Item 13 - Suggested Findings for Denial of MDR 86-70 AGENDA REPORT ' --
G� W'9Y
CITY OF POWAY
_ � �i
F C�"m� THe coV�
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Reba W. Touw, Director of Planning Services �
DATE: November 25, 1986
SUBJECT: Suqgested Findinqs for Denial of Minor Development
Review 86-70
If the City Council wishes to "deny MDRA 86-70 , the following fin-
dings are suggested:
1 . The proposed recreation-entertainment building will have
adverse aesthetic impacts upon existing adjoining properties in
that:
._ a. it is 64 feet long and is located 10 feet from a side
property line;
b. it is adjacent to the rear yard of the neighboring
property;
c. it is excessively large;
d. it will restrict the view of the foothills from adjoining
properties; and
e. the elevations are stark with little architectural detail
on the 64 foot long, straight wall.
JLB:RWT:is
ACTION:
NOV 2 5 1g86 I T E M 13
T�rald Goldstein
0337 Summer Sage Rd.
Poway , Calif. 92064
November 24 , 1986
members of the City Council
City of Pouiay
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway , Calif. , 92064
Subject ; minor Development R�viEUi 86-70
Diane & David merrick Applicants
Construction of a 1 ,365 Square Foot Building
Dear Council memhers , �
I am taking this opportunity to object to the subject
development. my property is located diagonally across from
the merricks and is adversely impacted by the development. The
primary reasons I purchased my home in poway is as follows ;
- size of the lots
- A vieui of the foothills from the backyard
- Large lots with maximum distances between buildings
It is extremely disappointing to discover after making a
major purchase , the c:iteria used for the selection is no long-
er valid. The vieui and the distances betuieen structuras are
negatively impacted by the proposed building.
Putting up a building only 300 square feet smaller than
some of the existing residences in the area , on a lot which was
supposed to have only one structure is unjust. Placing that
building directly in the line oP view of a neighhor is unfair.
The potential impact of this building on my property is all
negative. The value of my home will decline since two key ad-
van�ages have been removed.
I also feel that all the neighbors in the area have not
been apprised of the situation. Even if they are not directly
impacted , they should he informed since a precedence setting
situation is before us. IP' one neighbor puts two structures
on a lot originally intended for one , uihat is to prevent other
neighbors from doing the same.
I urge the council to vote against this proposed develop-
ment . If a building of this size goes in our property values
will decrease, our vieui will be obstructed and the oPenness of
the community will be in danger of heing eliminated. At the
least , all residances in the Bridlewood Americana Series should
be advised of this pending action since they are indirectly
impactedo
Your denial of this permit will go a long way in uphold-
ing the true value of open space in North Poway.
Sincerely , � // ///�
w,lA�,( l d
Gerald Goldstein
NOV 25 1986 ITEM 13
r�aron Goldstein
16337 Summer Saqe Rd,
Pouiay , Calif. 92064
membQrs of the City Council
City of pouiay
13325 Civic Center Drive
� - Poway , Calif. , 92064
Subject : minar Development Review 86-70
David & Diane merrick Applicants
Construction of a 1 ,365 Square Foot Addition
Dear Council members ,
The property on Ua11ey.. Sprin4. Rd. is not sitting in a
Green Ualley setting uihere establ.ished trees or the terrain
uiill camouflage the addition. This is a tract development with
5 foot high fences and u�here roof lines are visible just as they
are in any tract development , the only difference is the larger
lot size. The area is quite different than those on custom lots
uiith native vegetation surrounding the houses and neighbors are
a distance from one another.
This addition is largar than the size of an apartment unit
or a condominum that has two bedrooms and a dining room. Length-
wise it is almost the size of the third largest house in the
development and is only 300 square feet smaller than the small-
est house in the development. This addition has tuio baihrooms
included also.
The Staff Planner explained that this is a Recreation /
Entertainment Room not a Granny House but there is no difference
other than the so called name placed on this structure. The
only Restrictions placed on this building is no kitchen� facilities
and the unit can not be rented out. Kitchen facilities are
something the city can not enforce once the unit is built. Hot
plates and microu�aves can be considered part of the recreation/
Entertainment facilities and later can be used for cooking if
someone chooses to live in this structure. The Staff Report
states that the addition can not 6e rented out , but what is to
stop it from being used as a living facility on a_day to day
basis for a maid or so call gues� . No money is being taken but
someone is using it to live in. Even if the present ouiners may
claim no intention to use it to live in, once built there can be
no control on how it will be used , now or later when the property
is sold.
