Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 03-06; Korte Residence; Hillside Development Permit (HDP)CITY OF CARLSBAD 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) Fc=?3e\c \ Jeo4C-t \Lo&= MAILING ADDRESS 2-800 Cs&,\\b LI 0-7 LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) a<\& No dr MAILING ADDRESS %%L2 kv-6 Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit Administrative Variance Coastal Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Condominium Permit Environmental Impact Assessment General Plan Amendment Hillside Development Permit Local Coastal Plan Amendment Master Plan Non-Residential Planned Development Planned Development Permit (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) I IHDP 03-06 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 Planned Industrial Permit Planning Commission Determination Precise Development Plan Redevelopment Permit Site Development Plan Special Use Permit Specific Plan (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) Obtain from Engineering Department Tentative Tract Map Variance Zone Change List other applications not specified I CITY AND STATE E AND CORRECT TO NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PR bP03?i.2- TO 3:3 P. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:OO P.M. PAGE 1 OF 2 Form 16 h LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE I I 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF I I RESIDENTIAL UNITS 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING 1 1 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS TYPE OF SUBDIVISION TI 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ -1 15) PROPOSED COMM n I I SQUAREFOOTAGE I I SQUAREFOOTAGE I I PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED TI 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN TI 18) PROPOSED SEWER n PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE I 1 ADT I I USAGEINEDU U IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT v ~ SIGNATURE I FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED TOTAL FEE REQUIRED 7 RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID I I - RECEIPT NO. Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: MONTI ANTHONY DescriDtion HDP03 0 0 6 Amount 815.00 Receipt Number: ROO38873 Transaction Date: 12/04/2003 Transaction Amount: 815.00 0210 12/04/03 0002 31. 02 CGF" City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: KORTE ROGER C&JANET A Description PREO 4 0 3 1 Amount 130.00 Receipt Number: ROO42409 Transaction Date: 05/17/2004 Pay Type Method Description Amount _--_______ ___---____ ________________ __________ Payment Check 419 130.00 Transaction Amount: 130.00 - City of Carlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnershp, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corpaation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county; city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.” Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornoration or DartnerShiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- COrpPart Title Address 2. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent) I Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a cornoration or DartnershiD, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) CorpPart Title Address 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @ 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above IS a nonmofit organization or a trust. list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non ProfitiTrust Non Profiflrust Title Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees andor Council within the past twelve (12) months? 0 Yes 0 No If yes, please indicate person(s): ~ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 5~ ay-+-, Print or type name of owner Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date ~~ ~~ Print or type namif owner/applicant’s agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT DESCRlPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT NAME: Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1 TBu IS F.F. AT M CORNER OF HOUS WNMR BACK PORCH LOT 250 UP 15852 CARLSAD TCT NO 93-04 ' RANCHO CARRUO PH 4 & 5 1 iI APN 222-66-17 0-R dc JANET KORE I I i FF= 100.00 PAD999.5 f i 0 15 120 ( IN FEE3 ) 1 inch = 30 ft. KEVIN BRESNAHAN, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 5261 OLIVE HILL ROAD FALLBROOK CA 92028 909-532-6344 CELL 760-724-4904 HOME 760-724-4904 FAX J J' DESCRDPTION OF PROPOSAL (ADD ATTAC"T IF NECESSARY): WOULD YOU LIKE TO ORALLY PRESENT YOUR PROPOSAL TO YOUR ASSIGNED STAFF - YESO - NO $I PLAN"GINEER? 'LEASE UST THE NAMES OF ALL, STAFF MEMBERS YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO LEGARDING THIS PROJECT. IF NONE, PLEASE SO STATE. AAw3Vl . LYJtCX N& M .o cCcr-6~. ~eksc/ IZI 42P an d f Engineering n Fire n Other ,* FRM0025 02/03 PAGE 3 of 3 /4 Korte HDP 03-06 Determination Page 1 d 5 Badcarou nd On October 28th, the property owners met with several representatives from the City to discuss a request by the property owners to obtain a variance from the City ordinance 21.95.12OC(l)a(i)c, which states: "The following types of development on or into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a maximum of six vertical feet as measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope: c. Retaining walls" The property owners' desire was move the backside of the pool 5 to 7 feet further into the hillside beyond the limitation imposed by this ordinance. The proposal was to keep the height of the backside of the pool at 6 feet in order to comply with the literal interpretation of the ordinance and use retaining walls (not necessarily just one wall) beyond the backside of the pool, but expose no more than 3 feet of these retaining walls. Most of the retaining walls would be hidden by boulders and be used to create a waterfall effect that would follow the grade of the slope resulting in a 4 foot drop into the pool. The following picture is a copy of what was used during this discussion with City officials to illustrate the proposal. On October 30th, the property owner met with City officials to clarify the design of the retaining walls beyond the backside of the pool. Three alternatives were presented: 1. 2. 