Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1423 .~ . . . RESOLUTION NO. 1423 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF ARCADIA, CAUFORNIA., SUSTAINING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE MODIFICATION COMMITIEE'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF MC 89-074 FOR 6'-0" HIGH MASONRY PILLARS AND 5'-6" HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCING IN LIEU OF TIIE 4'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT AT 1150 FALLEN LEAF ROAD. WHEREAS, on August 22,1989, an application was filed by the Pacific Gentry Company on behalf of Chin-Hui Un for a 6'-6" high wrought iron fence with masonry pillars along Fallen Leaf and Hampton Roads, and a 7'-6" high gate with masonry pillars on Fallen Leaf Road, Planning Department Case No. MC 89-074, on property commonly known as 1150 Fallen Leaf Road, more particularly described as follows: Lots 8 and 9 of Tract No. 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 County Recorder's office. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 12, 1989 by the Modification Committee at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Committee determined that approval of MC 89-074 for 6'-0" high pillars with 5'-6" high wrought iron fencing, and for two light fixtures on the two pillars at the driveway entry would secure an appropriate improvement. WHEREAS, on September 12, 1989 an appeal of the approval was filed by Mr. Edward L. Butterworth of 1145 Singing Wood Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1989 and October 10, 1989, 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 sustained the appeal and overturned the Modification Committee's approval. NOW, TIIEREFORE, TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: , , . . . SECTION 1. That the data submitted by the Planning Department in the attached reports are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds that the granting of MC 89-074, would be detrimental to the property and improvements in the zone and vicinity of the subject property, and would not secure an appropriate improvement. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission sustains the appeal, and denies Planning Department Case No. MC 89-074. SECTION 4. The decision and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of October 10, 1989 and the following vote: A YES: Clark, Hedlund, and Szany NOES: Amato ABSENT: Papay 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 24th day of October, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: Amato ABSENT: None p- ~ J~f Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Ifdkvm~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia -2- 1423 . . . City of Rrcadia Memorandum October 10, 1989 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: P~GDEPAR~T James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: MC 89-074: 1150 Fallen Leaf Road Appeal of Modification Committee's approval At the September 26,1989 meeting, the question was raised as to whether the Architec- tural Review Board (ARB) of the Rancho Santa Anita Owner's Association (HOA) had acted in accordance with applicable regulations in approving the proposed fence for 1150 Fallen Leaf Road. Ms. Ann Cooper was the Chairman of the ARB at the time the fence was approved. She has since resigned from that position and was unable to be reached to discuss this case. However, staff contacted Mr. Chris Brown, the President of the HOA After having looked into this case, it is Mr. Brown's opinion that the fence was approved through the ARB's Short Review Form. This process requires that the appli- cant secure the signatures of the contiguous property owners on a form. The signatures indicate awareness and approval of the proposed project. If all the necessary signatures have been obtained, the Chairman of the ARB may administratively approve the proposal, and a noticed meeting is not required. It is Mr. Brown's opinion that the review and approval was done properly and that the inclusion of the other Board member's names was simply a mistake made in filling out the ARB's Findings form. In light of Mr. Brown's findings, the Planning Department believes that the ARB's and the Modification Committee's approvals should stand and that the Commission should consider and act upon Mr. Butterworth's appeal. . . . September 26, 1989 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT James M. Kasama, Assistant Planner FROM: SUBJECT: MC 89-074: 1150 Fallen Leaf Road Appeal of Modification Committee's approval GENERAL INFORMATION APPUC.ANT: Paul Chen, Pacific Gentry Company APPELLANT: Edward L. Butterworth LOCATION: REQUEST: 1150 Fallen Leaf Road Appeal of Modification Committee's approval of 6'-0" high pillars with 5'-6" high wrought iron fencing, and two light fixtures on the two pillars at the driveway entry (9283.8.7 & 