Item 8 - CUP 94-17 VAR 94-10 Ric and Barbara Dudeck
- --
AGENDA R....PORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
FROM:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager¡1t J.
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Services ~
DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Ric and Barbara Dudeck,
applicants.
ABSTRACT
A request to legalize an existing second living unit for the property located at 12859
Lui seno Dri ve, in the RR-C zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 and Class 5 of the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
-
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 26 property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance
94-10, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
ACTION
e: \ci ty\p 1 ann; ng\ report\cup9417 . sum
-
JAN 3 1995 r¡'EM 8
1 of 10
~ AGENDA REPOR'...
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Member~e City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~~ ~
Reba Wri ght-Quast 1 er, Di rector of Pl ann i ng Servi ces ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: January 3, 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Conditi ona 1 Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Ric and
Barbara Dudeck, applicants: A request to legalize an existing
second living unit for the property located at 12859 Luiseno
Drive, in the RR-C zone.
APN: 275-400-03
BACKGROUND
The appl icants are requesting the granting of a conditional use permi t and
variance for the purpose of legalizing an existing attached second living unit
at the address listed above. The building under discussion was built as a 750
square foot room addition in 1973, and was later converted to a separate living
unit. Appraisal records indicate the presence of the second unit at the time when
the Dudecks purchased the property in April 1989.
FINDINGS
In order for the subject second unit to meet current City of Poway standards for
the construction of second units, the unit must be reduced in size. The main
house contains 2,690 square feet of living space. The applicants have agreed to
modify the accessory apartment by reducing the square footage to 650 square feet
in order to comply with the 4:1 ratio size of main house to second unit. This
will be accomplished by constructing exterior walls where a bedroom closet
currently is placed, separating an area 7.5'x 14.25' in dimension from the living
space of the unit, adding an exterior access door making this space into outdoor
storage.
r ACTION, j
2 of 10
JAN 3 1995 liEM 8
-
Agenda Report
- January 3, 1995
Page 2
The applicants are also aware of the requirement for one additional covered
space. They have agreed to construct a carport adjacent to the east side of the
existing garage. A setback variance will be needed to permit a twelve (12) foot
encroachment i nto the requi red 20 foot mi n i mum si de yard setback. Staff supports
the placement of the carport in the proposed location, since it will provide for
the most logical extension of a paved parking area for the tenant, adjacent to
the existing driveway and garage. The applicants further recognize that adequate
landscaping will need to be installed along the easterly property line in order
to visually enhance the new driveway area which will be placed within eight feet
of the property boundary.
Since the unit is a complete independent living unit, it is subject to
development impact fees which will include the following: Traffic Mitigation,
Drainage, Grading/Drainage Inspection, Parks, School Fees and Affordable Housing
In-lieu Fee. These fees will be paid at building permit issuance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under Class 3 (a small structure), and Class
5 (a minor alteration in land use limitations), of the California Environmental
Quality Act guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to --1.§.
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and
Variance 94-10, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed
resolution.
e: \c i ty \p 1 anni ng\ reDo rt \cup9417 . agn
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
Attachments:
A. Proposed Reso 1 uti on
B. Zoning and Location Map
C. Site Pl an
D. Proposed Floor Pl an
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8
3 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-17
AND VARIANCE 94-10
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-400-03
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, submitted by Ric
and Barbara Dudeck, applicants, request the approval to legalize an accessory
apartment on the property located at 12859 Luiseno Drive, in the RR-C zone; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 1995, the City Council held a hearing on the above
referenced item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinos:
The City Council finds that this project is Categorically Exempt (Classes
3 and 5) from the California Environmental Quality Act, as it is a small
residential structure, and a minor alteration to land use limitations.
Section 2: Findinos:
Conditional Use Permit 94-17
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that a
second living unit is considered to be an accessory use for a single
family residence.
2. That the approved project will not have adverse aesthetic, health,
safety or architecturally related impacts upon adjoining properties,
in that the unit was built as a room addition to the home. It is not
visible to the street, and is architecturally integrated with the
main house.
