
01 .,.,
U:i ..
. .. -
0= .f
:xl J:,
($
.
1
i
..
ti:.
:.'
, .)'
./ ,,~
...Ifi
ill'
PI!
.,1
Jt"
-I"
i ,I!
-:-...'"
----..
"-'.. -.
_..._r'
,
.
..
.j;?
c:.~::....... ~ ..,.:~.7.,.7~.'....
'0 --~ .-- '.- -_.~
(r-tr "_fi2XF? - --- ---_.____....
~~-.::: _ ';...;~.::+7 ;-~.:.:.~-~ ';--..:..:
u._ .. "' ._0_ ____.
. "'. - ,
,
. '
." . ' )
.~. ij~:
"'t\." .... /.
'I ,).J .' /.
'",; )'~i;/f).')
" /..~.~
'~~r' ~~.
.~.: .~M~~" -
.. - f7,'1".
";0"':;t i .~ "!.
'~.~:'.:::::~}~ :'::;
",. ''':'7'', ,,~.,
?,;;:.r.-~~' .~l~.~
'1.-::.--\. ~.~~....,-
...~.. .; ,. 1
. '.:~~;,/.~ ;;.flh:.
,," I . S-.S--,. "'...
,+='-0 rJ'w
rVl!
~ . ~i"J,
r:' I' .' "".
~- H_,..a. .'f~.
.\- <: . ~ ..".
. , /,0\-
"J:'-
.- -. . .~\,.
?~,~~::::.; .....; :... -
'!'f;~..
..~:;-
~_.
" :,_.".. ri,
~:,'
:..~:" ;.,r'i; r-~I
'i;},'." ,
bi"':,A 10';;
'''''''--''1',
.;
"
i'A." ..-
,-"
..
......
PAOia . .
11'<>'.) ".
. .. ',-
FRoNT
ELe.V. - ALTe.AArE. "A"
(~A6T )
~ 7,'.7'1,,"6 I'.'
-G~I....,."....
I
o
~t
\
\
It""
--~---
.~&.
1 i\.}.: . r:<l
1 -" ,,:...4-I,.-...~...
.'
-~
.,.
-..- "'
. _. - ---.-. . ~-
... "' ..----.-
.. .. ..
.']'
ElQm.
CO""
~Ne.
".
v: ,,'
~ .
\\ J\
: a
I
I
H
-1; .1
I
~v.;."AY ,
..-------J
PARTIAL- $OUTH-' Yo
A\.1EItN"TE. "A"',.. 4,'.,...,'
... . ;
e
"
it
t
PARTIAL ~ITE. !'LAN
(ItPoF f'U,N)
.ALTISJtNATe. ......
'.:
. I,'
, ,
I
.
~ ..-.J~
~'~~:l-_..
~ ~
~l :
of fa
"""I ....
...... u.
.., :.';
ctj &~
Ot Sf
fe- j(
3~ ~l:
~ Ii
OJ ,~
.. &~
C
i
i
II,
:.
,t'
,!"
1,1
elli
~. it
I'll
iih
ioli
=
~
t L ,
, Up!
l.=i
"
. Z
<~
. ~
w",
..."
~n
ulll
w!!
~ ~~ ,.
t -< 0:
i . I
....-.....
,.
,
-.
--..----
TJr-
g.~
~A
",,5'
,
~r~)< !>Q
FtJOf",,.r: <ll
~~.s COVeRAGe.
_ . /.NIHS (I ~AAA<l1' ,,"'T
,~~". . ~~/_"nA~
~ 2..'i.o7 CeoX> -!..7-'}%D<;;: '1
""r""'I.-,ZiD _ ~"j.oo7 :!3l!.7% -I
~u& 1.92'-
-T. '4.I~"
" =eoo
e
.
~...';.,;'. ~ (Jo' ~
. .~..:A .' ..... ~1':. .,
. . "'.... . 1 . ~~WI'IlI./"'"
. ~ .' ".... "
,,,..,.,,..~ ~--~~'~"""'." - ":.... .' '" :
_.,,;,,= ..' . :C'~c'~0"'" -,-~ . ,"-C';,;. -i1'lll.~~"~ '. l{ Af "./ ,1 \
T..... - ,,:<\:;~ .:::,.cr " i ",,,. ,: _..." ..' '. :'. '. ..' ...... . -~~.~.,.. -' ...... _~,"f \
(" ,.,' ~.....,," . ' ,.... " ,.' . .' ......., ".' -,.,-- ."- ,,," .. ,- ., ' " ~' . ~..P .
l'~,-'-""''''';;';r ' . ,__ __..._.."....,-_.""~.----."'., ..-.....- .' I .Cl-- - \
;..~. ..'I"'~_ ~. _ . ,__.......-sr .-:......-- .~~-<----- ...'^ .~.,.""~ - -.,,-. '.' .'
~ t' ;';'.If:~ . , . ,. __ ...... .. ~ -- -,-,_.,-.,," . . I .... . .
_' J .--..' .' '.'" . .,' ..... .' '. . -- '.' ."."." _.,--.. ,....... , - .,. '.'" ..' \
~ ' ~ ~. =,.~" .... . " >e......., .'~' .~..,_..... . ' ,,-' --
.,"""-- ,.~---,~ "' ~"'. .... - "..' . ~," .
