Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1476 . . . RESOLUTION NO. 1476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPUCATION NO. MP 91- 008 FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE DESIGN OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF A FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING PROJECT AT 284 ARBOLADA DRIVE THAT WERE PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED UNDER APPUCATION NO. MC 91-005. WHEREAS, on January 8, 1991, a modification application was filed by Mark J. Novell Construction, Inc. on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Dale, the owners of the subject property, Planning Department Case No. MC 91-005, on property commonly known as 284 Arbolada Drive, more particularly described as follows: Lot 26 of Tract No. 10617 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California as recorded in Map Book 189, Pages 12 and 13 in the records of said County. WHEREAS, application no. MC 91-005 requested the following three items: A. A total height of 4'-6" in lieu of 4'-0" for tubular steel fencing on top of brick stem walls 'along the east and west side property line. B. A height of 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for wrought iron fencing with brick pillars and brick capped stucco finished wing walls along the front property line. C. A height of 10'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for a 14'-0" wide trellis pergola on the front property line at the pedestrian walkway. WHEREAS, public hearings were held on January 22, 1991, May 14, 1991, and May 28, 1991 by the Modification Committee at which times all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Committee found that items "A" and "B" would secure appropriate improvements and approved items "A" and "B", but, that there were not extraordinary circumstances for, nor was a pergola necessary to the overall aesthetics of the property and denied item "C" on the basis that it would not secure an appropriate improvement; and WHEREAS, on May 31,1991 an appeal of the denial of item "COO was filed by the property owners, Dr, and Mrs. Dale; and . . . WHEREAS, on June 25, 1991, the Planning Commission heard the appeal, and all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that item "C" of MC 91-005 is not extreme, will enhance the property, and will not be detrimental to the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and therefore sustained the appeal and overturned the Modification Committee's denial, and, approved the pergola with a height of 9'-0" and a width of 12'-0"; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department inspected the project on September 24, 1991 and observed the following inconsistencies with the approvals granted under application no. MC 91-005: 1. The front yard side property line walls/fences exceed the height of 4'-6". In fact, at the highest point they measured 6'-6" high. 2. There are electrical stubs installed at the tops of the pillars at the driveway rather than on the front and back sides. The lamps that would be attached to the stubs were result in an overall height of 7'-10". 3. The architectural details of the pergola are significantly different. WHEREAS, the contractor was notified of the inconsistencies and of the processes necessary to rectify the situation; and WHEREAS, items 1. and 2. were submitted to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owner's Association (HOA) and were denied on October 17, 1991 because the adjoining properties do not have 4'-0" to 6'-0" high walls extending to the front property line; and WHEREAS, the contractor, Mark J. Novell Construction, Inc. submitted application no. MP 91-008 to appeal the,ARB's denial of items 1. and 2., and, request a determination that the design of the pergola, as it is being constructed, is consistent with the design that was provisionally approved under application no. MC 91-005; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 12,1991 to consider application no. MP 91-008 and at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, as part of the record, the Commission reviewed and considered: a. A verbal and written presentation of the staff report and related attachments, -2- 1476 . . . b. The Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB findings and actions that relate to the front yard landscaping project at 284 Arbolada Drive. c. The Modification Committee's findings and actions upon application no. MC 91-005. d. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1463. e. Written communications submitted by William and Barbara Lewis, neighbors at 300 Arbolada Drive. f. All oral presentations, testimony, and documentation made and presented during the public hearing of November 12, 1991. g. Plans and photographs of the front yard side property line walls/fences, driveway pillars and lamps, and pergola. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND RESOL VB AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the information submitted by the Planning Department in the attached reports are true and correct. SECTION 2. That the height of 6'-6" for the front yard side property line walls !fences are not architecturally harmonious. nor compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and are not an appropriate improvement. SECTION 3. That a height of 7'-10" for the installation of lamps on top of the pillars at the driveway would not be architecturally harmonious, nor compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and would not secure an appropriate improvement. SECTION 4. That the pergola is not being constructed in a manner that is consistent with the design approved under application no. MC 91--005. SECTION 5. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of November 12, 1991 and the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Hedlund, Szany and Clark NOES: None ABSENT: Daggett SECTION 6. 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. -3- 1476 . . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of November, 1991 by the following vote: A YES: Commissioners Amato, Daggett, Hedlund, Szany and Clark NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: &!/A~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia .z~~ Ch6irman, Planning ommission City of Arcadia -4- 1476 . . '" November 12, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MP 91-008: Modification Requests and an Appeal of a Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB denial at 284 Arbolada Drive GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mark J. Novell Construction, Inc. Contractor for Dr. and Mrs. Dale LOCATION: 284 Arbolada Drive REQUESTS: A) Modifications from the City Codes and an Appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of the following two items: i) A maximum height of 6'-6" (as built) in lieu of 4'-6" (as approved by MC 91-005) for the east and west side prop- erty line walls/fences (9283.8.7 & 9283.8.8) ii) An overall height of 7'-10" in lieu of 5'-0" (as approved by MC 91-005) for the installation of 2'-10" tall decorative lamps on top of the two brick pillars at the driveway entry (9283.8.7 & 9283.8.8) B) A determination that the pergola, as it is being constructed, is consistent with the design that was conditionally approved by MC 91-005. LOT AREA: Approximately 40,510 square feet (0.93 acre) FRONTAGE: 112.48 feet along Arbolada Drive EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a single family residence and the zoning is R-O&D 30,000 . . '" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SF-2 / Single-family residential @ 0-2 dwellings per acre. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences and the area is zoned R-O&D 30,000. INTRODUCTION MP 91-008 was filed by Mark J. Novell Construction, Inc. on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Dale of 284 Arbolada Drive. The application is for the following requests: A) Modifications from the City Codes and an Appeal of the Santa Anita Oaks Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of the following two items: i) A maximum height of 6'-6" (as built) in lieu of 4'-6" (as approved by MC 91-005) for the east and west side property line walls/fences (9283.8.7 & 9283.8.8) ii) An overall height of 7'-10" in lieu of 5'-0" (as approved by MC 91-005) for the installation of 2'-10" tall decorative lamps on top of the two brick pillars at the driveway entry (9283.8.7 & 9283.8,8) B) A determination that the pergola, as it is being constructed, is consistent with the design that was conditionally approved by MC 91-005. BACKGROUND On January 8. 1991, application MC 91-005 was filed on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Dale, the owners of 284 Arbolada Drive, for the following fence height modifica- tion requests as part of a front yard relandscaping project: A) A total height of 4'-6" in lieu of 4'-0" for tubular steel fencing on top of brick stem walls along the east and west side property lines. B) A height of 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for wrought iron fencing with brick pillars and brick capped stucco finished wing walls along the front property line. o A height of 10'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for a 14'-0" wide trellis pergola on the front property line at the pedestrian walkway. MP 91-008 November 12, 1991 Page 2 . . ". The Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB approved the fence portions of the proposal on February 28, 1991 and approved the pergola on April 16, 1991 (see the respective ARB Findings). MC 91-005 was heard by the Modification Committee (McIntyre & Butler) on May 14, 1991 and requests 'A' and 'B' were approved. Request 'C', however, was continued so that a Planning Commissioner could be in atten- dance. On May 28, 1991, request 'C' was considered by a full Committee (Hedlund, Connors & Butler) and was denied (see the respective Modification Committee Findings). The denial of request 'C' was appealed to the Planning Commission and was heard on June 25, 1991. The Commission sustained the appeal and approved the pergola with the provision that it be reduced in size to a height of 9'-0" and a width of 12'-0" (see Resolution No. 1463). On July 17, 1991 the plans for the pergola were submitted for plan check and were conditionally approved in accordance with the provisions of MC 91-005. A Building Permit for the pergola was secured on July 25th and the contractor continued to proceed with the front yard landscaping project. The Planning Department inspected the project on September 24, 1991 and determined that the front yard side property line walls/fences exceed the height approved by MC 91-005; that there were electrical stubs installed at the tops of the pillars at the driveway rather than on the front and back sides; and, that the architectural details of the pergola are significantly different from the plans approved by plan check and submitted under MC 91-005. The contractor was notified of these problems and of the processes required to rectify the situation. Requests (Ai) and (Aii) were submitted to the Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB and denied (see the ARB Findings of October 17, 1991). On October 22nd, the applicant requested an appeal of the ARB denial. PROPOSALS AND REOUESTS Request (Ai) Under MC 91-005 the applicant was granted approval of a height of 4'-6" for the front yard side property line walls/fences. While the walls/fences had been drawn at a height of four feet, the additional six inches was requested to accom- modate the the stepping of the walls/fences that is necessary due to the slope of the front yard. MP 91-008 November 12, 1991 Page 3 . . '" During construction, however, there was obviously a mistake made that resulted in the front yard side property line walls/fences being built to a maximum height of 6'-6". The applicant feels that the walls/fences as built are appropriate and harmonious with the design of the front yard and is requesting approval of the "as built" design and the increase in height. Request (Aii) MC 91-005 granted a height of five feet for wrought iron fencing with brick pillars and brick capped stucco