Property values are, depreciated. u�hen a potential buyer be- .
lieves a lot of parties are part of the neighbor ' s life-style
or that the size of the building is large enough for someone
to live in
In concluding I would like to ask each of you on the Council
how many of you would be happy to look out at your property and
NOV251986 ITEM 13
see two housos of almnst equal size clase together and blocking
your view; when you bought the propgrty thinking it was going
to be country living and it now looks like a development uiith
zero lot lines.
' There seems to be a need nnw to estahlish an amendment to
the present ordinance describing unattached additions .
1 ) Limits on the size ❑f an unattached house in a tract
development uiith lot sizes of 20, 0�0 needs to be
clarified .
2 ) The need to detine additions and not lable one as
a Granny house and another as a Recreation/ Enter-
tainment Room when in reality they serve the same
puspose and can be used as a permanent living fa-
cility.
3 ) Aiso the issue of whether room additions can be
used as a permanent residences should also be
better defined,
The present ordinance does na* cover all the probl.ems that
may arise when unattached additions zre baing< consider�d for
permit. I would like to see some action in this matter in the
near future.
5incerely ,
Sharon Goldstein
i � '—. , .
ti���,—� ��G���,---
NOV 2 5 1gg6 I T E M 13
GENDA REPORT
G '9Y
CITY OF POWAY
This report is included on. the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of theF.
report prior toapproval by the: City Council unless members of the. Council, staff or public IN THE C�
requesC it to be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed separately. If you wish to
have this report pulled for discussion, please fill out a slip indicating the report number
and give it w the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the City Council meeting.
�e�ir:t�ir�c�le*'�IE��t�Iei��k##*#�e*ik��fe*str�ki�#�C�Ir�h�rkie*;F#*�e�e�e�t�k�fei��ie#*3r�k.kie�k*fie'*e��le��r9rdc�e�k*
TO: Honorable Mayor. and Members of the CityCouncil
FROM: James L. Bowersoxr City Mana
INITIATED BY: Reba W. rouw, Director of Planning Services
DATE': November` 25, 1986
SUBJECT: Minor Development Review 86-70 David and Diane
Merrick, Applicants A request for approval to allow
the construction of a 1,365 square foot recreation -
entertainment, building as an accessory building. The
property is located at 14040 Valley Springs Road in
the PRD (Planned Residential Development.) zone.
APN: 275-67`3-17 WOP
3 ,
ABSTRACT`
; PROJECT PLANNER: Sharon Crockett, Assistant Planner
PARCEL SIZE: 78 Acre
GENERAL PLAN' DESIGNATION: PRD (Planned Residential
Development) zone
ZONING: PRD (Planned Residential.
Development) zone
RELATED CASES None
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None
ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: categorically Exempt, Class 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions
ACTION.
dF
4.86 i T E 13
4
I OF Id
z
2 0F, la NOV' 24 1986 I T E M
y
Agenda Report
November 25, 1986
Page,2
BACKGROUND
A Project Description
5
On April 23, 1985, the Council directed Staff to bring to
Council -for review each application for a, building permit for
s
accessory living quarters or guest houses.
Mr. and Mrs-. Merrick are requesting the Council approve Minor.
Development Review Application 86-70 and allow the construction
of a 1,365 square foot recreation -entertainment building as an
accessory building (see Attachment 2). The property is located
at 14040 Valley Springs Road in the -Planned Residential
Development zone and has been developed with atwo-story "Spanish,
style. single-family residence as part of the Bridlewood. Develop-
evelop-ment
ment(.TTM 4.0 9 2R) .
The Architectural Review Committee of Bridlewood has approved
the building: (see Attachment 5). Staff' is recommending the
recordation of a deedrestriction to prohibit the installation
of a kitchen and rental of the proposed accessory structure.,
and compatibility with the existing residence in regard to
architectural style, building materials, and colors.