:......;.....:::.:..,:::. '\.... ..! _ \ ., I~\_ ~. _I:'" :; ''r."' - - - - - - . ",nJ'- -- -- -- --' .,..' '--" ., .---:.. (\!' !~'~ ':~I
>,'('" ..". " .....,.. ., . ..' . .. .,
..~. ~l&:!"'> . . .:~, :.'J;.' : ". '" '.. .' . 4' !.~.~..:.::'..., ~ . !.'
.,.jJf _ . ~ ." .,.,'.- ,. ....~T" , ~ " ,<.' .
''- >' = 1 ~ ~,,''" .cot."" '. .J TeC'-. .
'.' ._," _ ' . ",.", ,0.' ,c..,,. .
V . ,. , ,- e~." ~~-..,- '>. . ~.:..."..:..:_._.;....._.::__::..f;' ..:'~- ,<') ".
_. ~'il'" \ . ",.;. -~;.,..."..." '. ..:"._\.:~l
~'\ \.. y, 1 ~"__ .~;"<'" .11 i .
.. ,;', ."r.' I r':=-:' '" . ;r- I ~:!'t.. :".-
. .. .' '. J' =.., .... .__ ~--. ,'" "'W
.",' ..'" .'<'"'' _...' ,~,~,",~"",,:.~~:"l .
. ......-- ,-'" ,. . .. . <" ,._'"
.__ ., ., " ., ~,....' ,. " e . .... . ~.,
.. r-r-~" ."->!. ". ,"., '7~""c ,," .,.. .. ' . .", ,- ,.' ~,.;~. h\
" " "... . ..-' ... --.' ......._~-
'. '. .- 14:;' '. .i:'" ',,-'
~~ ~._.~~...o; I~"';' \" '. '
Ill' '.\"'_ -=-~-,. .". ...>7
.. .'" f ' ,1\ ...-': .>'-7'
..;;,~.:::s;.J.~... i .~.. .
~._ .:;e . . . . j
:'>....;<. '-7:- ',' r----- /' -~----- ----- -------------------" .. ...~.-'
.... .,,' . ,,,' ' . .., .."
. .:" ',' , . ,. . : _,,_,,~, . :,~., ,.c:r!j.iK-i:....
fJ;/o"'- ,~. "" ...' '. c'" ~1 1/'" , ' " ;.... ,......."
r' , ..... ,~----_., I-w- -- ..--- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- --,,,, ,. ~-,....."" . ., .~.' .
/' ':0 ... . .; . +.".' ,,~ . -' ~,,,,.,, ""... ....:~.'.... ....... \!"" I
. '.' . .... ~ ".~'_ ...~..\. . , .' \"'i.;":::-"\~ J' "...;;:...... ".;' ,..
.. ,...- .." ,,' .." -- -- ...- --". ," ~ ".. .. ~,,~'-' ~'
. .. ,..;' \ \' L- ",.u' ,,' . ,"~' j
. ~N ~...~. ''!-_:.:;~::..::.--.. ....~..:. ,.... .' . d."
C1" . . .....- 11 (.e'.
--- -- .....- ," ,;' ..-----------. ....
SITE.
PLAN
,L."
'0 :::.1~OIl
z~ i
at' l
HI "-
":
.... ...
~r :~
a:"
~! !t.
cc. ,i.
8~ ~i-
ai ;i:
:1::. I:,
($
i
!!I
iJ~
".
I"~
ill'
_. t
;'1'
..f
Hii
!,H
!
.
I I i ~
. .j-
rl.i
, ; i. .
l_Ei
~ c.
..
it ii
~
.ul
;:1-
"in
!
i .
i
.
!
i
....:.... ....
_........;..
r:__" _.
--.-
fl .
q=,
,
.:
~-.
~-?
!.-.c\
~-:-:.:. ;=-1~
- ~ '
_ . _'.. ..J. I
.' "- "~- -'".. i
~-~ -.'---.
--...
_. ..
f-' .
..
:-!
I
..
\':;; .
i''':i'''~
..:.:..:....,...-
II.j,,">'
'~""'I.".
.~..;... ..:
.~ ~ ~~:'" ..;;~y/.{
.' -~"
" 1- - '. - "-
I..." . . '.~ 4
.~
>1 .~
:.I!
I
. ~..
'-
....
i~ ~
'~.: 'r;:- ...... - "._- ""':--: .:::-i
.i~~~l ..~~":.l.~ .
. .-_..1t----'1 -,- ~r----1~
&....._ J'~ . p. .1.._.. . . .....
j __.....,,_-J..~ __........._4 __<1.1
!t:....::.. L.-.. I,,: -:--. ~. ;.';::::::~ p...: .; i=~'
~-_..._ :-J L_. _ ..;----.... ~_.__.. f_
~:--;.;. ~ :',C .-_::.Ji.'~~.-:~r--' .'.
pO.... ~ /....
,/ "J~" ~ I""
, .
4-....,. ra
.,;.."!'f'
:.
---'
. ~. -' ..
.'~ .
_.FRONT
(E.A~T)
EE.LE.V. _
MI.'=, I~D"
t.