finished wing walls along the front property line. At that time, the lamps for the pillars at the driveway entry were shown to be carriage lamps that would be mounted on the front and back sides of the pillars, The property owner has selected a different type of lamp that mounts on top of the pillars. The selected style of lamp measures 2'-10" tall. The applicant feels that this type of lamp is harmonious with the design of the front yard and that the overall height of 7'-10" is appropriate for this particular item, Request (B) A nine foot tall by 12 foot wide pergola was approved by MC 91-005 to be placed over the pedestrian gate at the front property line. While the dimensions of the pergola are correct, the architectural detailing is not exactly as was shown on the plans submitted under MC 91-005. The applicant feels that the pergola is being constructed in a manner that is consistent with the approval granted by the Planning Commission, and, is requesting a determination to that effect. PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve part or all of this application, the Commission should take the following actions: 1) Based on the evidence presented, find that the subject improvement(s) are architecturally harmonious and compatible, and, move to sustain the appeal and overrule the Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB denial, 2) Find that approval of the request(s) will secure an appropriate improvement, prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote uniformity of development, and, move to approve the Modification request(s) and, MP 91-008 November 12, 1991 Page 4 . . fII 3) Direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and supportive findings. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny part or all of this application, the Commission should take the following actions: 1) Based on the evidence presented, find that the subject improvement(s) is not architecturally harmonious, nor compatible, and, move to deny the appeal and uphold the Santa Anita Oaks HOA ARB denial, 2) Find that approval of the request(s) will not secure an appropriate improve- ment, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote uniformity of development, and, move to.deny the Modification request(s) and, 3) Direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and supportive finding. MP 91-008 November 12, 1991 Page 5 . . \LIO 110 I J I I J I 0\1 ~I l"1 ~I I I I I I I . I ~" '/,6 (3/~) ..(,:".!g; 110."'1 .1.:1 1 ':! (j ... t" /5 .'10 1'2 ~ 19 1I 1'20 1"0 I I ill I . I ~ I I I I I- I I I I \ '" \1'- .. I"" ~ I~ C'" 1-- J'\j 0 J ~ \ )- I" ; 29 ~ I l.,,. eO Ja./? rl ,...)~ 5"-,, ,00 ,0' J\J OJ 18 '27 '78 -r ~2 2<:) t'(!: ~ '" .(1 C< 1.10 (.JOI) '-s." C.Cf,' A.~Wl-A"'DA. (Ji';,) IG I I I I , I ~I ~I "'I ! I I I I I I I 5 (2<1") ~",;f:J, I '" - 10o!, ~ . ?o o 1/ 't,C; c;; P>~ '(l. ,<F> 7. "0 Ce~cv 17 '25 :1:' JOI ~a liS '2 V/~IN'TY MA."P MP'II- DDS :00 '29 F{ , '2" bRo. 9 , " r:z 76..1 " ol\ co <- '" '2A 10'21:' liS 0' . ~j.1t I I =/CD .3 .00 30 J-\ '<1 .... ~ ~ J ~ a' ~ 30 N or ~ U , I) ., /0'2, ~ '91.78 (.2 rq; il (5 "l " '23 10 110 4 \ . .-.:- ~~7' :~.j..~~ I:'.--.o.'~:"f~-~~-=::.... ~~-;:"':' ~..:........:; ~--.:...=- -r ..=....--::i..,::~::f.~- .,:fi:tti..- "1:~ .--~... ..-.- ._~-,.,: "'::~.J..~~'C".=.r:..:.";T.l:_--;,-)~--.... ~~ ;:.."{ ~g';., ...r-...~~~t;.. !~~_.'~:-~";~~:~~~"'':.A-:';'''~~-::~-:':::;~'';;~:-B;~~~i;:.'~.-;'; ~~ :~~ ~_ _~""t J;;;-..::::~:;~~:~~;: I.~~ --;. ~a .... .~":"O...~.__.- _...~-~_.._t.____....--.._~__._.....,..______..-.-..... ...._..... .~...-.-----.~.- E . . ;:.': ':t-~~t~~'i;~:<?i ::-"":::- ...' <~' , =~-~~:~~~:':_~?:.':::~~~~-:Ef~fig '~~~:F:':;'~:~~~~r" '::..:?; , ."=--=="'i.~~::='1...~-:,. ~ ~.... =-...:..=--..==-~~..- ..,. fBmENCE Ig :.,2 - =":"..."':.=-..:.-===-~o::-_ ---.....--.--..---- .-- ... =-...:::-::~------=-.-- ... t::::.':':':"''':i:~.-- a.L __ _________C4 ...-.-...------ ... ~.:c==--=-~~=-:~ -.-....---.-..-..,.; ... _____r. ~..~-..-_....__.-- ~s. ~s=..::o-:.:.=-~-=.':-- .. G.1. _._....._.....__ ....t"::i.~~-;o.r.::-...:-:....-:1".