The 1,365 square foot 'building contains. game, bi.11iar.d, play,
entertainment, and pool storage rooms (seeAttachments 3 and
4).. Only a minimal amount of grading will be necessary to pre-`
pare the accessory building's pad.
The proposed project complies with the setbacks, the. `height
limit, and.the lot coverage restrictions of the property deve-
lopment standards of the PRD zone. The surrounding properties
are under the same zoning designation as the subject lot and
are: developed with single-family residences similar, to the pro-
posed project.
B. Development Facilities-
Development facilities to serve the building were installed
construction of the underlying subdivision. This appli.-
,during
cation will require the extension of sewer, water,: and utility
lines.
C. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3, from the provi-
sions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and an
exemption will be filed with the County Clerk.
2 0F, la NOV' 24 1986 I T E M
y
Agenda Report
November 25, 1986
Page 3
Correspondence
Notice of the public hearing has been sent to property owners.
adjacent to the project prior to the hearing.
FINDINGS •
The proposed development is consistent with, the General Plan and.
the Zoning Development Code. No adverse impacts of an aesthetic,
safety, or architectural nature upon adjoining properties will
occur because the recreation -entertainment building is compatible
with the existing residence and adjacent developments. The project
meets the Zoning Ordinance criteria and encourages the orderly
appearance of the City because it is similar to and complements the
adjacent development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Minor Development.
Review 86-70 subject to conditions contained in the attached reso-
lution.
JLB : RWT : SEC':pcm
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Site Plan
3. Elevations
4. Floor Plan
5. Letter from Architectural Committee Approving Building
3 OF 10
Nov 251986 ITEM 13
9.0
r RESOLUTIOU NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -'86-70
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-673-1.7 WOP
WHEREAS, Minor Development Review 86-70. submitted by David and.
Diane Merrick, applicants, a request for approval to construct a
t 1,365 square foot recreation -entertainment building.. The property
is, located at 14040Valley Springs Road in the Planned. Reaidenti'al.
Development zone.
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1986, the City Council held a hearing
on the above -referenced item..
E NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby, resolve as.
follows:.
Section 1: Findings
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the
Poway General Plan.,
2., That. the: proposed. development will not have an adverse
aesthetic, health, safety, or architecturally related
impact upon adjoining properties.
3.. That the proposed development is in compliancem with the.
Zoning Ordinance.
4 That the proposed. development encourages the orderly and
harmonious appearance of structures and property within
the City.
Section 2: Environmental Findings:
This project, is categorically- exempt (Class, 3 ?' from the pro-
visions of the California. Environmental Quality Act.,
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Minor Development Review 86-70
subject to the following conditions
1p Within 30 days of:`approval., the applicant shall submit in
writing that all conditions of approval have been. read and
understood.
NOV 2 5 1886 ITEM 13
OF 1a;
t
Resolution No. P-
i
Page 2
2.
The appropriate Building Department approvals shall be
received, prior to initiation of construction.
3.
New utility lines shall be undergrounded`and only one
electric meter shall be allowed.
4..
The applicants shall submit a letter, to the Planning
Services Department stating that kitchen fac=ilities will
not be installed in the detached structure, and that said
structure will not be rented as a separate. living unit. A
declaration of land use restriction prohibiting the rental
of the accessory structure and installation of: kitchen
fac.lities shal l. be recorded prior to building Aermi.t
issuance,,.
5.
'The recreation -entertainment building shall match. the
}
existing residence in architectural style and building
materials and colors:
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of: Poway,
+
State of
California, this 25th day of November 1986.
Bruce J. Tarzv, Mavor
ATTEST:
Marjorie
K., Wahlsten,`City Clerk
NOV 2 ITEM 13,
6'o r la
.,r •
t0ilf�1�•
111
X
v
98
MOW MUM
.511.11.0100
CITY OF POWAY
NUN AST) ELEVATION`
ITE..: N11)17aA96 -tea
TITLE : Ft -F-01-1°1'"
SCALE N- ATTACHMENT'
NOV 2 5 7986 ITEM
'.
