Loading...
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