Loading...
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