__ --.--.--.....-.... ~----.._-- ----- c... ;::-:-=.~~:.-.=.-:r=-.:.~ -:::...:~--.__.-.. ~..~~~1:-~~.... ;or. ~-::.:::: ~"~t::-.:.-: ~~~~~~~~. . -- . ~.. :::-:.~'":..."':::=--:.=.::-~ '-"- -........---......-- ----1- ;...:..--_._.._~ '"' _..._ _.:aoo.f._~ - ....--.......--.....-......>-.. ~-~::~~.:.:::~.. ....---.-----..- Io:.=~~..==i.~~ ---..- ----_._~-... ... _____IlI_c.l._.._.._1. .... ------..-:- -. e'1=~':::~-::=='~: -...--- _.==...!':-~~~==.:-~~ __ :,r___...__~ z::.._ 5..~~:;;:-L"!'-~~ && .--....-11I......-"" . _ :'___..__ ._..~t. ... ______ 1II_'_..__w.... ... ~...::::.:=.'""=c:~-:-.c_.- ~ ----- --....- '-'S. ~=-~1.:'r-- -..-_ -. ::::.~-:=.."7"'*=-..:'::.::s..- 1 "'~:=.__==_.....~:..-t'...--,,-:: " " -----------~- ~ ~ c:::-----...---. . :-:.$.~~7.:r..:e::~_'.: 0 . -.--- ..-..---- 0:.: ~ Co. ---..---- '. ".=.~~~=_r'c.=.:_-==..~- _ . ~ [] -. :::..-::-..:-:::,.':.-::---._~. .df. - I ...; : C& ____ ..___ ___ :o.j- _."___l. J-. ......--....---- I ,: ,'" -----.._- . . , I, , . . I :..: I . ....~"" .'--.. -.. ~ .. '9 ---. COH$TlIUCfIQH NOTES rl '.:.~~.;.~~..:. .'"..r ~~~..~...' I ~ :<!~.':r,., ~~:-.. ~~.' '" . " .~.: . - ~"".- -~..-.. --...... -!",'-;", -:"". . ~...,. U ... ,...1 ~''''':ofI'''' I '~. -: r_~.! I ~81~-A_ .1" !I~; j~~' , , -, . ,~,~ ri-- ..... I I ,t-"'-t I I "'.,.~ I~ \ ~ '\ ~' :! ::.e I '~--- 1-- '"., ---::-_------ ...... . -------:: - - ~ ~; 1 r;,;ii; ~ - t;- ~.l n., ~ ..~ , - --- ;....------ .... ~ -_.- -~ ...::::. -- - ----;,..- --------".------ ------ ---- - - - - - -. \! ~ ~. i . :- I~." /:, (- .... l...~ - ~: 1 , a ! """' == ~ I " ~\ ~-~ j. =lr. ~ il___ I-i:r_--",-~ .. ---.--- '" ~'--~ ~ ~ ~ ----,--.;, :i",~ ~ --.- - ~ ~i; ~ :--:~ \ ~ .... \ .,o!. \ · r ;; f. ~ ~ .'~ a..~ ~ j~~..... 'j (,- ~I \! i .. ..' ,- ~........I..- , , :i ;; '\ % 9 .": ~ . g, 1..P ,.,' J .:~\."'.., k ,............ f ~.e.~~.~ -;: . ;1 , ~._' I : e ....;~..........\, I _ I : I I I' I. ~ ~,~.: : r---J=i r I-I I ., ~ -' ,. il b'\ ~ "- r~::~.:~...~ . . --.I: J;\ eJ ~, , _. ,- , .................. -~...... ":C':::, -'"'-', ,:---;:,::.}-:.;;~.:: .. -:~::: & .: -:.~~. ".'J r .,-d! H.z 1.- l . - , " , -;. I j . , i j' !(: o " ,,", ~ .' ~ '> ;;~:. ..-; ~: ;~ , -47~ =i y. - , r... : , , 1- --'~ ?t.~:: ~ .'- , ,,- I "'~- I , , I _IA_..r.._- ~A. ..~...L_..J'~i ..1""". '.;' ;'-' .~ ."" J. \ jJ ~ . ~ I " ~ ~ ! 'I ;,. .,: HI , . FRONT ENTRY EUNAnON -- ........- '_~II~ t~;~~:\~:~ r.o .......:. ",IJ'_.':-c'." .. t.,~'.....'C'.. ~'.- jr~.~_' I'-<"-'-~ .", : ' ~ Ji .r_ nil Pllil ~ {~;:nT~:{f~~'J:~ I ~ ",in, Ii II ri~._- I f! II: f -I :[:l1JrJ~u:..:.J_l:=~kJLJUGL...: ~ i '-'-j, .rli"l. ,r--:r-;~ '~~l' 1~-:-;~u:IiB.-_==:1 l'_~ l::::::-'--'--~L....:~t:=.;:::: .= = .,,;"""""'~ ,,,;--1~~ l'~":~' :..-",~ Il-~';".;: 'I-r -',Hi'; I' 1II1 I' I _I_lo.....~.-:!'..:l. 1~~-~lU. 'I """:1 '. ,I IL:J, . .Ii'. ~~~., "II~' r. IL..! tl ~ , ddb ..:tl~:,~'(L JG "dub:~ f,;:..- ::J~=~8~81i :f::~~~~~:'~F{4~~B~CL ' :. . I ~ ~v:jl~]~1 :;!\~tt'!t~R~~.~-l ft II i: r' ~~ I L~JI tlJk "::~ ~:.U. ~ . ~,I U U roe_ :,;J .._. ......:-*.. . ~.~ .-, -"t'-,..;.~~~~~~~r ,<, , '~:' -,..._...~~...- .. Jo. ~;--;_~____..~""\: ~~~~~~~~~~i;.~~ .' '} PERGOLA PI..AH VIEW --- - .- l.,~ I 00<&-'_ :::::-l'\ --.'''''~ \ , r-=-~' J-r~~- I' fT tfi = I ~ r"wr--...~~ - ~.:::.;;.-., ~I --) --(---=J r I'~ i ~"""'- i.1 l~I::~:i:= rt ! -; -=-.:~ E "OIl :...~.:....-_ - S ~ - - -.- - s '.; ~ ~7C7~7 EO 1 ... 1.-._-_-.- -__-;.,,:..-_7_-:_7 -_.,:.-..:....:! ......- -- ~.u._...,..,. - L.... ~uc-. P.ve. ENTRY PLAN VIEW .....~ """'-- I_-xu_~t?.-e..s:e _:lIfi)~____... :&.'-~.:rIe~:..Cloo......... -c....:..___,_~ ....- ! _~~CfllC) -l '...... V co..o-W~r-"f ~~. 0, . -." _Oo_~~'_ "n , I ..." ---. . I ~:;;.z------ :"1 iJ-'" IJ - p" l.~' If'.... ......: '1 .,........,. "I D ..,~:.: J ' ~,. .il .~'.:::. ~1 -- :~.;:;;-?-.~- . ._:~:.. . . 'b..:- - -'-._- =~..__ 1- _ .,.:~", ';':~lf': ~1:'7.~t - _._L.::, .:..~;.~~.. '-';.:;~F ... ": ,-.:: :.:i3l'-~ . ~~\:.s:- -"':';k.. =:.~ ---- ~ PERGOLA SIDE ELEVATION _'.~ J on ~ <: ...' .. " < ... o " '" W Q. .. o z w " in l!! 8 ~ 5! < C> "..< ~~z <"'''' 3~~ i~i '~o ~g< :E~i5 ..<< .