Item 6.1 - Request for Rehearing CUP 94-17 VAR 94-10 Ric & Barbara Dedeck AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO~ Monorable Mayor and Mambers of the City ~
Council
FROM~ J&mes L. Bowersox, City M&n~
INITIATED BY= John D. Pitch, Assistant city Manager
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of ~
Planning Services
DATE: January 17, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a rehearing for Conditional Use Permit 94-17
and Variance 94-10, Ric. and Barbara DuDeck, Applicants
ABSTRACT
This is a request for a rehearing of the application permitting the
legalization of an existing second living unit and construction of a
carport which will extend into the required minimum side yard setback, for
the property located at 12859 Luiseno Drive.
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
Ed Muscat was provided a copy of this report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council set a new public hearing
concerning Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 based on the
request for rehearing by members of the public and on staff findings.
Staff recommends that the hearing be held on February 14.1995, in order
for public hearing notices to be provided within the appropriate time
frame.
ACTION
L JAN171 ITI M ,6,1
AGENDA REPOR -
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, city Man~
FROM:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager
Reba Wright-Quastle~, Director of Planning Services ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: January 17 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: January 17, 1995.
SUBJECT: A request for a rehearing for Conditional Use
Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Ric and Barbara
DuDeck, Applicants: This is a request for a
rehearing of the application permitting the
legalization of an existing second living unit
which may then be lawfully rented, and
construction of a carport which will extend into
the required minimum side yard setback, for the
property located at 12859 Luiseno Drive, in the
RR-C zone.
APN: 275-400-03
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution P-95-02,
approving the application by Mr. & Mrs. Du~eck whereby the use of
a previously constructed second living unit on their property
could legally be used as a rental unit. The applicants agreed to
provide an additional off-street covered parking space for their
tenant by constructing a carport alongside their existing garage.
The placement of the carport required the approval of a variance
from the required sideyard setback, which was also obtained on
the same date.
The rehearing request has been submitted by a neighboring
property owner in accordance with Section 17.46.080 of the Poway
Municipal Code.
See Summary Sheet ..............
JAN t 1!]95 ITEM
Agenda Report
January 17, 1995
Page 2
Subsequent to the hearing several neighbors came forward with a
variety of issues relating to the hearing. A request for rehearing
of the project was filed. The arguments supporting the request for
rehearing are as follows:
1. That a member of the neighborhood who received a public
hearing notice was present at the January 3rd hearing, but was
not recognized to speak on the item, even though a speaker's
slip had been properly submitted.
2. That members of the immediate neighborhood were not able to
determine the implications of approval of the requested permit
from the language of the public hearing notice. The words
"legally used as a rental unit" and mention of the need for a
setback variance for the required carport were not stated in
the notice. Both issues are of particular interest to them
and would have alerted them to attend the hearing to speak in
opposition to the application.
3. There is evidence in the file that legal notice was not
provided to all property owners within a 500 foot radius. The
following list of parcels fall within the radius, but were not
included in the notice submitted by the applicants:
275-241-16,17,18 & 19
275-353-03,04 & 05
275-390-06,07,11 & 16
275-400-13,21,22,23,24,25 & 30
Section 17.46.080 of the Poway Municipal Code allows the City
Council to rehear and reconsider its action "if there is new and
different evidence not available at the previous hearing". Staff
believes that the information cited above constitutes sufficient
new and different evidence to warrant a rehearing.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council set a new public hearing
concerning Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 based on
the request for rehearing by members of the public and on staff
findings. Staff recommends that the hearing be held on February 14~
1995, in order for public hearing notices to be provided within the
appropriate time frame.
JLB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
~ o~ 1.8 ,JAN 1 ? 1995
Agenda Report
January 17, 1995
Page 3
Attachments:
A. Muscat letter
B. Huddy/Maire letter
C. Griffith letter
D. Howard letter
E. Von Mueller letter
F. Edleson letter
G. Leavens letter
H. Huston letter
I. Ramseyer letter
J. Leighton letter
K. 10 neighborhood letters received
JAN 1 ? 1995 I'I'EM .b&
4 of 18
· RECEIVED
JAN 9 1995
- CITY alI POWAY
M~yor Hlgg~naon ~nd Clly Councd ,CITY CLERK'~ OFFICE
Subjoct; Raquoa[ [o oppo;tl [ho doci~on ia gr;nl CUP ~4-17 end V;rlonco ~4.10 ;p;~ov)ng
ronlal un~l end side ,otbeck ~or ~ carpori ~ocalod el 128.59 Lul,eno Dr,
1 ) Al tho meeting on January 3. 1095 only throo cards wore [urned tn o~poslng the
A) Jim Seifert. Community Proiection Chairmen represenling a~prox~malely 1100
for the Green Valtey C;vic Association
B) Sluart Edleson. a neighbor
C) Ed Musca~ - (myself) a neighbor [hat resides next door to the pro~e~y in question
There was lithe opposit;on presen[ a~ the meeting because the notice was misJeading. After
speaking with neighbors upset by the C~ty Council's decision to approve the above CUP and
Variance, I asked them why they were not in aitendance a~ the meeting [o voice their obje~ions.
The response rang out over and over that the not,ce didn't say ankh*rig about a rental or side
yard seiback or a carpal, therefore~ nobody became alarmed. For instance: an existing se~nd
liv~ng unit for an elderly relative or an older child could possibly be accepted and is thought of as
a ve~ different circumstance to an apa~ment for rent.
2) Stua~ Edieson of 12826 Indian Trail attended the City Council meeting and filled out the ~rd
requesting to speak out opposing the CUP and Variance. However, he was never called He
was unsuc~ssfui in getting the City Council's attention and therefore wen[ unheard. The C~ty
Clerk has his red ~rd if you wish to investigate this fu~her.
3) Three letters in suppo~ of the apa~ment were secured by the Dudecks: ~o from fellow
realtors and one from Allen Thr~lkil, a neighbor immediately to the Dudeck's west side.
