Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1361 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1301 A RESOLUTION GRANTING MP 88-003, APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE SANTA ANITA OAKS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S DENIAL OF A 5'-0" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD AND A MODIFICATION FOR SAID FENCE TO BE 5'-0" IN LIEU OF 4'-0" IN HEIGHT AT 40 W. ORANGE GROVE. WHEREAS, on January 6, 1988 an application was filed by Mr. and Mrs. James Hickey appealing the Santa Anita Oak's Architectural Review Board's denial of a 5'-0" high chain link fence within the front yard and a modification for said fence to be 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" in height, Planning Department Case No, MP 88-003, on property commonly known as 40 West Orange Grove, more particulary desc ri bed as follows: Lot 94 of Tract 10953, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 191, Pages 27-30 inclusive of Maps, in the office of said County Recorder. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 26, 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 I. 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 88-003 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vi ci nity. 2. Approval of MP 88-003 would secure an appropriate improvement. 3. The appearance of the fence with landscaping will be compatible with eXisting walls and fences in the neighborhood. 4. That the granting of MP 88-003 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 5'-0" high chain link fence within the front yard and a modification for said fence to be 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" in height, upon the following conditions: 1. Landscaping shall be planted and maintained which will cover the chain link fence. This shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Depa rtment. 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 88-003. 3. That MP 88-003 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 January 26, 1988 and the following vote: . AYES: NOES: A8SENT: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany Commissioner Papay None Section 5. and shall cause a Arcadi a. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of February, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Conmissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Papay, Szany NOES: None ABSENT: N:me The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of ATTEST: I(~~> Secretary, Panning Commission . Ci ty of Arcadi a 1361 -2- January 26. 1988 . TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILFRED E. WONG. ASSOCIATE PLANNER CASE NO,: MP 88-003 GENERAL lNFORMATlON APPLICANT: James and Valerie Hickey LOCATION: 40 West Orange Grove Avenue REQUESf: . LOT AREA: Appeal of Santa Anita Oalts Ardlitectural ReView Board"s denial of a 5"-0' high chain 1i.nk fence with the front yard along the east property line, Also. a modification for said fence to be 5"-0' in height in lieu of 4"-0' (9283.8.7), Approximately 24.090 square feet (.55 acre) FRONTAGE: 110,39 feet along Orange Grove Avenue EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: Single-family dwelling; zoned RoO SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: Single-family dwellings; zoned R-I SOuth: Single-family dwellings; zoned RoO East: Single-family dwllings; zoned RoO West: Single-family dwellings; zoned RoO GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-family residential (0-2 du/ac) . PROPOSAL AffJ) ANALYS~ . On October 26, 1966 Ule Santa Anita Oaks Architectural Review Board (AIm) denied a request for a 5'-0" high cbain link fence within the front yard along the east property line at 40 West Orange Grove A venue. The AIm noted that the fence is not in accordance with height and front yard regulations of the the City of Arcadia, Also, the AIm is not in favor of chain link in front yards, That even though it is planned to cover the chain link fence with ivy, ivy can easily die or turn brown in summer Which will expose the chain link (AIm findings and action attached as Exhibit" A"), Mr. and Mrs, James Hickey (property owners) have appealed the AIm's decision. Signatures of approval