~o "'..'" "N< I . j i i i ~ 1 1 , . - - . Ne~ PR-IC.~ Pf".GG ON Exl"'?\. s-ruUO NAU- I /'6 ~IJI ~D . <;;e;e UN?r, N01Bc..-II,~ 1- , WAu-t.-La..Ui'iIJ ~p.uNNlhlq eoNP'Fl~ I~ L-.J I I - Ie: I , ,- I I I I , I ~~ ~ ~t ~ F- > vt- Nor~; I. /v1~ 1-eVa-~~ IN ~ (,UJ~? I4NI~ Gll'~;r::: r~ c.K-- t..(ov.l~ BRICK FACED WALL SCALE: 1"=1'-0" r~ON7 YARD, 61&>8 It:. WALL/FENCE OE61f.,N .A6 'I'Re5E~7ED t./lvD.e1e Me 9/- OOG'. 'e No. luati3 Submitted \ ~ .".' . . . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTJOtli E C ~ I.,V. ~ 0 MAR 08 1991 A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 8, PROPERlY OWNER: {fil ~t..MA WI '~/"~ ;)A-i-e Cln' 0,. ""C"DIA PLANNING O<<Pr. ADDRESS (if different) C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): P'ff!4",r ~ ~~J>k~..q,~ Jlvel.."'p!^,&, ~(/", RJ~CII ;-;fcEL';.r; .s' H/6N' 13A!"CorG CJoLiI""~S A ~"<dSS Mt..IAA' ~l!!iUY t../~E WI"" 10 I ~111N .fiN;tt '-/II. ~ ' ..... - 0, FINDINGS (only check Ihose that apply, and crovlde a written exelanatlon lor each checl\l 1. The elements of the structure's design [ ] ARE, 0RE NOT consistent with the existing building's des1gr'l because 2. The proposed cOl1structiol1 materials~ARE, [l ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, oecause . 3. The proposed project YfT'S. [] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of . way. because .~. . ' 4, The proposed projectY'l"lS, [)IS NOT highly visible from adjoining prop~rtles..because . '4..' . ~ .... . ',' , t, ,~}... ;,' " ,. .' 6, The proposed project~, [] IS NOT In proportion to other ImprovemenJs of! th.e subject site or to improvements 011 the adjoining properties because. .';';.l' '., .' ,:. ":jp'" ~, 7. The location of the proposed project [ 1 WILL, ~ILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, " 'ii" V,;" ". . " ~..r. . 1;L.,' .' . '8. The proposed project's setbacks~O, [l DO NOT provide for adequate separation between Improvements on the same or adjoining properties because.."''i(!',..;' "', .. fit 12/t 2/89 2 'z.,,' 'f /I/?/3 FIND/I'll:;.$. r- I (IF 2. 9, O~I 6- _ ACTION ( ] [ ) APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOllOWING CONDITION(S): x DENIAL. STATE SPECIFIC ~EASONS FOR DENIAL: . G~l'f!1ItA<.. ..9. ~..eN~ PIlL .-<kL 4-I~ (J1f=. M(/~ cv4.Eft?r PJSeULA-. ,s()(i,irES7 ELEvlfPtM/3 "E, SClBH'1T'S~ .3,.,(I,JIW~ P~fcSeJ) CHhMt~.s Tl} P/t,(Jr./T E'N71l.y tJl=- ~s: 70 8~f' r~r(., (.U..//) B(.S n4-WIJ ~IW P~LJtI.A lUlU.' ViI S,,~" y .,.,. 1,..,'77) 71-ftS- ",n4c.. P~. .' DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITIEE'S) ACTION "/.,.,/,, E, .. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND Rt;NDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: 3/1--( fb, fEr(." IBtJ~ J. 'lJfI4"~ ~ '-VNel-l "jlW.L'n!J "" r ~ 1~ G. REPRESENTING THE S. A, OIH::S ~" ASSOCIATION, ~-I.<.....~' H. APPEALS. Appeals from the Soard's (Commit1ee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Commlssio". A"yo"e desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal !:1'1ust be made In writing within seven (7) working days of the Board's (Committee's) declslon..,nc;l delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91~07.:-' I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL " If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project for which plans have been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued. said approval shall become null and void and of no eHect, . , ,....~::: fit 12/12/89 Z .za ''11 Me; fiM/)INC,.$. 1" Z tJIIIt. ~ ":. , . ,"l ..~ I No. ' . R E C E \ V E 0 Date Submitted . - . .., APR 2. 2 1991 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW . ~OPA~c:.OI. BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION ~NNING pc""', . ' .' . ,'.',"",':;;::,:"';,,'. ,,"i' '.L'\l'.. ! '!~.'lil: ; .: .l, A, B. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: d??'f ~O(.10A WI '-'-, ~ DA-l.G- ."\ .." .,'..-:~.. ..'. ADDRESS (If diNe rent) C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described In detail): ~1V'r V;.f';~~ LAN~JCA("I.,~ INI.c...v(J/~ .5' HI' -d~/ek. ~-dt:.VtUA./J' /w;tdVt.