The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1463 (2) . ~ e RESOLUTION NO. 1463 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE MODIFICATION COMMITIEE'S DENIAL OF MC 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 appear, and all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that Request "C" of Me 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. . . . NOW, TIIEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HERESY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the information submitted by the Planning Department in the attached reports are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds 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 -~/ Cn"airman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: /;JtIbJ~-f./ - Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -2- 1463 <" . . . June 25, 1991 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. I<asama, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Application No. MC 91-005 for 284 Arbolada Drive Appeal of Modification Committee's denial INTRODUCTION This appeal was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Dale of 284 Arbolada Drive. They are appealing the Modification Committee's denial of a 10'-0" high trellis pergola 14'-0" in width over the front entry gate. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mark J. Novell, Contractor for Dr. and Mrs. Dale LOCATION: REQUEST: 284 Arbolada Drive Appeal of the Modification Committee's denial of 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 (9283.8.7) Approximately 40,510 square feet (0.93 acre) 112.48 feet along Arbolada Drive LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a single family residence, 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. The area is zoned R-o&D 30,000. . . . BACKGROUND On January 8, 1991, an application was filed on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Dale, the owners of 284 Arbolada Drive, for the following fence height modifications as part of a proposal to re-Iandscape the front yard: 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. The proposed design had been initially approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the Santa Anita Oaks Association on December 28.1990. However, this approval was rescinded because the plans had not made it clear that a 10'-0" high pergola was part of the project. The Modification Committee (Amato, McIntyre & Butler) at its January 22, 1991 public hearing referred the proposal back to the ARB. The ARB re-approved the fence portions of the proposal on February 28, 1991 and approved the pergola on April 16, 1991. the modification requests were re-heard on May 14, 1991 and the Committee (McIntyre & Butler) approved requests 'A' and 'B' but continued request 'C' so that a Planning Commissioner could be in attendance. Request 'C' was considered by a full Committee (Hedlund, Connors & Butler) at a public hearing on May 28, 1991 and was denied. The denial of request 'C' was appealed on May 31,1991. The appeal letter and the Modification Committee's and ARB's findings are attached for review. Also attached are letters that were submitted by surrounding property owners for the various public hearings. . PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS Approval of Request 'C' of MC 91-005 If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve request 'C' of MC 91-005, the Commission should specifically find, based on the evidence presented, that approval of the request would secure an appropriate improvement, Appeal of Me 91.005 June25,1991 Page 2 . . . prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote uniformity of development, and move to approve the appeal, and overturn the Modification Committee's action and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. Denial of Request 'C' of MC 91-005 If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny request 'C' of MC 91-005, then the Commission should specifically find, based on the evidence presented, that the request would not secure an appropriate improvement, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote uniformity of development, and move to deny the appeal, and uphold the Modification Committee's action and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. Appeal of Me 91.oos June 25. 1991 Page 3 . . . \ \,1 1'20 1"0 I I lP I . I ~ I I l\J OJ : l' I .I~ Il.IO 110 1'3 ~ .., s: t" 'J \ '~.., 'VP/~) ,~.!~ IIM9 ;...-v..:ec>/.A"DA. " .9,} (JI#/ t) I I I I I I [!ll ...1 "" ! I J 1 I I I I 5 ~ ~ If> Co' IS IG ,~ " 1'2 ~ I I I I ~ \.... ~ I~ ~ \~ <:" \'" j\J 0 ~ ~ \ l~ I" ; z, ~ 100/. '90 Il." oi " JIl,,? (l)r;~ 5 !J ,oe 18 "27 ~~ o ' oQ C"~ ~ r;; ... \"0 (JOt) ,.t." III (US) . ~ ..,~. 81 -5 y,CJ ~~ ""F" Qi ~<,. V/~'N 'TV MG. q,-cor MA.r' .-'c 78 -r ,~ , 7. .~o U<1q; '25 'OIC,8 " " " :00 100 79 F~ 30 J-\ "'i <'tl ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ 30 .. ~ ~ o 71) .. /0. .5 2)~. 1'2" t2 i'GJ '9/,7/3 (,2 i"()./ ~ '" <0 '" <'tl il ~ " '24 '23 10'2 I!> Ii5 o 110 .3 4 su-..e: I ,",,/co' \ , , .. - { _ft . u ~ I. I ~ .........- ~-';"-. i I . , i I ' I .'if> _ " 1, I ~_~",,'.~L..._' ....."'s.r. ~.""";;"'~"~-i ::::--l'\ ~..-... \ . ' , . ' !:::.w.:--..c:J~ ...,. ,&:,::;,~"C.-;,;{'/ ......._> --..._(~) f . I'~ Ii 11 l I j ~ hl . -1.: I .'t' ' . , ' /.:: ~;... .'<;i ~ ~ , . J I: I Ii OZL " iI'.-.p0.6""" ..........- '. I.=::::,~::~ r -"- -. !! -~---- 3 - 8 ,.7':'7_ 3 EI ._,_. :::: . t:: ..... --'-'-'-- ,i 'c. --.- ,--' - - . - -" - ..-.- -,- '-.-- -.- - lr g " ~ " " , I "--~-- ....... 1 , ,,; ., ! '" - .. .. ~. l!l j o o IX .. Q, L_ ~:....:.t:>>r..~ FAONT ENTRY ELEVATION ENTRY' PlAN VIEW -~ -~ ~~.. . ,,-~ ~;~~:.~~~'" 1-. .............. _ .'~,._ ~~.~'<;'.'''::,. C- I' l'...~,.,_.~'..: ';- "- V ~,;:.-. ". -1- ,..;..,;. ., -.. ;, . / i ] ~ ~!~ ~ ~i~":<,;~,ia 'ill n n!lqlllJ.-.-- JU:..-", ':..' clLW111 IUW__ ~i c::!~=l'l,-c;.~~':';UJJE = --- "" :~b8' 'I' il~ .:1"", "::~W~"; - .-tl';'II= ~--- I~I :' - '." ." ':-. . '. ,. ~ h . Jllbi' -t~ 'iJ~'"'. ~itj. 'Li~~- ;;::]-~L!DL:~'I~-'DGO ""', b1tJIJO-=. ,,'. ~ r~ [_..JlF.~ +~=-_ ~,~::~.:::-'::;'~~ ':-:-~. "';>:-'""~:" ~:;-- '7,~2-,:~~~ """"'- . :;:s~...::;..""~r.I-""'tC8:t .. ~:"---:~.?...o..~~ . -- 1 I ~.~oe~ ...\.4'*.... V ~1I7-fa'&lI : ~, _....:.trac. ~ ='~~I-j'= r~""1 . ...: :- ~ ' 1-"4 1 ,,:.~~-: . -- =t..,: "ij .~ ~~~-:..' --- ---" '. ..-... ~~ '=_J/ ~..'~; .'i'~~ . i .... .',' ',~,?i~:' . " :". .~-.:~:; ~. . ...'J>" ...... " " .<1', --~'C. .. .. u z .. Q CD ll!' .. !l ~ a!:j ~~o ..<~ ' ~~~ ! !!a 1 ~=~ ~ -- J -.. .: , ;~.....-:I ,__..c,:.CI.... i ... " . -- - ~- PERGOlA PLAN Y1EW PERGO\ASlDEElE'IAnoN: -- . . . .... .~... .......-......-. ,.",.." " ~..- ...- ~ ~~l!3,.">t", ". "-~k.,,, "->"":'",~{;";-,,: ;'~';:'.~':i<=.,:':;,::"~.=.-. ';":";.:i~-z-?::.:<'jf::.'g,-, ;;:,=:c::'e '~mDD.""': ??,~~'".fZ~'~" ',' ~11:'~flH~_~~5~~5~'::::~~~~~~~,~::~:~J:.;!'~,~f~~~'FS~~ :~r~05 {~:}~-f~~~:~i~~'o -~._-_.- -'. -. .t.=-=="'i.~~"'~~_~ :,,~....==_=-~....t.____ wi> RESIDENCE .... ----..---....- --------... - ::::=r-a------.---- I ~' u~-=:=::..-_-....-::-.-- ~I ':';_1"'-:' ..... :~.::-..:~:----:::~::.:.-= . "., ' 3' . ---~ ..-.-------- I ~,-. r-I~-:_ -- "'.. !:.:=~=-"':...~~=.-:~ - ......--.---.-..--. ....""----.. @ ~;. II ~~'\. . ....