Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
November 3, 2021
Item No.: G3
FILE NO: MINCOA-16810-2021
Appeal of a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness (MINCOA-16810-2021) to install a four (4) foot tall open wooden and hog wire fence along the front and side property lines within the front yard setback.
ADDRESS: 332 Chester Place
APPLICANT: Kristy Therrien
PROJECT PLANNER: Alan Fortune, Assistant Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the California CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Uphold the Planning Division’s denial of File No. MINCOA 16810-2021.
CRITICAL ISSUES:
Set Precedent for front yard fencing the block.
BACKGROUND:
On September 8, 2021, a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness MINCOA 16810-2021 (Attachment 2) was submitted by Kristy Therrien for the proposed installation of a four (4) foot tall open wooden and hog - wire fence along the front and side property lines within the front yard setback on the property located at 332 Chester Place in the Wilton Heights Historic District. The property is developed with a 1,798 square- foot single-family dwelling on a 9,795 square foot lot. Surrounding the subject property to the east and west are single-family dwelling units, to the south is a 32 -unit apartment building, and to the north is a two-unit residential property and a medical clinic. The primary structure on site was constructed in 1920.
The Wilton Heights Historic District surveys identify the architectural style of the dwelling as Craftsman style and that the property is “contributing.”
November 3, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Staff Report – Item No. G3
File No.: MINCOA 16180-2021
On October 13, 2021, Planning Staff issued a decision denying MINCOA 16810 -2021 (Attachment 3) for the installation of the proposed fence. Staff reviewed the project and determined that the project constituted a significant change, which based on previous Commission direction, is not appropriate for approval under a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness.
On October 18, 2021, the applicant submitted a letter of appeal (Attachment 4) to the Planning Division, contesting staff’s denial of the proposed installation of the fence. The appeal letter provides reasoning as to why the applicant believes a front yard fence is necessary for the safety of her home and neighborhood.
ANALYSIS:
1. Design of the Fence: Staff reviewed the proposed style of the fence and while researching appropriate fence designs, found similar fence designs in the book “Outside the Bungalow” by Paul Duchscherer and Douglas Keister. Staff’s opinion is that the design is compatible with the Craftsman Bungalow style provided the fence is setback so that plants can be planted on each side of the fence.
2. Location of the Fence: Staff’s opposition to the proposed project is that the block in question does not have existing front yard fences. The project therefore would constitute a significant change to the character of the district. Based on previous direction by the Commission, Staff does not believe it is appropriate to approve such a project by a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness, which is intended for pr ojects that will not have significant changes to historic resources. In Addition, the approval of this project would set a precedent for this block, neighborhood, and the Wilton Heights Historic District. Should the Commission wish to consider such a precedent setting application, the appropriate process would be a Major Certificate of Appropriateness, which would require approval of the Commission
CONCLUSION:
As previously stated this project could have a significant effect on the historic character of the property and the neighborhood. The Minor Certificate of Appropriateness application is intended for projects that are minor in nature and will not, potentially, have a significant adverse effect on the property and district.
Staff therefore denied this project. If the Commission wants to consider such a request, the appropriate process is a Major Certificate of Appropriateness.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
November 3, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Staff Report – Item No. G3
File No.: MINCOA 16180-2021
Staff has determined that this project is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of t he California CEQA Guidelines , because disapproved projects are not subject to CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS:
1: Application for MINCOA 16180-2021
2: Decision Letter for MINCOA 16180-2021
3: Letter of Appeal of MINCOA 16180-2021 Decision
4: Historic Resources Inventory Form
5: Site Photographs
6: Slide Presentation
From: Fortune, Alan
To: Starns, Geoffrey
Subject: FW: 332 Chester Place Minor Certificate of Appropriateness Permit Date: Monday, October 18, 2021 2:50:00 PM
From: Kristy Therrien <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:17 PM
To: Fortune, Alan <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 332 Chester Place Minor Certificate of Appropriateness Permit
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders.
Hello Alan, I guess you can consider this my official appeal letter. :) I thought I was waiting for a guideline or something hahah. :)
My appeal is on the basis of safety and preservation of my historical house. Without having a barrier from my home and the vagrants that hide, steal and abuse my property, there isn't much in the way of historical preservation in my home. I am in the outlying area of Wilton Heights, bordering Park Ave, which is unsafe and an attractant for thieves, drug dealers, druggies, and prostitutes, as my police reports have recorded. (This is, in part, because my house is across the street from the medical center on Chester Place, and they have frequent break-ins, barred windows, a large iron gate, graffiti, etc. I even have had graffitti in my sidewalk, in front of my house.) I look forward to letting the historical society see why I am requesting this necessity. :) Thanks so much for your time!
-Kristy Therrien
________________________________
Kristy Therrien
Owner | . EXCAVADE
. |
Rare. Earth. Design.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 3:45 PM Fortune, Alan <[email protected] > wrote:
Hello Kristy,
Please see the attached decision letter for the proposed fence at 332 Chester Place in Pomona. The appeal period is for 20 days but if you would like to be on the agenda for the November 3, 2021 meeting, please submit a letter of appeal as soon as possible. There is no fee for the appeal and you may submit electronically as an attachment to this email. Please let me know if we should anticipate you letter of appeal soon. The next meeting after November 3 is December 1, 2021.
Please reach out to me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Regards,
----
Alan Fortune
Assistant Planner
City of Pomona Planning Division
(909) 620-2449
[email protected]
332 Chester Place (Appeal of MINCOA 16810-2021)
Site Photographs
332 Chester Place
Appeal of MINCOA 16810-2021
Applicant: Kristy Therrien
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting – November 3, 2021 Agenda Item H2
Timeline
• September 8, 2021 – Application for MINCOA 16810-2021 was submitted by applicant to the Planning Division
• October 13, 2021 – Staff issued a decision denying MINCOA 16810-0221 for the installation of the proposed fence.
• October 18, 2021 – the applicant submitted a letter of appeal to the Planning Division contesting staff’s denial of MINCOA 16810-2021
Location
Subject Site
N
Photos
Location
Subject Site
Enclosed Frontyard
N
Staff Recommendation
• Uphold Staff’s denial of MINCOA 16810-2021 to deny the request to install a perimeter fence around the front yard of the property located at 332 Chester Place.