.0,-".
.
...>
r.,'
,.. I'
'.
.11. .
",. .
.'.:;.~ .,,-...
i
.' .
'.'
.v~
:" ...
..'
.'
~-
-$1~'~:i .~_
,..
:;.
'."
/.
"
. ..: '~:1'; Ii:,> '
'1 .... J';:-",
" ."" -.,.'!;,-
<4" '. ,
'. ~. -:':,
. .,~;'..:.J.-.-
I .- I ~ I
IU", ,
Iu'" '. '
'I.. I
~ 1-
. ,
0'/
::{.
.''l';
~V
'W
4:1'
"'-10-'10
RE.AR. (WG-~T) ELE.V.
~'~"~a"
...--
..
..
; ;
21 !
o~ (I
..,.1 '-
.... -.
~I ~.
cr- -"
01 ~ .
.!
o..t i(
~.
QJ :(
UE
~I -i.
1"=
.-
Ct
..
Ii,
:.
II:
"I
I!
-I';
= .1.
ill,
, iih
I -,'
. ,
! r.!
~
=
! f, i
i t
II~i .
.
- A-
11:.1
I-- '\
0/\ "
Wz -=.'
~ ~ .
,<i=~
f \-~ .
~Dl .:;
~... '
! III '
. !
i I
_...~.....
---
..~-- -. -.
--..
~..~
"
1:
'"
Ii
~
to,
..:
<
"
,.
, ~.~_. .a r
- ~~.::J.r---,.
. ...J,~- -.. :~..-....., r~ ~_.
'. ~..~~".:~:::..'::: .
~~:
=--:\
r '.-';"'-""-~-
. .
.
.,.
'.
,.~-~
. "":T:").
~_.
.....J...... .
. .": :.'.., :~~i:..~L:~:..
.
."
,
\~ ~'(}
"
.'.
<oj", .
IX
\~
~:".:" .".,;."'.... ':".:.'.,',.. < '" f" . ",."
'~:~.r_,,:,~\!.l.':t;'~:~,~,.:.~'\U....,..:.,,;jD,....; ~. -' ... ...~:.::'
.:.'.:'
,
I
i
;m""B~"! '. .('r,:.r ..;...~.1';,;v,;;~"~,,:-~,,,^.;f" _/.
~31:. !!a.':~...~~.:.t.. ~~~r~ \ . 'u~~
ri..~ 1;; -it 1 '~f'(1~.tD eW!K~~:~ ft
:~jiJ.:'j i "'" ".<W>l
.'
SOUTH
J4'",,\"OD
$"ut~ 'ViZN6.;:~..i S/I,J?O
........iq
SIDE. El-EV.
l'
(.
-.'
.. _...._...._:'~~::~:~) ".,(,.. 1-.. . t>;.
:::-~~=c"',~:;::\..~~.:.;:,..:~.~':~.~.~:~~~ ....~'i-:..-:~.=O'::.:'::..,."='-': . ~:, f,...
.._;'~..:, ..,'-'.: .:'.. ~:: ":..~::::":':::" ::~~:.:.....:;,~_"5..~::.-;>.; ;:c"-::::~~~....~ ",. "..
,
,
-I
..~..
.. "l-t .~
'.
'.'"
.'
#f.:.
-
.- . -~ .- '-~'-~-' ., ..
.. :. c:::,::~;;-:~;=~~~:': ~.: :;:~.~: -:~.- ~~~. :'0", :::::::~~:';::':~
\ ':': . . . ~~~'-'~&.""'~.V' .
~ . "' . ~i! ..,....~~......~-p...~~~~b.'i...~
~ . . .. ~
"V ,.,.. ." It:.., .Ii"
),") /' ...~: .l';r.. liP:
'{(' -.~.~t!....
. . ~, '..:' - '"" ,-
,,:..,
. ,:;
r:
",
j. :> 8..1'.
".". / ':.', H"""li"',.t
., ...~ . .-:- ...... j
1.':.':0 ....e.:;.- ~.".
I .~S" .::. .....
\..", .. ,I'
:' "'I. .:.:;: ",...:
,. ..,." ~s..
\"(.X -:-;,:~':~.~
..
~~~...: ~...< .
;.....~ "i~~t~_..;~~..~~~~;:~t,,~~.
- .: _:.=~~' :!. ... :".. .I~A;._..................,,!...~
,<r~. ,U;.. ;.:.!.:.
'" ':;}~==c.-.1[i
.. '" .;.-,....:~
fc
!. .
;(
'.-:
NORTH SIDE
ELE.V.
~~='!..on
.J.
. .
Zl' ~
~~ !~
.... E-,
~i i:.
a.. t ,
(c. i"
8~ ;i-
. ",j
oK
::1:5 I::
$)
.1
.
III
:.
I~
1:1
! !Ii
i ~f;
il"
, II
i,f
i
i
i
.
~ L I
~ Iii.
. ;Ii
,-={
:J.
'X
... c
"\II I)
~Z ~
C) .
""fF. :.
~;{~
. "
. III .
?~..J i
! III I
i . I
.............
.}...
--.
