Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1452 . . . RESOLUTION 1452 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADlA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDmONAL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. MP 90-014 AND SUSTAINING AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR A DETACHED GAZEBO AND AN ATIACHED ARBOUR AT 920 FALLEN LEAF ROAD. WHEREAS, on September 25, 1990, Dean Pools, a swimming pool contractor, was cited by the Building Division for illegal construction of a 264 gross square foot gazebo and a 385 gross square foot arbour at property commonly known as 920 Fallen Leaf Road, more particularly described as follows: Lot 40, Tract 11204 in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California as per Map recorded in Map Book 197, Pages 18, 19, and 20 in the recorder's office of the said County. WHEREAS, an application was submitted on OctOber 10, 1990 to the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association to begin the approval and permit process, and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Board, on October 14, 1990, denied the application on the basis of noncompliance with setback requirements, and WHEREAS, on October 24, 1990, the contractor rued application no. MP 90-014 to appeal the Architectural Review Board's denial and request side setback Modifications, and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 13, 1990 by the Planning Commission at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 1990 the Commission sustained the appeal and determined that a conditional approval of application no. MP 90-014 for the gazebo and arbour would secure an appropriate improvement, and imposed the conditions that the arbour remain of open post and beam construction and that the area beneath it remain only a walkway and not be expanded into a patio area. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Planning Department in the attached report is true and correct. . . . SECTION 2. This Commission finds: A. That a conditional approval of application no. MP 90-014 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. B. That the requested side setback Modifications, subject to the conditions below, will not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property to the east. C. That a conditional approval of application no. MP 90-014 will secure an appropriate improvement. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission sustains the appeal, and grants approval of application no. MP 90-014 subject to the conditions that the arbour remain of open post and beam construction, and, that the area beneath the arbour remain only a walkway and not be expanded into a patio area. SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of November 13, 1990, and the following vote: A YES: Amato, Clark, Szany and Papay NOES: Hedlund ABSENT: None 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. lHEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of November, 1990 by the following vote: A YES: Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany and Papay NOES: None ABSENT: None ~/-~ J~~ Ch. an, Planning CommlS on City of Arcadia ATTEST: J~Jk~udr~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -2- 1452 . . . November 13, 1990 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasarna, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MP 90-014: 920 Fallen Leaf Road Appeal of an Architectural Review Board denial GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: LOCATION: Gary Sewell of Dean Pools for Mr. and Mrs. Avedesian 920 Fallen Leaf Road REQUEST: Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association's Architectural Review Board's denial of a detached gazebo in the backyard, and an arbour attached to the east side of the main dwelling. The proposal includes the following Modifications: A) A 10'-0" easterly side setback in lieu of 12'-0" for the gazebo (9251.24) and B) A 5'-0" easterly side setback in lieu of 12'-0" for the attached arbour (9251.24) LOT AREA: Approximately 22,621 square feet (0.61 acre) FRONT AGES: 120 feet along Fallen Leaf Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a single family residence. The zoning is R-Q&D 30,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SF-2 I Single-family residential at 2 dwellings per acre. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences. The area. is zoned R-Q&D 30,000. .' . . . BACKGROUND On March 8,1990, plans were approved and permits issued by the City to Dean Pools for a swimming pool at 920 Fallen Leaf Road. The pool plans complied with the applicable zoning regulations, and, according to Section 3.11 of Resolution No. 5288, improvements that are less than two feet above the lowest adjacent grade do not require approval by the Architectural Review Board. Resolution No. 5288, which is attached, sets forth the regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association. During the final inspection for the pool on September 25, 1990, the contractor was cited by the Building Division for having constructed the gazebo and arbour without permits, inspections, or ARB approvals. On October 10, 1990, plans for the gazebo and arbour were submitted to the ARB, and, on October 14, the Board denied the proposal. In their Findings, which are attached, the ARB notes that denial is based upon noncompliance with the setback requirements. The materials and appearance of the structures are acceptable. On October 24, the contractor filed for this appeal. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The proposal is for an existing 264 gross square foot gazebo (measured to the edge of the eaves) and an existing 385 gross square foot arbour. Included are requests for Modifications of the setback requirements. The gazebo has side setbacks of 10 feet to the center of the nearest support post and 8'.6" to the nearest eave. The arbour's side setbacks are 5'-3" to the support posts and 2'-6" to the eaves. The City's regulations require a setback of 12 feet (10% of the lot's width) and the ARB's requirement (Sec. 3.4 of Reso. 5288) is 15 feet. With exceptions for tennis courts, this Association has not supported Modifications for reduction of side setbacks. MP9Q.014 Appeal of ARB Denial November 13, 1990 Page 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve this application, then the Commission should sustain the appeal, find that approval would secure an appropriate improvement, or prevent an unreasonable hardship, or promote uniformity of development, and move to approve MP 90-014 subject to any conditions or revisions deemed appropriate, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny this application, then the Commission should overrule the appeal, find that approval would not secure an appropriate improvement, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote unifonnity of development, and move to deny MP 90-014, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. The Planning Commission may simultaneously approve and deny portions of this application. In this case, the Commission should sustain the appeal, make the appropriate findings relative to the respective portions, and move to approve, in part, MP 90-014 subject to any conditions or revisions, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution. MP 90-014 Appeal of ARB Denial November 13. 1990 Page 3 . . . " . .. ~ '~ r-- u " - o , ~. 40 ... -'.., '-. - II 7 I~ , .~. ~ .-. uN 0..,. -~ - - 10 \ .. 'I. l .I _ '. .- 9 .5 ., ! _Nq,l .- \ .'& ../.... " ,. Ii.. .... t. I' ~:t II, .. , ." 'u I.... VI .... I, ' f : 2 0 ..::L J : . i '/ '. ,.; ,,~I.u~c.:.. ~ If I ;~, = ~ I · e: ; .. I I I I'. ., Ii' ~ ~ , . I '..' .. 1 I ... .' ~ '\ 1 Lt...,. _ ,'" ." 1 ~ ___ ' ___ m.' ....! ,-... V/~ 'i'" r:....___~N"-"'1 ~ I i ~ V ft 0, I ~ ~" >> uv--t--....--{. //~ I 1 /, /.. ~ at . ('#IIJJ : r_OJ I ...au, I ...<.~-...Rt'-....., > / t I ~. II I ,( , i J : ~ 11: ill ' I : WfI: I~NJ I.., I -r . . ! " ~ ,~::....-.: !''fo'' ~....1oI ,1\~' ... " , ... "." . rAIJ..EN .. ,... l ; <>>" J"10. . ., ! J ...... , I , ., \ '. ;, u .' 2 .' J I~ I. .. , } , . -. . ... ~ TRA'C"r, : - NO. , , .... " .c. J2J2Q I, " I U ',:O"*~ ~ ~I ~ , . I i, .,111) :: ...... Pi;'... .1.... --I fa. ~ . $' ....1" I "!" t rOOTHIl..~1 H A ~t'.. I;jl tU, f 10 J \"-......... m ill",' .., -- --rlU>--'~ i""'" " ~ , : a ~ 101 X 0 .U ~ Z ... .J ... .,,~ j .. II 'MAl Irt_If . ~ . ~\\ .,.. 110 Ii,,, X" " .....: , ..... "", - 2 .. ~ I . ., . o u. ~./' .ar:;.. , '" .. _1\1.."- .. .. - .- )0 .' .. 2 0 .... 117. II, /1110 ..::]. ,... ...~ .... ,.... ... ~ -. I'~ : &!!Lull! ~!I-.. 'f: . ". 1ft... .,_ A..;:: 'I' ....' \ l~ I ~III.. c~ II ! l- '" .A C i.. . .:= . ,,:... u' l~'" I~ \'"'0''' \'~ '~~'tl) a!. ~': .. .- .J If~' ,I . l- I \!l . 1&0 1 .u....,,;{ w ! ,...u .! ~ r,., .. .!42i CI: 1'''- ,.: D... ~ ~ ........, === OO~ aI.Il ~ ~ ~ AREA Mf qO- o,A.f MAP 'fz.o FAL-I,.e.N L.E.AF ./ , Sc:."~& I I a r;.o::; .a No. q,{) -(7 Date Submitted /.0 / /of? /tVD ( rt- . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. B. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERlY OWNER: ~tJ.o FALL~N LSAF /2.L) Ih'/cj/E<,/A,...J'. 6/l.C6 'f- )14,0.1,< , ADDRESS (if different) '5/4 H c= C. PROPOSED PROJECT (described in detail): Cfi Z Ii; ~o d--.4 ~,f.tSJGi~ D. FINDINGS (only check those thaI apply, and cmvidA a wrinen exnlanllllon lor elicit chedd 1. The elements of the structure's design D<1 ARE. [J ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design because 2. The proposed construction materials ~ ARE; [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, because .- -- -...-- . 3, The proposed project [ ) IS, t>4 IS NOT highly visible from the adjoining public rights of ~. because _._~-' 4. The proposed project [)IS. (><1 IS NOT highly visible from adjoining properties because 6. The proposed project [><1 IS, [) IS NOT in propQrtlon tei other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on the adjoining properties because, ~ .-- 7. The location of the proposed project [ ] WILL. M WILL NOT be detrimental to the use. enjoyment and value of adjacent property because, .-. '". - .." --........ 8. The proposed project's setbacks [ ] DO, ~ DO NOT provide for adequate separation between 1m rovements on the same or adjoining properties because, S' ""A-J .~o ~. - I?CJG.' 'l;e ~ .G?<.J L~tA..lAfl~/A1G~. ',AtE /"A2..e/Je J,~~ /t.J4)r J.-/A&.~ ;(IGL~ /~t' . 'jeT /?Ack..~ . \ 12/12/89 . D. .. F. . 9. V'(O e:::: c::C' [ ] APPROVAL [ ] APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION(S): ASSOCIATION. G. REPRESENTING THE H. APPEALS. Appeals from the Board" s a ;re~ the Arcadia Planning Commission. Anyone d 0 make suen an aPpealShould 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. 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 ~ecome null and void and of no effect. 12/12/89 CP~/;!a';l5 . THE CUSTOM POOL BUILDER "The Most Value Your Pool Investment" STATE & CITY LICENSED, BONDED & INSURED 4030 E. LIVE OAK . ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 . 1818) 445.6263 October 24, 1990 City of Arcadia planning Department Attention Jim; This letter is notice of appeal for plans submitted for gazabo and arbor at 920 Fallen Leaf, Arcadia. California, res- idence of Mr. & Mrs. Greg Avedesian. When submitted to the Home Owners Association in the Oaks', the plan was turned down. We would like to apply for modification permit and follow the necessary appeal process to get the above items approved. . Si~relY yours, Gary ~H contractor/Agent For The Avedesians' . RECEIVED OCT 2 t 1990 ':1"N OF AR.:......::HA ?LANNINQ DEPT. Rf:C ~ if 4785" MF 'to '01"1 rk .