HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-01; Planning Commission; ; DI 94-01 - KAFFKA RESIDENCEAPPLICI\. ... ION COMPLETE DA TE:
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
STAFF PLANNER: DAVID RICK~
STAFF REPORT ®
DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 1995
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: DI 94-01 -KAFFKA RESIDENCE -Request for an appeal of the Planning
Director's decisions to 1) require a Hillside Development Permit and 2) to deny
a proposed site plan to construct a 4,170 square foot single family residence on
Lot No. 264 in Aviara Planning Area 13 in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
L RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission UPHOLD the Planning Director's decision and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3737 DENYING DI 94-01, based upon the findings contained
herein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This Discussion Item is an appeal which addresses two separate but related issues as follows:
1. The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision to require a Hillside
Development Permit (HOP) for his proposed 4,170 square foot, single family
home to be located on Lot 264 in Aviara Point (Planning Area 13).
2. The applicant is also appealing the Planning Director's decision to deny his
proposed site plan. Chapter V of the A viara Master Plan requires that a site plan
and architectural elevations be submitted to the Planning Director for his review
and approval for all development proposals in Planning Area 13 (PA 13).
PA 13 is a 65.4 acre private gate-guarded community of custom-built single family homes.
Home sites are generally located along the site's central ridge line and front on either the west
or east side of the Planning Area's only street, A viara Drive, which bears a north-south
orientation. Native slopes are preserved under an open space easement behind and within the
rear portions of several lots. Most of the lots are currently vacant. Beginning at the north side
of Aviara Drive, the lots are terraced by slopes approximately one to three feet high. Further
south, the grade declines at a greater rate, resulting in a greater separation in elevation between
lots. The subject property is surrounded by vacant pads to the north and west, preserved open
.I"'""'
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA Rfu1DENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGE2
space to the east, and a single family house under construction to the south.
Lot 264 is separated from the neighboring lot to the north by a manmade 19 foot high, 47 percent
slope. The entire slope is on the subject property's 13,014 square foot, split~level lot which steps
down from west to east. The rear portion of the property contains 2,292 square feet of
naturalized vegetation and slope preserved within an open space easement. The northern segment
of the property contains the 19 foot high, 4 7 percent slope mentioned above. On this lot, the
applicant is proposing to construct a 4,170 square foot home which terraces up the 19 foot high
slope, yet still maintains the required 10 foot side yard setback.
Per Section 21.95.030 of the Hillside Development Regulations the applicant is required to obtain
a Hillside Development Permit because he is proposing development on a slope greater than 15
percent in grade (slope grade is 47 percent) and on a slope with a difference in elevation greater
than 15 feet (slope height is 19 feet). This Section applies to both natural and previously-graded,
manmade slopes since the ordinance makes no distinction between the two types. The owner has
refused to submit an application, asserting the ordinance is inapplicable, as discussed under the
analysis section of this report.
The subject site plan was denied because the applicant proposed to develop on an undevelopable
slope. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and Section 21.53.230(c) of the Zoning
Ordinance both prohibit residential development of slopes with a grade exceeding 40 percent.
Again, nothing in this section of the code distinguish between natural or manmade slopes.
In addition to requiring a Hillside Development Permit and site plan approval, the proposed
development is subject to the A viara Master Plan and Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal
Program.
The denial of the site plan and requirement to process a HOP are both appealable to the Planning
Commission per Section 21.54.140, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The Commissioners'
decision on both issues is final and therefore cannot be appealed to the City Council.
m.
DISCUSSION
ANALYSIS
Hillside Development Permit Required
The request for a site plan approval did not include an application for a Hillside Development
Permit; yet, a permit is required since the proposed project is subject to the Hillside Development
Regulations. The applicant believes he is not subject to the Hillside Development Regulations
because he contends it is not the intent of these regulations to prevent development on
manufactured slopes but instead that the regulations address only natural slopes.
