The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1390 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1390 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO-STORY DWELLING WITH ATIACHED GARAGE AT 1035 HAMPTON ROAD (MP 88-023) AND OVERRULING THE RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIA nON APPEAL. . WHEREAS, on July 14, 1988, an appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association's default approval of a two-story 7,137 sq. ft. home, was filed by the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association on property located at 1035 Hampton Road (MP 88-023). WHEREAS, on August 23 and September 13, 1988 the Planning Commission heard the appeal; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed and considered: a. The staff report and related attachments. b, Written communications submitted by the appellant and the attorney for the property owner and petitions in favor of and in opposition to the proposed dwelling. c. Drawings and illustrations presented by the applicant, staff and interested persons. d. All oral presentations and testimony made during the public hearings on August 23 and September 13, 1988. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This Commission finds and determines: (1) that section drawings submitted by the property owner's representative illustrated that the visual impact of the height of the proposed dwelling was not significantly greater than other dwellings on the same block and that there were other dwellings in the vicinity with as high or higher visual impact because of their height and distance from the street; (2) that the many trees within the area block views toward the foothills; (3) that the design of the building is similar in design to others within the area. The Commission is concerned with mass (height and width) of the building which is increased by the uphill slope of the lot, but believes that this mass can be reduced to an acceptable level by lowering the building another foot from the height as shown . -1- 1390 . on the revised elevation and that approval with conditions as set forth in Section 2 allows for a house that is compatible pursuant to City Resolutions, Section 2. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission denies the appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association and approves the proposed 7,137 sq, ft. two-story dwelling subject to the following conditions: 1. That the main ridge be lowered to approximately 35 feet above curb, by reducing the main ridge from the 28 feet as shown in the revised plan to 27 feet. 2. That the two turrets (one at each end) be lowered one foot: 3. That the roof peak be lowered by one foot from 32'-7" to 31'_7". 4. That MP 88-023 shall not take effect until the owner has executed a form available at the Planning Department indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 5. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this Conditional Use permit shall constitute grounds for the immediate suspension or revocation of said Permit. Section 3. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of September 13, 1988, and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None ABSENT: None Section 4. 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. . . -2- 1390 . . . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September, 1988 by the following vote: i\)(ES: Commissioners Amato, Clark, Hedlund, Szany, Papay NOES: None i\BSENT: None ~ ChafrInan Planning Commission 0~.'~ ~.-r /- i\ TTEST: !6rlkM~uiL Secretary, Planning Commission City of i\rcadia -3- 1390 . . . September 13, 1988 TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILLIAM WOOLARD, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CASE NO.: MODIFICATION MP 88-023 The public hearing on this item has been continued from the Planning Commission's August 23rd. meeting in order to permit time for the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association (RSAPOA) and the property owner to get together and attempt to resolve differences. On August 30th a meeting was held between the Association and the property owner. Attached is a copy of a letter from Richard Ashworth (Owen's attorney) to Chris Brown, President of the RSAPOA, which outlines the substance of the meeting, It appears from the letter that the RSAPOA would prefer to see a maximum building height of 26 feet 6 inches and the property owner seeking a compromise height of 32 feet 7 inches, which he considers the minimum possible without destroying the architectural integrity of the residence. Attached are the following Exhibits: Exhibit A Front elevation of the Original Proposal. Exhibit B A partial plot plan and section of the Original Proposal, which shows the setbacks to the roof peaks and ridges and the angle from the curb and/ or property line to the peaks and ridges. Exhibit C Front elevation of the property owner's Compromise Proposal. Exhibit D A section of the Compromise Proposal which shows the setbacks to the roof peaks and ridges and the angle from the curb and/or property line to the peaks and ridges. Exhibit E A preliminary roof plan which shows the location of the ridges and peaks. Exhibit F A section of the properties at 1005, 1009, 1025 and 1045 Hampton, which shows the setbacks to the roof peaks and MP 88-023 September 13, 1988 Page 1 . ridges and the angle from the curb and/or property line to the peaks and ridges. A section of the properties at 1055 and 995 Hampton, 754 and 1140 Singingwood, and the Original Proposal and Compromise Plan for 1035 Hampton, which shows the setbacks to the roof peaks and ridges and the angle from the curb and/or property line to the peaks and ridges. Exhibits F & G have been submitted to show that the height and setback of the highest peak in Original Proposal and in the Compromise Plan are not out of character with other two story dwellings on the same side of the block and other dwellings in the area, The sections show that the Original Proposal results in an angle of visual limitation which is less than 754 (often referred to as "Scanner Manor") & 1140 Singingwood (northeast corner of Singingwood and Hampton), and 1005 Hampton (northwest corner of Dexter and Hampton). The Compromise Plan results in a visual limitation which is less than the aforementioned properties and only two tenths of a degree greater than the property at 995 Hampton (northeast corner of Dexter and Hampton), Exhibit G FINDINGS . Approval U the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the proposed plans for the residence and garage at 1035 Hampton Road, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. Denial U the Planning Commission intends to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the proposed plans for the residence and garage at 1035 Hampton Road, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. . MP 88-023 September 13, 1988 Page 2 u9/0€.