HomeMy WebLinkAbout1364
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1364
A RESOLUTION GRANTING MP 88-008, APPROVING AN APPEAL
OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S
DENIAL OF A WROUGHT IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT AND STREET SIDE
YARDS, AND A MODIFICATION TO ALLOW THE SUBJECT FENCE TO BE 6'-0"
HIGH IN LIEU OF 4'-0" IN HEIGHT AT 1435 N. BALDWIN AVENUE.
WHEREAS, on March B, 1988 an application was filed by Dr. Maher M.
Hathout appealing the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board's denial of a
wrought iron fence in the front and street side yards, and a modification to
allow the subject fence to be 6'-0" high in lieu of 4'-0" in height, Planning
Department Case No. MP B8-008, on property commonly known as 1435 N. Baldwin
Avenue, more particulary described as follows:
lot 17 of Tract 13184, in the City of Arcadia,
County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per
map recorded in Book 423, Pages 11-13 inclusive of
Maps, in the office of said County Recorder.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 22, 1988, at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning Department in
the attached report is true and correct.
Section 2. This Commission finds:
1. That the granting of MP 88-008 will not be detrimental to the public
health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or
vi ci ni ty.
2. Approval of MP 88-008 would secure an appropriate improvement.
3. The appearance of the fence with landscaping will be compatible with
the neighborhood.
4. That the granting of MP 88-008 will not adversely affect the
comprehensive General Plan.
5. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact
on the environment.
.
.
.
.
Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a wrought
iron fence in the front and street side yards, and a modification to allow the
subject fence to be 6'_0" high in lieu of 4'_0" in height, upon the following
conditions:
1. Landscaping shall be planted and maintained which shall obscure the
visual effect of the fence. The landscaping shall be subject to the approval of
the Planning Department.
2. Noncompliance with the landscaping required by the Planning
Department to cover said fence shall constitute grounds for the immediate
suspension or revocation of MP 88-008.
3. That MP 88-008 shall not take effect until the owner and applicant
have executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness
and acceptance of the conditions of approval.
Section 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this
Resolution reflect the Commission's action of March 22, 1988 and the following
vote:
AYES: Commi ssioners Amato, Clark, Szany
NOES: Commissioner Hedlund
ABSENT: Commissioner Papay
Section 5. 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
Arcadi a.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of April, 1988 by the
followi ng vote:
AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Papay, Szany
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hedlund
ATTEST:
~ TfU;/J/,41/;/fr;;-&// ---
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadi a
ion
Chairman, Planni
City of Arcadia
1364
-2-
.
.
.
March 22, 1966
TO~
ARCADIA CIT'!' PLANNING COMMISSION
rROM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
James M. Kasama, AssIstant Pl6nner
CASE NO.:
MP 68-006
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Maher M. Hathout, M.D.
LOCATION:
1435 North Baldwin Avenue
(Southwest comer of BlIldwin lInd Orllnge Grove Avenues)
REQUESTS:
A) Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board's
denial of a 6'-0" high wrought iron fence in the front and street
side yards (9272.2.3 and 9272.2.4).
B) Modification for said fence to be 6'-0"high in lieu of the 4'-0.
maximum allowed within front, street side and special setbacks
(92636.7,9283.8.8,9314.3,9320.5.1 and 9320.612)
LOT AREA:
Approximately 15.695 SQuare feet (0.36 acre)
FRONT AGE:
100 feet 1I10ng North BlIldwin Avenue, lInd
160 feet along Orange Grove Avenue
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The subject site is developed with a one-story, single-family
dwel1lng with an attached two-car garage;
the zoning Is R-O & D 15,000.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SF-4, Single-family residential (4 d.u.lacre),
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North: Single family residences; City of Siern Madre
South: Single family residences; zoned R-O & 0/15,000
East: Orange Grove Park; un zoned
West: Single family residences; zoned R-O & 0/15,000
PROPOSAL AND ANAL VSIS
. The applicant has erected a 6'-0. high wrought iron fence along the property line In the front
and street side yards. A plot plan and sketch are attached. At the time he was not aware
that he had not secured the proper and necessan"j approvals from the City and l:,<, Architec-
tural Review Board (ARB) of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association.