Although Mr. Thrailkil has no p~oblem with ~e cu~ent ren~er making no~se or being an
annoyance, he is against the building of a ~rpo~ and any legalization of this unit for rental
pu~oses on a long te~ basis. When Ric Dudeck presented his letter for a signature he never
mentioned the n~d to add a ~rpo~ or make any other ~anges ~o his prope~. Mr. Thrailkil wil[
be sending you a leper stating his opposition.
4) During the City Counci; meeting, Ric Dude~ stat~ at the podium that the ~ would
100 feet from ~he stree~ and out of sight. I measured a maximum of 40 feet from the stree~ to the
front of his garage and ~nno~ see any ~ssible way to hide it from sight. Cons~cQon of a
carpo~ meeting Mr Dudeck s descr p~ cn would require tearing down pa~ of his house and ~e
removal of severai trees.
5) The Varience for a setback and ~rpo~ were approved at the same time as t~e CUP.
Discussion about the setbacks and ca~o~ were never open for debate and thus were passed
w~thout proper review and w~thout the knowledge of the neighbors effected.
6) The Dudeck's~ both of whom were rearers at ~he time o~ purchasing the home, knew that
multiple unils on s~ngle family propel,es as renters were not allowed in [his area. The unit
question was never a rental pnar to the Dudeck's owning the home.
7) C~ty plans are created w~th the 1ntent of maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. Multiple
units on single family prope~ies as rental un~ts are discordant wi[~ t~is neighborboo~ and
direct opposition to the plan ~or Green Valley.
PIoese grant a rehearing for CUP 94.1~ ~nd V~rience 94-10.
Ed Muscat
12865 Lulsone D~ive Pow~ty, CA
c c GVCA
JAN t ? 1995 ITEM 6,1
ATTACHMENT A
12848 LUISENO DR
POWAY, CA 92064
JANUARY 8, 1995
MAYOR DON HIGGINSON & CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL
P O BOX 789
POWAY, CA 92074-0789
DEAR MAYOR HIGGINSON & CITY COUNCIL,
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO EXPRESS MY OBJECTION TO THE
LEGALIZATION OF A SECOND FAMILY DWELLING AS A RENTAL UNIT AT
12859 LUISENO DRIVE.
I DISAGREE WITH THE VIEW AS REPORTED IN THE POWAY CHIEFTAIN
THAT THE "COUNCIL MEMBERS...COULDN'T FIND THE...UNIT
DISCORDANT WITH THE AREA." OUR AREA IS NO LONGER A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA WHEN YOU ALLOW TWO FAMILIES TO
OCCUPY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE SECOND FAMILY IS
NOT RELATED TO THE FIRST AND THE SECOND FAMILY IS PAYING RENT
TO THE FIRST FAMILY THUS MAKING THE PROPERTY AN INCOME
PRODUCING PROPERTY. THE SHORT TERM IMPACT IS NOT BENIGN
SINCE IT ALLOWS A CHANGE TO THE GREEN VALLEY PLAN AND IT IS A
DEVIATION FROM POWAY'S GENERAL VIEW AGAINST SECOND
DWELLING UNITS. IN ADDITION, THE PRECEDENT THAT IS SET WOULD
FAVOR THE GRANTING OF FUTURE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
SECOND DWELLING RENTALS.
MY HUSBAND AND I "DISCOVERED" GREEN VALLEY ON A DRIVE TO THE
"COUNTRY". PEACE--QUIET--STARS--SPACE--CHILDREN--HORSES---
GREEN VALLEY HAD IT ALL! SPACE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US.
MOVING FROM A 50' FRONTAGE HOME IN SAN DIEGO THE 112 ACRE
MINIMUM APPEALED TO US. JUST AS IMPORTANT WAS THE ZONING
FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. OUR PRIOR NEIGHBORHOOD HAD A
HIGHER DENSITY THAN WE DESIRED AND HAVING LARGE LOTS WITH
NO "TWO ON ONES" ALLOWED, MADE IT A CERTAINTY THAT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY THAT FIRST
ATTRACTED US TO IT.
ATTACHMENT B JAN [? 1995 ITEM ,6,1
PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO BEFORE MAKING
A LONG TERM COMMITMENT LIKE BUYING A HOME. WE CERTAINLY DID
OUR RESEARCH BEFORE WE COMMITTED TO OUR PRESENT HOME ON
LUISENO DRIVE. NOW, ONE CITY COUNCIL RULING CAN CHANGE ALL
OF ITl
I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO GOT THE NOTICE ABOUT THE
HEARING ON JANUARY 3. TWO POINTS: 1. NOWHERE IN THIS NOTICE
IS IT MENTIONED THAT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE IS LEGALIZING A
SECOND DWELLING UNIT AS A RENTAL. THIS DEFINITELY MAKES A
DIFFERENCE TO ME! 2. THE DATE OF THE HEARING, THE DAY AFTER
THE NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY, AND FOR SOME THE FIRST DAY BACK TO
WORK AFTER A LONG CHRISTMAS BREAK, MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR
PEOPLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. I RECEIVED THIS NOTICE
APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK PRIOR TO JANUARY 3, DURING THE
HOLIDAYS. THIS WAS NOT A GOOD TIME TO HAVE TO CONSIDER A
MATTER SUCH AS THIS. SO, IF YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT THE LACK
OF NEGATIVE RESPONSE, THE INCOMPLETE NOTICE AND THE TIMING
OF THE HEARING CAUSED THIS. THAT IS WHY I HOPE YOU WILL ALLOW
A NEW HEARING ON APPEAL OF THIS MATTER. I BELIEVE YOU WILL
SEE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE OPPOSED TO A
CHANGE IN THE GREEN VALLEY PLAN.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY REQUEST.