~ 1'?lS8 14:00 F~OI1 HA.H'OC~~:iH$HWOr;:TH TO 35,027(' F". 0 I ......w OF'r-I~Cg ~~ . SNYDER.. HANCOCK 8 ASHWOR.TH ... ..AOf'E5610H....L CORPOi:t....'IO... W. C:..QvO SNYC)E.R{..."'''..') c::1....R~NCC 1-. HA,..COCK AI<:~"'J:lQ B. ....S""......QATH 1112. "AIA o,,~s ",vC/"oIwr. _OST O""ICC IIOK s...e SOuTH PAS....eCNA.CALlF'ORNIA 91030 ~13J 8&2- iU06 (alS] "99.115lS September 2, 1988 Chris Brown, President Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association 980 Singing Wood Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Re: 1035 Hampton Road Modification MP-BB-023 Dear Chris: . Thank. you for the meeting of Tuesday, August 30, 19B8 in the above-referenced matter. As we agreed at the request of your committee, all discussions and offers of settlement are to be open and freely discussed. In that regard and with the intent to 'avoid any misunderstandings, the following is offered as our understanding of the offer of compromise by your committee and our counter-offer of compromise by Owen. Your committee's offer of compromise was that the projected single family residence be constructed with the highest point not exceeding a height of 835 feet, based upon curb grade at BOO feet, grade of building pad at 80B feet, .6 inches, therefore resulting in the actual height limit of the single family residence to be 26 feet, 6 inches. If this does not accurately set forth your offer of compromise, please advise me in writing as soon as possible. Our tentative counte~-offer, discussed that evening, was to lj~it the project to 30 feet above grade, subject to the architect reworking the plans to see the result of that quantity of change. The day after our meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Owen had their architect redraw the plans with the 30 foot limit. The resulting design ~ was totally unacceptable, as it destroyed the architectural . . . . U~~06/1geB 14:01 FROM H~II(OCK'~SHWORTH TO 35981'70 F.u.: Chris Brown, presiuent Rancho Santa Anita Property Re: 1035 Hampton Road Modification MP-88-023 September 2, 1988 Pa.ge 2 of 2 Owners Assoc integrity of the residence. The residence was again redrawn with a height limitation of 32 feet, 7 inches. This design is accept- able to Mr. and Mrs. Owen. That drawing, with a 32 foot, 7 inch height limit, is being delivered to each member of your committee. That drawing and limit ~epresents Mr. and Mrs. Owen's offer of compromise. If your committee accepts this offer, please COntact me. If you feel any further discussion would be prOductive, likewise please contact me. I have not sent copies of this letter to your committee members. I would ask that you make that distribution of copies. Very truly yours, SNYDER, HANCOCK & ASHWORTH Richard B. Ashworth RBA; rmh ] . . . . LAW QFF"ICES SNYDER, HANCOCK iii ASHWORTH .\ ;>qOFCSStONAL CORPORATION N, CLOYD SNYOe:~(lee5'lliel) :::LARENCe: L. H......NCOCK wlChARO a. ASHWORTH lll~ FAIR OAKS A....ENUE POST OFPICE BOX 546 SOUTH PASACENA,CALIFORNIA 91030 [213J 682"2106 [SIS) 799.7156 August 30, 1988 Mr. Chris Brown, President RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 980 Singing Wood Drive Arcadia, California Re: 1035 Hampton Road Modification MP-88-023 Dear Chris: As a result of the City of Arcadia Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, August 23, 1988, both sides to this controversy were asked to meet, confer and hopefully settle the differences regarding this project. The next planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 13, 1988. It is our further understanding that if a settlement is not reached, that either party may present additional information to the Planning Commis- sion no later than September 6, 1988, for the meeting of Septem- ber 13, 1988. It is customary in a civil lawsuit, that if the parties hold settlement talks, that any information, of any nature, that is exchanged during the settlement talks, not be used at a later time before any trier of fact in the case. In other words, any information exchanged between the parties during settlement not be brought before the Planning Commission or the Arcadia City Council, if this matter is appealed to that body. This letter will confirm that understanding which was discussed between us last week. If you or any of your Board have any questions, please feel free to discuss them before settlement talks began. Rick and Pam Owen are entering into these discussions with an open mind and with the hope that a settlement can be reached. Very truly yours, SNYDER, HANCOCK, & ASHWORTH P/~ Richard B. Ashworth RBA:rmh cc: Rick & Pam Owen August 23, 1988 . TO: ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PL~ING DEPARTMENT DONNA L. BUTLER, SENIOR PL~ER CASE NO.: MODIFICATION MP 88-023 FROM: GENERAL INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: APPELLANT: LOCATION: . REQUEST: LOT AREA: FRONTAGE: Rick and Pam Owen Ann Cooper on behalf of the Santa Anita Rancho Property Owner's Association 1035 Hampton Road Appeal of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association's approval of a two-story, 7,137 sq, ft. home, Approval was the result of the Homeowner Association's failure to act on the proposed project within 30 working days of the date the plans were submitted. Approximately 23,392 square feet Approximately 120 feet on Hampton Road EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The subject property is developed with a single-family dwelling; zoned R-Q & D SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: Properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with single- family dwellings; zoned R-Q & D . MP 88-023 August 23,1988 Page 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: . Single-family residential 0-2 du/ac BACKGROUND On April 24, 1988, Mr. and Mrs. Owen submitted an application to the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Architectural Review Board (ARB File No. 1988-11) to construct a new 7,137 square foot home. The ARB requested a plot plan sketch. On May 24, 1988, the applicant submitted the necessary plan and the notice of the meeting was sent out to property owners within 100 feet of the subject property, On June 8,1988 the ARB meeting was held. The Board did not take action on this application until July 10th. The Board at that time determined that the proposed building was neither harmonious nor compatible with the existing area. . Section 3, 15f of Resolution 5288 states: "The Board shall render it's decision on a Regular Review Process application within thirty (30) working days from the date such request is filed with the Board; failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans." The 30 working day period expired on July 7, 1988. Thus the application was deemed approved. On July 14, 1988, Ann Cooper on behalf of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, appealed the automatic approval of the ARB. The public hearing has been scheduled for tonight's meeting. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing single story home and construct a 7,137 square foot two-story 34'-9" French Country style dwelling with a 1,032 square foot attached four-car garage. The garages are located at the rear of the house. Based upon the 100'-0" lot width the maximum building height allowed is 35'-0". The front setback varies from 67-0"+ to 81'-0"+ from the property line. There is a 12'-0" parkway. . MP 88-023 August 23, 1988 Page 2 . The first floor of the dwelling will be set back 15'-0" from the east and west side property lines; the second floor with the exception of architectural features on the east side of the dwelling will set back a minimum of 20'-0" from both the east and west property lines, There will be a minimum 64'-0" rear yard setback. The proposed lot coverage is 18.9%. Code allows a maximum lot coverage of 45%. The building pad elevation is approximately 9'-0" to 10'-0" higher than the curb elevation. The proposed dwelling complies with all current code requirements including lot coverage, building height and setbacks. Resolution 5288 sets forth the design overlay regulations, procedures and criteria for the review of projects within the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association (see attached resolution). Subsection 19 of Section 3 of this resolution sets forth the standards which should be considered by the ARB and any body hearing an appeal from the decision of the ARB. . The Architectural Review Board's jurisdiction, and subsequent review of the Board's decision by the City, applies to a review of the external building materials and external building appearance (Section 3 (13) Resolution 5288- page 5). In making this determination as of compatibility, the following principles are to be applied as guidelines by the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council): a, Control of architectural appearance and use of materials shall not be so exercised that individual initiative is stifled in creating the appearance of external features of any particular structure, building, fence, wall or roof, except to the extent necessary to establish contemporary accepted standards of harmony and compatibility acceptable to the Board or the body hearing an appeal in order to avoid that which is excessive, garish and substantially unrelated to the neighborhood. b. Good architectural character is based upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure as well as the relationship of such principles to adjacent structures and other structures in the neighborhood. . MP 88-023 August 23, 1988 Page 3 .. c. A poorly designed external appearance of a structure, wall, fence, or roof can be detrimental to the use and enjoyment and value of adjacent property and neighborhood. d. A good relationship between adjacent front yards increases the value of properties and makes the use of both properties more enjoyable, Based on the above, the reviewing body (ARB, Planning Commission, City Council) is to determine whether the external building materials and external appearance are compatible with other structures on the same lot and with other structures in the neighborhood. Approval or denial of the application should be based on the issue of compatibility with reasons that explain the decision. It is these "reasons" which constitute the "findings' upon which the decision is rendered. Attached for your review and consideration are: . 1. Copies of the proposed plans, 2. Two letters dated July 11 and July 12, 1988 from Snyder, Hancock & ~shworth attorney for Mr. and Mrs, Owen, 3, The letter of appeal dated July 14th from Ann Cooper, 4, A letter dated August 15th from the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association indicating that Ann Cooper filed the appeal on behalf of the the Association 5. A letter dated August 2nd from the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association regarding the vote and findings of the Board of Directors regarding the proposed plans 6. A letter dated August 5th from the Ranch Santa Anita Architectural Review Board to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed plans and 7. A petition in opposition to the proposed dwelling, signed by property owners within the neighborhood. 8, A letter from Jim and Terry Lee, 965 Fallen Leaf Road in favor of the proposed dwelling. . MP 88-023 August 23,1988 Page 4 . 9. A petition in favor of the proposed dwelling, signed by property owners within the neighborhood. FINDINGS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve the appeal, the Commission should move to deny the proposed two-story, 7,137 sq, ft. home with attached four car garage at 1035 Hampton Road, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision. Denial If the Planning Commission decides to deny the appeal, the Commission should move to approve the proposed two-story, 7,137 sq. ft. home with attached four car garage at 1035 Hampton Road, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating the Commission's decision and findings in support of that decision, . . MP 88-023 August 23, 1988 Page 5 SINGING WOOD . 1O'.lJ " " (''''eo) f10.~) ~ 0 0 " .. " .. -. ! ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ N ... Cl 21 22- 0 ~ 138 O~ 148.0' !: .. ... .. "! \4 ... .. ". o . ~ 1.'8 IH' (ion) \. ." "I\MP10N 10 . 'OM) 1~0~ o "" .~ GO !:. s"' II!:,!'_ "" 'I .. " .. II' )) ~ (, "aotu, <44, .." ::.0 9 ~ 8' I ,., 0 0 .. "" -) ... I? ~ .Ii " N ,r~'11 (12 ... M.8. -r r 24 J '..e. WU) ~'4S )..ot 4(\.09 '" " 1'~.4C (i1714! 0 0 0 sa 57 5' 5~ 4 #I " ~ ~ ,. " .. " ~ " N '" N ,. ... oJ .. ... M B. /97- /8, /9 (20 110 Ifl( 12C.Os, 100 55 " I ,I I \.1; I ~18 Cb 1 11.M,I(IO.I, ..'0 I \ 1\ n.}! joM -'o.c-, ~ .; '" N o ':::::::::!::lIr::::!:::!' I@I 1"7 0 O~ ~ ~ ... on ~ 19 (i174i.f>4 .\~ t- o '" .. ... /IP~S.' "CII '4.&~ r;IJhl, 5 (l.~~[m llJJ~lE ~~[m Z~~ ~ ~I M P . 8 8 - 0 2 3 ~1",: r - 100' . . "I." ..... ) / '. I J / , . H" " I 1-- I \ \ .......00:'.... C"','.""'')' ) , \ ~~ "' ~~- ~ .:....... I "_,rE -1- :~L~"J 1,,>...