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.