...1..-...-
--~
~QO~
,
)
..-
,
(
,
"
.~
. (-<C f.J
"-
Of. . \(-j
.....' ". \ \.
r--.\ fr',
\ .1\ : -J
~" / ~.-;:::(; I
. ).-.i., ,-
NOOK
;
"
-~_:_~~
;
...J
I
,
,-
(
;
1
i
l
t,i
,
.
-'
5RlIJ.
",
\,
,
1
-~---,
!I
I
I! .
L~_____
..-.
~'''Q(
,
.,-- -.-
r.---- -.
- - ~
I I
/~. . -...0
~ .
'rL:tJ.-.
," .
I
. ..
-=~- 'u . .---..
I.
r".
,~ .. .
I'" 2
.::: FAIo1IL."l" !
~;::l'::r::n :
6\;:~.:.Jr-:
I~.
'$
['
I
<'I
'.
!'.
/-',"\ .
'_ u
( 1,'. ~"1::
..." ...
( !I :P'
, . 1 .
.r
i:
,
,
, , ,
. .
j I
! I
,
,.
,
L1
;
,
. .
-.'
] K/,.ett. i
I
...-
'.
-:, . ,
._j-------
..~
...,.
. .
.~-....J
,...-.
~
1>110111014
.--
t'. ..'
r.~.-
...,i ._____j
.n,.- I
I
1::,
:JL .
. ..~ -. - ':~i.=-=-.=~
~::..~..:;:,!,..:':j:-::;":;-!';,; ".
. I 'j . , . ,.. .. -- h.q.. .. . . . --... I
[~ r:o ': ~~t):':~~:ic::=~q -
" .. ...~1. ....._.._...L.,
" T:. ~"-~~--i-:';:' ;', j
I. : --,-+.-- 1"""; 1..;-......
JL : iJJ i ~._L.LL'...J_.
----,
I
[.~
,
:.-~--
!
,-.
'. .
".
f:..'..... v;'
....
~ :';'.:-;~ .
iL,-: :~.: .
WVIN4
. ,
.5e~DII
~4":~'I.
I
,
..J..'---~" ...". .. - .,..-.,
I ---.:._~..::...:.:...;..;........
" .
. I '.' ,
L . J :;.:..t.
",-. ..-
-~\."./.- . "y..... '.-:'-
!
. I
__ _,-I
.
,
~
~.
-'
..,
-!
. I, ....
I
"
I
I-
I
_IQ] . :'1
:.. .:.J--!
----- .
I
~l
II;
I
I
,..J
,
)
G.:=u r .;-, ''".::>C-'---r:':-2.~ ..~( r ...~...(
I ,1 :, .
J~ :-'"7;;;: ~~cc Ul.~,_:, ;,~~ _~J-,_;__
. I
-- _'.~ ~ ----
..J
"1 j
L~
[:
I
_...-- ----.-~
~.
'"
n "... "'""
I
, "
~.
; ;
~[ !
a: !!
""a
... '.
.
<<e! . .
.-
.-
a:1 ~..
at ..t.
a... i(:
a:1 ~i-
8- - ,
. ~J.
a:
:r:i I',
..
0
fll
:.
"~
'<1
II'
i -/
-.1
i i:i;
i Ifi
I.I!
!
.
~ 1,1
i
IRa .
.
- ill.
i.E!
.
~ i
~ EI
<l.
ot '-.!oj
~ .
..J S!
U.
~ l- i
..
..
! 1
i . I
............
,
,
---...
..r_'__
---
~-'l'5
.,
"
'0
..
'-,.~~~-~-;- --~--
_ _~. :-t__~~~~_
(....... · - T - - - - - -
I ........ "'::'- _.~
..... .~., _... ~ ':"J!-:
I .---...-"- /./. YI7..~ "-~:-:'f' .- ...
V" ! / ' .- " '..eir-. .~::.
. c".' I 1 r : '(:
" / ,,/" ~ I :, ...;~
........ I
- - _J '. '(~~:"~-1}~'~
...-,'1: '1.... ~I ......
.' ~:--t { -. "'\~ n
....ii"..' I.L:-1' :l-U.."!. C"
- .. I...
.. " i~' n'
. ~I" oj:: .:.
. '_~"I;fI:~' ,-!" ;~.
'1... " .:, :1'~1 -- - - ---j
~-
~'~o"
--- -.-.-- ---I
......... ...-... __4
r--...-.-.. -.. ...
-- ---.--.-.----
._.-~-----
t
'io
.~
foR"4
.
.;...--.t. -
c> ;('"',
--''=~' .
,
't
.
;,
"
.;"5"'l!~A.;~.'
. 1" .
~
-.':'
-
ljI
~.
.....
,\
M5R
~7;;.~~
'.. ).
-Fl'
:1
! '
...:!J;. ._.'
..'
BR1I2
" . ~~ -
. --...
:tt........"\
I
L___
----
/
,.
...
I
.
:2.'..-1 .............
J -....- ---
.
I ./
t.-/
.
-,---..- .
"
. -- too ..
...
I
-.~--:-~- .
It
!
....
,
,..
'I
!fJ-,U'
STUDY
,......
,
/'-\ !:
~ <<~N
P. (~ "J'"O Eloe.t..D\.,
.,
,
i
^
~.- . .