were secured from four adjacent property owners (30 and 50 Orange Grove, 29 and 37 Hacienda) as part of the AIm's application (Exhibit "B'), In Uleir application Ule appllcants state that Ule fence is approximately 5'-0" high and 85'-0" long. That the fence will be fully landscaped, covered with ivy and complimenting shrubbery. Within a year it should be completely concealed and act as a support for Ule ivy and shrubs. . Along with the appeal Ule appllcants are requesting a modification to permit a 5'-0. high fence Within the front yard in lieu of 4'-0" in height said fence has already been constructed. Resolution 5290 sets fortb the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Santa Anita Oalc.s Homeowners Association (see attached resolution), Section J 16 of this resolution (pages 8 and 9 of resolution) sets fortb the guidelines Which should be considered by the AIm 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 eDfcised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, bUilding. fence, wall or roof, eEept to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that Which is eJCeSSive, garish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. MP 88-003 1126/88 . ~~2 . b, Good architectural character is based upon the princtples of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such princtples to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. 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, d, A good relationship betw'een adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable, . The ARB has the authority to review and approve any wall or fence greater than 2 feet above the lowest adjacent grade (Section 3,8, page 4 of resolution), Following are two of the conditions imposed by Resolution 5290 (page 3) on properties within the Santa Anita Oa.lc.s: Section 3.6, hXlhKIOR 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 wiUl materials of other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood, Section 3.7, hX1HKIOR BUILDING APPEARANCE, The appearance of any structure, including roof, wall or fence shall be compatible with existing structures, rooting, walls or fences in the neighborhood, Based on the above, the reViewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council) is to determine wbeUler the materials and appearance of the fence are compatible with other structures, walls and fences on the same lot and in the neighborhood. Approval or denial of the application should be based on the issue of compatibility with reasons that explain Ule decision. It is these 'reasons" Which constitute the "findings' upon Which the decision is rendered. Attached for your reView and consideration are copies of the site and landscaping plan, the ARB findings of October 28, 1987 (Exbibit "A"), the applicants' application to Ule ARB (Exbibit "B") and Resolution No. 5290, . MP 88-003 1126/88 Page 3 ~ . ARproval It the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the appeal of the Architectural Review Board's denial for a 5'-0. high chain link. fence, and approve a modification for a 5'-0. high chain link fence in lieu of 4'-0' in height Within the front yard, Also, direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision, Denial It the Planning Commission decides to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the appeal and Uphold the Santa Anita oaks Architectural Review Board's denial, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision, . . MP &8-003 1/26/&8 Page4 . . . , eo ',. .. .~2o .' ,".~.\;...:.r..., ~.~.: ~ ",flO.1E -<<1fr'-' ~~,,/ , I ~~ I , IJ.".......,. tOO, .~ . .,..:.,""'."' ..... ~ 80 <i III " -r Ir) Ij \ ',3 : J I I (.IS/ 5S .~" " ,!~:, If) ;':~ t: o '2 :~, .'p .... 14/ ,;) I-P/ 80 170 ~(i(}/ ;1,;) ~S().1 ~ O~O~ ~,~ ~ ......./., ~ JO~ & \ '3,. i I t 9, Un 'III M. ~ 2 9 3 ~ 9 :J 94 1 Z o,? 8 r '0 ,.; ~ '16 110 ." 1"';- '2.4 12 13 II '" c!> '" 0 '" "T i" " .;; ., '" ~ 0 '" '" 10& 1'4tJ/ o 105 14 110 80 r - 5 199- 18 1'4'4 105 r4'''./ o '" 0:" 105 ~~~ " I U,~ o -r .;; '" fi)~ '2 r/~.1 80 AVE 10 (;2/ '" 0 c: .3 105 I" 15 ~r ~ Oi"-O'" {,,~.1 ~ \ cT, (~1.1 ~,'Z1 (2'1 " .5 H~\e.N t)A IP) q,'1\ Dtz.. o ~" ;':>5.01 t'//~ ;.:>51Y2 '. . AND USE AND ZONING MP ee,-oO? 9C.: Ill.. 100' . . '() -, ~ "I 'I!' ,-: " ..... .,. il' " 1(0+,__ I .. 