The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1420 e RESOLUTION 1420 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TWO-STORY ADDmON TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 851 PALO ALTO DRIVE (MP 89-010) AND APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DECISION. . WHEREAS, on July 17, 1989, an appeal of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of a two-story addition to the existing dwelling at 851 Palo Alto Drive was filed by John and Carol Faire (MP 89-010). WHEREAS, on August 8 and August 22, 1989 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. b. Plans and pictures presented by the applicant. d. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearings on August 8 and August 22, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Commission fmds: 1. That the addition as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Commission at its August 22, 1989 meeting is attractive and the use of materials is compatible to that in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The two-story addition would be consistent with contemporary standards of harmony and compatibility. 3. The granting of a modification would secure an appropriate improvement for a front yard setback of 32'-0" and 33'-6" in lieu of 35'-0" for a porch and bay window. Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission approves the appeal of the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial and approves a modification for a front yard setback of 32'-0" and 33'-6" in lieu of 35'-0" for a porch and bay window. .. -1- 1420 . Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of August 22, 1989, and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: Hedlund, Szany 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 12th day of September, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Szany, Papay None Hedlund . ~ c~n Planning Commission ~~/ ATTEST: ~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia . -2- 1420 , . August 8, 1989 . . TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILFRED E. WONG, ASSOCIATE PLANNER MP 89-010 (851 PALO ALTO DRIVE) APPEAL OF SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANTS: LOCATION: REQUEST: LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: John and Carol Faire 851 Palo Alto Drive Appeal of Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's denial of proposed two-story addition to existing residence. Revised plans have been submitted that comply with the required second floor side yard setback of 11'-0", but the entry remains the same. A modification is required for a front yard setback of 32'-0" and 33'-6" in lieu of 35'-0" for proposed porch and bl!-Y window for the living room. 7,800 square feet (.18 acre) 60 feet on Palo Alto Drive EXISTING LAND USE &t ZONING: The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling and detached garage; zoned R-l &: 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE &: ZONING: The subject property is surrourided by single-family dwellings; zoned R-l &: D MP 89-010 August 8,1989 Page 1 . GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential (~ du/ac) PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS On June 6, 1989 a public hearing was held before the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board (ARB) to consider plans submitted by John Faire for a two-story addition at 851 Palo Alto Drive (400 sq. ft. first floor and 867 sq. ft. second floor). The hearing was continued to June 27, 1989 SO that the applicant could revise his proposal. The ARB requested that the applicant consider the follOwing: 1. Change the construction materials from all stucco and comer stones. 2 Eliminate or modify portions of the second story above the entry. 3. Comply with the City's side yard setback requirements for the second story. 4; Provide the ARB with side elevations of the proposed project. At the June 27, 1989 meeting revised plans were presented changing the front . elevation to wood siding. Also, side elevations were shown. The ARB determined that the structure as proposed is not compatible, harmonious or in proportion with the existing structures in the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property. The second story does not comply with the City's side yard setback requirements. In addition, the front elevation should be redesigned to be compatible and harmonious with the other structures in the neighborhood. It was the consensus of the ARB that the structure would be acceptable if modified as follows: 1. The second story should comply with all setback requirements. 2. That portion of the second story above the entry should be eliminated or relocated. . The ARB stated in their findings that contrary to the concerns expressed by the neighbors, the ARB does not object to (1) a two-story structure at this location or (2) an oval-shaped window above the entry. However, it is the consensus of the ARB that the proposed structure can easily be modified to eliminate the need. for a modification to the City's setback requirements and the concerns about the incompatibility of that MP 89-010 August 8, 1989 Page 2 '. . . portion of the second story directly above the entry. Find attached the detailed findings of the ARB. The applicant has revised his plans so that the second floor complies the with required side yard setback of 11'-0", but has appealed the Architectural Review Board's decision requiring that the portion of the second story above the entry should be eliminated or relocated (see plans). Resolution 5286 sets forth the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Village Homeowners Association (see attached resolution). Section 3.18 (page 8) 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 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 (Resolution 5286, Section 3.12, 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. A modification is required for a front yard setback of 32'-0" and 33'-6" in lieu of 35!