The applicant subsequently applied to the City for modifications and to the ARB for design
review. On t'larch 3, 1966. the ARB denied the design of the fence noting that it looks like "
prison fence. The ARB's findings are attoched.
The applicant has withdrawn his application to the Modification Committee, but is ap.~ealing
the ARB's denialllnd herein requesting a modification to permit the 6'-0. height in lieu of
the 4'-0" allowed maximum. The applicant is citing compelling security needs as reason for
the fence.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
.
Section 9272.2.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code establishes residential areas which are
Subject to the DeSign Overlay Zone. City Council Resolution No. 5288 (attached) sets forth
the design review regulations, procedures and criteria for the Rancho Santa Anita Property
Owner's Association.
Sections 3.9 ond 3.10 of Resolution 5266 set forth the following conditions for exterior
building moteriols ond eppearence:
9. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. Materiels used on the ellterior of any struc-
ture, 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 netghbortlOOd.
10. EXTERIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE. The eppeanmce of any structure, including
roof, wall or fence shell be competlble with existing structures, roofing, wells or
fences in the nelghbortlood.
Section 3.19 of this resolution sets forth the following principles which shall guide the ARB
or any body (Planning Commission, or City Council) hearing en appeal of the ARB's decision:
a. Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exer-
cised 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
.
MP 38-008
3i22/88
P8lje Z
.
.
.
compotibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avc.id
that which is excessive, garish, and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood
{pertains to Conditions Nos. 9 &. 10 of Section 3 of this Resolution - E:,ten'Jr
Building Materials 8. Exterior Building Appearance)
b Good erchitectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and
proportion in the elements of the structure os well as the relati.Jnship or slJch pnn-
ciples to adjacent structures and 'Jther structures in the neighborhOod. (pertains t.o
Conditions Nos. 9 &. 10 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Exterior Building Materials
,:), E::terior Building Appearance).
c. A poorly designed external eppearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof, can
be ,jetrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property ond neigh-
borhood. (pertains to Conditions Nos. 9 8. 10 of Section 3 of this Resolution -
Exterior Building Materials & Exterior Bullding Appearance).
d. A good relationship between lldjllcent front Yllrds increllses the vlllue of prop-
erties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable. (pertllins to Condition
No.2 of Section 3 of this Resolution - Front Yards).
In approving or denying the subject fence, the reviewing body is to establish reasons and
findings as to whether the materials and appearance of the fence are in conformance with
the above cona1t1ons and prIncIples.
PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
Aooroyal
If the Planning Commission intends to teke action to approve this appeal, the Commission
should r1nd that approval of MP 66-006 would secure an eppropr1ate improvement, or
prevent an unreasonable hllrdship, or promote uniformity of development, and move for
approvlll of the eppeel end epprove a modification for a 0'-0" high wrought iron fence in lieu
of the 4'-0" allowed maximum, and direct stllff to prepllre lln llpproprillte resolution incor-
pon~ting the Commission's decision and supporting findings.
Denial
If the Planning CommissIon Intends to tllke llctlon to deny thIs appelll, the Commission
should make specir1c r1ndlngs, bllsed on the evidence presented, thllt llpproval of MP 88-008
would not secure lln llpproprillte improvement, or prevent en unrellsonllble hordship, or
promote uniformity of development, llnd move for denilll, end direct stllff to prepere lln
eppropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and supporting findings.
MP BB- OOB
3/22/88
psoe 3
.
S,ettttAJ
tl\AOfLE:.
?IMUL..e FAMIl-"'- J
/ {2..::5,OeOol-(tAL..
--
wo},~ 17 .7
;~ 0
(;C. '" ~
"-
"- -
~ "0.7
...
OS 0
... is'l
... -
"-
-
. 0 175. .t
C!. Go.,.
.,
~ O~
'"Z
~
a
.-l
-<{
to
'. ..-
AND USE AND ZONING
....... .
MP SS-ooS
<oJ
r-
l"
~
7
<(
\f\
I .
10
'" ~~.ooo)
...
...
E3' "" "" O,.~
~ 0 ~o
,-
~ "
"0.0'l
<(
\-
tlL.