,
~
J.
,
------,
~1I;3
---~
.J. R!:>OF eEl-OW
~t_o.
-~..
) .. .
.. 'I ~
:'':''.1 -+
>, I
, ~
',L2.,.. r -1
\ D :
I
I
1 :~
I
I;'"
I~
I
I
I
. I
,...-____.J
, ~.....- '. ~
_~w ,~.D
.-. - ..,.-
1..,
"J I
;' I
. I
; f
#'~ I
I
r.J
-I-
I
"
T .... -.
,
. .
.j
J
.,
"~
-, .--..,-
e...
.Y
..
.
.1
I
I
10I
.;
~
-IJ
o.
'\):
.~ !
a~ !,
..... :;i
~r =.
cci ..
0' It
~~ I~
a~ ~I
=
0" "i1
:t .'
o
.
i
i
III
:'
"~
"I
'"
di
ill;
"
'I"
-I'
l .
elf
i
i
.
.
! · f
R i, t
ilp~
.; .
lid
z
~ <
t
~ ,
'.
.'
>'[
~ 0
%
~ :
! I
i . I
...P.......
-"
...,.-._.-
--.
~c1F5
..
,
~~~
Olficeo( tht'
Cicy Attomf'~'
MICHAEL H, MILLER
Cit)'Attortlt'),
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91006.3104
(818) 574-5407
GEORGE J. WATTS
CITY MANAGER
July 24, 1990
Mr. Robert Ho
P. O. Box 2006
Upland, Ca 91786
Dear Mr. Ho:
City staff has reviewed your correspondence of July 18, 1990. We
appreciate your interest and concern.
Concerning your allegations with regard to certain procedural
requirements, although there appear to have been some technical
problems, the Board has substantially complied with the provisions
of their resolution and since you appeared at their process there
is not any prejudice with regard to your allegations.
Nevertheless, we have expressed concern to the Board with regard
to their procedures and the need to insure that they are handled
in a manner that is consistent with the Resolution affecting their
jurisdiction.
Concerning your statement as to setbacks and the Board's
determination precluding houses over 3,500 square feet, we have
advised the Board that these are improper findings. The Board has
not been delegated any authority to make :rules or in effect
legislate with regard to setback requirements or house size.
You have the opportunity to appeal their decision at which time you
can reargue your procedural points because both the Planning
commission and City Council have authority to reverse or remand a
Board decision based on procedural problems. Further, the
Commission and City Council will be advised in the staff report to
disregard the Board I s finding on setbacks and house size. The
other findings remain intact and are subject to your appeal rights.
Also, you may request a refund of your appeal fee as part of the
process. Granting of this request is discretionary.
.
tit
,
Thank you and please advise if there are any questions.
S1i;:~~Y' 1 /J! ~1!4--
Michae~ Miller
City Attorney
c: George Watts, city Manager
William Woolard, Planning Director
.0
BO CORPORATION
Architecture, PIaming,Urban Design'
ARCHITECT
ROBERT I. H. HO. ..
(OHIO NO. a",., CA~I" NO. CIOO..)
~~;:(;EiVl:~l.::J
JUL '1' 1590
,,-
July 27, 1'390
I"';:!TYCF '~nCAOfA
~:l!-\l\'Vl~ m.:.:~.
Planning Commission
City ,.:)f ,~\"l.::adla
240 W. Huntington D~.
A~cadia. CA. 91005
::'c.rmal Appeal
~e Santa Anita Village ARB
File # 458, Wu Resid~nce
717 Corte= Rd., Arcdcia
Atten: Mr. Bill Wolard, Director
City Planning Department
Dea~ 8i~s/Madams:
d8ted 7-18-90 8nd 7-23~90 and the
Atto~ney dated 7-24-'30, UllS is
C(;:lmmission ,:,n t~'e sL\bject matter.
F'uysuant t() t':lLlY l'ettf2n
letter fr~m the City
appeal to the Planning
We are enclosing:
1. Cc'mp.leted applil:ation form ~r. code sections
:2. 12 fc.!ded sets crf drawings
3. A fi,ling fee of $257, of which we are requesting
due to p~?cedural violations of the ARB.
4. ARB denial letter and plans
5. Clear positive films (8.5"xl11') bf each sheet
....eSpQIlSe
a formal
a full ~efund
Pe~ reasons noted in the above referenced letters, i.e. due to
various n'oted procedural violations of the ARB, we are requesting
fi~st of all that the drawings as submitted to the ARB be deemed
apprc1ved per resl;:ll\..lti\:tn 528E..
In addition, the justifications for requesting the ove~turning of
the ARB's Findings and Denial a~e as follows:
A. The ~ritten denial dated 7-10-90 expanded beyond the two (2)
and only 2 ~easons actually cited by each of the 3 boa~d membe~s
at the voting in the 7-3-90 ARB hearing, namely:
A.1. Si=e of the house - which was the major issue on which the
ARB's opinion diffe~ed from that c,f the applicant and owne~.
Pe~ City Atterney's letter, this should no longer be a valid
~eason for ARB denial.