-0" for the proposed porch and a bay window for the living room. Attached for your review and consideration are copies of the proposed plans. considered by the ARB on June 27th (for side elevations see revised plans) and as revised to comply with the second floor setback, the ARB's findings dated July 5, 1989 and Resolution 5286. MP 89-010 August 8, 1989 Page 3 . . . FINDINGS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial pertaining to that portion of the second story above the entry at 851 Palo Alto Drive, approve the revised plans as submitted by the applicant and find that approval of the front yard setback modification would secure an appropriate improvement. The Commission should also direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. Denial If the Planning Commission decides to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Village Architectural Review Board's decision, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. The Commssion may approve the modification for a front yard setback of 32'-0" and 33'-6" in lieu of 35'-0" for the proposed porch and a bay window for the living room. The Commission should find that approval would secure an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship or promote uniformity of development. MP 89-010 August 8,1989 Page 4 . MJ.. f~paz:rU:5 1.ONE.O ~-, D t>eJ~ wrm <s~u:.-rAAll..r 1> Wl:WtJ~ ~~'o 138.4<;, ::: t'0 z , ", 0 - ~ III "'~ ., j IGo8 -.. - ." C/lC/l ~ ",'t. -r 173 I I .. " ,..r- 'nF~ c.., ...... C'" I"'C'I 10';.01 -J/<3 .;i~ -e,oIl VIC'OR '"l '25 . ,6 ,0''251. 1.4 ~.9 55 ~ I~l , &iC/ ~O (" G!fn) !!} 0 108 IOq ~ 110 10'Z ~o .., <:0 Iii ... 3 101 0 . Jt 0 qq !!} ~ ('44?) AlIO ';0 (dWG/ 55. ~ ~ ~ 40.' 14,37 C'" ~ ~ "l t ,.. ~ .... .... /'00 7. <0 ,.. ro " - !1 '" ,.. '" iO ~ '0 79 - SO 8.1 8'2 83 ,e' ltA~lm lWlE tA~lm Z(O)~~ ~I . MP 8~-OIO ~1...: 1- co 100' . . . <'roject: Second story C'.'ition (8675.F.) and first floor extenSil (400S.F.) nu NO. 410 nAp: July 5. 1989 ARCIIITEC'IURAL DESIGN IMDI SOARD (a>>tIITI'EE) FIHDINGS AND ACJ'IOIf " A. PROJECT ADDRESS 'PROPERn 0WNEIl 851 Palo Alto .John L. Faire I. ADDRESS (IF DIFFEREHr) C. FINDINGS (onl, check those that appl" and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction uterials JIll ARE, U ARE NOT cOlDpaUble .with the existing materials, because . 2. . The proposed materials () \lILL, :n \lILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the propertJ, becauae . 3. . The proposed project~ IS, (J IS HOT aignificantlJ visible from the adJolnlng public right a of VBJ, because . 4. The proposed project~ IS. () IS NOT signlflcantlJ visible from adjoining properties. because . 5. The elements of the structure.. desisn () ARE, NtARE NOT consistent vith the existina ~uilding'. desisn, becsu.e see attached . 6, The proposed project () IS, I4KIS NOT in proportion to other i=Frovements on the subject alte or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood. because see attached . 7. The location of the proposed project lOt WILL, () WILL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoJment and value of adjacent propert1 and neJahborJaood neishborhood. bec.uae see attached . 8. The proposed project 'a aetbsclta lOt DO, (J DO NOT provide for adequate aeparation betveen improvements on the aame or adjolnlna propertiea. because if dlicant carplies with current !blicipal 0Jde rea"; ,.".,."nr<: withoUt ~fJ.cations. . '. -- 9. MHER FINDINGS see attached . . I. . ~CTION IJ APPROVAL () APPROVAL SUBJECT.TO 'I1fE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) 13 DENIAL (4-0) E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COttUTI'EE'S) AcrION June 27, 1989, r. BOARD (CO~ITI'EE) tlEt'lBER(S) RENDERING 1HE ABOVE DECISION Gary Xovacic . John S001inos Olarles George . Sheny Sohonus G. REPRESENTING '11IE Santa Ani. ta. Village ASSOCIATION B. APPEALS - Appeals from the Boar"s (Co~ittee'.) decision shall be made to the Plannins Commission. AnJone desirins to make such sn sppeal should contsct the requirements, fees sn' proceedures. Sei' appeal must be made in writins an' delivered to the Plannins Department, 240 V. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006, within five (5) workina daJ. of tbe Board'. (Co~ittee'.) decision. 'I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for s period of one (1) Jear from the date of approval, anJ project for whicb plana bave been approved bJ the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void an' of no effect. ' . . . . . . ATTACHMENT TO SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FILE NO. 410, 851 PALO ALTO (FAIRE) FINDINGS OF JULY 5, 1989 A public hearing was held on June 6, 1989 to review the application of JOHN L. FAIRE for a second story addition (867 square feet) and a first floor extension (400 square feet) at 851 Palo Alto, Arcadia. Mr. Douglas Olbrich of Tradition Builders spoke about the proposed construction. He answered various questions about the proposed project. Several neighbors expressed their opposition to the style and size of the proposed project. At the completion of the hearing, the ARB voted to continue the public hearing to June 27, 1989 to provide the applicant with an opportunity to consider modifications to the proposed project in light of the testimony received at the public hearing. Specifically, the ARB requested that the applicant consider (1) changing the construction materials