~----...--.-- rH, a t;"=,,...:..,.....:.=~....::..,-- L, : "; ~,~/ ~...,..._._---- ~ ,", ~~::..~r.:-_-=-~-==- '.: c--.;;:....~~..::-;.:::..~e.. 'r:1 c.~..__ _...________.._ s..::5':.'?""....~~==~.::=.-:...... T ~..~ ~, ,----g- r... :-.':.:"==-...--=.1:..r..~....:,'=.:..-==- Ii r.,.~~.~!.:.:._! 'G .'"&~:~::;~~~~~._(.II' b'~ \ '-.- -.......---......-- \ -;... ;::-~-==-;.:.-r:.1. -l.-:- -\' ~ 1....-...-..-..-:. ,. '\ ~ ___..___,,w_._.~. l 9" ------ ----,..:;;.- " =-':'~...,.::"'.C-~~:.:.::"'..:-=.. 9" I ;; ...._..__.___...___.. -:-l "". := ~'C. "'---' ---......--- --I 0_ _ ;;; e.:=~....~:~':.--=.",:;;=--.~ o-~:= _;:''':':':::-___,_.1. ... .; Ie '::' e c....____III_...._"'_.~1. .. g ,.' a c.-.______....;. .....- -----,- ;''' ::.."":=-~~~~~.:.:: , s -~~~~~::::~ --f', ., I e ___ :-T___,,__ C'___ _ -------- ---.- . =::"'-::-~-:;-_:=r.-- ---- I' - _...______.._a. . _;' . ~,,"'.~"', ~. _ :-___..__ 1I_"_to _ ______ ._.._..__t&._, : ======~r..:.---- ! . s. ~~ . . -'S=~1:!"'-- --.- -. ==-=,'=:.. -:.n:;.":.;t-=:.::::r-... - =.:C~-=::;c..ay"-- ,,;:: -- -- --_.._---~. a=:.:.:=::.=-:: =:':"~. :-:~"":.'::':r~=-.:::-_ ..---- ...-...---- -.------ .... E:~~~~...s.::=:.~: ... ____ .._.._-. ~ .0: -. c;::::=-~..~~.- "'-- ...l- -..---.....--- I -.....,...--- ,! '1 I M l ~I ~< ... . r-." --_.- --------- --- -- ..-- - ---- -- -- ------ -- -_--_-_---_------_..:S - " , , " e. " ~ .: '0"\ . '" .., ~. .." " s' I ~ :-_ :.: :.: ~ '~.a :-'~.' i .-0:;--1 B :'~:'~ . eI .L- """': . -........... _'II.." . . . Dr. and Mrs. William C. Dale 284 Arbo1ada Dr. Arcadia, CA Arcadia City Planning Co~mission Arcadia, Ca. 91006 May 30, 1991 Re: ~IC 91-005 Please be advised that Dr. and Mrs. William C. Dale who reside at 284 Arbolada Dr. in Arcadia, Ca. hereby requests a hearing before the Plannin~ Commission to appeal the decision of the Modification Committee rendered on 5/28/91. The appeal fee of $272.00 is enclosed. Please advise details of the appeals hearing regarding the date, times and place. . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. YOu7' truly, /11/. (t l~ ,t"" e.s:- William C. Dale, M.D. RECEIVED MAY 3 1 1991 . C,... 01' AllCADI" ~U.NNlHO ~..,. . . . FINDINGS ARCADIA CITY MODIFICA nON COMMITIEE 8:15 a,m" Tuesday, May 28, 1991 CONFERENCE ROOM PUBLIC HEARING MC 91-005 Address: Applicant: Request: 284 Arbolada Drive Mark J. Novell for Dr. and Mrs. Dale 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. FINDINGS 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 clearly 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. MC91-0OS 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 8"x10" transparencies and 12 sets of plans of the proposal. COMM1TI'EE MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE: Hedlund, Connors and Butler Kasama MC 91-005 May 28, 1991 page2of2 . . . FINDINGS ARCADIA CITY MODIFICATION 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 fron t 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 . . . 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"x10" transparencies and 12 sets of plans of the proposal. COMMITIEE MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENT A TIVE: McIntyre and Butler Kasama MC 91-005 May 14, 1991 page 2 of 2 . . . FINDINGS ARCADIA CITY MODIFICA nON COMMITTEE 8:15 a,m" Tuesday, January 22, 1991 CONFERENCE ROOM PUBLIC HEARING MC 91-005 Address: Applicant: Request: FINDINGS 284 Arbolada Drive Mark J, Novell for Dr. and Mrs. Dale Height Modifications for front yard landscaping: 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 (9283.8.7 1St 9283.8.8) B) A height of 5'-0" in lieu of 4'-0" for wrought iron fencing With brick pillars and stucco finished wing walls along the front property line (9283.8.7 &: 9283.8.8) o A height of 10'.0" in lieu of 4'-0" for a 9'-6" wide wood pergola on the front 'property line at the pedestrian walkway (9283.8.7 &: 9283.8.8) , The proposal is to relandscape the front yard, The plans had been approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Oaks Association. However, the Chairman sent a letter to the Planning Department on January 18, 1991 in which the approval has been rescinded because it had not been made clear that the proposal included a pergola at the front property line, The plans did not include any drawings of the pergola. Rather, it was referred to only in a note and the height was not specified. Because the review board's approval is in question, the Committee decided not to act upon this application. ACTION - Referred back to the Home Owner's Association. COMMIlTEB MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE: Amato, McIntyre and Butler . Kasama ..:, . '. . I..~ No, R E C E '," E 0 Olllte Submitted .. APR 22 1991 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW CIT'tO,.IICAD1" BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION """lINING otlPT, ,", ", , \.: i J . ~ : A. PROJECT ADDRESS: B. PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS (If different) C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described In detail): ~ VA"~~ LANIJJUA" AI"lr INf.(..v()'~ .5' H' d;t,t:.If::.. CJ..de;.v,If./,c./J /W~dVl.~" 14,.} ~~s~ k4~"::::: ,?~~ ~lVe -~vrtA. ~~ _ ~ -.!1!.~ ~ h'JOI)I_~_/A.J ~ t!:Jt.I.!71~__ _ ~ =-- ;{f'f ~Ol .1..()A (.ul'-'-'~' DA-<.-G- .. '::.' ::' ~ f , '. " r~J ., O. FINDINGS (only check Ihose that apply, and on::lvide II written e.olan,,"on for lllIch eheekl 1, The elements of the structure's design fo'fARE, [] ARE NOT consistent with the existing building'S design because 2. . 3. The proposed project [~[ ] IS NOT highly visible from theadjolnl~g PU~I!~ ;lghts,of Wert, because ". , '.' , 4, The proposed project~. [] IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties ~CIC8U~e ".' ... 6, The proposed project ~ [ liS NOT In proportion to other Improvements 01.'1 t~e . " subject site or to Improvements on the adjoining properties because, ,--., .., 7. The location of the proposed project [ ] WILL, [w.wttL NOT be detrimental to the loise, , enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, . '.. ::", , ::.': r\:F'!"~', .' . ~~I~ .'~", . .. . , '8, The proposed project's setbacks ("fDO, [J 00 NOT provIde for adequ~"'i,~~tJon between Improvements on the same or adjoining propertIes because, . ....'.~ ;,;:: ..' . .. .h~ . 12/12/89 'l/6.9/ AHa PINlJ//o./CTS ~, . F, . 9. OTHER FINDINGS: _ ACTION l-': -~ f -.. '_' .:;t )>, ':!i!i ~~ $: H4~ ''':J.~ :I~., .;.~ nl J . ,..J<J;')~I)'lt>l.\.J''i k [ ) APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOllOWING CONDITION(S): " ""'. :"" :"\.., .'...., .. , ". ........ : ...:. ,.... . . " . ( ) DENIAL. STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENI~L,: . .~ ' . ..n' .., , ....., . ." ,'.;.....: ".",: ';,. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOAAD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTIoN ': '" ~11'/91 BOAAD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING THE ABove DECISION: . ......,."" . ,,:; , .77~ f t'f"'1J L ,,; J..9W ail.; tj,,, t..1o/f!DL.A..J , G. REPRESENTING THE oS .A, cJAk!J ~ . '.~';', ',' n . '., .... " , H, APPEALS, ASSOCIATION, ~~..-~,:"". .'. '~:'. '. . i: ~...;;: :'1: :. Appeals from the Board's (Commlttee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Plallnlng Commission, Anyone desiring to make such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the requlrements, fees and procedures. SaId appeal must be made In writing withIn seven (7) ,working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision; and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007:1'(:"1'3 I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL If for a period of one (t) year from the date of approval. any project for which 'plans haVe been approved by the Board (Committee), has been unused, abandoned or discontinued; said approval shell become null and void and of no effect. . ,.. ...-.....-.,.-.. 12/12/89 '1./6. '}/ ARB j=1/JDIN6S . 'i1eNo. 'Date Submitted \ , . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FIND,INGS AND ACTIOPI' E eEl V E D MAR 0 8 1991 A, PROJECT ADDRESS: 6, PROPER1Y OVVNER: ADDRESS (if different) C, PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): Frei1Nr ~ .tAfV~~~ IN4.Lr./PltJ. Ri(/~r RJ~~/f /":fc.EL,Pr: .s' H'6N' /lJ,t!,UWG CJoLtI~N'S t4<..td$S ,t:;t.;AA' ~l5iU'I" Glw8 W' m 1(1' kfl.N .!i?JpJt '-41 , A {fit #AA~MA , WI' "'''~ })"Ii-E em 01' A"CAOIA PLANNIMl DEPT. D. FINDINGS (only check lhose thaI apply, and crovldA a wril1An Axclanallon lor Aaeh ehlldtl 1. The elements of the structure's design [ ) ARE, WRE NOT consistent with the existing building's design because . 2. The proposed construction materlalsyt'"ARE" [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials. because 3. The proposed project ~S, [] IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining publiC rights of way, because 4, The proposed projectYr!S, [] IS NOT Highly visible from adjoining P,ropertles because .' . ~ 6. The proposed project~, [115 NOT In proportion to other Improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because, . ,,' :ir1- 7. The location of the proposed project [ ] WILL, M1'1ILL NOT be detrimental to the use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, . :', ,," ~~. . '8. The proposed project's setbacks~O, [) 00 NOT provide for adequate separation between Improvements on the same or adjoining properties because,""!"'" . 12/12/89 2 'Z8' 'I Alfl! rl"'l>I"'4-~ 9. ''', E, . 0:' ACTION ( I [ J APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): )<l DENIAL. STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL: , GS<l1JiftA(. ~~k.. Pt(~ .4"~ 4i~ (JJC''M~ EY4.E1fI'r J?CcU~. ,st/(5,({;/CST ELEIII'I:NIJN~ SI.lIJHI1f1il~ .3.HfJbJ""". P~~SEIJ C~.s m PIt!.tIan- E'N71ty ,,/Co ~E m eE~'It!..' t.UJl)St.J 17HJIJ J.l1W P~~"A UU flt/S,,"UV .,.,~ 'HnJ ..,...,S- "''''''- P~C7"'. ., DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION '-1.,.,1., BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISION: .:r/~ Ib rnE~ I3fJJ& I. IWtU",J ~ 4VNe", "~L7"'I'JW r~ G. REPRESENTING THE S. A. OIH::S F, H. APPEALS, ~6 ASSOCIATION, ~~ Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Arcadia Planning Commission. Anyone desiring 10 make such an appeal should contact the Planning Department to determine the requlrements, fees and procedures. Said appeal must be made In writing within seven (7) won<ing days of the Board's (Commltt.e's) decision. and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive. Arcadia, CA 91001;',' I. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL '. If for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval, any project 10r 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, .. "'-, . 12/12/89 z ,Z '9. M'd rINIJI^,C,.s . San t a An i t ~ 0 a k:s H 0 m (',<0 w n e r . s As" 0 r. i a t ion, In c . A..hitrr.tur~l Rrview Board ,Ifm K~sam,' City of ArcRdl~ rl~nnln~ Dppartmcnt 2.0 West HuntinRtoo Drive Arcadia, GA 01001i It('f: 28. Arholada Projec"t I)e~r JiM: T am requesting that the Santa Anita Oaks A.R.B. 's approval of Nnvell Construction's blueprints for land- scaping be rescinded, The following points should he considered: 1. At least one neighhor has asked that hia signature of approval be removed from the ahort form her.ause he feels the project was misrepresented. On what was submitted to the Board, 1 re- rRll aeeing no drawinRs Qf a pergola, show- Ing the locations, aize, height, materials, color I etc. . 2. Apparently the scope of this project was not clearly described to the neighbors or the board for that matt~r. It is my feeling that if R pergola is proposed that this project h.. handled on a long form ~n nil interested neigh- hora can he invited to view the project and ask questions. Please Advis_ me of your decision. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, ~~~. ~ ,.0. - . ll.obert M. Lincoln Chairman 3"15-2277 RMT./ kms RECEIVED JAN 18 1991 CITY OF ARCAOIA BUII.IlING om, JNo. Date Submitted . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION ~,,;,'1'1. . A. PROJECT ADDRESS: 6, PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS (if different) C, PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): ~..(.),jl c.I11 ~ 4A.4J.fC#ftIJ'J,..(. IJ../C.. '-~!J/~ t..vt4L.LS l:.~. ~~: f(At:1~1~ 6- D. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and Qlm(jge a written eXDlanallon fDr ead! checkl . 1. The elements of the structure's desig~, [J ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design because ... ., , . . 2, The proposed construction materials ~E, [] ARE NOT compatible with tlie existing materials, because . ..' j"~. '" l -: , . 3. The proposed project ~, [liS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of ~, because 4. The proposed project.(..ott'S, [J IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because ..,. ....- '-,,-. . , :'_: .:t.... :. , . 6. The proposed projectj..f4S, [] IS NOT In proportion to other Improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because, ".; , ,'" . . ". ': -7';i;.~;.' . :: 7. The location of the proposed project [ ] WILL. -H""lLL NOT be detrlmental.to the .use, enjoyment and value of adjacent property because,' ", ",-if ;:;,,'.:1.', ." , . ..' .". -....: :'", " " r,r i<~.:!_, 8. The proposed project's setback~O, [] DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties beca~se, ;,':O"I'''';;;,~.' . . 12/12/89 9, OTHER FINDINGS: . D, ACTION ~APPROVAl [ ] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): [ ] DENIAL, STATE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DENIAL: .. DATE OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S (COMMITTEE'S) ACTION IZ-/.".. 1,<.." F. BOARD (COMMITTEE) MEMBER(S) PRESENT AT THE ARB MEETING AND RENDERING THE ~OV..E DECISION: /(, Lit- ~~~ 4.1 G. REPRESENTING THE S,A-.. O~ ~ ASSOCIATION. H. APPEALS. ~~ 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) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. and delivered to the Planning Department at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. . EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL I, 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, .. . . 12/12/89 . . ., ~ ,~ .~ ',' ,]; ~~ _J """" Aroadia Planni~g Department Modification S'.remittee Arcadia City Hal! 2M! w~,,,,t Hlll1t,.\n,;o;':'_'n L'r, Ar""....;td'j;~, C::l, (:1'1 (l:'17 MaY.21, 1991 RECEIVED MAY 24 19S1 .,'. . ,'j " Subject: Me 91,-(1:;~, C"., 01' AIICAllIo\ _1OI1"D~". .' .4 " .~'''; Des!' Members: , .~~: My husband ;:\11(\ r wi 11 be in London visiting my 80n and his . family when th~ n~xt mpetlng of this committee convenes, !~ :' .~ Kven though the Architectural Committee has approved the plan~ for ~ the resIdence M 284 Arbolad,!\ DI:ive, we still have reservati,ons " ""- about the appr'.:opr j.? t.enes6 of the tall pergola in this neighborhood' - _.:> where most. hmls<"s h3ve an open approach ,to, the home, ' ' '~nt~~~::(~:::::';.'-:i~::,:,-._ . .- ',i ~ ~ 1_,"-' .j. '.. .\\'~ The actual proportions of the ten foot high pergola close:;-t~"the': ',... ~ street and (c1Jr1siderlng the 8rr,,~1l set baclt) re,lat1ve closene.ss t~.::"~:;"~'.;/' ,the home a 160 nt?,'ds to be cons ide red , The rendering was not"~an~'..",-,,:)., " accurate view;:> U. was from the perspective of the roof top, across: ,: .}-? the street, As ~n illustration, there is a home at 215 Haoi~nda' ~~. that has an extr6mely high entrance that also seems out of ~ , prQPor ti on:'.(, th,~ !lou8e. and the neighborhood, " > . ' .( .:"'. " Since lJe cannot att.end the meeting we ask you to consider these two'S, ,/>,. aspects of approprl.a teness and .proportion to maintain our "oountrf '~," feeling". The Pl'ol'osed pergola does not feel right in this, ,';,.;.. s1tu,~tlcn, A l,:\wyel' visiting our street for the first time recently" ''''-::., c~~mmented."r~.!:;: just. lilte being out in the country and away from:;.;:",-, the city", Thank you for s.rving on this committee, .' 51 nce)r",ly )/'-'1,11"8, H$1i.,:, , . ~:~~-./.l. ~. ~,_. . ...: - . -~ ..1 .i.. .;.If. .t ~_. e aldine L~;;e~::tif!J~ 01 ..'l'hol.9d.:; Dr. AroadLa, Ca. 91006 .:.,~'" '~..' . .,:' . ',rco-, ..::..~I.~," "" . ?~'. . "~ ~..;: . ,:<~;~~~:~;; . .~ . ' '; . :~. . ::'~~:. . " . I..';. . :.:)i ~~~'ji~:..: . '" '~",' ;i~ : -..... . .r.... . f?;;::;~~~t~.~,. .,:~ .. '1!..')Pi~~ ,;' .' t~~,..~.t:~ ".. ..[..?~; 1.~' . . .:~ ~l.;;~';);~.~~.' ..'.... .'. . i :~:~. . I' ~ .... ~. . . . WILLIAM E, LEWIS 30(1 ARBOLADA DR, ARCADIA, CA, 91006 MA Y .>1, 1 ~.~,::, 1 A!'cadia Modifi(~.i:n Commit~~~ Planning Dep~rt~0nt Arcadia City H~ll 24n we$t. Hllnf' i%~t{I./)n r'r. Arc,ad i::a-.. '::,:.,. ;'11.~'(i7 RECEIVED MAY a 4: 1991 !;"" 01' AlIeAIlIA Pu.NIIINODI", Subject: Me 91,005 De3't' Membe,rs: The Architectural Review Board recently approved the plans for a t.en f<:."t hi,;:}', fC""t..t:.'~en foc't. wide pergola on the front property line .~1'. :;!'4 Art ;"'~~.:l Dr. I am not in. f,~vot' of this modification as I feel It, i~ :.',' ma$~,l.v", a st.l'''Gt,ure and not in keeping with the archit.ectura: ~alu~s established for the neighborhood. The Arch 11:.f:'Chl n ~ R",v iew Bo,~ l'd was misled as to the visual impact un the property ~eoau$e the perspective of the rendering was~from tt.l'~:ltv 1-0:, :.''''1'1:-- five feet (,ff the ground. Something ten feet high at. ~h.': fl""'1t 'f ~he propert,y ,~nd fourteen feet wide will cover the whole house almost to the top of the roof. If it is pos!<ible I would like suggest that the Modification Committee h,o!t at the rendering and view the property from the front, wi t,h some ten foot high fourteen foot wide framework to see wh.:lt. t.h,~ vi:"''':l.1 i.mJ:'act i5. This is 5uch A hwg~ modification that it bending of the .st8blished regulations st.o!Indal'de, can not be considered a but a setting of new T hope thaI my 0b8~l'Yations and suggestions will be looked at in tho? PI'np",r- ). i&!hl; as ! feel strongly about keeping our established 8r'(:'ht.,-~,,.~t..u~',;t" V~~I.1E'S in t.E'\('t.. Tho!lnl( YOLl fr.>r Y'Jllr time and ci:onsideration. , . , ~~f~ . . .... .' "/7!r;S: I~~) ~ __#te.. ::.' /]-fJ~:ft'c!e#4~'L" ~./cle- .' .' ca. ~j",;t;;..... .st (If C 9' / - C<P s- . -:: eJ--rc1 04~.Jit..d:t:--- ok" ~~ "ULt/. iV.Nre..