A.2. The size of the entry portico. (Please see rebuttals below
and other supporting photos/slides/videos to be p~esented in the
appeal hearing.)
All th~ee board members said in the hearing that they had no
problem with the f~ont facade (down stair bay-window, 2-ca~
garages and the added 1st floc'r roof line in Alternate "A" )
except and only except the entry po~tico being too high. Such
otherwise clea~ly positive and important statements were left out
in the denial letter and thus misleading for the ~ecord.
P.O. Box 2006. Upland. California, USA
(7141
1\. ~ 94';1-743<)
91786
...~~
e
.
,
B. Philosophically, harmony does not need to preclude diversity.
While uniformity is the regulator's favorite easy way out, strict
uniformity stifles creativities, and often leads to monotony - a
cornman sign in dictat,orship and communism.
The strength of America, the "melting pot", is her CLlltural
divmrsity. The spirit of the U.S. Constitution as represented by
the flag, protects the individual's freedom, even the freedom to
.Jurn the flag! (Altr,ough I love the flag and will not bLlrn it in
any ev~nt, the recent supreme court ruling made me realize the
trum greatness c.f this Nation and her flag.) And e,f ,:c,urse, it
als~ supports the freedom of an individual to live in a one or
two story home; the freedom to build a rustic/~lumble house oy a
morfi? elegant/dressed-LIp one (provided one does not detrimently
afffi?ct the prc'perty value or the qu,iet enjoyment .:>f the neighb':,rs
- Please kindly note that the proposed elegant house can only
inCI"eaSe the value of the neighbor's properties, n,:>t decreasing
them. Please also note that there was no neighbor at the ARB
hearing against the proposal.) The proposed house is not exactly
the same as the nei.ghbor's, it is not the' ex~ct same in size, it
is not a one-story ranch as the ARB prefers, but it meets all the
city's zoing/set-backs/coverages and will be, and can exist, very
harmoniously in the neighborhood. (Please see slides of the
neighborhood to be presented in the appeal hearing.)
C. ~lease note also that in addition to the garage compromise,
the applicant offered an alternate A design of the street
elevati.:>n. In resp,:>nse t.=, the ARB chair's verbal comments pri':.r
to the hearing, the alternate shows a roof line added between the
firBt and 2nd floor, visually breaking the facade. The ARB
members voiced favorable comments during the hearing but denied
the said design primarily due to again the ARB's inproper
"poli,:y" on the size of the house and the entry per A ab.=,ve.
The applicant appreciates the ARB's legitimate concerns for
protecting the public interests, but must respectfLllly tal<e
exception to its persistance on arbitrary size and set-backs
which were the underlining reasons for its decision. The
applicant trusts the Planning Commission to see the merit of our
aPPfi?al and act favorable thereupon.
rt I.H. Ho, Architect
Applicant of Project
9007-apeal-Wu
.0
BO CORPORATION
Architecture, PIanning.,Urban Design'
CElVEO
flE
\\\L: '990
~-
"all'''
0'" of'' oEFt'-
,SL.Jo,NNIMG
ARCHITECT
ROBERT I. H. HO. -.
(OHIO NO. SA.' CALIP' NO. C100ee)
JLlly 18, 1990
Planning CI:lmmi's'slcln
City Qf Ayca.dia
240 W. Huntington Dr.
Arcadia, CA. 91006
Subj: Formal Complaint/Appeal
re Santa Anita Village ARB
File # 458, Wu Residence
717 Cortez Rd., Arcadia
Atten: Mr. Bill Wolard, Director
City Planning Department
This is a formal complaint and request for remedy Ye various
prot:edlJral violation~ of the subject ARB (Architectural Review
B,oard).. Based c)n reasc1ns and evidences dOI:umented belol..J, the
writer requests, among other things, that the plans 3S submitted
to the ARB on 5-21-90 be deemed apprc,ved per resolLtti,:.n 5286.
Be it recorded that as a former city planner, code official and
vice-cflair/ar,:hitectural cc,mmissic,ner in c,tfler ':ities, the under-
signed respects and fully appreciates the good intentions and
dedicated voluntary services provided by the subject ARB members
in pr,:,te,:ting the public inten;sts for the city of Arcadia.
H':Jwever, ':Iver-z:ealous extr-emism, in the name of public int,erests,
,:an b.e detrimental tc, individual >"ights and freedc.m when personal
values are imposed onto other,s without proper authority. F'ower
and authority, if allowed to be exercised arbitrarily, lead to
abuse and is dangerous to both individual freedom and the pUDli~
interests.
With re.~e~t and a sense of duty, the writer,
owner, documents the various actions/inactions
violation of Resolution No.5286, as follows:
on behalf of the
~If the ARB i,.,
1) Per AF:B FINDINGS AND ACTION (':opy atta~hed), the subj. proje~t
was ~ubmitted on 5/21/90. The a~tion was taken on 7/3190. Thi~ is
in vi,:.lation of Sec.3, item 14. f. (page 7) " The Bc,ard shall
render it's decision.. .within thirty (30) working days from the
date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take a~tion
in said time shall...be deemed an approval of the plans."