The regulations make no distinction between manufactured and natural slopes and the regulations
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA R&1DENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGE3
-
have been consistently applied to all slopes meeting the 15 percent/15 foot rule, regardless of
how they were created. To not do this could have a very significant impact on the community.
For example, a developer could apply for a Hillside Development Permit, have it approved and
then grade in conformance with the Permit. Once the grading was done, the developer could then
say that the graded slopes are manufactured and could be regraded without conformance with the
Hillside Development Regulations and Permit requirements.
Manufactured slopes are also subject to the Hillside Regulations since the "natural appearance"
of the hillside must be preserved. Although manufactured slopes are not encouraged, they cannot
be completely avoided. It is therefore important that in those areas of a subdivision where
manufactured slopes are created that the design of such slopes conform, to the greatest extent
possible, with the overall terrain of the surrounding hillside. If development were to occur on
these manufactured slopes without regulation, then the natural appearance of the overall hillside
for which manufactured slopes are a part could be lost. It is for these reasons just listed that the
applicant must obtain a Hillside Development Permit.
The Planning Director did not deny the site plan because it did not comply with the Hillside
Development Regulations, but rather denied it because a Hillside Development Permit was not
submitted. However, the site plan review included a review and analysis of the Hillside
Development Regulations in order to disclose all issues involved with this development proposal.
This review is discussed below.
PA 13 was originally developed under the provisions of a Hillside Development Permit. The
slopes which intervene between building pads were established within this subdivision to
preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the overall natural terrain of the hillside. Although these
slopes are manufactured, the overall landform established by these slopes does follow the natural
appearance of the terrain. In essence, these slopes have now become the new "natural" grades.
If the steep slopes within this subdivision were to be developed, then the terrain of the hillside,
as it was meant to be, would be lost. Such an occurrence, whether on a large subdivision or on
a single family lot, would be inconsistent with the intent of the Hillside Regulations to "preserve
the natural appearance of hillsides".
The proposed development is also inconsistent with the intent of the Hillside Regulations even
when review is narrowed within the confines of the subject property. The Hillside Regulations
were established to reduce the intensity of development on hillside areas to ensure that
development is compatible with the existing topography. Although the proposed structure
exhibits a superior architectural design, the intensity of the proposed development extends well
beyond that intended for this lot. The site contains a building pad that is physically
distinguishable from the slopes. The building pad was created to support a building and to set
boundaries for a building foundation. The applicant, on the other hand, is primarily using the
building pad as a courtyard and the manufactured slope as a building foundation. As the attached
letter indicates, the owner of Lot 263 (the property north of and adjacent to the subject property)
also feels that the applicant is proposing to develop outside the pad's envelope for development.
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA RE::,.iDENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGE4
Considering the above, staff could not support approval of a Hillside Development Permit if an
application were filed.
Site Plan Denial
Development on slopes, specifically 40 percent slopes, is addressed in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan and Section 21.53.230 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Hillside
Development Regulations. These documents prohibit development on slopes greater than 40
percent in grade, again with no distinction made between manufactured or natural slopes. Staff
has always taken a strong position against encroachment on 40 percent slopes whether the
proposal is to intrude into the hillside (i.e. excavating to create flat pad area) or to develop on
a hillside (i.e. terracing a structure on top of the slope). Both are considered as an encroachment.
Since there are documents other than the Hillside Development Regulations which restrict
development on 40 percent slopes, all 40 percent slopes are undevelopable even if such slopes
are not subject to the Hillside Development Regulations (less than 15 feet high). A strict
interpretation of the 40 percent rule would therefore consider all 40 percent slopes to be
undevelopable regardless of slope height. This would mean that even a small 40 percent slope
or bank one foot in height would be undevelopable.