-/._7' :t.,: j..-. I 1/ I --I ~,,_., . / , lie. '",... ~.."'"...... .---- ....tre. ....-=' I I ....:or'...'" -<... . oJ. .....~l " J .r ') ,V ./ II I I ! " J . ", . : . . . \..-~~1 ........ .: ~'~'~ jPfl.O~ ,'" F-LcX'~ nAN .,."'-l.f -- 7 f " u I fl, , " , . 1 ~ ~ Il~ IV ;t . 'i1 . _.../ /" ...1~~t - - ..."'" f~ .~ " ',,/ " ,-"'"'.JII!!!!! '. . r I ~.~'~T II ~ . I I I I I I I I I I I , , J r I 1 (, ~ PftOf'lO.iiD z.- Fu:JOR PLAN -;I,... p '1,'.7 'fMo....... __ ..... -- , . , 61 , ~ i l .,! I ' l) .3 - ., 1V't< . e e . . ~LlT~ ELEV,6.T10N OF R:k::1<. tPAM OWeN ~ce-t-t::E ~""ON R~O -- z ~ ~ ~ . l) l'l ~ . 1 \.; ~ Ii t j I r , , .. .. :, ~. . . r ~ ~ i; . .Ci\ L .t. I..AW OFFICES SNYDER.. HANCOCK S ASHWOR.TH . 4. ~"'OI"E:SSIONA,L COR~OIl'A,TlON W, CLOVD SNVOEP(<aSS-19Sl) CLAREr-..CE L. l-lA,NCOCK RrCHA""O e. ASl-1WORTH 1112 F4.IR OA,I'($ AVENUE. POST OFFICE: BOX 546 SOUTI->l F'ASAOE:NA,CALIFORNIA 910.30 ~1.3] 6ea-clOG [ela] 799-7156 July 11, 1988 City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 ~,~': -:",: :7. ': t( -~, Attention: William Woolard, Director of Planning JUL 1:~ 1988 Re: Project address: 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, California (:..,'( C,- :,tl';_~.DI" \< '_~:;'-:111.:- tl~f-'T Dear Mr. Woolard: This office represents Rick and Pam Owen (hereinafter referred to as "Owen"), 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, California with regard to their pending Application for Homeowner Association Architectural Design Review (Regular Review Procedure), Rancho ~ Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Inc. A history of this matter is as follows: Owen is planning to construct a new single family residence at the above-referenced location, after demolition of the existing structure. In anticipation of this and pursuant to the pro- visions of Amended Bylaws of Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Inc. and City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288 (adopted April 1, 1986), they submitted on April 24, 1988 an Application For Homeowners Association Architectural Design Review (Regular Review Procedure). This application was per- sonally delivered to Ms. Ann Cooper, a member of the Archi- tectural Review Board (hereinafter referred to as "Board"). A copy of the application is enclosed. Substantiating documenta- tion was subsequently filed, the last of which was submitted on May 24, 1988. As a result of the receipt of the completed application a noticed, scheduled meeting of the Board was set and held on Wednesday, June 8, 1988 at the home of Ms. Cooper. The Board meeting was attended by all five members of the Board and approximately fifty interested individuals. All require- ments for a noticed, scheduled meeting were complied with. To date, no decision has been rendered. . Pursuant to Section 15, Regular Review Process Procedures, Paragraph 7, of City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288, a failure by the Board to take action with thirty (30) days of the date that a request is filed, shall be deemed an approval of the Gt . . City of Arcadia July 11, 1988 Page two plans. We are taking the position that working days includes all days except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. If that position is correct, then more than thirty (30) working days have elapsed since the request was filed (receipt of completed Application and all required supporting documention), to wit: May 24, 1988. Accordingly, Owen has directed their architect to complete working drawings in conformity with the plans submitted to the Board and when those are completed they shall be submitted directly to the City of Arcadia for approval and issuance of a building permit. Please file the original of this letter in your pending appli- cation file so that there will be no delay regarding the require- ment of Board approval of this project. 15s?~ ~. B. Ashworth RBA:jlb cc: Rick and Pam Owen Architectural Review Board, Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Inc. . . . FILE NO.~ DATE FILED~.f A. PROJECT ADDRESS APPLICATION FOR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (REGULAR REVIEW PROCEDURE) / tJ 3 J . AI.-4 /J1 /<n.d ~ Ii- /J .f,o( ":""" h/Yl VI~ ~/ll n. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) ~---rl1 ~ t:- TELEPHONE NUMBER JS-J- (. /.J'O C. APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER D. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (check applicable) [J ENCLOSED ADDITION TO MAIN QI,ELLING SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ADDED [] UNENCLOSED ADDITION SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ADDITON [] ROOFING SPECIFY MATERIALS [J EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS (describe below) [] EXTERIOR WALLS OR FENCES (describe below) +-;Ve eJ !' /.,f ;J.,r{1c. . . . . AN APPLICATION FOR THE REGULAR REVIEl< PROCEDURE SHALL ALSO BE ACCOHPANIED BY THE FOLLOIHNG: 1. Completed Application Form 2. ? sets of scaled plans which should include the following: a. Plot plan showing the entire site and the existing and proposed use. b. Elevations, floor plans, sections, etc. as necessary to fully illustrate the project. 3. Depending upon the specific size, scale, location of the proposed project, the Board (Committee) may require additional information including but not limited to color and/or materials samples. 4. Letter size envelopes with proper postage, addressed to the owner and applicant (if different) and to all owners of property located within 100 feet of the subject property. These envelopes are for the mailing of the notice of the Architectural Review Board's (Committee's) meeting. The names and address of the property owners who are to receive notice shall be obtained (by the owner or applicant) and shall be of such Olmers as shown on the assessment rolls of the City or the County. 5. Letter size envelope(s) with proper postage, addressed to the owner and applicant (if different), and to the City of Arcadia Planning Department, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA. 91006. These envelopes are for the mailing of the Architectural Review Board's (Colluni ttee 's) decision. . .. /jt'r; IJL K 1(... &1' t4 r'1 Dr: S' 0 r_ _ :>Tt:tt;:"T LIST OF PROPERTY OIJNERS AND NAILING ADRESSES WITHIN <II Jl' RTI'~ ,,~ t.)" "" I Uk 1 'It ~n;RIGR ... r.olJi'In,\11-ry"'-GF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION a 1100 C'Df.-ti [1'6 V "f" -/001'" . . Assessment Numbers to number (red) correspond on map in with the the City numbers on Clerk's the area office mc," Property Owner / Nailin\! Address 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 . - 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~ '- '--' " b. The Regular Review Process muse be used for ehe review of applications to those Conditions 1 through 8 of Section 3, which the ... ;~'Board has determined are not appropriaee for the Shore Review Process pursuant to the above. ,"- c. The Board is required to hol~_a noticed, scheduled meeting for the consideration of a Regular Review Process Application. d. Notice of the Board's meeting shall be mailed, postage prepaid to the applicant and to all property owners within one hundred feet (100') of the subject property, not less than ten (10) calendar days before the date of such meeting. The applicant shall also provide the Board with the last known name and . . address, of such owners as show upon the assessment rolls of the Ciey or . ! of the County. The applicant shall also provide the Board with letter size $ envelopes, which are addressed t~..he property owners who are eo receive said notice. The applicant shall provide the proper poseage on each of said envelopes. , ., e. Any decision by the Board shall be made by a majority' of the I rr entire membership of the Board, and such decision shall be rendered by . " 'i 'I the Board members who considered the application. ., II f." .~.~~..~~A render it'a decision Oft a Rasulu Review Proc..a. !lPPli...t1cnrw1thin thirty (30) working days frolD. the data such . II "':'.. requeSC''':Ie.l:lled with the Board; failure to take action in said tilla ahall, ee tKe'end of the thirty (~O) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans. " 16. EXPIRATION OF BOARD'S APPROVAL. If for a period'of one (1) year from date of approval, any project for which plans h~ye been " : " . .' 7 5288 " " . . . . LAW OFI'"ICES SNYDER.. HANCOCK S ASHWOR.TH '" I>~OF'E:S5.0NAL CO~POI'IATION W. CLOVD SNYDe:~I'eeS'19all CLARENCE L.. H....N<;:OCK RICHA~D e. ASHWORTH 1112 F..IR OAKS AVENUE POST OFFICE 80)0; 546 SOUTH P....SAOENA.CAL.IF'ORNI.... 9\030 @13J 682-2106 [818J 799-7156 July 12, 1988 City of Arcadia 240 w. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Attention: William Woolard, Director of Planning Re: Project address: 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Woolard: This letter is in supplement to my prior letter of July 11, 1988 regarding the above matter. That letter was delivered to you on Tuesday, July 12, 1988. Subsequent to its delivery, and on the same date, Mr. and Mrs. Owen received the original of the enclosed copy of Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Inc. letter dated July 10, 1988, which letter attempts to deny approval of the plans previously submitted. I also enclose a copy of the envelope in which it was sent, with a postmark of July 11, 1988. It is our position that the Board letter dated July 10, 1988 and postmarked July 11, 1988 is untimely and therefore null and void as a letter of denial by the Board. The facts concerning a timely response by the Board as set forth in my prior letter remain unchanged. Based upon a final submis- sion of all required documentation by Owen on May 24, 1988, the thirty (30) day response period as set forth in the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288, expired on midnight July 7, 1988. Paragraph 7, of Section 15, Regular Review Process Procedures of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288 is both mandatory ("The Board shall render its decision...."; "failure to take action in said time shall, at the end of the thirty (30) working day period, be deemed an approval of the plans"), and self-activa- ting by its express language. No action need be undertaken by an applicant to substantiate the approval of its application, based upon an untimely response by the Board. Our letter of July 11, 1988 was informational in nature, and not intended to solicit an opinion or response as to the validity of the posi- tion taken. However, if the City of Arcadia's position is not in agreement with those set forth herein, please notify the undersigned immediately. . City of Arcadia July 12, 1988 Page two The following comments and position set forth relate to an underlving question of the Board's authority and power to act in this matter. Section 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, Paragraph c of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288, empowers the Board to transact business and exercise powers therein conferred, only if (emphasis added) the following requirements exist: (c) Said by-laws (by-laws of the homeowners association) provide for appointment of property owners, only, to the Board. In anticipa- tion of the June 8, 1988 Board meeting, a copy of the by-laws and any amendments of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Inc., were obtained from the City of Arcadia (City Clerk) as said by-laws are required to be filed with the City of Arcadia pursuant to Paragraph e, section 12, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288. Those by-laws dated _day of , 1970, provide in part as follows: "7.03 Architectual Committee . The Board of Directors is authorized and empowered to consti tute and appoint an architectural committee composed of such number of persons, including the President of the Associa- tion, as the Board of Directors from time to time shall deter- mine. The Board of Directors, in its discretion, may appoint persons as members of the committee who possess professional, technical or business education, skills or capacity, notwi th- standing that they are not members of the Association, provided that not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the committee shall be members of the Association. The architectur- al committee shall organize as it may see fit, provided that the chairman of the committee shall be appointed and designated by the Board of Directors of the Association. Any and all actions bv the architectural committee shall be taken upon concurrence by a majority of the members of such committee." It is clear that the by-laws do not comply with the appropriate provisions of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288 as set forth above. Accordingly, it is our further position that the action of the Board as set forth in their letter of July 10, 1988 is of no force or effect due to lack of authority to act. This position regarding lack of authority was verbally presented to the Board at the meeting by the undersigned, on June 8, 1988. I trust that this can be verified by the records of the desig- nated agent of the Board assigned to maintain permanent written records of the meetings, findings, action and decision of the Board as provided for in Paragraph g, Section 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288. . Notwithstanding the positions as set forth above and without waiving or limiting any right or legal position, Owen, pursuant to Section 18, Appeal of the City of Arcadia Resolution No. 5288 . . . City of Arcadia July 12, 1988 Page three is concurrently filing an appeal of the Board's decision as set forth in their letter of July 10, 1988. Very truly yours, I~N6 '2n:T~ Richard B. Ashworth RBA:jlb enclosures . . . RA~[~~ ~A~IA A~ IA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARCADIA, CAllFOR.'lIA Ju.J.!/ lU, 1988 Mr. & Mrs. Rick Owen 1035 Hampton Road Arcaaia, Ca. 91006 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Owen, The plans you have submitted to the Arthictectural Review Boara of this Property Owners Association are hereby denied. The Board has determined that the proposed building is neither harmonious nor compatible with the ex istinq area. If you wlsh to submlt revised plans in proper form we will be glad to meet with you further. Sincerely, AC:c //~ / L -C.,~ :...,~ /-<. ," Ann King coop.~ Acting Chairman ~" c:...-.71:..:-:................. ./ ..- HANl:1I11 ~;AN I A ANllf I'ltUl'EIUY OWNERS ASSOCl^T1~."NC, ARW\LlIA. CAlIFURNIA MR. & MRS. RICK OWEN 1035 HAMPTON ROAD ARCADIA, CA. 91006 . . 11,1"".11/1,,,1/"111/"11,.11 ------~_._~. =- . ::11". ~', :: ---------.,.... ..... . . - -.. ... - . -- --~.' ~ '~USA . . <.jlnn JCing Coop,~ 995 !!lampton !Road c..A.lcadia, Cali!olflia 9JOo6 July 14, 1988 City of Arcadia Planning Department 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca. 91006 ATTENTION: William Woolard Re; Rick Owen, 1035 Hampton Road Gentlepeople, This letter is for the purpose of assuring that an appeal is timely filed in the above matter. The failure of the Architectural Review Board to take action in a timely fashion should not condemn an area to the approval of a project that is neither com- patible nor harmonious with the beauty of the exist- ing area. . My personal check #1129, in amount of $230.00 is enclosed. Sincerely, ~-:..;c:c~l. /{~J 00> / . ..,.~-' AKC:c Ann King coo~ Encl. ,. ;,,/ . it ~..?7~ b 7//~,tk8 .';;-:3 . Auqusc 15, 1988 Arcadia Planning Commission 240 W. Huncington Dr~ve prcadia, Ca. 91006 Re: Owen ReveLopnent Project 1035 Hamptob Roau, Arcdaia, Ca. Th~s is to adv~se you that the BOard of Dlrectors of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners ASSOcLation, Inc., voted unanimously to repay to me the $230.00, and to take over all activities in connection with the appeal ill the above matter. . When I was ~nformed or the deadl~ne for the filing of an appeal I was unable to contact officers of the Associationl and the ArchitecturaL Board nad no acting chairman, there- fore I personallY file<J the appeal to precluae another defaul c event. AKC:c Encl. S,lncerely, (A~~ ~i;,/ff;;?~~"':.'< '- secretarY/TreasureI//' Rancho Association . . August;;, 1988 ArcadJ..d C.Lty planning Cvmm.l.SS.lon i.ienclemen: The unanimous V01:e or th~ BOard uf DJ.xec.:tol.'s or the Ral1cho Santa Anita Propf:!rty Owners Assoc~at.l.on, Inc., was a.gaJ.nst the propo:;ed p1ails of the new construction proposed at 10J5 Hampton Road, for the tol1ow~ng reason: It is not harmonious, nor is it compatinle with the e hames on tnat street, in the immedidte area, nor w~th the tone and style of the entire Upper Rancho community, per City Counci1 Resolution Nu. 5~88, Section J, Paragrapil 19, a .clnd /). rye would .Like to go Oil recora recommending that the P.Lanning Commission work with the owners to effect an all1icable cOlllpro- m~se chac IS compat~b1e ana ha~'monious with the neighborhood. OMT:ac fery truly yO~' \l~~\..h'\. '~\. \'.. j'.f'(\v~ \ A., Clu:is Brown il.' Pres~dent '. [) \: '>It.(. \ f'..{.,:.t.J\,j.- . . RA~[~~ ~A~IA A~IIP\ PRO PER T Y 0 \X; :\ E R 5 1\ 5 5 0 C I t\ TI 0 N, I N C . ?,u<;)ust 5, 1988 ARC.\DL\. C.\UFOIL'L\ Arcadia Plannina Commls~ion 24;:> W. Huntl~gton 0,-. ArC3dia. CdllTornia !~e: C~en's PU~Do3ed Recevelon~ent ProjRct. 11)35 ~Ia~pt()n Road. ~rcadia, Calif. Dear S: 1-. The Architectural Revlew Board fnr Rancho Santa Anita FrOpRrtl Ow~~rs ~SSOcl3tion reviewed plans far the redevelcpnle~~ at 1;)35 Hdmoton Rd. b'~ O~e~'s Develoome11t Company. We ar~ agai"st this pr-aposal for the following reasons: . 'rhe projacc is not Har~oniou~ ~or ~omPdtible with the street, Dlock or area <City Councl1 Resolutlon 528, SE'c. :1 Para. 19 a and b). a) The 15 t r ...J C t lj rei s too tal 1 (35 ft. I i n 1- e 1 d t ion to the sUI-round i ng homes. r f ynv add the he 19n t from s t r I?e t I eve lit is 45 ft. in he i gn t . b) The house wouLd block mountain views from at le3st tL~O hOlnes across the street. c) The si~e and mass does not conform to homes in ~~2 area. This relates to height next to the prQpert~ li~e. If this project had to co~form to the puroased envelop reqLdrement presented to the boa.rd, it IfoJOldd Tiot be approved. di The high atructure creates a huge wall for tne side nelghbors. This is not a two sto'-y i""\ome~ ~'Ili ':h it's 35 ft.~ it becomes three stories. Please review similar nearly comoleted projects in Arcadia. The oictures are enclosed. Recommendation: II Return the applicant to the Architectural ReviEW Board so that the lines of the building ca~ be discussed and hopefully a resolution to the height and mass ca~ be resolved. 21 Review this project usi~g the enveloo method presented to the Arcadia City Planning COmmiSSlon dated November 10. 1987. Thank You: . T~e Al-chitectural Rewiew Beard Rancho Sa~ita Anlta Property O~ners Associatlon KESIDENTS AGAI~ST ?ROPOSED REDEVELOPME~T PROJECT - 1035 Hfu~PTO~ ROAD We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for Owens Development Company. new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall {high} in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for bhe .location on the property. 5. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE . t~ dAd ~~ ~C~U~I1)t a) ~JJ~'A t: Cdl!fJ\l~l( ?~[~ti . ADDRESS /tJ'/o fI~ Red ae- !041 Wj~~~JJ a(~~_ lO't,,'2.... HA~ fi!...D. \DI-\ ..tA.....r>,ooJ i2.b <ftft/ ~";~i:>. 9b~ 'LN ~(;:.O 9~e> ?&::. c::>ft.,fl/'lG 6 Grzov'b RESIDE~TS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPME~T PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD We. the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by Owens Development Company. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following reasons. 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for the location on the property. 5. No~ set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE ADDRESS ,~ /] ,-;'..i/hr .~ l<.!-.-, ~ U-- 9 7 S II "'-' ;;J::;... )?,/. v' //2-0 ;;//o} 1 uf .fd ' ~ //;)0 F'a-I/I'n l.eaf jJj, . ''Jft__ j( f~ (J Jfif1~', i. 7l)k 814 FAIl <-N LeAF ~ 'In:p "l'rD~- e, (iJn;;P/.J~ dL,J~~}~J-~ ~~ gq tf ;t-a J1a"" 4 7flL q'J-~;A,~'v WI '7'S-t f~ (Icf ~ , / ./....--/":: , ;/~,( -:- c.:.. - . =----.l L:--r~ , -' c,)'f- 111ft1ttJT1!,(/4 ' . r; ~\ V-u ?{) --/~ ~. ~ q soli Cj ",{'-hr... f?A. 9.1'~~ () RESIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPME~T PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTO~ ROAD We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for Owens Development Company. new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for the location on the property. 5. ~o~ set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE . \iJ . ~h .b#~ ,/ L:a~ ~'t ., c7)"'J. ~t.,oJ +A"- ~ " ~ ~&"'-~ .ec..<.......,. '-- .'1:/.,;/ '~L/ . l) t/17,! Ll~ L~/J 4?-- . ~b~~'"\ .~~~" .~ ~ . ./!t Yl d- ,\ ,AD . ADDRESS /60/ /7~;/&~q 165'5" Si"'j"":l W.ooJ l:.';'u~ /O'i?.s-~r-:J fJ.)-... 7'?r d..~ A~~~' ;#~:~~c, ;;;; At( , ;/ / IOIl.J4 S~,j-:""',,\ \.u.\l0D ~'" lJA/ I tJ04 S2"';jl(t 1'u1UJd '1>1 . a ;}. (i 771 ~~ ~'-"- 777 ~ i~--- !CiVy .?~4 RESIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAO We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for Owens Development Company. new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 3. 4. 5. ToO massive for the location on the property. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles fer the second story. SIGNATURE . elf -<-->:...-<-"'- JI ,-,J~4& L~ 11, tl.a2c1~ ~~~~.'U~ocL ( . -;:;-) . -Z.I:~ )/t 7-~.tif h II n.., /- 1/ j,' (,t. (.L L-i.. 4.....- ~{IL- /7u,A;~d? 77u'd....p--...J . n iLtc:1u.~ i fY~1.v Ld.o I ~IP~ ADDRESS f '1.;,- ~iJ4-~ '" , ,L /'y"~ -r ....."-"1- . 9'30 .r N (rr AI G-<J,C\ l D~ cr)' c; J;yt'f" h \ If /11\ J 0.A..- \ \ , II ,y:---)( 'I /! f-:ro!2.-V':f/!-.,;..... /...c I 911 ~M"" 0 /Jf.3.3 ~ .g)h- J.~~~ ~.\I\~ tJr J~3 ~~~~.E .l.4z1l/~ (03 (j- Lr....~ u........l ,-C..... 1S'p.If~~KcI. I RESIDENTS ~G~rNST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 H~~PTON RO~D We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for Owens Development Company. new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by reasons. Tha t 'de are agains t this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. 3. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. Too high above the,street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. 5. Too massive for the location on the property. not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SrGN~TURE ';r-r lb>--'h-.' \~~ . \iI:.~ c .\,,"" ~ ~ku,'p ,_ /,J:,;tti }..U)-t>i.--d5. 11 . U......1~.rl . ~. N j-+/~ 6~.. j ~~al7 90..,-.. ~_ (I,... P4~/tc- . ADDRESS . II ~ (i ftx\A l!).) L\:'")';>.'f' ~ ~ ~ ,\ '3() 'r '" lIe" Le..aJ )d. ~ I/Lj~ <'. I . Lt..'~( -)",1./'-,/ 7tf'f '-.t-L......_ ~ I -12.1... . 71/1/ ~"'h, Pal. II J..-:/- I. <On t:...."..-'A \......\ iR.,Q !ltJI pJa.--qdl ~ RESIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD . We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by Owens Development Company. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following reasons. 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for the .location on the property. S. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE ADDRESS . o it 7., / __ '/"I!-'."~o;,.'~ / cr.t(,~~ ~).lLzf--' . 'C /?~ ~"''''')'' ~,;~"..J .t..;;.. ~ , r' It")"'-!.; \. '5c..::8': Er-nJ.. f'Jt> 5i"h1'"7Je.-.J OJ'. J\a.... 11.. ~ qt./) S""1'''1~:,.,-d .:N. ///<7""0" '" .I l.:..')...-___.L.,l...-~. ,;t 6.uJL...u.- /l/IL.';('Cc''-'-oo!..-.u:._~ 75'''1" Ai "~ if ~, ,-; I . .:.;;:; \' ;CJ.{..';U''''"'1'-h~~--d o :) .1,( Ic-UdU~, ,,'-- ::I~ f'-1- ,.h~/j"'/ C;~ ~ rt"~ ~~ ;-;~A, 990 ..Jj... )i/~ . $~ a, r_ 4.9'............... '1'Jo g, -J' :!- ?1-~ ~...., '~SIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the . Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by Owens Development Company. reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for ~he .location on the ~roperty. 5. ~ot set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considerinq the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE . .d~ xlLd ,. 1.j~I'--,;J"), It~ c;: ~i .' tt /iJ---;: ,!'/~~I1l./L.J'- -7lnJ1i'LIC0.,n Cvv- \(J// ~~~~ i~~ t{.L ~, YJ.:J fL~~: . ADDRESS /t' d..z ,d,14'-~<l-a/~ LC~. I I c;-I/J <:{.......... ( t L"" . ['(-i.-f'J.-{ n ~l ). \J ftJ-O (;I;j'L-"1![~ -<~ ) .,. /, fct._......:-.'r--,/ (./ {., ,.! ~ .I v 7 tf-D ~ wnJl 1)1. 7ro~. {f.-..1 ~/2/ q""\o 't-\r....~ ~~, fGfo Sinf,~!t/cnI.u. ---ReSIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the propOsed plans for new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by . Owens Development Company. reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes, 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for bhe .location on the :property. 5. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE . ~~ ~.,.,,.._ (\ ,).~ L \.. ~ O!. Q4-~ ' (~ ~Uv~ ~~)&~ ~kn ~/~~r /Lru<<-- ~ <..~<..A_~_ ~.fJ - . ADDRESS 7fS Il"7-k. At ~ '1~h ~~ ,,~ ~ -f\"" '739 ~ /40 . 1~~4Illf'TQ1\. edclmacluLG. ~\~ /~p ss '~ :;- ~^.... r ;)IN-vd J:l1 /. ,> ':"'.:r $.-- ~.w..... ~~ ~ '."", ,.f ....._ _. .. / RESIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD . We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners A.ssociation, Incorporated, do by ~iY:iii1~ i..Jel~'.-! indicate t.hat we ha....e t"evie...:eu the proposed plans for Owens Development Company. new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by reasons. That we are against this proposal for one or more of th~ following 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the. street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for the location on the property. 5. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNl'.TURE . f);N- I tJ/ \ ;:> G..,-.. ' \). .C- ~.:.........- ~L~:&~ C)o/~~ ~~.~ ~/I ~~ ~d~ A~tl!~~._._ . V . l'.DDRESS /tJ~s- 5/,v6./p{, Wo~,:) VA9 ~ I \~'1S-S"", ......"""""~~ " I~o;s C;''''Q''''t: ~)'''''L> hR'1 A~J!)/;IJ /I)~ :::;;,;., ~ ,,~. A / /00.{", Hvr:~6woo.l &- N.t r s. ""7/"''' U.u tJ PI{. ,... _.q~9 ~t-___. ~d. / RESIDENTS AGAINST PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - 1035 HAMPTON ROAD . We, the undersigned, residents of that area of Arcadia included in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association, Incorporated, do by signing below indicate that we have reviewed the proposed plans for new construction at 1035 Hampton Road, Arcadia, to be developed by Owens Development Company. That we are against this proposal for one or more of the fOllowing reasons. 