IU~_~Og~~2~gO~gL_!U~~~12~~L_~~g~~2!a_!Us!_~U~__~lsOa_sa_a~Qm~~~~~
Q~_g~~m~g_s~~~Q~~e~
2) per same document above, the A~B action was taken on 7/3/90.
The written den.ial was n.:,ted as mailed 7/10/90 (postmarked 7/13
and received postage-due 7/17). Th.is is iM violation of 5eo:.3,
item 11. "The BClard shall be empowered to transact business and
exercise power.. .only if the fC,llowing requirements e~;ist:" ar,d
sub item g. last paragraph "A copy of the Board's findings and
de~ision shall be mailed to the applicant within three (3)
working days of the Board's decision."
Ib~_~Qs~gL_!U~L@lQ~~L_12a!_i~a_E~ibQLii~_!Q_~A~~Si2g_iia_~Q~~~~
P.O. Box 2006. Upland, California, U.S.A. 91786
949-7439
l7141~
.
.
'-
7-18-90 Planning Commission, continued:
3) Per NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING dated 6/5/90 (copy attached), the
hearing was to be 7/14/90. Without proper notification to the
applicant, it was . changed to 7/3/90. The applicant heard the
ch.:m,ge 2nd hand and inquirE!.d the APB chair by ph.::.n.. 6/28. ThiZ'
applicant uas distllrbed by Mr.Cy"osbyYs confirmation that n0
ch~nge notice was mailed to the writer/applicant. W~lile the
~pplicant was able to at~~nd ttle meetIng, said ..~ck of ~ropeT
notice is, again, in vl.:llation cd Sec.3, item 14.d.
~) In addition, the Board repeatedly
apply requir-ements beyc,nd its authority
appl i ed c.r
as feille'us:
attempted t,:.
4.A. Per At::B FINDINGS AND ACTI'JN item 8 and attachment par,agY'aph
6, the BoaY'O applied new setback requiY'ements but fai:ed to q~ote
the authority. The ARB chair also failed to answer the ~riter's
inquiY'Y on the effective elate of said new set-ba.:ks.. The writer
believes that said Y'equirements are not yet in effect and such
attempt tc. appl y same is an improper abuse of the APB's power.
4.8. Initial phone inquiries to the ARB chair in 4/90 Y'esulted in
pY'ompt answers from the chair Mr. Crosby. He was generous in
~haring tlis pers.:.nal values 8, sl,lb.jective criteria on what was
appY'.:ovable by the ARB. He was evasive, howeveY', wflen asl(ed f.:or
wY'.tten legal basis Dr Y'ules and regulations of the ARB review
criteria. The wY'iter was distuY'bed by the anSwer that there was
nel 'wJY'ittsn 'rules" only sLtb,jective reviews. (The writ'el'" later
obtained a ~opy of the Resolution 5286 f~om the planning dept.)
4.C. Before the wY'iter submitted any plans, chair eY'osby was also
kind enough to advise the writer that the maximum siz~ house he
or the ARB would approve to be 3000 OY' 3200 sq. ft. HoweveY', he
declined to share the formula or criteria he used in arY'iving the
magic number except by saying that this was the ARB's policy. It
appeared that a pure quantitative (and arbitrary) "fl.:,or area
ratic.", was applied. In the APB 7-3-90 attachment tc. FINDINGS,
paragraph 7, 3500 sq. ft. was stated as the max. size, this time
using ARB precedence as the basis. In any event, such aY'bitrary
and quantitative criteY'ia assuY'es n.:. guarantee tc. the ARB's
concern on "harmony". Such undisclc.sed an!:! arbitY'arLly changable
rules (in addition to the specified quantitative criteria of
coverage, set-backs, etc.) appl ied at the discY'etic.n c,f the ARB
are imprope.... in' the wY'iteY"s opinion unless dulyad.:op'ted
through public hearing and published.
The undersigned reseY'ves any rights in taking otheY' proper
actions for the benefits of the owner. Please do not consider
this letter a personal attack or complaint On any individL,al but
::0:::::::" 0' .~;:~~oa'.
Robert I.H. Ho. Architect
Applicant of project 9007-H04Wu
.
File No. l{~'i
Dale Submitted .s/~l/qo
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
A.
B.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPER1Y OWNER:
,'''7 w~r!:,,~ iZdAb AI!CAIl,A
(:bjllllhJ J'ft.NtJ. Slh\hJ !..au
CA '1'00"'1
l'rAL
ADDRESS Of different) ," C4tl."TE'1; /l.oA'h AItCA't.'A CA 'll~'
C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described In detail): N(I.J 'ICllIb S4rr Sole 3fl1A40J'\ 110M:' ....""
^'T"l'Aellr~ 2. CA~ -rA~", :1 Celt C>MAG:
D. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and Drovlde a wrllten emlanatlan far eadl checkl
1. The elements of the structure's design [ ] ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design because AlIA
2. The proposed construction materials [ ] ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing
malerials. because II/A
.
3. The proposed project [){] IS, [] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of
way, ~ ''il8
4.
The proposed project [~IS, [] IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
oF: SI'1.( Atl1) A.4)f,...,....., '-0 Ah.lOWWI.. 'A<I/ll1Li'lr$
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,
$<< k1"TAetlfl::>
7.
