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