HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDU 99-02; Montes Residence; Second Dwelling Unit (SDU) (7). c
City of Carlsbad
I
Mr. Robert Teich
P.O. Box 2481
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Re: APPROVED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 3850 POLLY LANE
Dear Mr. Teich:
Thank you for your letter of September I, 4999, regarding the above referenced
proJect. As you are aware, the Montes Residence Second Dwelling Unit at 3850
Polly Lane has an approved Coastal Development Permit No. CDP 99-08 and an
approved Second Dwelling Unit Permit No. SDU 99-02.
I’m sorry that you continue to have issues with this project. However, to clarify
the record, it is important for you to understand that Staffs recommendation of
approval for the Second Dwelling Unit and Coastal Development Permit is
predominantly based on the project’s compliance with the applicable
development standards. The public review process however does provide
adequate opportunity for meaningful public input.
The following addresses the concerns which were raised in your letter:
1. The project plans have not been revised, with the exception of the exterior ,
k door to the Second Dwelling Unit. The exterior door on the north side of
the second dwelling unit was,relocated as a plan check revision through
the Building Department. The Building Department required the relocation
of the door because the slider provided on south side did not qualify as a separate exit. . This revision is considered to be in substantial
conformance with the original project, and provides the most logical and
direct access to the Second Dwelling unit from the parking area.
2. The portion of the existing structure’s roof that connects with the hallway
to the second dwelling unit is depicted as sloped on the buiidlng
elevations and has been verified in the field by the Building Inspector to
be sloped. While the field verified slope does not appear to be as steep
as the slope depicted on the elevations, this discrepancy would not effect
Staffs approval of the project, since the existing structure’s roof was not
proposed for modification through either permit.
2075 Las Pafrnas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-0894 a - -
SEP-17-99 FRI 16: 35
- P, 03
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
" - --: pii& to the construction of the second dwelling unit, the existing single
. family dwelling incorporated a gabled front roof design, as well as a
slightly pitched roof over the family room addition. The hallway to the second dwelling unit which attaches to the existing family room is also
slightly sloped to match the existing family room roof. The second
dwelling unit itself uses a gabled roof, which is similar to the design of the
main unit. While the second dwelling unit does not incorporate a "Dutch
gable" feature at the ends of the roof, it is common for such ornamentation
to be used only on the front elevation, where it is most visible.
" .
Architectural compatibility has been maintained In that the second
* dwelling unit continues the existing design features of the residence. The
roofing material is identical to that of the main structure and the siding is
of the same material and pattern, and will be painted to match. The north
side yard setback has been aligned with the existing structure and
contlnues the existing setback. Also, as discussed above, the existing
residence utilizes several different roof styles and pitches, which are
incorporated into the second dwelling unit.
Hallways and stairways which are not living space and are used only to
access a second dwelling unit are not included in the maximum 640
square feet ,allowed. However, the square footage of the haiiway is
consldered in the lot coverage calculations for this lot, and does not
exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage allowed in the R-I zone.
Additionally, the interior of the hallway has been field verified and
measures 5.5' at its widest point, narrowing to 4' at the door to the main
dwelling unit.
Ideally, the site plan submitted to the City for this project should have
included the retaining wall and outbuilding which are presently located on
the property. ' However, the retaining wall did not require a building permit and its presence on the site plan would not have affected Stafrs
recommendation of the project. The storage shed which is located in the
rear yard is conforming for setbacks and lot coverage and again would not
have affected Staffs recommendation.
Parking is allowed in the side yard setback, thus the additional parking
space which has been created is acceptable. Additionally, by providing
this space, the applicant has exceeded the City's parking requirement for
second dwelling units, which allows them to be parked In the existing
driveway, provided the driveway is at least 20' long.
Without the benefit of a lot suwey, it appears that the side yard setback is
between 6.5' and 7'. The existing house setback has been maintained
and is greater than the minimum 6'-4" side yard required in the R-1 zone for this lot.
- P. 04
SEP-17-99 FRI 16:36
"
" 9. - -: Ti; City of Carlsbad has the authority to issue Coastal Development
. . Permits for this lot. Thus the applicant did not apply for a Coastal
Develqpment Permit with the California Coastal Commission.
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact me at 760438-
11 61, extension 4329:
Sincerely,
Paul Godwin
Planning Intern
cc: Mayor Lewis
City Manager
Gary Wayne
Chris DeCerbo . PG:eh
Wednesday, September 01,1999
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 1 visited the Carlsbad Planning Department and met with
Paul Godwin. Paul allowed me to view the submitted plans and provided me with a
Developmental Packet for "Second Family Dwellings". Paul and I discussed setbacks, parking,
occupancy, etc.
As I reviewed the plans I paid particular attention to the 7' side setback, location of
L: windows and doors, additional parking, and the proposed roof design. I 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. I felt it
took away from my privacy and who wants. that. 'However, I decided lo bite my tongue and go
along with the proposed design. 1 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:
" "
- 1 .- fhe&imdow/door'locations 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 not 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" toof 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? I 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. Thehallway
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 structure/water 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 10 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 pouted.
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 may Look at any-"one" of my concerns and suggest it is incidental or a minor
-- complaint: IIowLver, 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 heating. 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 enforcemetit of existing developmental
requirements, code enforcement, and architectural compatibilitv. These responsibilities betong
to the City of Carlsbad. An attempt to shift these responsibilities onto neighbors through
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 a
Mailing Address: Robert W. Teich
P.O. Box 2481
Carlsbad, Ca. 920 18