3. Build a back bond beam that will be terraced at the back going up the hill. The property owner's contractor had never done this before and would do some research. Build three foot retaining walls. The property owner's contractor did not think the City would accept this because they may not be structurally sound enough for retention of the hillside. Build a taller wall as the back retaining wall, but only allow the top three feet to be exposed. Korb HDP 03-06 CmsJ&pq Detmnination Page 2 of 5 The property owner's desire was to build whatever is the most structurally sound because all 3 options would look very similar. The City's position as discussed during this meeting was that they did not care how deep the walls go below ground, as long as no more than 3 feet is exposed above ground. The general agreement coming out of this meeting, as understood by the property owners, was that the backside of the pool could be moved back 5 to 7 feet and the hillside would be retained beyond the pool by whatever means worked best. Additionally, any retaining walls would have to be hidden by boulders and become part of a waterfall feature. The information from this meeting was used to create the general design that eventually resulted in the Hillside Development Permit (HDP 03-06). The following is a copy of the waterfall and pool area of Exhibit A from this permit: This drawing shows the back side of the pool to be approximately 33 feet from the house with a terraced waterfall beyond, essentially following the slope of the hillside, with a 4 foot drop into the pool. This design, from the property owners' perspective, complied with the discussions and agreement with City officials in October. As the grading plans were developed, the property owners’ contractor worked directly with City officials to finalize the blueprints. The contact at the City who worked directly with the contractor interpreted the variance granted by the HDP 03-06 as being: “no construction above 9 feet from the toe of the slope”. As more accurate slope measurements were taken, the constraints imposed by this 9 foot building restriction essentially voided the 5 to 7 foot variance for the backside of the pool that was originally agreed to back in October. On the final blueprint, the pool and waterfall were moved closer to the house. The property owners first became aware of this when the pool design was spray painted on the ground and it looked very similar to the design spray painted on the ground prior to the October 28th meeting. That led to a request for a slight design modification that was discussed with City officials from March 22nd to March 31st. The modification was described as follows: Exhibit A of the HDP 03-06 shows that the waterfall has 3 levels (see A,B,C reference on page 2): A. Level 1 - backside of the pool 6 feet high with a 4 foot drop into the water. B. Level 2 - three foot high retaining wall. C. Level 3 - top of waterfall on grade. The property owners request was to change wall B in the waterfall area to a taller retaining wall where C is on Exhibit A. This would create a frame between the retaining wall C and the backside of the pool. Inside this frame would be a waterfall and planter area which would be aligned with the slope of the hillside. The back retaining wall C would be almost completely buried by dirt and boulders. Based on discussions with City officials, work was performed to create the footings for the new design. The following picture shows the footings as they are currently constructed. Comparing this picture to the picture that was discussed in October (see page l), there is very little deviation from the original intention of the agreement that led to HDP 03-06. The back side of the pool will still only be 6 feet high with a 4 foot drop into the water. The waterfall above the pool will appear to be part of the slope with the back retaining wall almost completely hidden. ,- KO- HDP 03-06 ChWpncy Determination Page 4 of 5 Consistenat Determination 1. No project condition, feature, facility or amenity is changed or deleted that had been essential to the project's design, quality, safety or function. The basic design is essentially the same with the quality possibly slightly improved. 2. The request represents an upgrade in overall design features and or materials and improves upon the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Creating the horseshoe shaped frame provides more artistic flexibility in terms of combining a waterfall feature with planter areas. The end result will be a more aesthetically pleasing and fluid design than using a straight 3 foot high retaining wall. 3. The proposed revision does not change the density (Le. the addition of units) or boundary of the subject property. Not applicable 4. The proposed revision does not involve the addition of a new land use not shown on the original permit (erg. adding a commercial use to a residential project, replacing single family units with attached residential units, vice versa for each example, ect.) Not applicable 5. The proposed revision does not rearrange the major land uses within the development (e.g. it does not exchange the locations of single family units with attached units.) Not applicable 6. The proposed revision does not create changes of greater than ten percent (IO%), prov that compliance will be maintained with the applicable development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as follows: * Per individual lot or structure - yards, setbacks, coverage or height * On an aggregate project basis - parking, open space, common area or landscaping. The overall design is not changing from what was discussed back in October that led to the variance granted by HDP 03-06. The only thing changing is the means to create this design due to more accurate slope measurements. The appearance of the final construction will not be significantly different from the design shown on Exhibit A referenced by HDP 03-06. 7. The proposed change will not result in any significant environmental impact, and/or require additional mitigation. No 8. The proposed change would not result in any health, safety or welfare impacts. No 9. There were not any major issues or controversies associated with the original project which would be exacerbated with the proposed change. The proposed change reduces the amount of bacMill necessary to repair the damaged manufactured hillside. 1O.The proposed change would not be readily discernible to the decision makers as being substantially different from the project as originally approved. No - see the response to number 6.