MOST SINCERELY,
CHRISTINE L. HUDDY ~,, ROBERT L. MAIRE
CC: GVCA
JAN t? 1995 ITEM
7 o~ ~8
January 80199§
Mayor Don Higginson and Councilmembers
City Hall
P.O. Box 789
Poway 92074-0789
Re: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson and Councilmembers:
Our house was one of the first house~ built in this area almost
24 years ago. We knew the builder of the house in question.
They did not build what today is called a "second living unit"
for rental property. Over the fifteen years or so that they
lived there it was available to various family members. To call
it a separate living unit as stated by the Agenda Report, 3
January 95 is not exactly correct. That is, however, what it has
been for the past five years.
It seems that the majority of the homeowners did not want this
request to be approved. We bought in this area to have a large
lot and a single-family home on that lot--not duplexes,
apartments, or condos. To allow a "separate" rental property is
to the detriment of what this neighborhood has stood for.
When I come out of my front yard I can see where the "covered
parking" structure is supposed to go. It will stick out and will
be unsightly. There seems to be very little room for one in the
first place. It will be sticking out toward the street and it
will have an adverse impact.
Have Mayor Higginson, Deputy Mayor Callery or Councilmember
Cafagna actually seen the property in question to know if this is
going to be compatible with the surrounding property? According
to the residents that will actually have to look at it, it will
not be compatible.
Please grant a rehearing for CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
Thank you,
Brad and Siegride Griffith
16117 Bennye Lee Drive
Poway, Ca., 92064
C.c.GVCA
ATTACHMENT C .JAN t ? 1995 ITEM
8 or,~
Phyllis How.,r~
Stone
Pow~y, C~ 9~0~
M-yor Don Higgtnson
City H~ll
P C. Box 789
Po,.~y, 9°06%*-0789
Dear M-yor Higginson, ~nd City Council,
I ,'ould like to express my opposition to the Council's epprov~l
to legalize ~ rental unit *t 12869 Luesino Dr. in the Del Norte
area of Poway, ~t the J~nuary ~r~ Public He, ring.
i received ~ notice of the Hearing during the busy holiday season,
and I am sure, like m=ny other ~rea residents, it was put aside,
and the He-ring being held the day after the New Years holiday
week-end caught m~ny unprepared.
I believe a rental in our "City in the Country" would spoil our
tranquil environment, which is why most of us moved here in the
first place, ~nd I think it could start a precedent for new
people moping here.
I sincerely ~ope you viii reconsider your e~rlier decision with
a r~h~aring for the concerned citizens in the are~.
Respectfully yours,
,,' ~.~ ,.,.
Phyllis S Hcward
ATTACHMENT D
JAN t71995 ITEM
07 Jan.1995
Christian Von gueller
16111Bennye Lee Drive
Poway, Ca. 9206&
Home: 451-6315
Busi: 524-5122
Mayor Higginson,
WHAT IS GOING ON???? After finding out that CUP 94-17 and
Variance 94-10 was approved on 3 JAN. 95 I was MAD;t~ And I am
still MAD! ....
Unfortunately, due to my work schedule I was not able to attend
the public hearing on 3 Jan. 95. I didn't write or call the staff
planner for more information, because I thought the City Council
would NEVER approve something like this in GREEN VALLEY since it
is totally inconsistent with the Poway general plan.
Here are MY views and concerns on this issue:
1. I DO NOT APPROVE OF A SECOND DWELLING UNIT ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 12859 LUISENO DRIVE (CUP 94-17). Furthermore, I do not
approve of having a CARPORT built on that property to support
this second dwelling unit (VAR. 94-10).
2. Green Valley is comprised of Single Family Homes on half acre
or larger lots. These properties are valued starting at $300,000
and up. This to me would be considered a Middle to Upper Class
neighborhood. To state publicly that approval of this second
dwelling for rental purposes would not have an adverse impact on
the neighborhood is absolutely idiotic. Of course it will have an
impact! On the property values! And having a Carport facing the
street will also not impact the neighborhood? GIVE ME A
BREAK!!!! Green Valley is not the place for second dwelling
rental properties.
3. The Notice Of Public Hearing which was sent to me never
addressed the fact that this second living unit would be used as
a rental. It also did not state that a carport had to be
constructed to support this second unit. The notice was very
misleading.
~. ~ have lived at 16ii1Bennye Lee Dr, since 1986. ~ knew the
previous owners at the property in question. They HAD NOT used
the second livin~ unit as a ~'ental. The owners children had lived
in thi~ dwelling.
ATTACHMENT E JAN 1 7 1995 ITEM
10 o~
5, ?his issue needs to be re-sddressed, The city staf~ planner~
need to take a closer look AGAIN st the impact it would have to
this nei~hborhood in Green Valley, It obviously was not looked st
very closely before.
Christian Von Mueller
JAN 1 ? 1995ITEIVI 6,!
12826 Indian 'Frail
Poway, California 92064
January 5, 1995
Mayor Iliggtnson and Cl~y Council
Regarding: Conditional Use Permit granted to Rick Dudeck on Luiseno
during the 4 January City Council meeting.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Council's decision
to grant Mr. Dudeck a conditional use permit which allows him to rent part
of his house to a tenant. As I was unable to speak at the meeting I would
like to take this opportunity to express my concerns with respect to
allowing second family tenancy in the Green Valley area.
First, I oppose allowing the use of second dwellings for rental on property
zoned for single families. This violates the Poway general plan.
While Mr. Dudeck's single tenant appears to be a small impact to the city
as a whole, it is a significant impact to my family and my neighbors who
live on the same street. I choose to live in Green Valley, a community of
large lots and single family dwellings where for the most part, residents
have accepted the added responsibility, and expense, of maintaining larger
acreage than they would have in, say Mera Mesa. We purchased our
properties at a significantly higher cost so we could live in an area with
lower density, quieter streets and a common interest in the neighborhood.