Section 21.95.090 of the Hillside Development Regulations allows the City to exclude certain
portions of property from the restrictions of the Hillside Development Regulations. Previously
distmbed or graded (manufactmed) areas are one of those portions of property that may be
excluded. This section is permissive and discretionary and does not mandate the City to exclude
the area. Staff is prepared to, and has offered to, utilize this section of the Ordinance to allow
the applicant some encroachment into the slope, but only to the extent that the project would still
comply with the intent of the Ordinance. The applicant was offered the opportunity to encroach
into the slope to the maximum extent possible established by informal policy. Staff would allow
either a 12 foot lateral intrusion into the slope through the use of a 6 foot high retaining wall or
a 12 foot lateral intrusion on top of the slope (see Graphic "A"). A combination of the existing
building pad and the permitted area of encroachment into the slope would provide up to 7,800
square feet of building pad. This informal policy has been utilized citywide without adverse
consequences. Staff has also permitted this flexibility on two other lots (265 and 268) within PA
13. However, the applicant believes this policy is too restrictive and is requesting a lateral
encroachment of 29 feet as shown on Graphic "B". To allow such an encroachment would be
inconsistent with the Land Use Element, Section 21.53.230 of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as
the intent of the Hillside Development Regulations.
A viara Master Plan Standards
When the A viara Master Plan was approved it was determined to be consistent with the programs
and policies of the General Plan including those addressing undevelopable slopes. The Master
Plan itself is silent on hillside issues, and therefore, direction on these matters reverts to the
General Plan. Consequently, the applicant's proposed use of the slope as described above is not
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA Rfu.1DENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGES
consistent with either the General Plan or the A viara Master Plan.
The project complies with all other standards of the Master Plan. The proposal also complies
with the standards of the R-1 Zone as referenced within the Master Plan.
The following chart illustrates project compliance with these standards:
I STANDARD I REQUIRED I PROVIDED I
SETBACKS
Front yard Minimum 20 ft 20 ft
Side yards Minimum 10 ft 10 ft
Rear yard Minimum 20 ft 43 ft
BUILDING COVERAGE Maximum 40% of lot 34%
BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum 30 ft 28 ft
NUMBER STORIES Maximum 2 stories 2 stories*
PARKING 2 car garage a 1 and 2 car garage
USABLE REAR YARD OPEN Minimum 1,200 sq ft** 2,076 sq. ft
SPACE
MINIMUM WT SIZE 8,000 sq ft 13,100 sq. ft.
* Although the building would contain floors at three different levels, per aty definition, tbe building is two stories, since at no one point along or wi1hin tbe
building coverage does the building exceed two slories directly above 1hat point of measurement.
** The Master Plan states that •at least 15')£ oftl!L lot area shall bt: rtservt:dfor open space. Tlrls open space shall bt: located within tl!L rear yard and shall
not ,:xc,:,:d a gradient of 5')£". All prior cooslruction in PA 13 bas been based on tbe staff inte1pretation that tbe amount of usable open space shall equal 15')£
of 8,000 square feet (tbe minimum lot size) for all lots, rather than 15')£ of the actual lot size. If 1S'J£ of tbe actual lot size were required, Ihm tbe larger lots
which contain more uodevelopable land would require usable open space which would be largely out of proportion with the developable pad.
Local Coastal Program
The property is located within the Mello I Segment of the City's Local Coastal Program. Section
4 titled "Rancho La Costa (currently the Aviara Community)" contains specific Coastal
Commission policies applicable to A viara. Although the proposed project complies with most
of the policies, the determination could not be made that "grading of the slope is essential to the
development intent aru:l design." As previously discussed, the City never intended for grading
or development to occur on the property's steep slope. In addition, the property already contains
an adequate size building pad. Therefore, grading or development on the slope is not essential.
Because this finding cannot be made, the proposed development is inconsistent with the Local
Coastal Program.
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA Rh;IDENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGE6
v. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project would ordinarily be categorically exempt from environmental review per
Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which exempts the
construction of "single family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more
such units." However, as proposed by the applicant, there would be a significant effect on land
use, the earth, drainage, and aesthetics, eliminating the categorical exemption and requiring at
least a negative declaration. Because of the applicant's refusal to comply with the Hillside
Development Permit Ordinance requirements, the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and
A viara Master Plan, that environmental review has not begun.