3. That the approved project is in compliance with the Ion i ng
Ordinance, except for the placement of the new carport, for which a
variance from minimum side yard setback is sought. All other
property development standards are met.
4. That the approved project encourages the orderly and harmonious
appearance of structures and property within the City, as discussed
in Finding #2. The applicants further agree to install a landscape
buffer along the east property line to provide screening of the new
parking area/carport, from the views of the adjoining neighbor to
the east.
5. That the generation of a small amount of additional traffic will not
adversely impact the capacity and physical character of surrounding
streets.
6. That there are public facilities and utilities available to service
the project.
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8 '
4 of 10
-
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
7. That there wi 11 not be sign i fi cant harmful effects upon
environmental quality and natural resources in that the property is
a suburban lot which has been fully developed as a single-family
home site for more than 25 years.
Variance 94-10
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan as
discussed in #1 of CUP findings.
2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, and
because of this, the strict appl ication of the Zoning Ordinance
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity under identical zoning classification.
The house was constructed more than twenty years ago under 1 ess
stringent zoning setback requirements. At the time of construction,
minimum side yard setbacks were ten (10) feet.
3. That granting the variance or its modification is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other property in the same vicinity and zoning for which the
variance is sought. The variance will permit the placement of an
additional covered space, in a logical location within the lot.
4. That granting the variance or its modification wi 11 not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located, in that landscape screening will
be provided along the east property line so as to provide a visual
buffer to the residence to the east.
5. That the granting of this variance does not constitute a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone in that the property is located in an area
where many of the existing homes do not observe the minimum side
yard setback due to the age of the structures, and change in
development standards which has occurred since their construction.
6. That the granting of this variance does not allow a use or activity
which is not otherwise expressly authorized by zoning development
regulations governing the parcel or property in that the project is
the legalization of an existing second living unit, which is
permitted in all single-family zones with benefit of a conditional
use permit.
Section 3: Citv Council Decision:
The Ci ty Counci 1 hereby approves Cond it i ona 1 Use Permit 94-17 and Vari ance
94-10, subject to the following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that
all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
5 of 10 JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
The use cond it i ona 11 y granted by thi s permit sha 11 not be conducted i n
such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of
surrounding residential uses.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to annual revi ew by the
Di rector of Planning Services for comp 1 i ance with the cond it ions of
approval and to address concerns that may have occurred during the past
year. If the permit is not in compliance with the conditions of approval,
or the Planning Services Department has received complaints, the required
annual review shall be set for a public hearing before the City Council,
to consider modification or revocation of the use permit.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in
the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of
approval shall be submitted to the Planning Services Department prior to
issuance of building permits.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
4. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code,
Uniform Fire Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
5. For each new residential dwelling, commercial or industrial unit(s), the
applicant shall pay Permit, Plan Check and Inspection Fees and School Fees
at the established rate (in accordance with City-adopted policy and/or
ordinance).
6. A paved, covered parking space shall be constructed and a 1 andscaped
buffer shall be i nsta 11 ed along the east property 1 i ne, withi n 90 days
from the date of this approval.
7. An Affordable Hous i ng In-Lieu Fee of $2,500 shall be paid prior to
building permit issuance.
8. The outdoor storage area shall be permanently divided floor to ceiling,
from the living space of the second unit. This work shall be completed
within 60 days from this approval.
9. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current building and
zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be
demolished.
10. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped
to comply with appropri ate gradi ng practi ces and the Uni form Pl umbi ng
Code.
JAN 3 1995 liëiVI 8
6 of 10
- -
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
.-- COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
1. An inspection fee of $500 shall be pa i d to the Eng i neeri ng Serv ices
Department prior to building permit issuance. The purpose of the fee is
to provide for an inspection of the site to certify proper drainage.
2. The following development impact fees shall be paid to the Engineering
Services Department prior to building permit issuance:
Drainage Fee $ 950.00
Traffic Mitigation Fee 660.00
Park Fee 2,550.00
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Counci 1 of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 3rd day of January, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
-
MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Marjorie K. Wahl sten, City Cl erk of the City of Poway, do hereby
certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoi ng Reso 1 uti on, No.
, was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council
held on the day of , 1995, and that it was so adopted
by the fo 11 owi ng vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
MarJorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
City of Poway
JAN 3 1995 lïëM 8
7 of 10
- ,"'
¡
~'
-"
,,"'- "'-T,y iF' / à
,( T ì' T T ~)' :-þ;<.f'
,~~-c~~:>",2 ~ J'ii.. ....
~ ...... ,~\ OS-R IPC <j,.. ..'" .'. ..
I Ea ola
7' -
L ú.i 5-=0 .:5h- e ef::.
.'19'
-
/'
1
I
I
I
l/~, C",lraj"-
I
1 \
I Z"Q2 ",.r.
;1 \
f'I
' I
'
, \
- I' \~
I
l/~, \
I
I \
I
I ..8' \
L_J- '
\
/3'1.0' -- - - --\
-
..5C4Le I" = 2é)'
r.i:i\t 8 '
JAN 3 1995
ATTACHMENT C
9 of 10
. ~.,¡3\''" .
T ~ ,.....,.,,':";t :.,. .
l ','. ',"~'," ,",,' """,,> , . ',',','
, " 10 ;,~~;.' ,
I," LIÙI"\ 'o"'"?-o!,f. t"I'~'3"
I ReI>" ' 0'
I ,,' ,~~ 1
:5»[ "',@, )
i ' I I
, ' I' 3"
í ' 3~
',I ~ I I
! I f.~<:.,-"e' B/R !
, ' ; I
! ! ! i
~r' 1 C>P- ; I
; ,
, " j-+
~..__3-~..~ -+- /3'/.,"-<> Bk: 'I
J -' r J
!y--: i !
¡-- IY'I" L/'r< I = ¡ Vlk/"
ø ,I ~
f pi"": G) iii' --
j 7i~t<- @ ~! \J/ I3A
I !,~ñ '" ,.; ,.,., 1 i
.25) ßeð(£,,~e"" \ \ ¡::rJ'\'it
1'-'0°'" V 13'6" I
I' 61 fZ 13 R : ~ -7 ¡
I /, ¡ t I
i i n ¡
!; \ I'I';¡" I 6/ Î' 8/1< ~
.' I 1 11
'I I
I .--:;:-----:----""-7-" ,,~ ' ,-
\..",,~ t-..J.J'(¡,"--J i
I
, " FAV,
t=
1 0 o:'::~ff5í,.'~t~~~~:~t,;~i~i~;;~5r;::~%!;~~~~:
-
;, .
,
.-{
. c--
",
~: .."'"
"
'?
i \'l'f'"
'f"'7 \Co
.J~ l ~cJ.
V'}~ of 0
f
ì
) ¡ l
-. l 4
i
! ~
~. ¡ .tÞ 'J
r ~o\, 0 -J. .~ ç
. {~
, 'f'~ I Cot"'
I ~ ~ ~ ~O ~
! ..)0"'- ~t-\~ ~b" t cJI).i
, ~ 0 ¡,I I '(fI
0 0 ~ 0 v'{>;C'
f 0 O...~ (J- 0 -¿¿ 0
, \\..c/'" '^' - ¥'~ ~
~ ~\\ ,.¡o" v~'j~ I v..oo\'
i ~ J ~
~ -
! Ç\j".Ld
I \<-'(\ .. -,
- \'f.'
'1'"JA'
1
~ $("Ð..It: è..~ .Jyo,.(
" "I
\
\
1-!J-e;S '# Ý
I
I
/ ~...._.- "-""""."""'" ß " ' 'J--
~ SoqectPropertyAddress 'PZg,So/",,"¿I.//s"2-;:';o' "oo.M'f ,(I¡:¡, r?Zo{o-r-..'-
'- C. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following:
L Features of the property shared in common wilh adjoining landowners, such as walls. fences, and driveways
whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on ¡he subject property, ,....................... 0 Ves g II<>
2. Nty eocroacnments, easemenls or similar matlers Ihat may affect your inlerest in Ihe subjeci property. ............ 0 Ves EI lie.
3. Room additions, structural modificalions, or other aile rations or repairs made withoul necessary permits. ... . . . . . . . . 0 Ves ~ II<>
.. Room additions. slructura! moditications, or olner ailerations or repairs not in compliance with building codes. .. .. 0 Ves ~ f9 /1-;.
5. landli~ (compacted or olnerwise) on the propeny or any ponion thereof, ""'" ,.. . . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. ... ... .. 0 Yes l':J In
õ. Arrysettling from any cause, or slippage, sliding, or other soil probiems, .................... ...... ... .......... OVes ~No
7. Fioodong.drainageorgradingproblems. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"....oVes I9No
8. Major damage to the property or any of the slructures from lire, ear1hquake, floods, or landslides. . . . .. . .. ..... 0 Yes ß:I No
9. Any zoning violations. non.conforming uses, violalions of "setback" requiremenls. ......,......,........;....... 0 Ves ~ Ilr,
10. Neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances. .................,.....,..................................OVes ~I"'J
11. CC&R's orolherdeed restriclions or obligations, ".,...,.....,.,......,........,...........................8'/Yes 0'1'"
12. Homeowners' Association wnich has any aulhorily over Ihe subjeci property, "................................ 0 Yes g¡ Plo
13. Any "common area" (facilities such as pools. tennis couns. walkways, or olher areas co-owned
in undivided interest with others) .............,..............",..........................................OY<!S 8jPlo
14. Ntynotìœsofabalemenlorcilalions against the proper1y, """""""""""""""""'" ...........OVes EJI/rJ
15._AMJawsuitsagainst the seller threatening to or affecting Ihis reai properly. ""'....,.....,........ . . . . .. .. 0 Yes a II<>
~Ihe' anyoitheseisyes;e~þlãrri'7!1I!täc¡:'-iíddfiìõñiíŒì<iJiliì1ìnElcess~!»I: ' .g . _.. ,-
, é5ïIO,,}-48c';<'" 0 ,.J!;I<~'I-II/'J O¡::. nOR..5,£ S ':t-' . .5 é7~é. ,. --
/I..~/({.wBOR5. iH61j 4116.. ,JOt ßé.Æ 4) N<lls4¡Vc(:; 10 ~J/-
Seller certifies that the information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the date
signed by th~,
SeIer ~, T j)~~ Dale ~/Y/d"/'
Seller {? ./ L-à.- ~ (f/ ~ #I- D ale 1'/ Y / cI: 7"
III
AGENT'S INSPECTION DISCLOSURE
tic be ~mp\e\ed only II the seller Is represented by an agent In this transacl/on,)
THE UNDERSIGNËD, BASED ON THE ABOVE INQUIRY QF THE SELLER(S) AS TO THE CONDfTJOP¡ OF THE
PROPERTY AND BASED ON A REASONABLY COMPETENT AND DILIGENT VISUAL ItiSPECTION OF THE
ACCESSIBLE AREAS OF THE PRÇ)PERTY,IN CO~JUNCTION WITH THAT INQUIR~, STATES THE FOLLOWING:
Agent (BroI<er ~'
Represen1ing SeP.er) , By, Dale
I~pnt ,"'"""Ie L""...", "",...SIgn,"",¡
i ' .i IV
AGENT'S INSPECTION DISCLOSURE
(To be completed only If the agent who has obtained the offer Is other than the agent above.)
THE UNDERSIGNED, BASED ON A REASONABLY COMPETENT AND DILIGENT VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE
Ar:~~~~~T~)P P~,STATES.THEFO L~, INGX, /w.v 'Æ~ xJ~ (r,' -"c,-
'LCt. '. II.' . !I.a~ t .'¿1.'::=:4 úf-.v!,- ~ -- --
Agen\ !8roIcer >'-.. ,) tî~,~';;!v'Ã-1::rT.¡~ . 16 I y
obtaònioç !he Offe'j /~ c!.\/dx..__J}LLI:S.__~~. B&':~:~!:'" -~= ~-é!!'Jc.L"'::_- oaIL7f~/.'::.Y'/ .
IP,.O9OPnnll IA"oc""lIcøn"'oluru'OI';"¡nø~"'¡ t
V
BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE ANDIOR INSPECTIONS OF THE
PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYER Arm SELLER(SJ
WTni RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE/INSPECTIONS/DEFECTS.
IIWE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COpy OF THIS STATEMENT.
X_g--.i£. T Q^yL 0" .."c5?:: ~ ""ilt! ':
XSeGer Oh.å--~ YØ/¿d.:K--1Jate BUy¡¿tL¿Ó /1.<À/ . Da/I/?/y:--
I
AgenI (Broker
Representing Seller) By Dale
¡P1e",P""'1 I"""""""""""""""".S.""""I
Agel'll (BmIær
obIainìng Ihe Offer) By - Date
¡PIe,.. p""'1 lAss""" """",,, """"S""""'I
A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS OUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE, CONSUL T YOUR ATTORNEY
-'="""'--""C,~.b,I"'."t"'I'.'.SI." .ndust')' V-
~~"Æ....~n;;.=.::;=;~,:::.~~~~,~ / - 3 - '7s J:t: ð
= '::.:'Z ~~~~:~ ~'ò't'~~n~~~t ~~~:
--..-:rt>ø 10 os Cod. 01 EII"cs ,OFFrcEUSEOIlLY G:r
R.".w.d by a,o'.' '" 0."9n.. ~
~'966.CAl.FORNIAASSOCIATIONOFREALTORS' Dal. ~
----~-___5õ'S_'h¡ iA_.LosAnq.r.s.C'Woon"90020 RIIVFD'C r...nv g ..."'~
r
December 28,1994
To the City of Poway,
Regarding the issue at hand at 12859 Luiseno,Poway,we see no reason why Ric and Barbara
DuDeck should not be granted a yes vote on their mother-In-law quarters. Having lived in the
neighbortJood longer than the DuDecks,1 can honestly say that they have done major improving
on the property in comparision to the previous owners. Having this unit on their property does
nothing to hann the integrity or chann of our area.
Sincerely,
L¡ J ¿fL f!j 17.2i-&-dL
Chuck and Mary Mitchell
12832 Luiseno,Poway,CA 92064
-
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8 0'4
..-
-- --- -----------
~--~----- ---.. ~~-~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~~~ .~------------~~.,._~--~.~ I
-
.-
December 28,1994
To the City of Poway,
Regarding the issue at hand at 12859 Luiseno,Poway,we see no reason why Ric and Barbara
DuDeck should not be granted a yes vote on their mother-in-law quarters~ Having lived in the
neighborhood longer than the DuDecks,1 can honestly say that they have done major improving
on the property in comparision to the previous owners. Having this unit on their property does
nothing to hann the integrity or chann of our area.
(r~)~
Bill and Kay Sorenson
Del Norte
Poway,CA 92064
-
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8 .~ .-
IJ~,~ Yh-J,I.
December 27,1994 C--1A1' 'l'-f-} 7
To the City of Poway,
We are writing you conceming our neighbors property at 12859 Luiseno and the mother-in-law
quarters in question. We are the neighbors directly to the west of the subject property and the
closest to the unit. We have lived here longer than the DuDecks and in our opinion they have
done nothing but to enhance their property. There is never any noise or any other problems
regarding this unit which has always been a part of their house. We wish to express our opinion
that this living quarter be legalized as it does nothing to disturb the beauty and serenity of our
neighborhood.
Sincerely, '
~~~~~
12853 Luiseno
Poway, CA 92064 DEe
1994
JAN 3 1995 ITEM 8 '
..-