9283.8.8) LOT AREA: 70,300 square feet (1.614 acres) FRONTAGES: 238.375 feet along Hampton Road 296.475 feet along Fallen Leaf Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is developed with a single family residence. The wning is R-o&D 30,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SF-2 / Single-family residential at 2 dwellings per acre. SURROUND{NG LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences. The area is zoned R-o&D 30,000. . . . BACKGROUND I An application was filed on behalf of the owner of 1150 Fallen Leaf Road. The request was for 6'-6" high wrought iron fencing and masonry pillars along Fallen Leaf and Hampton Roads, and 7'-6" high gates and masonry pillars with decorative light fixtures at the driveway on Fallen Leaf Road. The Code allows 4'-0" fencing along street side property lines. The proposed design had been approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association. Their Fmdings of August 16, 1989 are attached. The Modification Committee (Amato, McIntyre and Nkholson) at the public hearing of September 12, 1989, conditionally approved request number MC 89-074 to allow 6'-0" high brick pillars with 5'-6" high decorative wrought iron fencing, and two decorative light fixtures on the two pillars at the driveway entry. The Modification Committee's decision has been appealed by Mr. Edward L. Butterworth of 1145 Singing Wood Drive. His letter is attached. Findings Of Public Hearing MC 89-074 The subject property is a double lot located at the southwest comer of Fallen Leaf and Hampton Roads. The applicant is proposing a wrought iron fence with masonry base and pillars to replace an existing chain-link fence. The pillars and fence with decorative castings along the top will be 6'-6" high. Also, wrought iron gates across the driveway on Fallen Leaf Road with masonry pillars would be 7'-6" high with decorative lamps atop the two driveway entry pillars. The proposal has been approved by the Architectural Review Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, and the Public Works Department has no objections to this request. In attendance at the hearing to oppose this request were Mr. and Mrs. Butterworth of 1145 Singing Wood Drive, and Mrs. Martha Turner of 1130 Fallen Leaf Road. They were in opposition to this request because they felt that the fencing in of the front yard is inconsistent and inappropriate in their neighborhood, and that the requested height is excessive. , The applicant, Paul Chen, explained that the six foot height is consistent with the existing chain-link fence as well as with other fences in the area. The additional six inch height is for the decorative castings on top of the fence and for the pillar caps. Also, the 7'-6" height of the gateway is in order to have it stand apart from the rest of the fence. Appeal of Me 89..()74 Seplcu&ber 26, 1989 Page 2 . . . The Committee agreed that 6'-0" high fences have been approved for other properties in the area, however, they felt that a maximum of 6'-0" is adequate. The Committee determined that conditional approval of MC 89-074 for 6'-0" high pillars and 5'-6" high wrought iron fencing would secure an appropriate improvement. Also, two light fixtures for the two pillars at the driveway entry would be acceptable. PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTIONS Approval of MC 89-074 If the Planning Commission intends to take action to approve MC 89-074, then the Commission should overrule the appeal, and move to either uphold the Modification Committee's action, or amend the Committee's approval. Denial of MC 89-074 If the Planning Commission intends to take action to deny MC 89-074, then the Commission should sustain the appeal, and fmd that approval would not secure an appropriate improvement, nor prevent an unreasonable hardship, nor promote uniformity of development, and move to deny application MC 89-074. , Appeal of Me 89-074 Seplelllber 26, 1989 Page 3 . . . FILE NO. /7' -/,P' DATE~~#-l ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (COMMITTEE) FINDINGS AND ACTION A. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) //...JO TA-L.L,P'A/' LC/!'F . . L//./ B. C. FINDINGS (only check those that apply, and provide a written explanation for each check) 1. The proposed construction materials f1'ARE, [] ARE NOT compatible with the existing materials, because 2. The proposed materials [) WILL, [~L NOT have a significant adverse impact on the overall appearance of th..e 'p~erty, because Uu:.. L :d'~ A,./ /.# e...:.<!...2:> V~.ueA/T , . The proposed project ~, [] IS NOT significantly visible from the adjoining public rights of way, because 3. 