VI. SUMMARY
The Planning Director denied the applicant's proposed development because 1) the proposed
development is inconsistent with the General Plan, A viara Master Plan, Mello I Segment of the
Local Coastal Program, and Section 21.53.230(c) of the Zoning Ordinance since development is
proposed on a slope over 40 percent in grade and extends beyond the area of encroachment into
the slope permitted by the City pursuant to Subsection 21.95.090(b)(l) (Exclusions) of the Zoning
Ordinance, and 2) the site plan was not accompanied by a Hillside Development Permit as
required per the Hillside Development Regulations.
The Commission may select one of the following actions on this appeal of site plan denial: (1)
Deny the appeal (adopt the proposed resolution); (2) Grant the appeal approving the site plan
contingent upon approval of a HDP and a Coastal Development Permit; or (3) Grant the appeal
approving the site plan without requiring approval of a HDP. In selecting the third option, the
Commission would have to find that the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and A viara Master
Plan, without amendment, would allow a 29 foot encroachment into a 19 foot high, 4 7 percent
grade, manufactured slope without a Hillside Development Permit, or find that the hillside
proposed for encroachment was an area previously disturbed by authorized grading and therefore
may be excluded from the requirements of a HDP. Regardless of the Commission's decision, the
applicant must obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission
prior to the City issuing a building permit. The Planning Commission's decision on the site plan
and the requirement for a Hillside Development Permit is final, and, therefore, cannot be
appealed to the City Council (Section 21.54.140 of the Zoning Ordinance.)
DI 94-01 -KAFFKA RE.,1DENCE
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
PAGE?
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3737
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Applicant's letter with Figures 1 through 6 comparing his proposed project with the
guidelines, standards, and intent of the Hillside Development Regulations
5. Neighbor's (owner of Lot 263) letter objecting the applicant's proposed development
6. Planning Director's letter denying proposed project
7. Applicant's letter appealing Planning Director's decision
8. Graphics "A" and "B"
9. Exhibits "A" -"H", dated January 18, 1995.
DR.-vd:lh
December 20, 1994
e a
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3737
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA,
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S
DECISIONS TO DENY APPROVAL OF THE SITE
PLAN AND REQUIRE A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 4,170
SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON LOT NO 264 IN AVIARA
PLANNING AREA 13 IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 19.
CASE NO: DI 94-01
, APPLICANT: KAFFKA RESIDENCE
9 ll WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit:
10
11
12
13
Lot 264 of the City of Carlsbad Tract 85-35, Aviara Phase
I - Unit ‘ID”, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map thereof No. 12412,
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego,
June 29, 1989.
14
15
l7
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes an appeal from Site Plan 16
and
approval denial (partially based upon the Planning Director’s decision to require a
18 Hillside Development Permit as provided by the General Plan, Local Coastal Program,
19
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and been referred to the Planning Commission;
I1 Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 including all amendments), and Section 21.53.230 of the
20
21 Carlsbad Municipal Code); and
22 WHEREAS, the Planning Director denied the application for Site Plan
23
25
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of January 24
approval on the 14th day of October, 1994; and
1995, and on the 1st day of February, 1995, consider said appeal of the Planning
26
27
28
Director’s denial; and
....
....
ll e 0
$
1 WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2
all factors relating to the appeal; and 3
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered
4
5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
6
7
8
9
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
10
11
DENIES, Discussion Item, DI 94-01, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. That the proposed project would allow construction of a house on portions of the
parcel defined as "undevelopable", and on which development is prohibited by the
12 General Plan, the Aviara Master Plan, and Carlsbad Municipal Code
13 11 §21.53.230(~).
14 2. That the proposed project has not obtained a Hillside Development Permit which
is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code s21.95.030 since development is
15 proposed on a hillside with a greater than 15 foot difference in elevation and a greater than 15 percent incline. 16
17 ....
l8 I1 f...
19 I/ ....
20 11 ....
21
22
23
24
25
26 ....
....
f...
....
....
27
28
....