-/v-%dtf'~ ~...: /./!.,L t?1t/ a-z.~ ~.e-~~ . -4-' ,;, .:d-e.. J:'I,,~fL- ",f. & ~ ~~ .~ (j,,)4rfC,,' .,' ,?CPt! ~!t- ,I'v fk.b'-clj~~.t7 ~ t --r1!-/,~p~&~(.~ 4'-!.-.€- d' ,.c~ ~;....e~ ,:8 .,-urclX.; ,.eft:- ,~~rft~-C-~, ~ ,~~.. ....t.. ?itl "/~ ' '. U,' " 'c: ...c:e.{_.q~,Q....o,)'f'~~ ~'-J..-I ._(..4l/~ ~ '. ~~ ,/ff"Pl'; _--0V . ~e- (:J~(:j~ ~~-e- ~",,,';~:'~'~: ' ~t;(h. /~~ ~~ . ,.....,..,., y~ - ~ j ,,-. .h L:I ..'.;. t? ..,.,..,.;~ ,,1,-'''';' .~ ~ ,~~ ~d;'};' ,c.{.z.' "..,{/.. <#-t'AUi't., //l-(.t!!/~~.-.e. ~~ I ')1 / 'f'ff-It~~~. ..-&/1uL /ef':1 ~ #.. ~', . " '::: /tr-t~-le-:,-d-v., ~~~ ~~',' ~_-{..t.'d: rr-t./ ,....;T4ofAJ. ~ ~ '~, . -r' Il ~. C/ / - ~- ~ ',/ . /- J_" ~(ti.tt' /lle t-tf2,-me- ~ PU<fUt.r-x.-- ~ 4, '5:\ (}Xi(J)~.t- ~ " ~ ' . hi ~~~~~'., /~'lr.A- Il~ A~t~-&.{d.2t ~ .' .'~ .,~ 4'~~~/)' ...~Z-~~ ~ .' //!-i-" . A2J'~. ~..../ ~.A./_, ';''fo, ,/1'/7;;" if'"'V" - ,- ----..-, ' ," (]t/ .6",...,.... ~. ,'. ,';. ,ifi ' ';jt..~ r"'~' ;' " .", "'.' _ ~' , ,'-qfi'..f<<./.). ~~ "''lILt/v- ),j;' ~ ' '~:.'."::: . ;~ ' " " ~~~'''' ,;."~ av~ 1:~;;I , :~ - .'r.ft ,.: .."'i,":,>,J~ . e.:CEIVED MAY 1 7 1991 C:1~OlI''''IIC..tl.., 1'U_M101~. . ..~~: . WILLIAM E. LEWIS 300 ARBOLADA DR. ARCADIA, CA. 91006 Jan. 14, 1991 To: Mr, James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner Planning Department City of Arcadia Modification Committee Application No.: MC 91-005 Applicant: Mark J. Novell for Dr. and Mrs, Dale Address: 284 Arbolada Dr, Dear Mr. Kasama: ~ Mark J. Novell asked me to sign a petition in favor of the new front yard at 284 Arbolada Dr. I asked him if any of the things they wanted to do required a modification to the building code and his answer to me was that they dia not need any modifications. Since my signature was obtained under false pretenses, I want mv name removed from that list. Had I known that these modifications were going to be asked for, I would have inquired more specifically into their nature, '!lu~ very truly --t?-, W~~~~ William E, Lewis . RECEIVED JAN 1 5 1991 CITY 011 AIICAIllA 8U~llIPf. . . . WILLIAM E. LEWIS 300 ARBOLADA DR. ARCADIA, CA. 91006 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 1991 CI'rY ClP AReA... PUNN'NlI_. rUN!': t;<. 1;1>11 Arcadia Planning Commission Planning Department Arcadia City Hall 240 West Huntington Dr. Aroadia, ~a. 91007 Subject: Me 91-005 Dear Members: The Architectural Review Board recently approved the plans for a ten foot high f,)urt.een foot wide pergola on the front property line at 284 Arbolada Dr, I am Q.Q.t in favor of this modification" as I feel it is too massive a struct.ure and not in keeping with the architectural values established for the neighborhood. The Architectural Review Board was misled as to the visual impact on t.ho:- pr(lperty bec,auee the perspective of the rendering was from twenty to twenty five feet off the ground. Something ten feet high at the front of the property and fourteen feet wide will cover the whole house almost to the top of the roof. The Modification Committee voted in total to turn down this Modification because of the objections of three adjacent neighbors to the way it will look. This is such a huge modification that it can not be considered a bending of the established regulations but a setting of new standards not in keeping with the neighborhood. I hope that my observations and suggestions will be looked at in the proper light as I feel strongly about keeping our established architectural values in tact. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~;c,:l~~urs, ....p , !/l./~~~ William E. Lewis