►al-o'
�t'=o' v'-6• 9�-d
td•d to=o'
1�`•dtj
w,r
3
r
MIME.
r _
Qa
P-+{Ld.uRD RcEC7`I
rose?(71
_ — —
..
A
_
, _a
SnktW
• Gkiu►If/ PT Ste
f•iw/l Ylit
O
0.
ClOft'3'
x
��
'r
Q C�
�w�l3i►�e
4•x'1 i
g,v
14�+�3•`
p'-�• -r
,i,.fy
rte'
21� -
t •� -
, -
44
T56)PtO,W'AITE
56) -"7C)�.a
TITLE o
P
SCALE a
ATTACHMENT
8.OF
NOV 2-5 7986 ITEM
13
ARC TrSC L REVIEW, COMI
t
BRIDLEWOOD CT` 4092-R
".
MINUTE'S
TO:
Mr. Mrs. -Merrick.
valley prIngs
P�=CA 92� 6� - •
s.
FROM:
Architectural Committee, Bridlewood Tract4092-R.
An Architectural Review Committee meeting was held. on.
9-23-85 to. discuss the. following.
RE,z
Lot 73
File 53-8`
I14PORTANT NOTICES.`
1..
The signature - below= constitutes -Conceptual, Approvals,
r
Add, t, oral, City approvals and permits: may be reqs fired
to insure compliance with City codes.,
.._y 2.
Be advised, that where- easements exist on your property,
;F
landscaping and fencing are subject to conditions of the.
easements.
i
3.:
Any additions or changes must be approved. by Committee.
PLANS.
i
a
PLANS
DISAPPROVED: -
PLANS
_ APPROVEM.-
PLANS
i
APPROVED SUBJECT TO THEFOLLOWING- CONDITIONS:
i
{
:
}
:
SIGNATURE
. �t
chi. dural. Committee: ttee for Tract 40'92 -Ry
- Bl ems►®ad,
9.057
a �. nzzxtw,oat - r
cF I Q
r
NOV 2 5 1986 0 T L i,13 r.1 -M .'
_ 1
PROPRITt 008209 Mwq:- Jxox
tssStasess:a sssasasssss:
Nauss
.92 Miramar- Rde , 10� ! 4�ta� li(619) 578-5760
I San D is o CA 92121
APr
PLICATION Pot ARCHITECTURAL: C APPROVAL
r
or EMIXO u
Oil ER NAME, Uaula,.-i
OWNER 9`3 DR t c re ,k• .Vd LOT' i� a
ADDRES30F
. P ROJ. : ;Y G, �u
WOULD LIKE= TO REQUEST' APP OPAL FOR THE FOLLOVING ROV TSH Y
ype o -Improvement as per RtaoH*3 3rawing)
RO° IMPROVEMENT CAR PROCEED ITSOQT' PRIOR VRITTZB APPROVAL; OF TEE
ARCHITECTURAL, COMITTER OF ?Ht PROPERTT OVNUlR AFION*, TRIBI
PERTAINS, TO STRUCTM=q, E,A1iDgCAPI=, wnIoR PAUT33G AM SOLAR
EMATING, DZVICWjS A5 PER T� ATTACHED IRE?BDCC?IiiR` 8E8?
Note: It is required that signatures be obtained from neighbors from
each., side- and to the ream of the lot be Ing improved, ndi eating
they are awarer of� the proposed: improvements..:
The undersigned neighbors have been informed of, the planned. improvements:
R Street Address Ap rove !b act
OF
IMPORTANT ROTICS; Additional. City approval, and permits may be required
PleRoe see attnohad instruatioa sheet,.
DATE f -JC - _;�l
Bomeoiner gna ure s
Plane:' Approved Disapproved DATE
Signature, Artural-Committee Cha rman
Cdnditionn for Approval
. i2 1116 ITEM
LH-
1 OOF I
CERTIFIED MAIL.
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CITY` OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
City Clerk
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, California 92064
Re:. File No. 86-7'0
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to a telephone conversation with Sharon Crockett,
we.. understand that representation has. been made to the: City
that the Merricks have received Architectural Review Committee
(ARC) approval for a proposed building. This letter puts
the City of Poway on notice that the ARC has. never received
nor approved any building plans for the Merricks. The only
approvals the Merricks received were for landscapeplans.
6920 Miramar Road, Suite 104;; San Diego, CA 92121/(619);'578-5760
AWAL
BMcComk®. ® -
CERTIFIED MAIL'
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED,
t November 20, 1986
David and Diana Merrick.
14040 Valley Springs Road:
Poway,. California 92064
Re: Lot 73
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Merrick:
During this past week, the Architectural Review Committee.
(ARC) for Bridlewood Tract 40'92.-R has received numerous: inquiries:,
from your neighborsabout the building you are proposing
to build on. your, lot.
Since the ARCS has no record of receiving any plans; or'speci-
fications for any building,. this letter is written. to remind
you of your obligation under the Dec.-1ar.aton of Restrictions
for the. City of Poway, Tract 409,2-R, recorded. October 17`, 1985.
Enclosed is a copy of the section that requires you to submit
complete plans and, -specificaiton`
3
Sincerely',
F
J9es D. McMenamin, < President
Architectural, Review Committee
JDM/mas
Enclosure
;
cc City Clerk, City of Poway
Alex McDonald,_ McDonald, Hecht & Solberg
NOV: 2 5 198fi IT E N1 13
692G Miramar, Road, Suite -104s San: Diego, CA 92121/(6-19157&-5760'
f
parcel map of the Real Property and which is covered by this
Declaration or-annexed hereto.,
t
Section 4. •Mortgage" shall mean and referto a Deed of
Trust as well as a mortgage encumberinga. Lot.
•Section 5® ®Mortgagee* shall mean and refer to the bene
ficiary' of: a Deed -of Trust as well as the mortgagee of a mortgage
encumbering a Lot.
Section 6* ®owner.* shall mean and refer to the record, own-
ers, whether, one (1)or more persons or entities, of fee simple
title to any Lot, Including contract sellers® but excluding those
faaving, such interests merely as security for,the performance of.
an obligation.
Section 7, "Real Property" shall, mean and refer to that car-
tain real property described in. Recital. A above
ARTICLE 11
F
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL
Section 1., Architectural. Committee. There shall be an ini-
tial Architectural Committee consisting of three (3) persons,
each appointed by Declarant. Until one (1) year following, the
date- of the first close of escrow for the sale, by.-Declarant of a
Lot inthe first phase of development_ of the Read property, each,
member of the Architectural Committee shall be subject to removal,
at the. direction of Declarant at ,any time and from to' a to time,
and all vacancies on the Architectural Committee shall be filled
by appointment of Declarant. Commencing one (1.) year following _
the date of the first close of escrow-of a Lot in-Phase 1` and.
ending on the fifth (5th) anniversary of that date, or on the
date ninety percent (90$)of the number of Lots within the. Real.
Property have been sold (close of: escrow) by Declarant to retail
purchasers thereof , whichever shall first occur#. Declarant shall,
have the power, to appoint two (2) ,of the members of the
Architectural Committee and the Owners of a majority of the Lots
then.subject to the Declaration, excluding any Lots owned by
Declarant, shall have the power to appoint one (1) member -
thereof. Thereafter,. the. owners of a. majority of _the Lots sub-
ject to the Declaration shall, have the power to appointL all of
the members of the Architectural Committee,
Section 2. Architectural Control. No building or other
structure or landscape improvements- (including irrigation, plant
materials: and hardscape) or other improvements, including; solar
panels, shall be erected, placed or altered upon any Lot until
the location and the complete plans and specifications thereof
NOV 25 1986 ITEM 13
x
{
including, the color scheme} of each building, landscape improve
went- rcloding irrigation system, plant materialsa hardscape,
fence. and/or wall to be erected or planted upon.the Lot, have.
{ ` . been aPI�
Loved in writing by the Architectural,Citeelpro-
vided, however that in the event the Architectural Committee
Bail: to approve or disapprove such locations plans and apecif i-
catons or other request made of it, within sixty: (60) days after
z the submission-- thereof to its then such approval will not be
requredP provided that any building so to be erected conforms to
all other conditions and restrictions herein contained and is in
harmony with similar improvements erected within the Real
property. The gradef level or drainage characteristics o a Lot
or portion thereof shall not be altered without the prior written
consent of the Architectural Committee.
r The Architectural Committee
Section 3® Declarant Exemption*
shah.. have no authority, power: or jurisdiction over Lots ®wined by
Declaran and neither the provisions of Section 2 above. nor.
Article III below shall apply to Lots owned -by Declarant until
such: time a Declarant conveys title to a Lot to the purchaser
thereof and this exception shall thereupon terminate as to the
Lot conveyed
ARTICLE II'
USE PROVISIONS
Residential Purposes No Lot shall be used
Section 1 _
sidential, ur ses, and no building or buildings
except for re P Po
shall be erected# constructed, altered or maintained on any Lo
other than one (1) detached', single-family dwelling-, a private
garage for not more. than three (3) cars and such customary out
uildings as. are permitted from time to time by the ordinance
s of
the City of Poway, California. Anything contained herein to the
contrary, r.-twithstanding, Declarant shall have the right to use
Purposes - homes • and sales off ices until such
any Lot for Purposes of Model _
gime as Declarant has conveyed all Lots in the Real Property to
purchasers thereof, or until JuneL 30, 1992, whichever shall first
i occur.
Section 2. Newz Building, C�• No building of any kind shall
be moved from any other place onto any Lot, or f roan one Lot to
another Lot, without the pr orwritten consent of the Architec-
tural Committee, except for temporary structures used in connec-
tion with the construction of a buila'ing or improvement on a
Lot.
• The ground
Section 3. Mme, um Floor Area Dwellings exclusive of
floor area of the. main structure located on a Lot, e
i
�4_
N OV 2 5 1986 ITEM 13
NOVEMBER 24 1986
CITY OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Diana and Dave,
We feel bad, but we're still in shockover the details
of your addition. We had absolutely no idea you were
planning a building so large. Along with Ted and other
neighbors behind you, we can not support construction.
Obviously, we are the ones- most affected by this and
our reasons for this change are as follows.
Your building goes from the corner of our house to the
bank in the middle of our yard. We would be totally boxed
in by both.
We would be looking at another 6 feet or so of roof and
solar panels past the fence, possibly with windows looking
directly over.
A buildir of this size would. totally obstruct the feeling
of openess that most of us moved to Bridlewood for. We.
wanted to get away fromother buiadingrright along our
fences.
For this reason, we think that this building would greatly
affect our property value. You're putting another "house"
almost the size of our other neighbor's and just feet from
our fence.
Whenever we asked about the size, you were very vague. If
we had had any notion of putting a 1400 sq. ft.- house
along the entire end of our yard, we would never have agreed.
You'll find that none of the other neighbors want to look
at the roof of an additional structure, either. Your only
alternative may be an addition attached to your home.
We 'rev
ere willbe a solution that we all can live with!
Sincerely,
Debby and Steve
CC: OWAY CITY CLERK
BRIDLEW00D ARCHETECTURAL COMMITTEE
NOV 2 5 1986; ITEM 13
•
r
LI 1A1311 9861 g AON
1113McCo
11
C, C.
November ° 24., 1986
Mr. and. Mrs. David Merrick
14040 Valley Springs Road.
Poway, California' 92064
RE.CEIVE
DEC 1 198b
CITY OF POWAY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Merrick
We are in receipt of your plans for a recreation/enter.tainment
building on Lot 73 of Tract 4092 of the Americana Series at
Bridlewood.
These plans, as submitted, are =disapproved for the following
reasons:
1. We have not received 'a site plan indicating setbacks from
the property line, neighbors' residences, etc.
2 The exterior aesthetics of the proposed building.do not
correspond with the architecture of the existing structure.
It does not appear that any attention has. been given to
exterior architectural. detail.
We have not received an application for approvalwith.. the
signatures of all of the neighbors', that will be visually
effected by this structure. .The signatures on the request
for landscaping approval that you submitted on August 19,
1986 do not fulfillthis criteria as homeowners did not have
site or construction plans at the time they originally
signed your application on which they could base an approval
of this structure.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
ames D. McMenamin, President
Architectural Review Committee
JDM/lhh.
13:103
6920 Miramar Road, Suite 104, San: Diego, CA 92121/(619) 578-576.0