PC RES0 NO. 3737 -2-
I
e 0
1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
2
Monroy, Nielsen, Noble and Savary. 5
the following vote, to wit: 3
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 1st day of February, 1995, by
4 AYES: Chairperson Welshons; Commissioners Comgas, Erwin,
6
7
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ABSTAIN: None.
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
l5 II
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3737 -3-
-
BATIOUITOS DR
City of Carlsbad
LOT 264 -PA 13 KAFFKA RESIDENCE DI 94-01
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET -
CASE NO: ..... D ..... 1 .... 9 .... 4:0 .... 1.__ ____________________ _
CASE NAME: Kaffka Residence
APPLICANT: _G""'ree=---K=aft'ka==-----------------------
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request to construct a 4,170 square foot single family
residence on Lot No. 264 in A viara Planning Area 13.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 264 of the City of Carlsbad Tract 85-35, Aviara Phase I -Unit D
according to Map thereto No. 12412.
APN: 215-611-12 Acres """'.30=-=-----Proposed No. of Lots/Units .....;;1 .... u=n=it......_ ____ _
(Assessor's Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation _R-L=M~--
Density Allowed 0.32 units per acre Density Proposed --'1=-=un=i"""t _______ _
Existing Zone --=PC"'"""-----Proposed Zone _PC ___ _
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Site
North
South
East
West
Zonine
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad
Land Use
RLM
RLM
RLM
OS
RLM
Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) __ o __ n __ e ________________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated .... N .... /""'A.__ _________________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
_ Negative Declaration, issued _____________________ _
_ Certiiied Environmental Impact Report, dated _______________ _
Other, Althoue;h no environmental review is completed, an environmental impact assessment
would be required with the HOP or e;radine; plans and, at a minimum, a Negative Declaration
would be issued. Dllml:11
)
"-.. , ,,·,
71ji' ~,r:I~..,,,=
)
\
~ I-~ -
:E ~
~ I
I·~
§ h, ---1-
1--
L
)
-$
Sl'TMOPO l"IJIN A-2
(ft 1t i ~ .(I . i~~ .
)
.
1¥C. f l'e ~§<(I
_\)~ . "2 It -. :t~;i
ffil I
(ft. .
1rt-Jft fil . .
~ t < ) I
I ·11 ~ h,
1tt ,-
1--1 -A-.25
L Flt:,Uf&E
--__ __,_ -----------------------
I
I It ..1---IJ I
I I
I '
------,.--
V\&W
AP-~
)
ACCEPTABLE
IXTIRIOR MATERIALS I
COLORS ARI HARMONIOUS
WITH THI TONI I TIXTURI • o, THI NATURAL HILLSIDE
ROOPLINE UNDULATED TO
FIT WITH NA1UIAL CONTOUR ~ ""'t, t/-9 0 ... OP LAND ► t,\.
SMALL BLOCK WALL "' ·~~i:~
EXTENDS BERM HIIGHT ~ '✓ ~
\PT.V:NIC
\ MUL Tl-LEVEL TERRACED FOUNDATION
FIT INTO HILLSIDE
SMALL IRREGULAR BERMS
AND LANDICAPING SCREENS
VIEWS FAOM BELOW
IUILDINe 18
PARALLa WITH CCINTOUI
City ot Car1•~
MINOR BUILDING PROTRUSIONS
ldP/DOWN SLOPI OCCUR ON
KNOLLS OR INSET IN HILLSIDE
\ -
NOT ACCEPTABLE
BU.KY VERTICAL ARCttTECTUAE
I
T
SINGLE LEVEL l'OUNDA TION -
RIQUIR18 UNNATURAL
MOOl,SCATION OP HILL81DI
FULLY EXPOSED
VIEW FROM BELOW
BUILDING 18
PERPENICULAR TO CONTOUR
HILLSIF")E ARCHITECTURE
.,,.
ACCEPTABLE
PANORAMIC VIEW FROM HILL TOP
ROOFLINE EXTENDS LINE 01' SLOPE
a 18 SLIGHTLY BELOW SIGHT LINE
FROM BELOW
f_ SMALL IRREGULAR BERM
SCREENS DEVELOPMENT FROM BELOW
......