4. The proposed project ~S, [J IS NOT significantly visible from adjoining properties, . because 5. The elements of the structure's design ~RE, n ARE NOT consistent with the existing building's design, because 6. The proposed project ~, [] IS NOT in proportion to other improvements on the subject site or to improvements on other properties in the neighborhood, because 7. Th& location of the proposed project [] WILL, [~~ NOT be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood neighborhood, because 8. The proposed project's setbacks ~, [] DO NOT provide for adequate separation between improvements on the same or adjoining properties, because . . . F. G. 9. OTHER FINDINGS D. ACTION [] APPROVAL ~PPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLOWING CONDITION(S) J~Y'i ~ Itn!__ allt vol __-I ~ Ar~J/^-, --.f-}('" ,~..j. -.L;.P"--o'l. d1f Y''' I/oV'I , / c [] DENIAL E. ~:r~ ~"A 68h--- RE~SENTING THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION H. APPEALS Appeals from the Board's (Committee's) decision shall be made to the Planning Commission. Anyone desiring to make such an appeal ahould contact the requirements. fees and proceedures. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the Planning Department, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006. within five (5) working days of the Board's (Committee's) decision. 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, ssid approval shall become null and void and of no effect. , . IDWAlID L IUMllWOtITM -- OlillElttC\IfI'4Ol'\'icer SEt' 1 .11989 CIT.V or ARC"OtA Cl"'VCl.f.IfM '~m~@) Seplember 12lh I 989 Planning Deparlmenl City or Arcadia Clly Hall 240 West Huntlngton Arcadia. CA 91006 Certified Mall Gentlemen: . J rererence a pu~lIc hearing that was held berore the Modlrlcatlon Commillee or the City or Arcadia on Tuesday, September 12. 1989, In the Conrerence Room or the Council Chambers or the Arcadia City Hall. The application number Is Me 89-074. The applicants are Paul Chen and Pacific Gentry Co. The address or Ihe subject property Is 1150 Fallen Lear Road. The posted no lice by Ihe Clly or Arcadia also rererences Ihe rollowlngldenllficatlons: "Rer 9283.8.7 and 9283.8.8." The Modification Commlllee or Ihe Clly or Arcadia gran led Ihe application or the applicant 10 erect a wroughl Iron rence with wroughllron gales In the rront or the property at 1150 Fallen Lear Road with certain limitations as to the height or Ihe masonry pillars and the height or the wrouahllroD feDCe and possibly other IImllatloDs which J dOD't recall. My Dame Is Edward L. Bullerworth. J reside at 1145 Slnglngwood Drbe, Immediately across the slTeet from 1150 FaileD Lear Road. Mrs. Bullerworth and J respectrully wish to appeal the decision or the ModiflcatloD Committee. J enclose my check ID the sum or $242 made payabie to the Clly or Arcadia, which Is the ree required according 10 the Plannlna Department. , . 'lOCO. INC. 9300 $01'\'0 F. Sonl'\Q' ~ood Santa F. Sgnngs, CA 90670 C213} Q40.2$lt . .:r.:t;,,,?/>/~. ~ Page 2 September 12, 1989 . We have a community In the Upper Rancho of beautlrul lawns, trees,shrubbery, rlowers and attractive landscaping, To adopt a polley of allowing rlve- or six-foot wrought Iron fences In hont of propeTtles In the Upper Rancho will have a material errect upon the way we have lived In the Upper Rancho for Ihe past 40 years and will have a great errecl upon the appearance of the Rancho. While the decision of the ModlClcation Committee was based on the ostensible approval of the Architectural Committee of the Upper Rancho, I don't believe the Board of Directors have considered the matter, least of all the members of the Homeowners Association In the Upper Rancho. I live directly across the street from the subject property. Normally our Architec:tural Review Board will contac:t homeowners who are directly affected by such requests for modification. Neither Mrs. Butterworth nor I were contacted by the Architectural Review Board, although we are Immediately and drastically affected by its action. I don't believe that It Is the desire of those who reside In the Upper Rancho to have our homes enclosed by Clve- and she-fool wroughllron and steel fences and gates where our lawns. flowers and beautlrullandscaping are partially obscured behind Iron and sleel fences and gates. Why beautify one's landscaplnglr It Is to be hidden behind a fortress-like appearance of Iron lates and feDce. out Dear Ihe curb? It would be a dreadful chanle In Ihe appearaDce of tbe Upper Rancho aod In the way of life of those wbo reside tbere. , . . ~~P) Page J SeptembeT 12, 1989 I am a Past President of the Homeowners Association of the Upper Rancho. While I do not speak ror the Association or those who reside here, I suggest In good faith that a substantial majority or people resldlnl In the Upper Rancho will likely not support the action of the Modification Committee and will likely support this appeal. . Very truly yours, ? ( . ;"/ . ( fl. iI I ;) "1l---ir i \ ,hi" ..j ,.j~"... 'f..'h\ofl ELB:lo Enclosure cc: Mrs. June Alford City Clerk City of Arcadia , . . .