The location of the proposed project [ 1 WILL, [] WILL NOT be detrimental to the use,
enjoyment and value of adjacent property because,
sfr A'n'A~i'b
8.
The proposed project's setbacks [ ) 00, []() DO NOT provide for adequate separation
between improvements on the same or adjoining properties because,
NO"'f IN eo...llj,jA,JCof 1."'1"\1 tJ&'\J Sf,. 8N:4l ~I.VIR.r"'iiJT!
,
1 2/12/89
9. OTHER FINDINGS:
S'!," AffAeII;b
.' ACTION
[ ] APPROVAL
[ ] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S):
E.
-
--.
DO DENIAL - SlATE SPECIFJC REASONS FOR DENIAL:
5,( J\.,.,."t:.Nfb
DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION ..., ~ '0
(UIl'''''(N ~,.IIAL "'JIlL(') .14 qo
BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING
THE ABOVE DECISION:
'TllQ/'\A$ C/.f$Il'1
~A/I.'1 IlolVAe.,c:...
CJlAALl( S(OIl.IO(
"
S'AN1'A M'TA \nu..AIO r ~E"(}IJ~U
ASSOCIATION.
G. REPRESENTING THE
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 should 90ntact the Planning
Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeai 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.
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 unused, abandoned or discontinued, said
approval shall become null and void and of no effect.
12/12/89
.
.
,
ATTACHMENT TO
SANTA ANITA VILLAGE
ARCBITECTtmAL REVIEW BOARD
FINDINGS OF JULY 3, 1990
Re: File No. 458. 717 Cortez Road
A public hearing was held on July 3, 1990 to review the proposed
construction of a two story, 4000 sqft (six bedrooms and study)
residence and a 3 car garage (two car- tandem) at 717 Cortez Road.
Mr. Robert Ho, architect and applicant, spoke for Jiann-Shiun Wu,
owner, about the proposed construction and answered various
questions.
The subject lot is located in a neighborhood of 600 homes that is
comprised mostly of ranch style single story residences and 30-40
two story homes. The single story homes average 1700 sqft in
size and the two story homes range in size from 2600 to 3500
sqft. With only one exception (lOZl Porto1a - a second story
add-on done in the late 1970's) all the two story homes have set
back the second story and added a roof at the first story level
to break up the massiveness of the second story as it appears
from the street frontage. This has helped to minimize the
massiveness and does make the two story homes blend in with other
single story homes in the immediate neighborhood.
With this proposal there was no effort made to minimize the
massiveness. In discussions with the architect prior to the
public hearing the Chairman of the ARB indicated that the massive
appearance would be a concern of the entire Board and that the
house did not appear to be harmonious with the neighborhood due
to its size and architeot;llral features. The only comprolltise.
agreed to by the'architect was the substitution of a 2 car tandem
garage for the original 3 car garage.
There is considerable concern by the Board about the two story
portico that is part of the front entrance. The portico in the
Board's opinion contributes in a significant way to the overly
massive appearance of this structure. (See the attached
perspective drawing). It should be noted that there are no other
two story porticos in the Village.
While this proposal was submitted prior to the adoption of the
new sideyard set backs and height restrictions it should be noted
that it does not comply with the lOt sideyard set backs for the
first floor nor the 20t sideyard set backs for the second floor.
Based on the 65' frontage the set backs should be 6.5' and 13'
.
.
..
for the first and second floors respectively. The current
proposal has 5' set backs and 11' set backs respectively.
While the Board unanimously feels that a 4000 sqft house is too
big for the Village area based on lot size, that was not the
significant issue with this proposal. It was the Board's
conclusion that 1) the portico was too massive relative to the
neighborhood and had no other examples in the neighborhood for
which it could be considered compatible~ 2) the lack of a set
back to the second story at the front of the home contributed
significantly to the overall massive appearance of the home~ and
3) based on lot sizes in the Village, that no home in the Village
should exceed 3500 sqft in size (ARB has approved several homes
whose size was approx. 3500 sqft).
The Board voted to deny the application for the reasons set forth
above and based on the following provisions of City of Arcadia
Resolution No. 5286:
1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resolution is
"to promote and maintain the quality single-residential
environment of the City of Arcadia and to protect the property
values and architectural character of such residential
environments in those portions of the city in which the
residences have formed a homeowners association ...." It is the
opinion of the Board that the proposed project will not maintain
the architectural character of the Subject neighborhood.
2. section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution provides that
"[t]he appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence
shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or
fences in the neighborhood." The Board is of the opinion that
the proposed structure is not compatible with existing structures
in the neighborhood. ,
3. Section 3, paragraph 18(a) of the Resolution provides
that "[c]ontrol of architectural appea~ance and use of materials
shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled
in creating the appearance of external, fe~tures of ~ny 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 .... in order to avoid
that which is excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to
the neighborhood." It is the opinion of the Board that the
proposed structure is excessive and substantially unrelated to
the neighborhood.
4. Section 3, paragraph l8(b) of the Resolution provides
that "[g]ood architectural character is based upon principles of
harmony and proportion in the elements of structure as well as
the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and
other structures in the neighborhood." It is the opinion of the
Board that the proposed structure is not in harmony or proportion
to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood.