Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDU 99-02; Montes Residence; Second Dwelling Unit (SDU) (6)h Robert W. Teich 3840 Polly Lane Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 729-4608 September 27, 1999 ” “ Mayor Bud Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Mayor: On September 17, 1999, I received a letter from Paul Godwin, Planning Intern with the City of Carlsbad. The letter is the city’s response to my September 1, 1999 letter addressed to you. After reviewing Mr. Godwin’s letter, I can only express amazement at his responses. In fact, I am appalled at the city’s response and frankly find it insulting-especially coming from a city that has the reputation of being tough and more demanding than most municipalities in the local area. Having a considerable background in construction, I know what is required to obtain a building permit. Furthermore, it was clear to me from the first day I met Mr. Godwin , the city wanted the Montes Project approved and accomplished that goal with a fervent zeal. It is my opinion that the City of Carlsbad Planning Department has abused their power. Said abuses being: The city’s approval of an incomplete set of plans - The plot plan is The city granting additional floor space to the attached second unit by The city’s willingness to overlook their own ordinance requiring Substantial work done months before the project’s approval. Those grossly incomplete and full “exterior” elevations are missing. calling the square footage a “free area.” “architectural compatibility.” costly improvements were not made without a “great deal of confidence” this project would pass through the city. To make those improvements without that confidence would have been a “big gamble,” with costly consequences, and Jose Montes does not impress me as being a gambler. 0 My denial of due process when the city denied me the right to review the - t Ddta 2 plans I“ late June 1999. .- - Vague, contradictory (and what I believe to be an attempt to cover-up wrong doing) responses to my September 1, 1999 letter. In that letter, I called attention to facts regarding the Montes Project which are in direct conflict with the City of Carlsbad’s Planningmuilding Regulations and the adopted city ordinance pertaining to second dwelling units. Mr. Mayor, I am convinced my property has been diminished in value and salability as a result of the second dwelling unit under construction at 3850 Polly Lane. This is not fair to me as‘a 15 year property owner of my home.. Furthermore, I believe these abuses occurred as a res’ult of favortism by the City Planning Department. Another concern is the city’s decision to have an Intern Planner review and respond to my September 1, 1999 letter. Why was my letter not reviewed and responded to by a Senior Planner - does the city not take the content of my letter seriously? I am therefore again requesting you personally review my letter and am providing you copies of 1. A copy of the original nine (9) questions addressed to you on September 2. A copy of the ‘City of CarlsbadPaul Godwin’s September 17, 1999 3. My rebuttal to the City of CarlsbadPaul Godwin’s response. 1, 1999. response to me. The city has limited options-they can deny and attack the messenger, doctor the plans or fess up and answer. my questions. It is my sincere hope that this matter can be resolved without my having to pursue other avenues to obtain the answers to which I am entitled. In closing, I would appreciate an expedient written response to my rebuttal questions and respectful request that you provide those answers. Sincerely, Robert W. Teich Enclosures Enclosures ” “ - ” “ - t.. ” ._ _- REBUTTAL TO PAUL GODWIN’S LETTER Dated September 17,1999 QUESTION #1-WindowlDoor Locations My two (2) part question was “When were the changes made” and “why did the city fail to notify me of the changes?” On a September 13, 1999 visit to the Planning Department , I discovered the plans have a May 27, 1999 revision date “added” along side the Delta 2 change. Please answer these questions: 1. If the Delta 2 changes were made on May 27,1999, why did Mr. Godwin FAIL to show me those plans when I first visited the City Planners office in late June 1999 (just prior to the hearing)? 2. Why did the Planning Department destroy the original drawing submitted to the city? 3. Are the Delta 1 & 2 plans that I viewed on August 25,1999 still available? Have they been thrown out? 4. Why were dates written on the Delta 2 plans that I viewed on September 13,1999, but not on the Delta 1 & 2 plans I viewed on August 25,1999? In reply to Mr. Godwin’s response to my questions #l. 0 The first two (2) sentences of his response contradict each other. In the first sentence , he states the plans have not been revised, but addressed the door relocation as per a plan check revision in the second sentence. 0 In Mr. Godwin’s third sentence he states the entrance door was relocated because of the south wall “slider.” Mr. Godwin must be confbed as the entrance door was relocated from the hallway to the second dwelling unit as per the Delta 2 change-a move of approximately 20’ east along the north wall. The “slider explanation” is a new curve Mr. Godwin has introduced to this calamity. I would suggest the entrance door was probably relocated because it first entered the “free hallway’’ granted by the city regardless of the ordinance limiting the square footage of the additional unit to 640 square feet. It would be rather difficult for the city to allow the entrance ” “ door-to be placed -in the “free hallway,:’ when the city insists the “free - hallway” is not living space. Questions 2,3 & 4 address the issue of “Architectural Compatibility,” a requirement of the city’s “second dwelling” ordinance. QUESTION #2 ’- Flat Roof Area When I first visited the city to familiarize myself with the Montes Project, I remember viewing a pitched roof over the existing flat roof area in back of the Montes home. However, as the project has proceeded that is obviously not what is being built. Mr. Godwin’s response to my question is totally confusing and misrepresents both the existing building condition and what is depicted on the plans. His non specific use of the terms “sloped,” “slightly sloped,” “not as steep as a slope.” are ambiguous and serve no purpose except to confuse the issue. QUESTION #3 - Roof Design As I review Mr.Godwin’s response, it is apparent he is still confbsed about the roof designs. I attempted to explain the roof designs of the Montes Project in my original September 1, 1999 questions, however, I will reiterate. The existing single family dwelling at 3,850 Polly Lane has a “Dutch Gable” roof design in front, not a “Gable” roof design, as Mr. Godwin states in his response. design. Even though most flat roofs are sloped -- generally %” - 1” per foot -- they are still called flat roofs. The existing roof over the family room in the rear has a “flat” roof The second dwelling unit has a “Gable” roof design. Mr. Godwin states the “slightly sloped” hallway roof matches the existing family room roof. Please see Photo #1 -- the shaked roof you see on the left is the roof Mr. Godwin calls the “slightly sloped” roof (in actuality it is a Pitched Gable roof). The pitch and gravel roof to the right is the flat roof over the family room. Do you think these roofs match in my picture? Would you consider this match to be Architecturally Compatible? I believe the reason there is so much confusion about the roof design is the City Planner and Plan Checker did not do their jobs. Three (3) reasons for this confusion arc ” 1. The approved plot plan is incomplete (the roof should have been accurately depicted on the plot plan). 2. The city approved plans showing “partial” exterior elevations, not “full” exterior elevations. 3. Nobody from the city bothered to visit the site to verify the existing conditions. Please explain: Why did the city allow “partial exterior elevations” instead of “full exterior elevations? QUESTION #4 - Architectural Compatibility ,1 According to Mr. Godwin’s response, the Montes Project has architectura - compatibility because the paint colors, roofing and siding materials match and the side set back is “uniform.” He also states the “existing residence roof design(s)” were incorporated into the second dwelling unit. While I appreciate the paint color, siding and roof material match, the side set back “uniformity” has nothing to do with architectural compatibility. In this case, a 4’ - 6’ offset would have broken up the long wall and given the structure character-something sadly missing. What I find offensive is his statement about the roof design. The “Dutch Gable” and “Flat” roof designs of the existing residence are not incorporated into the second dwelling unit, which has a “Gable” roof design. Dutch Gable, Gable, and Flat roof designs are three (3) completely different designs-- as similar as Chevrolets and Fords. Architectural compatibility has not been maintained in the Montes second dwelling unit. In order to achieve “true” architectural compatibility, the entire Montes structure should incorporate the single “Dutch Gable” roof design. The addition of a Gable roof over the existing Flat roof area would have been an acceptable alternative. The current design (3 separate roof designs) accepted by the city is “NOT” an acceptable alternative. . When the city approved the Montes Project they did not have a complete set of plans. The plot plan is incomplete, “Full” exterior elevations are missing, and as - of August 25,-1999, “ iheXity had not visited thesite as per Mr. Godwin. ” So I ask, given the information the city had How and why did the Carlsbad Planning staff approve the Montes Project for architectural compatibility? Based on the information I have been able to find, I believe approval of this project for architectural compatibility was d negligent act. QUESTION #5 - Free Area I asked one (1) question about “free area” in my letter to the mayor. “By what authority can the city exceed their own ordinance requirement .and call additional square footage “free area?” In his response, Mr. Godwin states hallways are not living space. However, the city’s ordinance states “the total area of floor space for an attached second unit shall not exceed 640 square feet.” Please note, the city’s ordinance uses the term “floor space.” There is nothing in the ordinance that gives the City Planner the latitude to exceed that 640 square foot requirement. If the City of Carlsbad believes hallways are floor space, they have violated their own ordinance and the city’s decision to allow an additional 120 - 130 square feet to the Montes Project is an abuse of power. r: Furthermore, in Mr. Godwin’s response he addressed “40% lot coverage” and states the hallway is 5’ - 6’ wide. These comments are irrelevant to my question. I am concerned about “free” floor space “granted” by the city, whether it is 100 or 1000 square feet. Someone needs to inform Mr. Godwin the city does not calculate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. square footage using inside room dimensions Does the city believe hallways are not floor space? , Can the city give me a better response to my question about “Free Area -- it is not an acceptable response that the hallway is part of the existing house, not part of the second dwelling unit. How does the city intend on giving out this free area? Is it based on “who” the applicant is, or “who” the contractor is? Is there any limit on this freebie or is that discretionary? QUESTION #6 - Plot Plan Requirements ” - r .. ” . i “ - GiSeptember- 1, 1999 questions pertaining to the city’s failure to enforce plot plan requirements has not been answered. The intent of my question was to demonstrate the “careless job” done by the City Plan Checker. It is my contention the incomplete plot plan affected the city’s ability to make a fair analysis of what they were about to approve. Briefly checking the approved plot plan I do not recall seeing the following city requirements: . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Finish grades adjacent to building Finish floor elevations Existing retaining wall Outbuilding Existing slope/swale Percent grade at driveway Lot drainage patterns with percent slope Bay windows Easements 10. Spa 11 .Roof desigdlayout criteria 12.Distance from second dwelling unit to retaining wall Mr. Godwin addressed “retaining wall permits” and “outbuilding setbacks” in his response to my question. These two (2) issues have nothing to do with my question as permits andor the outbuilding setback were not the point of my question. The point of my question was the inadequate job done by the Plan Checker and the city’s inability to make a knowledgeable decision regarding the project with an incomplete plot plan. Furthermore, Mr. Godwin states the retaining wall and its proximity to the second dwelling unit would not have affected the staffs recommendation of the project. He can’t be serious--to not at least consider the issue, and its affect on the over all design is derelict. I repeat my September 1, 1999 question: 1. Why have the city’s requirements for “plot plans” not been followed? (Refer to residential construction details - City of Carlsbad July 22, 1997). 2. As of this date, does the city know the location of the retaining wall? ” - 3. Does the city care to know the location of the retaining wall? QUESTIONX7 - t” - Additional Parking Stall ” ._ - .- .- My questions about the additional parking stall was an attempt to point out just one of many “plan misrepresentations.” The plot plan indicates a 10’ dimension from property line to the edge of the garage door. That dimension is not correct. The City of Carlsbad may elect to allow tandem parking or narrow its parking stall width requirement to 8’, but put the correct parking space on the plans. QUESTION #8 - Side Set Back I acknowledge the fact the side yard set back is very close to 6.5”, within city requirements, but it is again not per plan. For the record, Mr. Godwin is mistaken about his “minimum 6’”’ side yard requirement.” It should be 6.4’ or 6’ -4 Vi’’ as per the city’s 10% requirement. QUESTION #9 - Coastal Commission Mr. Godwin’s comments about the Coastal Commission were misrepresentations of the truth. There is a clear distinction between the California Coastal Commission and the City of Carlsbad’s Planning Department. I question why Mr. Godwin brought the California Coastal Commission up at all.