1. Not harmonious nor compatible with the street, block or area. 2. Too tall (high) in relationship with the surrounding homes. 3. Too high above the street grade and mounted on a knoll. 4. Too massive for the location on the property. 5. Not set back far enough from the street to balance out the size of the project. 6. Too wide for the property considering the minimal set backs and angles for the second story. SIGNATURE ADDRESS . '1/,' s: ' ...r ?Td/;./.--,/ ~ ) 1/3&' }izI.',-,yv r.<... il~1 u".....- . . . To The Members of the Architectural Review Board FROM: Jim and Terry Lee 965 Fallen Leaf Road Rick and Pam Owen have shown us their plans to build a new home at 1035 Hampton Road. We approve of these plans. We cannot attend the Board meeting, but ask you to read and consider our letter. Thank You. . The new home will be two stories and essentially cover the foundation of the present story house. Rick is a builder of high quality homes. We have seen several of them. Rick and Pam have three young children. Naturally he wants to build a lovely home for his family to live in for many years. The Owens think our neighborhood is the very best, as indeed it is. (We have lived here for thirty (30 years). AS we understand it, there is a problem with the facade of the home, namely the decorative details that give it an English look. We think one of the most attractive features of our neighborhood is the variety of home styles, Ranch, French, Cape Cod, Colonial, land 2 colors and landscaped in different ways. Robert Wark, Curator of art at the Huntington Library and Art Galleries, states that "style" - the look of things - changes all the time. As curator he is not free to sell what is currently in the basement, as it may soon become the most important style. We think it is a shame, and are most distressed, that anyone in our neighborhood (especially the Board that represents us), would discourage and make unwelcome a new neighbor who wants to build a quality home on his property. . In the long run, whatever style is used, a lacy screen of trees softens a home and makes it sit well on the property. A young oak grows to 25 feet high and wide in 12 years, and others - 1iquidamber and alder, grow 40 feet in 10 years. We ask our ARB to be open-minded and fair and judge the . proposed home on it conformance to building restrictions and the quality work of the builder. We would like to have Rick and Pam build the home as it is now planned. Thank you for hearing our opinion. . . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen Hz[ln/JWr; f I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans no objection to them building this home. erff My address is /t>~ and I (we) have Sincerely, . Ci 2 ald2e, < ([:fLit ~6 i# / - ~ ~ (';"1/. J ;J 11 .,. :., I - I I ~ C- . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Horne of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen My address is I Q have seen the no objection to them / ()::<. s--- !--I...':JP1 If) TCJN kb Owen's proposed plans and I (~) have building this home. . Sincerely, .~Q7:~ ~~~RK' Date ' :::> ,.:) ..' .. -- r-'/,.:: .:.>,-- ~-' 1-'" 1.-_ 1_ I ,,-,' . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: Proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen Ny address is /t!I/';S /./4" /?,/./~('7 p v /!;.(J , I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. . Sincerely, ) .' ;/' -,' ../, ' , :/"' /://1,/-'. " l..,.../ '(I .//-;./'; /r.(:c~('r,?~~.- ~l.,', - I . " :.., \ I'" [""'!''"'. - ~ , _' _.1__. /' r;, / _':;-/-f'oY' Da te / / . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and pam Owen My address is 0"""- I ~w:) have seen the no o~jection to them ~~ r~ Owen's proposed plans and I ~) building this home. /0/0 ~~J.&n/ . Sincerely, d:/?r ~ A d:~Z:" '#/. %/,72' 6/71 t5Y ' Da/te ' ( , .J ~~: c:\ f', ,'ii.,r ., "'- . . have . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. ~ly address is Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen "73,S 1!13r? f 7tJ/{) @ ; I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. Sincerely, . //)/ '7/ ./ ,/ /I//; /~, / / . . ...- :- / 'j.y;? ( ({,\ I' (... Date / IU- t. . ;:r-lP7~t'/Y> . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen 7v~~ h &/- // I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. /o1y address is II 5'0 / ' Sincerel~' , . . / /'~I ,{;/ . i . (,' t:-. eA 6-b-~r? Date (-- /S LA.--:rt-L "'/(-:/\I'i,e \/0;/ I" .'!,'.-:._ C'l.,-;;:-(",. - - . . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: Proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and pam Owen My address is //(L"O 5/~~;r<c /.--J~d ))/ v ~ r (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. . Sincerely, /:?7~ //'62... ~,~ ~ --r-~/?ff C/ Date I \.:,'r.1 'r. 'j '- '. ,\ , .'., . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: Proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen Ny address is /It/S- F~ tzar ;2d I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. . Sincerely, -7,,,"- .IlGbCld<1/au rP,:-,e t/B'BAj 0-5-8>? Date . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: Proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen Hy address is /~s- ~c;:;4t: . ~.V/J I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. . Sincerely, " >>/7 ,.. '.J . C"_-,r;"'~::.1 ~'.~\C._. 0'/ ~\ ..~.~ //~~ -c~~:" "'Z- ~ , -./ / /.' ~)X~~ /C'C'.>.s- +~ .!.-E"-" /~~ 2.0. /' /. -!.:'" _.c~, U Date/" . . . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: Proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen My address is /!/c3rP s:r:/J//t ,%-;l6/l-/z-ITI7- _OIL.. I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. ~/le. #-v/?;ze# . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen My address is 1 Lfo \A) 0 (,{J.n~ b Q.. m\! e- D, H?___ . Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have building this home. I (we) have seen the no objection to them . Sincerely, /7pYbeY #A . . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and pam Owen My address is J 01 {o ~'r'l~ ~ LJo-rJ. 11u'ld ~ I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. Sincerely, . _\3a\.L--- r. VUn~ (.,-/;'-g6 Date -:ret'P fY'IOI"<;) v I ,. <;. . . UPPER RANCHO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTENTION: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RE: proposed New 1035 Hampton Arcadia, CA. Home of Road 91006 Rick and Pam Owen My address is 1\ '3 -) fill.<:-''oj Lc; ^ f I (we) have seen the Owen's proposed plans and I (we) have no objection to them building this home. . SiArely, '1'-'.~ ., . (/;;;/;(~ t~." 'j ~ /~b' Date I I 11',,1<."7';</ (~,'::rrJ -l:IOir'~J ~im,!; .