One rental on the block conn-ibutes to violating this condition by increasing
traffic, making higher demands on utilities and eroding the neighborhood's
purpose. In effect, a commercial business is being established in the
center of, and to the detriment of our family environment. Let's keep
commercial rental property to those parts of the city where it is so zoned,
and people living there made their choice knowing the circumstances.
The second reason I oppose this is that we are allowing someone to live in
our community who has no responsibility or interest in the health and well
being of the neighborhood. He generally cares little about the value of the
properties in the area since he has nothing invested. The current tenant Is
quiet and does little to change the neighborhood. But what about the next
tenant? And what happens if Mr. Dudeck sells the property to someone
who's only Interest Is to rent both dwellings and himself not living there?
I'm sure that this is possible, and legal.
ATTACHMENT F JAN t 7 1'305 I'rEM 6,1
Yes, Mr. Dudeck (who is a realtor 0aid whose wife Is a very successful
realtor) has hnproved the value of the neighborhood by making
improvements to his property, but for what purpose? And why Is he now,
after five years or so of Illegally renting the dwell, wiling to accept the
expense of back fees and other improvements recommended by the city
manager to legalize it/ Is it for the betterment of the neighborhood, or for
his own personal gains? I belteve he is preparing this property for sale,
one with a rentable dwelling on it - a case which would surely invite the
interest of persons with living standards different from those of the
current neighborhood.
Next, I wish to express my surprise in finding out after the meeting that in
addition to granting Mr. Dudeck a conditional use permit, the Council also
granted a variance to the city code to allow less than the legal setback for
the "covered parking" Mr. Dudeck must provide for the tenant. The
variance was not listed on the agenda as far as I saw, and except for the
city manager saying that it was required before the conditional pe,.fit
could go into effect, no discussion addressed the setback and apparent
carport which would be needed to meet the requirements of the
conditional use permit.
Mayor Higginson and members of the Council, please bring this issue up for
a rehearing. What you have authorized by granting the variance is a
structure which will be discordant with the appearance of the
neighborhood. It must be located in a narrow space between Mr. Dudeck's
driveway and his neighbor's driveway. It will not be built off the side of
the house, but rather protruding from the front of the house toward the
street. And rather than being set well back, it will extend very close to the
street..In short, this "covered parking" structure will be a neighborhood
eyesore, detrimental to property values in this area of the city.
Please, may we have a rehearing on this conditional use permit grant? I
for one would like another opportunity to voice my opinion.
Sincerely,
Stuart K. Edleson
c.c. GVCA
,lanuat7 6, t995
blayor. Donlligginson
Cityltall
P. O. Box 789
Poway 92074-0789
Re: C.U.P.#94-17 Var. 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson,
I am a resident of the Del Norte area in Poway. I and my
family have currently lived here for the past eight years. Previously,
I lived in the Green Valley area with my parents from 1965 - 1971.
I enjoyed the Poway experience so much that when I had children of
my own I returned to this area to raise them. I have been extremely
pleased with that decision. However, I am now greatly saddened to
hear of the development being allowed at 12859 Luiseno Dr.
It seems to me that the Dudecks are being rewarded for going
about things the wrong way. If there was illegal structure to the
house when they bought it, then I agree they should not be the ones
punished. However to continue to make more allowances to create a
structure that would be an eyesore as well as go against the makeup
of the neighborhood deserves some in depth consideration. This
move seems to open the door to this area becoming much more
developed, with the results being a much more dense population and
many rentals. I agree there are places for that, but not in an already
established neighborhood with rules and guidelines that now seem to
be getting tossed aside.
I do not recall ever receiving 'any notice of this variance being
up for discussion. I also believe that details have not been fully
represented to the city counsel members as to the actual structure
being built, and as to the reasons for it. This address never included
a rental property before, and there was no reason for the buyer of
the property to believe it would be allowed to become one. I ask you
to reopen discussion of this situation and consider the consequences
to the neighborhood as a whole. Thank you for considering this
matter.
/
K,6nnl teaxCens
16144 Del Notre
ATTACHMENT G .IAN l? 1995 IT~:M 6,l
14 o~ 18
RECEIVED
Donald Hlggenson 8 January 1995
Mayor - City of Poway JAN 1 0 1995
City Hall
P.O, Box 789 CITY OF POWAY
Poway, CA 92074-0789 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Mayor Higgenson,
Just today I was informed by Mr. Ed Muscat of the Council hearing, and decision,
regarding Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 in favor of Ric and Barbara
Dudec. I wish to express my alarm and great displeasure regarding this decision. I1' has
the appearance of being based upon a foundation of untruths as related to the Council by
Mr. and'Mrs. Dudec. In addition, the Dudec's give all indication that they can do as they
see fit, and the neighborhood be damned.
First of all, I live within the 500-foot circle adjoining the Dudec's property and I WAS NOT
NOTIFIED of a hearing on this matter. I certainly would have attended the Council
meeting on January 3, and expressed my objections to the Conditional Use Permit as
well as the Variance. I am writing to you at this time, because I understand that there will
be another Council meeting on 17 January, to review the prior decision. I will attend that
meeting and wish to have my objections heard at that time.
The Dudec's knew when they purchased that property from the Dryden's that it had never
been used as a partial rental, or for any other commercial purpose, by the former long-
time owners. This is a single family neighborhood according to zoning and all we
neighbors of the Dudec's, in fact every home owner in the greater Green Valley area,
purchased our properties at a premium price in order to preclude the ultimate
deterioration that occurs to neighborhoods once rentals spring up. I do not wish that to
happen to this very beautiful area of North County!
Mr. Mayor, what is to prevent others of us who have second units on our properties from
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for their use as rentals also? VVhat would prevent me
from requesting a Conditional Use Permit to open up a Bed and Breakfast on my property
(one car per night just as the Dudec's property will have)? What if the gentleman across
the street from YOUR home decides he wants to build a second unit on the back of his
property, which would be clearly visible from the front of your house, then rents it out?
Once the blight starts, there is no stopping it!
Second issue. I don~ believe Mr. Dudec is being honest about the required carport. He
can't possibly build back 100-feet from the street because there isn't that much space
available in the area he describes on his plot plan. It appears to be more like 40-feet, or
less, About his agreement to plant vision-limiting shrubbery on the East side of the
carport. That does nothing for the eyesore all we neighbors will see from the front. There
is already an eyesore property across the street from the Dudec's with an open carport,
piles of landscaping debris, and piles of raw horse manure throughout the yard, One
festerino wound in our neiohborhood id enouqht
ATTACHMENT H J~,N t'~' 1005 ITC--'~ (~'[
Thirdly Mr Dudec seems to have a great disregard for building code, He has erected an
8-foot plywood eye,ore he calls a fence between h s property and Mr, Muscat's, What
makes me believe that If he continues to build unlawfully on his property, that he will
comply completely with code regarding the rental unit downslzlng? Once Inspected, it Is
possible to remove the "storage" partltians and enlarge the rental living space to Its
original square footage (to Justify more rent),
Fourthly, I find that the approval of the variance for purposes of constructing a carport IS
a ~ that no one else in the neighborhood enjoys. The carport is required
because of the requirement for off street parking for Mr. Dudec's renter ... a orivilege no
9ne else en!oys,
Mr. Dad'~c is'a smart man. Being a Realtor, he knew the condition of the property before
it was purchased by he and his wife. It HAS NEVER BEEN a rental. The Dryden's
allowed their children to live on the property, rent free, for a couple years, but no other
tenants have ever been on that property. Being both a Realtor and a smart man, I
presume Mr. Dudec is positioning himself to divest himself of the property at a time when
homes are not reselling as fast as they once did. A clearance from the City to permit part
of his property to be used as income producing property would greatly enhance his
ability to sell the property at this time.
Lastly, if the Dudec's can~ afford to live in this fine neighborhood without resorting to the
use of their property for supplemental income, they never should have purchased in this
area in the first place.
I ask you to reconsider your prior approval of both the Conditional Use Permit and the
Variance granted to the Dudec's on 3 January.
Sincerely,
G.M. Huston
16138 Bennye Lee Drive
Poway, CA 92064
JAN:t?1995 ITEM 6,1 '
JAN -
~~ ,~~ CI~ OF Po~
~~~~ ATTACHMENT I JAN t ? 1995 ~EM ~1 '
,7 o~ [8
RECEIVED
JAN 1 1 1995
CITY OF POWAY
January 9, 1995 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Mayor Higginson and City Council
City Ball
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Subject: Request For Appeal
CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing this letter to formally request that the decision to
grant Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 to Ric and
Barbara Dudeck be reversed.
My family and I moved to the San Diego area approximately two years
ago. Our intent was to find the best place to buy a home and raise
our children. After an extensive search we found a home on Luiseno
Road which we felt met all our needs. Our primary reasons were
Poway's commitment to the growth and well being of our children and
the Green Valley area which gave us a neighborhood of well
established single family homes that our neighbors took pride in.
We paid a premium for these things but we felt it was worth the
financial hardship to be assured that we would have a neighborhood
that we would feel safe in and be proud of for years to come.
We feel that Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 to
and Barbara Dudeck should not be allowed. Second dwelling units
for rental do not maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and
are incompatible with the surrounding properties. It was not our
understanding from the Notice of Public Hearing that the intent of
CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10 was that the property was to be used
as a rental for commercial gains and that a carport would be
erected.
Again, we would like to voice our concerns on this issues and
request that a rehearing be scheduled.
Joe and Linda Leighton
12847 Luiseno Road
ATTACHMENT J .lAN l '/ '1'J95 I'J'~.;~ 6,1
iLO Of~ Lfl
RECEtYEff
POw,e¥
C~(~SOFF~C~ 12837 Indian Trail
Poway, California
January 8, 1995
Mayor Higginson and City Council,
Subject: Conditional Use Permit granted to Rick Dudeck on
Luiseno during the Jan. 4 City Council meeting
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the
Council's decision to grant Mr. Dudeck a conditional use
permit which allows him to rent part of his house to a
tenant. I would like to take this opportunity to express my
concerns with respect to allowing second family tenancy in
areas zoned for single family homes.
First, this will violates the Poway general plan. Secondly
it will set a precedence for future similar cases.
I choose to live in Green Valley, a community of large lots
and single family dwellings where for the most part,
residents have accepted the added responsibility, and expense
of maintaining larger acreage than they would have in parts
of San Diego. We moved from Rancho Penasquitos to this area
where the pride of ownership has badly become eroded due to
increased number of rental properties. We do not wish to
observe the same phenomena in our current neighborhood.
It is true that the current tenant is quiet and does little
to change the neighborhood. But what about the next tenant?
In addition, Mr. Dudeck may sell the property to someone
who's sole interest is to rent both properties and himself
not live there. Is Mr. Dudeck using this an additional
attraction to sell his property to investors who are
interested in a duplex?
Please, reconsider this issue by a rehearing session to allow
the concerned neighbors to present their case and arguments
prior to final conditional permit on this property.
Your considerations are greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Copied for: Sam & Cheryl Navidi
City Council
City Clerk
JLB/JDF/RW.Q
Mrm. Joan O'Sullivan
12853 Indian Trail
Poway, CA 92064-2030
January 10, 1995
RECEIVED
Mayor Don Higginson JAN 12 1995
City Hall CI~OFPOWAY
P. 0.. BOX 789 CI~MA~GERSOFFiCE
Poway;'CA 92064-0789
Subject: C.U.P. #94-17 Var. 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson:
I have just been informed that a neighbor has been granted a
special use permit to have a rental on his property as well as
constructing a car port for that same rental. I do not live within
500 feet of Mr. Dudeck's property but I do live in the Del Norte
area. I have in fact lived in that same house for thirty one
years. I am disturbed that I did not receive a notice for such an
important meeting. Adding a room to a property is one thing, but
changing the zoning in an area is of great importance to everyone
in an area. Does this mean that those of us who voted for the
"Poway Plan" are negated. Any one of us can come down and say we
need 'the money and want to change our estates into rental
properties? Those of us who are reaching retirement age could
certainly find ourselves in that predicament. Are you prepared to
grant this special use permit to everyone? I really think that all
of Green Valley and Valle Verde and Del Norte needed to be asked
for input on this important decision.
I strongly urge you to reconsider this decision and notify and
allow more of the neighbors a chance to say whether or not we want
to start changing the zoning of our properties.
Sincerely,
lltvan ~
cc: GVCA
Copied for:
City Council
City Clerk
JLB/JOF/RW-Q
JAN L? 1 fl5 ITEM
January
11,
1996
Mayor Don Hlgglnson Lcrry ci.~,~,~-,:,'~,.',_" I/~'_ ClTYOFPOWAy .w~/I
City Hall
RO. Box 789 --.-.,, vr~-~l~
Poway. CA 92064
Regarding C.U.R 94-17. Var. 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson:
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Council's decision to grant Rick
and Barbara Dudeck a conditional use permit which allows them to rent part of their
house to a tenant. According to newspaper reports you and the two council members
who voted with you did not find the unit discordant with the area. I strongly disagree.
The property in this area is zoned for single families· The lots in this area are
generally one quarter to one half acre and are meant for single families with no
rentals.
I have lived across the street from the Dudeck's property for over sixteen years. When
the original owners and builders of the property at 12859 added on the extra room, it
was meant for their youngest son, who had returned home to live with them for a
period of time. The addition was also lived in by this son and his wife while he
attended college. Subsequently, it was used by another son and his family, who were
suffering financial hardships. It was never used as a rental unit and never used by
anyone other than family members of the owners.
Since the Dudecks have moved in, they have consistently illegally rented the addition
as well as illegally added on another addition and a fence over the legal height·
Please reconsider your decision and listen to the neighbors who live in this lovely
neighborhood. There are many children in this neighborhood and we want it to be
safe and nice for our children.
12856 Luiseno
Poway, CA 92064
;JAN 1 ? 1995 ITEM
1284: INDIAN TRAIL R E C E I V E D
POWAY, CA 920fl4 /'
JAN ! P.
CITY OF POWAY '"'/
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
January 10, 1995
Mayor Don Higginson
City Hall
P.O. Box 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Dear Mayor I-Iigginson::
RE: Request to appeal the decision to grant CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
I respectively request that you and the other members of the council will rehear this
matter and reverse the decision made on January 3, 1995.
I purchased my home in the immediate vicinity of the property being considered in the
referenced matter. One of the important reasons for our decision was the quiet, owner
occupied neighborhood. We have never regretted our decision. If this variance is granted
it will surely be followed by others, the precedent having been set. This will totally
change the environment which we have enjoyed for these many years.
This variance will be in discord with the "plan" for this general area and marks the
beginning of the loss of "The City in the Country". Poway has the fortune to have many
neighborhoods of which we are rightly proud. Let's not segregate that which we have.
Sincerely,
,JAN [ ? 1995 ITEM 6.1 ~
Allen Thrailkill
12853 Luiscno Dr,
Poway, Ca, 92064
RECEIVED
JAN 1 ~, 1995
January 9, 1995
~- CITY OF POWAY ~
City of Poway , CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
re: Permit to use a portion of 12859 Luiseno Dr for rental purposes.
Dear Sir;
Although I signed a letter agreeing to the use of 12859 Luiseno Dr. for rental purposes
I did not realize this would entitle all subsequent owners of this property to do the same.
Mr. Dudeck has been very careful and the tenants he has rented to have been no problem.
I can foresee that other owners might not be so careful.
I have no problem with the present owners renting out a portion of the home but I do object
to any subsequent owners automatically having this right.
In regard to the building of a carport, I fail to see the necessity. I have a hard time envisioning
a structure that would tie in with the house. The only other carport in the immediate neighborhood
is directly across the street from me and is a real eyesore. It's used primarily for storage.
Sincerely,
JAN t ? 1995 ITEi~! (3,3,
. .C~T'/Off POWAY
Barbara budech o~ p~oper~y Located a~ 1285P LuL~eno.
CouncL/'a decL~Lon to ~rant th~ budec~'a the-/e~ai rL~ht to
rent part of the£r home.
I have been a ?owa~ re~Ldent at m~ preaent addreaa /or the pa~t
23 yeara. I am ap~a/led at the C~uhcL/ta decLakon.- If my -
arLtAmetLc L~ correct, thL~ houae now ~a~ two {27 varLance~
and one (/} condLtLonaZ uae permLt Laaued to Lt and ali on
addLtLon~ whLc~ were conatru~ted and/oh u~ed Liie~aZiy by two [2J
code.
I ~,aa not notLfLed of councLz meetLnp, on 3 ]anuary aa I /Lye
approxLmateZy 700 {eet: [rom ~ubdect proper~y, gu~ Ln c~ec~Ln~
~L~ CL~y PiannLn~ bepar~men~ ~ dL~covered~ Ln concurrence wL~
~ou/d ~ave'~een notL~Led, Le iLve wL~Ln S00 fe~t o~ ~u~jec~
proper~y ~e~e not nodal'Led. ~ ~e very ZealS, a ~e~ea~Ln~ ~ouid
~e AeZd ~o ~ZZo~ ~o~e peopZe ~o 6e heard.
cc,:
JAN [ ? 1995 ITEM
(6Ig) 451-646z R E E I V [ D
JAN 1 1995
~. CI~ OF POWAY
CI~ CLERK'S OFFICE
January9,,1995
Mayor Don Higginson
Deputy Mayor Susan Callery
Councilmember Bob Emery
Councilmember Betty Rexford
Councilmember Micky Calfagna
City Hall
P.O. Box 789
Poway, California 92074-0789
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to the decision of the City Council
granting CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10. We strongly urge the council to reconsider these
matters for the following reasons.
First, we never received the Notice of Public Hearing, and even if we did, the Notice was
misleading and, in all probability, legally defective. It contained no information about the
proposed carport, and did not clearly set forth the reason for the variance request, i.e. the rental
ora unit to an unrelated third party. The Notice completely mischaracterizes the variance
request,
Second, allowing multiple units in Green Valley changes the character of the
neighborhood. One of the important reasons behind our decision to purchase our home was the
quiet nature el'the neighborhood. Multiple units increases traffic density, thereby exposin8 our
children to greater trafftc hazards. In addition, the construction of the carport cannot possibly be
built 100 feet t'rom the road without significant removal and modification of'existing structures,
and plants. Il'it is built adjacent to the existing garage, it will constitute an eyesore.
Third, the presence el' multiple rental units severely impacts the economic value of our
property. To do so xvithout proper notice is not tolerable, and is in violation of our due process
and cqutfl protection fights.
~/!./.~,, ,,.' ,/,,f ,lAN 1 'Z 1995 ITEM 6.1 ~
Finally, it violates all sense of Fairness that a variance is awarded when the property has
been rented in violation of City laws For the past several years. To reward such conduct certainly
erodes Further the Faith that citizens have in the integrity of our elected officials,
We would hope that in light of the overwhelming response from our neighborhood, the
Council will take the appropriate steps to reverse this unfortunate decision'.
Sincer ly
Tina Be ini
cc: Lauer & Frank, Attorneys at Law
JAN ~. ? 1995 ITEM
' RECEIVED
January 10, 1995
J/ N 1 3 1995
- Mayor Don Higginson
City Hall CiTY OF POWAY
P,O. Box 789 CiTY MANAGERS OFFICE
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Dear Mayor Higginson:
I would like to voice my displeasure with last weeks approval by thc city council of a rental
unit on my street by the Dudeks who live at 12859 Luiseno Drive. You voted for it. Please
take a moment to see why that was wrong and why this should be reheard.
The Dudeks are nice people who I have known since before they purchased their house.
Like most of the rest of us they decided that this was one of the nicest streets on Poway.
Clean, safe, quiet and family orientated with a how can I help my neighbor attitude. They
liked the street it so much they walked the block house by house looking for someone willing
to sell. I was not.
They finally purchased their existing house, without a rental unit. Then they illegally added
on to it last year and now the council has rewarded them by granting them a variance. That
makes no sense. It tells me if I want to get something done in Poway I should forget about
permits and just do it, since the council will go back and give me a variance. Was that the
message?
Some of the other problems I have with this variance are as follows: 1- I moved here
because of the wonderful neighborhood and this is incompatible with our area. There are no
rentals here. 2-The carport would stick out and would not be compatible with the area. 3- I
have no recollection of ever receiving a notice of the last hearing, even though I live on the
same street. 4-Both of the Dudeks are realtors and they knew when they moved here that
this was not in keeping with the area.
We the citizens of Poway vote for our council on the expectation that they will improve and
enhance our city and area. This variance you granted does just the opposite. Please vote for
a rehearing and lets keep Poway and the Del Norte/Green Valley area the nice place that it
is. Thank you
Sincerely, ~ :
Gary and Kathleen Kowal /~:~t.~
12823 Luiseno Dr.
Poway, CA 92064
,JAN 1 7 1995 ITEM ,~1.
January 11, 1995
M~. ~usan Callery
Mr. Bob Emery ! dAN 1 3 1995
Ms. Betty ~e~ord
Dear Members of the Pow~y City Council:
We urge the City Counc~ to grant a rehearing regarding the Dudeck's condition~
use permit and variance. Several points need to be reconsidere~ in order for
the counc~ members to render an equitable decision.
1. ~e feel confident that the majority of our neighborhood would have
responded with a strong, negative reaction had the not~icatlon ~nformed us of
two items.
a. the second structure was to be a rental
b. a carport would need to he constructed
~e beUeve that the f~ure to hotly yes,dents of these two items was
extremely misleading, even though unintention~y so.
2. The carport would not be consistent with our area and would constitute an
eyesore.
3. Rent~ property is very incompatible with our are~ and would have an
adverse effect on qu~t~ of ~e and prope~t~ values.
It's ou~ understanding that the p~ope~ty was in noneomp~ance when the
Du~eek's purchased it. Instead of co~ectinK this situation~ they h~ve built
~ddi~on without first obt~nin~ ~ pe~mit~ and have i~eg~y rented the secondary
dwe~nK. City Council members should not rew~rd the Dudeck's b~ Kr~ntinK
variance which ~ows them to ci~cumvent the zonin~ l~ws. This sets ~ bad
p~ecedent of a~owinK anyone to expect ou~ City Council to remedy ~n
situation fo~ them b~ chan~inK its status to leKal.
We ask that each of you conside~ whethe~ you would t~uly wish to threaten the
character and property v~ues on you~ own street~ should one of you~ neiKhbo~s
p~esent a simila~ situation. We believe that the ove~whelminK m~jo~ity of no~th
Powa~ ~esidents chose this ~rea to purchase homes in because of the very
special atmosphere that exists. Please don't ~isk invitin~ negative change to the
majority of residents fo~ the financial g~in of just two ~estdents.
RespectfuII~,
Pow~y, CA 920(~4
January 10, 1995
MA YOR: Don Hlgglnson
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mickey Cafagna ~ R E, C E I V E D
susan Callery JAN ! 3 1995
Bob Emery
Betty Rexford "~. CITY OF POWAy '~.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE'
City of Poway
13325 Civic Drive
Poway, Ca. 92064
Dear Council Members:
SUBJECT: CUP-94- 1 ? and Variance 94-10 for 12859 Luiseno
We respectfully request a re-hearing of your decision to grant a conditional use
permit for a rental riving unit and substantial variance for a carport at the above
address. We recommend that you re-hear this case and vote against the variances.