~r I~AJ (.A/Sf!i!:!:1 ~I/b rr~/./r j7,eu~ (,.t,c./e _ ~ ~ 10'. tll'~ - M()~I~~,R1'u u;:: t!:N.I71N/"'l'1<Ivr~I{, 0, FINDINGS (only cheek those that apply, and orovlde a wnMen explanation lor each checkl 1. The elements of the structure's design [.-'fARE, [) ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design because 2. The proposed construction materials~RE, [l ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, because " .3: - ., The proposed project [~[ liS NOT highly visIble from the adjoining pupllq ~g~~s.of wErt. because , ' -... ...-. 4. The proposed proJect~, , ) IS NOT highly visible from ac:lJolnlng propertl,~ because .... ....... - . , ", 1 \; ", {'-."J". " 6. The proposed project [~ [ liS NOT in proportion to other Improvements I1ft,tlle, :"'. subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because, ',' . . .... ". . . 7, The location of the proposed project [ 1 WILL, [IJ,.WttL NOT be detrlmental.to.:ihe. Ilse, I enjoyment and value of adjacent property because,' :/. ':,::i/H:'''~'~':'~'''; . ' ~ ., .." . '..'1", .."':'~. . .. '8. The proposed project's setbacks ("1'00, [) DO NOT provide for adequ~~~'i"fJp.!l....tlon. between Improvements on the same or adjoining properties becaus" . ".',;,~, ;,.': , - fIJ 12/12/89 '1-/6,9/ AI?l3 rINtJ//JC,S jOo I 01' Z 9, OTHER FINDINGS: _ ,...; '~'J . 1 -.. ...... :.;1 )'>" ,\'{ ~~ S: ;;1'1 A .. ACTION ~ ( 1 APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): 'I;J... ~11-1.\ ..~. ~i/') I ,'W ;)"11~il'I"J'~ ,. . P . ". .:....:.,,:..~. ~ "", , .; ~'...~: .:.: :. '. ' ..' . .IL...I,';,:,..-.!. ..._.::~::.. ,:..:" [ ] DENIAL. STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL: "'~':;~.!,::':.::' I: ,. ..', ............. .~... ...... ,- .., - .....,.....-.... ". .. .... " .; .:.-:,:", ~ ~~", : ":: . . '.' . .._:~;.' E. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTIO~':" ;;'//4/" .. . ~~~~~6~~~~16s~6~~EMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING.A.~,~.~:,~,~~RIN~. off"" ~~ ()~..L i7.J1.J ~C~ 13'13 lfo/~L.,J , G. REPRESENTING THE .s A. cJlJ-KJ '."d'i ....... ..., '" ....... ,.'. , . . ',' . H. APPEALS. ~ ASSOCIATION. fl>u-~ ... - '~i:'; ':'. , .~ ", . . I:" :'''j ';:.1 /l: .:. Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to maKe such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the requirements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made in writing within seven (7) worl<ing days of the Board's (Committee's) decision: and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive. Arcadia. CA 91007.'i'''':~:!I> 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 eHect. ' , . h.._.'........_~.. fIf 12/12/89 t(,16.?1 A~13 rINOIJA,/tiS I'" Z~2 . . fit FINDINGS ARCADIA CITY MODIFICA nON COMMITIEE 8:15 a.m., Tuesday, May 14, 1991 CONFERENCE ROOM PUBLIC HEARING MC 91-005 Address: Applicant: 284 Arbolada Drive Mark J. Novell for Dr. and Mrs. Dale Request: Height modifications for front yard fencing (9283.8.7): A) A total height of 4'-6" in lieu of 4'-0" for tubular steel fencing on top of brick stem walls along the east and west side property lines. B) A height of 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for wrought iron fencing with brick pillars and brick capped stucco finished wing walls along the front property line. C) A height of 10'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for a 14'-0" wide trellis pergola on the front property line at the pedestrian walkway. FIN DIN GS This proposal to relandscape the front yard was initially heard by the Modification Committee on January 22, 1991. At that hearing, the proposal was referred back to the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Association because request 'C' had not been clearly presented. At that time there were no drawings of the pergola; it was only mentioned in the notes on the construction plans. The proposal was approved by the ARB on April 16, 1991. In attendance at the hearing were Mark Novell, the contractor, and Dr. Dale. They explained how the fencing and pergola fit into the overall relandscaping