NATURAL SLOPE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
( MA8SIVE FULLY EXPOSED STRUCTU.RE
.,,,,
__. ----...... ...... ----...... --------....__ -------..._ -. , ' ,--.... ~~--r;._ ______________ """'":,:----...
// ~'
/ NATURAL SLOPE ..,/ ------,, ? ,,
EXPOSED GRADED 8LOPE8 DOES NOT ENHANCE .
NATURAL TERRAIN
City at CartaW
HILL TOP ARCHITECTURE
PROPERTY.
LINE~
I I
M ~
I
CROSS SECTION OF SLOPE
VIEWED FROM AV/ARA DRIVE
I 101
I
I :+-SETBACK LINE
I
191
. --
I
. I
I
I
I
I
M
BUILDING PAD
291 I
391
GRAPHIC 11A11
•
PROPERTY.
LINE l
I ►'
CROSS SECTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
VIEWED FROM AV/ARA DRIVE
101 I V SETBACK LINE.
191
331
391
291
I
l+----121
GRAPHIC 118 11
if -.
September 15, 1994
Greg and Karen Kaffka
1885 High Ridge Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kaffka,
I have reviewed the information you submitted in your letter of September 9, 1994. In
the letter you also requested a written response. Therefore, this is to inform you that I
agree with the decision of staff regarding the applicability of the Hillside Ordinance to
your proposed singlsfamily construction on Lot #264 of Aviara Point. I do not agree
with your position that staffs decision is a recent "interpretation" of the ordinance. Staffs
decision is based on compliance with the ordinance and is totally consistent with how
staff has reviewed all similar proposals in the past.
Section 21.95.030 of the Hillside Ordinance requires you to obtain a Hillside Development
Permit because your lot has a slope greater than 15% and higher than 15 feet. This
section of the ordinance does not mention or distinguish between natural or previously-
graded manmade slopes.
Section 21.95.030(4) of the ordinance prohibits grading or development of slopes with
a grade exceeding 40%. Again, nothing in this section distinguishes between natural or
manmade slopes.
Section 21.95.090 of the Ordinance allows the City to exclude certain portions of the
property from the restrictions of the Hillside Ordinance. Previously disturbed or graded
areas are one of portions of the property that mav be excluded. This section is
permissive and discretionary and does not mandate the City to exclude the area. This
is the section of the ordinance which staff was utilizing in order to allow you to do some
encroachment into the slope area and still comply with the intent of the ordinance. In
the past, in situations similar to yours, we have used this section to allow minor
encroachment into previously graded 40% slope areas. After reviewing your plans, I do
not feel that you are proposing only a minor encroachment but rather a major
encroachment which goes way beyond what we have allowed others to do in similar
situations in the past and, as such, would establish bad precedence. I believe that what
staff offered to support in terms of a modified encroachment (approximately 12 feet
horizontally and 6 feet vertically) is totally consistent with how we have implemented this
section in the past and is fair and reasonable. I also believe that allowing the
encroachment you are requesting is detrimental to the future development of the vacant
adjoining lot next to this slope.
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 @
-7
September 15, 1994
Greg & Karen Kaffka
Page 2
Based upon the foregoing, I am not in a position to overturn staffs decision because it
would be a violation of the Hillside Ordinance for which I do not have the authority nor
desire to do and would b@ totally inconsistent with how we have treated everyone else
in a similar situation. Although I feel that the house you are proposing looks very nice
from an architectural perspektive, it appears that it may be inappropriately designed from
a size or site layout perspective given the lot’s existing slope constraints.
I hope that this explains staffs position, I understand you are attempting to build a
quality home that meets your needs and desires. However, staffs job is to work with
applicants to attempt to accomplish their personal goals but we must also stay within the
confines of the community’s ordinances and policies. If you disagree with my decision,
you do have the right to appeal it to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL J. HOEMILLER
Planning Director
MJWker
cc: Community Development Director
t