The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDI 94-01; Kaffka Residence; Discussion Item (DI) (3)January 26, 1995 Ms. Kim Welshons City Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA.. 92008 Re: Lot No. 264, Aviara Point RECEIVED JAN 2 6 1995 Ms. Kim Welshorn, As you are aware, we have proposed construction of our home at a site in Aviara Point, and our proposal was rejected by the City Planning Department and is now under appeal. During the planning phases of our residence at Aviara Point, we reviewed the Aviara building requirements carefully, and had the recommended meeting with the Architectural Review Committee to ensure that we were following the criteria set forth in the detailed specifications related to construction within the Aviara Master Community. We also checked into the City's requirements for building a single family home in this area and proceeded with our building plans according to the assessment we had made of the ordinances and guidelines that applied to our proposal. As indicated in the documentation of our appeal to the City's rejection of our proposal, we assessed that the "Hillside Development Ordinance" did not apply to our parcel as it had already been approved in the Master Plan permit and did not contain "natural slopes or hillsides", but was a my-graded residential lot. In July, our architect met with the City Planning Department to discuss setback requirements and was told that the Hillside Development Ordinance would apply to our parcel. I contacted the Planning department and left messages to request a meeting to attempt to understand what possible explanation the City could have in interpreting the Hillside Ordinance in this fashion. I did not want any unnecessary delays to affect the construction of the property and wanted to proceed with the construction loan process so I immediately began seeking the opportunity to have a meeting with the City Planner's Office. Despite several phone calls to Michael Holzmiller, Gary Wayne and Adrienne Landers, I did not get the opportunity to set up a meeting. I finally was able to talk to the person that the project had been handed over to. This project had been transferred to several different people and I could not talk to any of the personnel who supposedly had "final" authority in the denial decision. I was told by Dave Rick that although it was within my rights to request a meeting, the proposal would be denied. I did have a couple of meetings with personnel in the City Planning Department, and was very hstrated by the misinformation gathered by the City and their interpretation of the data that I and my architect had supplied. The suggestion fiom the Planners was to "build a smaller home" rather than address the specific details of why the Hillside Ordinance was being applied to our lot. I never received concise, specific, conclusive, details that would allow me to understand the denial. The denial of our project by the City Planning Department has caused several negative impacts to our eventual construction on this site. First of all, I am a General Contractor and plan to construct the residence for my family on the subject site myself As I had planned to begin construction by the end of September, I had turned down several projects and had not set up any long term work. This delay in the construction has left a void in my work schedule and I have not been able to take on any new projects as the majority of them are State government contracts such as schools, and public facilities and by the nature of them, the duration is at least 1 year. I never imagined that the City would impose an interpretation of an ordinance onpur project that would cause such delays in our ability to build our home." As of now:'the delay is 6 months and we still do got have a?' This delay has caused fhancih strains on our family and I currently, doot have the ability to successfilly resolve this impact. To negotiate and accept a job at this point would delay our construction a minimum of a year, and we would be subject to hrther interest rate downside. Per our original construction plans, based on complying with every ordinance that amlies to our site, we would have completed our project by June of this year. With the Staff interpretation of our proposal and the length of time @ken to date for the appeal (4 months) we are faced with a costly redesign or no project at all, both of~selrous6i&icial implications. Throughout this Design proposal we have been carefbl to incorporate the aesthetic intent of the Aviara Development, the stringent architectural criteria of the Aviara Master Plan for Aviara Point, and the City of Carlsbad's published requirements for building. We maintain that all of these points are clearly represented in our plans that are now subject to appeal on February 1, 1995, and the culmination of this project will provide a beautfil addition to the Aviara Master Community. statements and assumptions made on their part) draws yet fbrther misconclusions to our project. The drawings prepared by the Staff are misleading and factually incorrect. It is our belief that the Staff is so confbsed by its own attempt to make order out of the chaos of their interpretation of the Hillside Ordinance that they were forced to re-draft their report and the report is still ridden with erroneous, prejudicial information. and with each draft, they get more erroneous and prejudicial. Our proposed house was found in kll compliance with the Master Plan.. . Now it isn't, based on an arbitrary and nebulous reference to the general plan. Our house was exempt fiom environmental review due to ' its "insigdicance" now it isn't because it will create significant impacts on "the earth", significant impacts on "drainage" and significant impacts in "land use''. These comments are incredible. Sixty-one other homes just like ours are being built in this neighborhood with no impact. Stail's revisions offer krther evidence of their trying to rationalize an unreasonable interpretation. The request for delaying the hearing is solely due to the Staffs inaccurate conclusions drawn in the first report. The comment in the letter announcing the delay to February 1, that it was postponed to allow us time to review the revised report is incorrect. We never asked for an extension and, in fact, the Staff revised report was not even ready for us to review until January 20, two days after the first hearing was supposed to take place. Ordinance guidelines, has resulted in costly delays and threatens our ability to begin and complete a project that meets all of the guidelines applicable to it. Regardless of the outcome of the hearing, we have incurred financial setbacks that have been directly caused " . .I. .. - The current Staff report (which has been revised twice due to the incorrect The City of Carlsbad's claim that our project violates the Hillside Development .. .. . by the City's contrived interpretation of the Hillside Ordinance that has no legal or practical application to our project. In addition, planning staff is insisting that, in the event that the planning commission decision on this matter is contrary to our position, we have no right to appeal this decision to the City Council. Again, this is the strictest possible interpretation of a code section that indicates that City Council approval is not necessary. It does not, however, preclude appeal. In accordance with section 1.20.600 we, of course, have the right of appeal to the City Council. And also, the very section 21.53 230, of which our proposed house is presumably in violation, allows that the City Council may permit limited development of "undevelopable" property. We reserve our right to appeal if we choose to do so. S&&rely, // cc: L. Clemens, M. Holaniller