HomeMy WebLinkAbout1463
.
.
fit
RESOLUTION NO. 1463
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING AN APPEAL AND
OVERTIJRNING THE MODIFICATION COMMITTEE'S DENIAL OF
;-.K 91-005 AND APPROVING A 9'-0" HIGH BY 12'-0" WIDE TRELLIS
PERGOLA AT 284 ARBOLADA DRIVE,
WHEREAS, on January 8,1991, a modification application was filed by Mark J,
Novell Construction, Inc. on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Dale which included as one of
three items a 10'.0" high by 14'-0" wide trellis pergola in the front yard, Request "C"
of 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, the proposed pergola was approved by the Architectural Review
Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Association; and
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 there were not extraordinary
circumstances, nor is a pergola necessary to the overall aesthetics of the property and
denied Request "C" of MC 91-005 on the basis that it would not secure an
appropriate improvement.
WHEREAS, on May 31, 1991 an appeal of the denial 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 Request "C" of MC 91-005 is not
extreme, will enhance the property and will not be detrimental to the aesthetics of
the neighborhood, and sustained the appeal and overturned the Modification
Committee's denial.
.
.
fI'
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA HEREBY RESOL YES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the information submitted by the Planning Department in
the attached reports are true and correct.
SECTION 2. This Commission fmds that the approval of Request "C" of
MC 91-005, would not be detrimental to the property and improvements in the zone
and vicinity of the subject property, and would secure an appropriate improvement.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission sustains the
appeal, and approves Request "C" of Planning Department Case No. MC 91-005 with
the provision that the trellis pergola be reduced in size to a height of 9'-0" and a
width of 12'-0".
SECTION 4, The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect
the Commission's action of June 25,1991 and the following vote:
A YES: Amato, Clark, and Papay
NOES: Hedlund
ABSENT: Szany
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 Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of July, 1991 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AmatO, Clark, Daggett, Hedlund, and Szany
None
None
-~~
Clfairman, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
ATTEST:
/;ltl!uvJJ~.I/ ~
Secretary, Planning Commission
City of Arcadia
-2-
1463
File No.
Date Submitted
.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION
RECEIVED
OCT 1 8. 1991
A. PROJECT AOOFlESS:
B. PROPERTY OWNER;
,
tl/e~ 1he18tJ~d
I),e, WIu..I"'~" ~ IJAL.S
CITY OF ARCAOIA
PI-ANNING DePT.
ADDRESS (if different)
C. PROPOSeD PROJECT (described if" detail): MdIJll=t<<AI"!tW ~jJt./~nd~ -
INe~rCIJ HEt'jW? 01= l(M.~ ~ eJ W 4!".4Ir '" wsr
J!,tf1'~~~,9(Jl/E ~~~9Vf" 4~
~~~ fi ~~~/~ hUM.i~GL 7H1W IN
0, FINDINGS (only cheek those llla! ~, and Drn~ldfl a W~nAn Il~plllnlllkln klr f1l1m cIllICtIl
1. The elements of the structure's design ( ) ARE. (J ARE NOT consistent with the existing
building's design because
2, The proposed construction materials I J ARE, [) ARE NOT compatible with the existing
materials. bec8llSe
.,
3,
4.
. () IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because
6.
7, The location of the proposed project I I WILL, {~IU. NOT be detrimental to the use.
enjoyment and'value of adjacent property because,
8, The proposed project's setbacks ~O. (1 00 NOT jJfQYlde for ad~ate separatJon
between improvements on the same or adjoining properties bec8usa,
-
12112/89
/0-/7.'1/ A~13 ,e=t/IJIJINC,S-
r. / 01' Z.
9. OTHER FINDINGS:
~ ACTION
[ I APPROVAL
[ l APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOllOWING CONDITION(S):
~ DENIAL. STATE. ~PECIF(C REAI~WI fOR QENIAL:
~~~~ ,.~~(.'~~ tJ./SJ- 7W1)
/Ii' ~ s ~ 11'fA. N'''N,IJ,{K, r Af..'1fAl4r-.
Alee ,tt:4~('S 1NlJrtE:)c11l,A HISI6Hr ISS~~u,.A N~
l3~ QlsttJu.elJ ArT" D'-,t.r^'IIf'- Atl6/tf(rJ!I. /r lItI"I!!A~U1fM
IJJ.JJI/-' toAJ$-!A.S( S "'IS A//~'~/~dAJ fIM~
. ~HA" '':1 $ll{~ /./1; ~1U.J.#!fAJ '~Nt. W/7H N($
~$tln1S IN .".,IE ,.,AS'-" ..... "AI"" dfllf,1":
E, DATE OF ARCHiTeCTURAL REVIew BOARD'S (COMMllTEE'S) ACTION 10 Irl/9/
"-.., SOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENOERING
, THE ABove DECISION: ~
~LVN
~Ye:,~~
REPRESENTING THE S'oA, tJ4d ~
I. eXPIRATION OF APPROVAl.
If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approv81, any projeet for which plans have been
approved by (he Board (Committee), has been unused. abandoned or dlllCOntlnu~. said
approval shall become null and void and of no effect.
fit.,
/0'/7.91
12112/89
Al?13 r/fJo/N4S
1" z 01' Z. .4