scheme. The Committee found that fences in excess of 4'-0" have been approved for other properties in the area. However, the request for a 10'-0" high pergola at the front property line is probably the first of its kind, and, because there was no Planning Commissioner in attendance, the Committee chose to defer consideration to the next meeting on May 28, 1991. The Committee determined that approval of requests 'A' and 'B' of MC 91-005 would secure an appropriate improvement. MC 91-005 May 14, 1991 page 1 of 2 . . fI' ACTION The Committee approved requests 'A' and 'B' and continued request 'C' to the next meeting on May 28, 1991. Any Modification granted by this application must be implemented within one year (May 14, 1992) or this application shall become void. Final plans shall substantially comply with those approved by the Modification Committee. Any alteration made to said plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. Appeals of the Modification Committee's decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeals shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within five (5) working days of the Modification Committee's decision (by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 1991) and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee of $272.00. Upon an appeal, the applicant shall provide and deliver to the Planning Department one set of 8"xlO" transparencies and 12 sets of plans of the proposal. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE: McIntyre and Butler Kasama MC 91-005 May 14, 1991 page 2 of 2 . .. .,. FINDINGS ARCADIA CITY MODIFICATION COMMlTIEE 8:15 a.m., Tuesday, May 28, 1991 CONFERENCE ROOM PUBLIC HEARING MC 91-005 Address: Applicant: 284 Arbolada Drive Mark J. Novell for Dr. and Mrs. Dale Request: Height modifications for front yard fencing (9283.8.7): a A height-of 10'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for a 14'-0" wide trellis pergola on the front property line at the pedestrian walkway. This hearing was continued from the Modification Committee meeting of May 14, 1991. Requests 'A' and 'B' had been approved and only item 'C' was held over. FIN DlN GS This request was one of three included in a proposal to relandscape the front yard. The requests were initially heard by the Modification Committee on January 22, 1991. At that hearing, the proposal was referred back to the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Association because request 'C' had not been dearly presented. The proposal was approved by the ARB on April 16, 1991. In attendance at this hearing were Mark Novell, the contractor, and Dr. Dale. They explained how the fencing and pergola fit into the overall relandscaping scheme. Also attending was Mr. William Lewis of 300 Arbolada Drive, the neighbor to the west. He had submitted a letter expressing his disapproval of the pergola. There were two other letters also submitted which expressed disapproval. The Committee found that the request for a 10'-0" high pergola at the front property line is extraordinary and was not necessary to enhance the overall design of the property. The Committee determined that request 'C' of MC 91-005 would not secure an appropriate improvement nor promote uniformity of development. MC 91-005 May 28,1991 page 1 of 2 . . '" ACTION The Committee denied request 'C'. Requests 'A' and 'B' had been approved at the May 14,1991 meeting. Appeals of the Modification Committee's decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Said appeals shall be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department within five (5) working days of the Modification Committee's decision (by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday. Tune 4,1991) and shall be accompanied by an appeal fee of $272.00. Upon an appeal, the applicant shall provide and deliver to the Planning Department one set of B"xlO" transparencies and 12 sets of plans of the proposal. COMMITfEE MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE: Hedlund, Connors and Butler Kasama MC 91-005 May 28, 1991 page 2 of2