HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 94-01; Kaffka Residence; Discussion Item (DI) (10)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