Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDU 99-02; Montes Residence; Second Dwelling Unit (SDU) (10)Wednesday, September 0 1,1999 From : Robert W. Teich 3840 Pdly Lane. __ - Ca&b<d;-Ca. 92008 " (760) 729-4608 To: Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Dear Mr. Mayor, I am a resident of Carlsbad and reside at 3840 Polly Lane. My next door neighbor, Jose Montes, is currently having a "second dwelling unit" built on his property at 3850 Polly Lane. As construction has proceeded a number of issues have come cp that concern me. Before I mention these concerns, allow me to provide a brief history of my knowledge of the Montes Project. I first became aware of the Montes Project in late June of 1999. The City of Carlsbad mailed a "notice of hearing" letter to me at that time. I believe the hearing date was set for July 7, 1999. I phoned the Carlsbad Planning Department and briefly discussed the project with a planner. (Scott?) A day or two later I visited the Carlsbad Planning Department and met with Paul Godwin. Paul atlowed me to view the submitted plans and provided me with a Developmental Packet for "Second Family Dwellings". Paul and I discussed setbacks, parking, As I reviewed the plans I paid particular attention to the 7' side setback, location of , occupancy, etc. b! windows and doors, additional parking, and the proposed roof design. 1 felt these issues had the potential of affecting my property the most. I did not like the idea of having this gigantic wall of house next to my property. 1 felt it took away from my privacy and who wants. that. 'However, I decided to bite my tongue and go along with the proposed design. I did not attend the hearing. I was convinced my objections would not affect the city's approval of the project for (2) reasons: 1. The feedback I received from the planners led to believe my attending the hearing 2. Substantial work had taken place on the Montes property, which made me believe then would accomplish little. and now that the project was all but approved months ago. The Montes project was approved and construction commenced within days of the hearing. As the project has progressed, several issues concerned me. The window/door locations, the roof design, and the side setback appeared to have changed. On Wednesday, August 25, 1999, I returned to the city and met with Paul Godwin again. As a result of our meeting I have the following questions/concerns: " -i " - 1 .- ihe%ndow/door'iocations facing my property have been changed. I particularly . object to the new location of the entrance door. When were these changes made and why was I not notified? 2. The roof design I initially viewed depicted a pitched roof over the flat portion of the existing roof. The flat roof area has hot been altered. Why are the plans not being adhered to? 3. Why are the roof designs of the existing residence not depicted on the plans? The. existing house has a "Dutch gable" roof design in the front with a "flat" roof over the , back area. The new addition has a "gable" roof design. Paul Godwin informed me that no one from the city had physically visited the site. How could anyone review and approve this project without knowing the existing design of the house? 4. Where is the "architectural compatibility" in the design of this project? 1 would encourage you to view this massive 110 foot +/- structure with (3) roof designs from my back yard. I'm sure you would not want this monstrosity next to your house. Why should I have it next to mine? Does this design fit in with other homes on Polly Lane? I don't think so. 5. Free Area - The hallway between the existing residence and the second family dwelling is not. included in the 640 square foot allowance set by the city. The hallway appears to be about 8x18. I would call that a room, not a hallway. This hallway greatly affects the design of the project. By what authority can the city exceed their own ordinance requirement, and call it a "free area". I believe this should require a "variance". 6. The approved "plot plan" does not show the retaining wall, out building, spa, slope, retaining wall to structurelwater heater dimensions, etc., etc., etc. Why have the city's requirements for "plot plans" noi been followed? (refer to Residential Construction Details-City of Carlsbad ) 7. Add'l Parking Stall - A 10x21 space is designated along my front property line. Does the city allow "designated parking stalls" in side setbacks? The distance from the edge of the Montes garage door to the property line is less than IO feet. 8. The side setback is not per plan. It is to late to change this discrepancy, but it should have been discovered before the foundation was poured. 9. On two occasions Paul Godwin brought up the difficulty of getting this project approved, and the "Coastal Commission" in particular. The Coastal Commission insists they have no record of any project at 3850 Polly Lane. Can anyone explain this contradiction? YOU mar look at any,"one" of tny concerns and suggest it is incidental or a minor *- complaint: -HoivNever, if-you"put all of my concerns together, I believe you may come to a different conclusion. The city planners now say I should have attended the hearing. Perhaps they are right. While I may regret not attending the hearing, I still question the influence I would have had. The purpose of this letter is to address the enforcemefit of existing developmental requirements, code enforcement, and architectural comoatibilitv. These tesponsibilities belong to the City of Carlsbad. An attempt to shift these responsibilities onto neighbors througil hearings is absurd. I do believe my property has been adversely affected by the Montes Project, This is very disappointing. One neighbor's gain should not result in another neighbor's loss. Should you have a desire to discuss any aspect of this letter, 1 will do my best to accommodate you. Sincerely Yours, w w- w Mailing Address: Robert W. Teich P.O. Box 2481 Carlsbad, Ca. 920 18