'<(
~
t\L
'<(
~
~
:;)
u~
. ~
E
O~
IlO5.1G
'"
ORIlN4/E c;/?ooJE
--i'!r.~--~
~~ ~~'.~ ~
~~ ~ 0 '. ~
~~ S~
,...--..is-__..:'
~
'"
2
o ~o
\$ ..'"
......
- ''::: 9
Vl -~
~~
"0
"'-
~
w
>
<
~
.,
...
2
100'
.,
o
cOO'"
_ 0
~-
~
~
r~o.ot
AI/E.
...u;:;O;'.........
tf,,;.,.~J
..It \(-n=~~I'5)
o I
ell I
'" ,
I
\
I
L
...
---10 n
....... .
I
!
I
...
..
~
,
I
~i
r ; ,.t
::/
I
I
I
I ..
. 4.-' ";"
41
o
~"-
'II, (w..,,;
o!I~
~l.oP:IA
SCA"" I ,". 'DO'
.
"'
\~
\r-
I
I
ei
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
V~~/U--+
CJI?AN~4 U/?tJVe.
i
..
>
Iii
C.
rr(....
J
.9
..
Av.-
----- - ---------,,=:7-
,-.
III
~
<0:
IJ
~
t
i
1
j;
"
~
-~
,.
1
.
.
i
I
\f I
- - - - -- ---- --- - - -- - --l-::-::-::-1
A
NOIlT"H 1-10 ~
'>
~
I
~
~
~
-J
'q:
to
I
~
.
.
.
B.
"..ce'''~O
MAR 01 ..-
.....,p.
~,,~D&r"
--
FILE No./9t<j'-.>
DATE O/~!'
A.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER
ARCHITECTL~AL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
(.
1'1-3:;.... }.),8AL..DU-UN 4",,;-
MA HI&-:c. /11. /1?t1-THtJ'vr
ADDRESS (IF DIFFERE~~)
C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for
each check)
1.
The proposed construction materials [] ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with
the existing materials, because
2.
The proposed materials P4 WILL, [] WILL NOT have a significant ~verse
impact on the overall appearan~ of the propertx.. be~_y~~ ~a7cA"'$tf
/ 7' i-L't1J J<t1!.. ~ f...,.,/l::.t7 ;,;.- ~' I~~AJ PeAle-iT '.
, 3.
The proposed project [] IS, [] IS NOT significantly visible from the
adjo:Lning public rights of way,- because
4. The proposed project ~ IS, []
adjoining properties, because
5. The elements of the structure's design [] ARE, [] ARE NOT consistent
with the existing building's design, because
6.
The proposed project [] IS, ~IS NOT in proportion to other
improvements on the subject site or to ~provements on other
in the neighborhood, because (, 0 :iF~
properties
7. The location of the proposed project O{WILL, [] WILL NOT be detrimental
to the use and enjoyment end. va ue of aajecent property end neighborhood
neighborhood, because
8. The proposed project's setbacks [] DO, [] DO NOT provide for adequate
separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties,
because
.
.
.
9.
OTHER FINDINGS ~;"/o.N.E I-V/f~ <:7u:c:. niP" Iv i/ (",<-.,,. r, t:'N pr
K~~r.....vi'JoAl -?;4~15""&.li"" 'PJ,.IC.C.ItDIA~ ~cL.rIP~.I)... ,r,":jvl
-
~J/.
;'n~ ;:J1't::.L.., J 7 5)'t.l)ul-iJ ~j=- f3hL'(,I'1/ re' cb'PDi:,
D. ACTION
[] APPROVAL
[] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S)
E.
)( DENIAL
DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION
'3/'2:>/t1'
.
F. BOARD (~OMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION, ,
J!D l?pl nit J L.
-ft,M V'L'L/Jr
go i3 H IT'N ~ln.
ASSOCIATION
G.
REPRESENTING THE RANCHO SANTA
H. APPEALS
Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning
Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the
requirements, fees and proeeedures. Said appeal must be made'in writing and
delivered to the Planning Department, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA
91006, within five (5) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision.
I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL
If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for
which plana have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused.
abandoned or discontinued, said approval shall become null and void and of no
effect.