'I- .... ... ~ - - ... to, ..! - - - - - i I ........10 CA"." 11"""-.4&7 . .l.otolt~~.':JIr '~ .-~..., "'1- ~~....~ ;-;..~ ; 1 . 79,~~' ~ ~'R \ . f- - - : e:~ "",1"1> (J' ,~ , i I L -, ~ '0; , , , ~ _. -"W'T10'l __ .. I \ \ f:'l(1~Tl NC. ~&i11 ~..No;; , , , \ \ v ,j/ C:OMC"CT' "".ItIP 1I0,~ I , . , ~I ., ~ 'I[ -,. )- f \ \ ..- . ,- lW" '. '. v:',:,:~iTE PLAt-..!. O~N~e. c::.ROV5:., C-, .... :. .>' .'~ ,':. ,,,,. '-I WI ,~-cwu.o~ '.. ::. ... ~ ",I ~O~5.~ e' --. i .\ :~ ~ . -oJ -~ <' , { 1J .. l! , " . :,- '\ .... -.- - ".-, (r-;-~\.. -..- m~. 4,001S~'('~ ~ __ O~ t\\'l',c.I1~ \A\S.~ ~c. . -- - .- - ...- _ _,______:f c.o"'c.re.""~ :sf;';', , j.\\ . \~ \r-'Lu..y '\0 \,), O'('o.~ \S("O\)e, ~'(~,o.. '~ 'Pt6.N ~ i I \ I \ >- ':> .- Q) ""';> J \eo.lle ~S' 0" . . . FILE NO. DATE /0-.29 -€-7 , ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. B. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) )/J 11./ OIZAAJG€. Gila J;:' ~J. <If II. M Ic-ILa., C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materiala [] ARE, ~E NOT compatible with the exiating materials, because 2. The proposed materials ~LL, [] WILL NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of the property, because 3. The proposed project ~, [] IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because 4. The proposed project ~ [] IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, because s. The elements of the structure's design [] ARE. [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design, because 6. o/~ The proposed project [] IS, [~OT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because 7. The location of the proposed project [] WILL, [~LL NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks separation between improvements bec:ause [] DO, [] DO NOT provide on ~~same or adjoining , for adequate properties. EXHIBIT "A" . .. . D. 9. ("co /oJ; i..'-Jlf. uH. <D Nou I,.J U'\. L I , - rc COIII!M- ~ eM/~ J,..iNI(.. WIT'IJ IV)/, /"}' em.; e71Ji~.,. PN Olt /fd..u,J ACTION i"'J.)"'I1'I.~J II-""P ~.:.J6 clM,f-J ....t",.I" rH-'J rwt ,..vb A~dN{ u.J;:; JJ.rNr ..,-'U !J.r::1U~' [ ] APPROVAL . [) APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) X DENIAL E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COHHITI'EE'S) AcrION I 0 - 2.. ~ - y 1 F. BOARD (COHHIT'l'EE) MEMBER(S) RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION r .:JIe/~"c 0'. t201J~1.'-' G. REPRESENTING THE JIIAff~ ~~.Mt7 (JIJ iLS ASSOCIATION H. 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 proceedures. 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 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. ~ EXHIBIT "A" . . . B. FILE NO. DATE FILED APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (SHORT REVIEW PROCEDURE) A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) 40 W. Orange Grove Avenue James and Valerie Hickey TELEPHONE NUHBER (818) 355-1553 C. APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) ADDRESS D. TELEPHONE NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (check applicable) [] ENCLOSED ADDITION TO MAIN DWELLING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ADDED [] UNENCLOSED ADDITION SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ADDlTON [] ROOFING SPECIFY MATERIALS ~ EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (describe below) [] EXTERIOR WALLS OR FENCES (describe below) [] OTHER (describe below) Chain Link Pence - This fence is approximately 5' High and 85' Long This fence will be fully landscaped, covered with Ivy and complimenting Shrubbery. Within a year it should be completly concealed and act as a support for the Ivy and Shrubbs. EXHIBIT "B" . WE, THE UNDERSIGNED (SIGNATURES) OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, CERTIFY TIlAT WE HAVE READ THE FOREGOING APPLICATION, AND HAVE SEEN TIlE PROPOSED PLANS, AND HEREBY GRANT OUR CONSENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 1. ADDRESS 30 f..(j 01': 2. 3. 4. 5. 50 tJ . 6. 7. . ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE ALL PROPERTIES WROSE BOUNDARIES ARE, IN WROLE OR IN PART, CO-TERMINUS WITH TIlE SUBJECT PROPERTY: EXAMPLE: 2 3 4 . 1 SUBJECT 5 PROPERTY STREET . EXHIBIT "B"