from all stucco and corner stones, (2) eliminating or modifying portions of the second story above the entry, (3) complying with the City's sideyard setback requirements for the second story and (4) providing the ARB with side elevations of the proposed project. - 1 - 076lf . The continued public hearing was held on June 27, 1989. Douglas Olbrich once again appeared and spoke about the revised project. Basically, the applicant had elected to eliminate the cornerstones and add wood siding to the front elevation. No other changes were made to the proposed project. Side elevations were provided to the ARB. . Two adjacent owners spoke in opposition to the project and again expressed their concern about the style and size of the structure. One neighbor expressed considerable concern about the second story addition including the size of the structure, its impact on the neighbors' amountain viewa, the atower effecta of the entry and the .unusuala window above the entry. Concern also was expressed about the size of the structure and the incompatibility of its design with the other structures on Palo Alto Drive. The ARB considered the factors involved. The subject lot is an interior lot in a ,neighborhood that is comprised mostly of ranch-style, Single-story residences. However, there are several two-story residences on victoria Drive, which is the street immediately north of Palo Alto Drive. The proposed structure offers a number of roof ridges and requires a modification of the second-story setback requirement on the easterly portion of the structure. The completed structure will be approximately 2,505 square feet, which is larger than the other structures on Palo Alto Drive. . - 2 - o 761f . It is the ARB's opinion that the structure as proposed is not compatible, harmonious or in proportion with existing structures in the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent property. The second story does not cO!l'Ply with the City's sideyard setback requirements. In addition, the front elevation should be redesigned to be compatible and harmonious with the other structures in the neighborhood. The ARB appreciates the effort of the applicant to modify the construction materials. It is the consensus of the ARB that the structure would be acceptable if modified as follows: . 1. The second story should comply with all setback requirements (i.e. eliminate that portion highlighted in blue on attached plan); and 2. That portion of the second story above the entry (hi~hlighted in pink on the attached plan) should be eliminated or relocated. It was the ARB's preference to continue the hearing to a date certain (10-15 days later) to give the applicant the opportunity to propose plan revisions that reflect the specified modifications. However, Mr. Olbrich stated that he preferred a denial under the circumstances. As a result, the ARB voted four to zero (4-0) to deny the application for the reasons set forth above . and based on the fOllowing provisions of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 52865: - 3 - 076lf . 1. Section 2 states that the purpose of the Resolution is Rto 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 homeowner's association. ..- It is the opinion of the ARB that the proposed project (specifically the above-mentioned portions of the second story) will not maintain the architectural character of the sUbject neighborhood. . 2. Section 3, paragraph 9 of the Resolution provides that R[tll)e appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, roofing, walls or fences in the neighborhood." The ARB is of the opinion that the proposed structure (specifically the above-mentioned portions of the second story) is not compatible with existing structures in the neighborhood. . 3. Section 3, Paragraph 18 (al of the Resolution provides that " (c]ontrol 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 structures, building, fences, 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 ARB that the proposed structure (specifically the above-mentioned portions of the second - 4 - 076lf . . . story) is excessive and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. The suggested modifications will alleviate the ARB's concerns and will not significantly stifle the applicant's creativity. 4. Section 3, Paragraph 18 (b) of the Resolution provides the " [gjood 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 ARB that the proposed structure (specifically the above-mentioned portions of the second story) is not in harmony or proportion with adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. Contrary to the concerns expressed by the neighbors, the ARB does not object to (1) a two-story structure at this location or (2) an oval-shaped window above the entry. However, it is the consensus of the ARB that the proposed structure can easily be modified to eliminate the need for a modification of the city's setback requirements and the concerns about the incompatibility of that portion of the second story directly above the entry. - 5 - 076lf . , -;f~ f! fi'1 ?dJ I~;~tt .-. .~-- " - -- ~ "t~C:>~"I' ~~Irlc?rl " ~ H , ., .- " , r-1H) l : , , , ~. m~ ~ ".' '-' ----... . , ,_. L" _.-.-,....11:"'. .. . . ; " . .. ~ Ie " " . . . . , ., 1 ~..... "" . I , -- t ~ I "- - -".---po ..-._.. -- I..... --- ~ II2Jd ~ .",- ."... 8oIL. '~18oA aJ... -- IIIlllIL ---.. ~_.. - - t":. .- ..~ - ( ..... .. f!l] tJIl !~. - - .!.-.... -- - \ -- - - - 'l' ~ -=-===~:=::."=--=== - ___.._..04_....... . '_ . _':7;= - ,=--=------ .:=.~.,!!!!I!l'I'..5.== == ;;-~-, .c:::=t-~--- .------. .~-=.:= :'-:0---:'_== --- =---==-=.::"'" - -_--.: --- - -- - -- - - _ ~IIIMM _~IlIooo_MJ$' _--..-"I!:,A,. '-'\"P'b'.,P'" ... --- -..... - .~-