BA CKGRO UND:
- We have rived at 12841 Luiseno since 1981. We moved to this home because
of the famriy atmosphere, Iow traffic and custom homes on large lots. Our children,
ages 11 and 14, have been raised in this area with families who also have children and
are accustomed to walking, riding and playing around the streets. We have made
substantial investments in improvements of our property, as have others.
The proposed variance and use permit is totally inconsistent with this
neighborhood.
The following addresses the key points to consider:
1. Inconsistent with qeneral plan
The project is inconsistent with the general plan in that it
is a second dwelling for rental purposes. We chose to rive
in this area knowing that it was not zoned for rental units.
2. Will have adverse architecture
Although the dwelling in question is not visible from the street,
the required carport and encroachment of set-backs is visible and
inappropria re.
3. Inaoorooriate caroort varian~
The variance for the carport is inappropriate and is a deterioration
of community standards.
- 4. Prelect discouraaes the orderly and harmonious aooearance of
$truc tures
Tile carport is not harmonious with th~; structures In this neighborhood.
CUP-94-17 (continued)
Many people have moved into this area to raise families. ,4//of us in
this area are aware of the children playing in the area. Renters who do
not have an investment in the community nor have families w/ri not be
as aware of child safety and pose an increased threat.
6. S/nqle family area
As acknowledged by the city, this is a single family dwelling
area, not a multiple unit rental area.
7. Zoninq allows second riving unit, not rental unit
The zoning contemplates second riving units but not for rental
purposes.
8. Lack of disclosure
The extent of the variance for the carport was not disclosed
prior to the hearing on January 3, 1995.
Based on the above, we believe the cause for re-hearing is well established.
Very Truly Yours,
Ronald & Kathy Fawcett
12841 Luiseno
Poway, Ca. 92064
,JAN t 7 1995 ITEM
Clinton i,. ~]311llrh
.... R E C E I V E O
3ti L~ P~urth Avenue
~an ~1~O, ~all~ornl~ g~103
JAN Z ? 1995
~. ¢I~OFPOWAY ~{
~ CLERK'S OFFICE
~anuaty ~.7, lqq5
Honorable M~yor and Members of the' City Councfl
City Hall
P.O. BOX 789
Poway, CA 92074-0789
FAXED (619) 748 1455 AND MAILED
RE: January 17, 1995 request for a rehearing for
Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Rick and Barbara
Dudeck, Applicants.
Dear Mayor Higginson and City Council:
My wife and our young daughter have lived at 16104 Del Norte
just four months. We moved from a home in La Mesa across the
street from a rental unit that had college students and a rock
band over the years. We sold this home at a loss.
Numerous realtors represented to us two things 1) Poway has
"nice schools" and 2) Green Valley and the Del Notre neighborhood
is a quiet SFR area with nicer homes, large lots and concerned
citizens. We paid a premium to live in a neighborhgod like that.
On our first weekend we were evacuated from our home at.
night for a SWAT action and not allowed to return until the
following morning. Last night I found out that Poway is uo~
issuing CUP's for rental units.
I received no notice of the City Council's intent to issue a
CUP and a Variance. If given the opportunity I would voice my
objection to a rental %init and carport being e~ected in my quiet
neighborhood. I request the cotulcil grants a rehearing In this
matter.
1 Z84Z Luiseno
Poway, CA 92064
January 16, 1995 R E C E I V E I)
Mayor Higginson and the City Council: JAN ! 6 1995
CITY OF POWAY
Regarding conditional use permit 94-17 and Variance 94-11 ClTYCLERK~OFFICE
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the
councils decision to grant a conditional use permit to
allow rental property in my single family neighborhood.
I did not attend the original hearing on this case because
I interpreted the hearing to be simply for granting a
permit for a structure that was built without a permit, not
a change to the use of the structure and not to further
grant permits for additional structures on the same property
which do not meet local regulations. I also will not be
able to attend the January 17. Please accept this letter in
lieu of my appearance.
The decision to grant the permit and variance for the
property at 12859 Luiseno has a direct and adverse affect
on my own property just down the street. One illegal structure,
the living unit, is to be followed by a second structure, the
carport, also not meeting the local regulations. It also sets a
precedence for illegal structures and usage in my neighborhood.
It is the Mayor's and council's responsibility to enforce the
established regulations of the community. This decision does
not fulfill those responsibilities.
Please reconsider your decision.
Sincerely,
.lAN ! ? 1995 rr~M ,6~
January 10,1995
Phippen
12834 Indian Trail
To: Mayor Don Higgenson and
City Council Members
Subject: Request you reconsider your decision to grant CUP-17 and Variance 94-I0 to the property at
12859 Luiseno Drive.
On January 3, 1995 when your body approved the CUP and Varience noted above, it appears that little
consideration was given to the fact that our area is one of single family residences. We have been living
here for almost 25 years and purchased our property with the knowledge that it was a single resident
property and that, per the CC&R's given us at the time, no second dwelling units would be allowed.
It is appalling for us to learn that not only did the Dudecks request the legalization of the existing rental
unit attached to the rear of their property but only last year received a varience to legalize an addition to
their master bedroom on the east side of their house which was built without a building permit. However,
the legalization of the second unit should never have been allowed. It was originally used as an office by
Jack Dryden who was the original owner of this property.
When the Dudecks bought this house in 1989, surely they knew it was in a single family residential
neighborhood. They should never have rented any portion of the property. It doesn't seem that they
should be rewarded with a varience for a second dwelling or allowed to build a carport.
We are concerned that the "Notice of Public Hearing" sent to the neath,, ,~r^.~.~ ....... ~_ .L .
City Council meeting did not indicate that the Dudecks were planning to legalize a rental unit as opposed to
a unit like a "granny flat." This undoubtedly accounted for the poor attendence at that meeting. How
many more rental units on single family residence properties will we have in the future if this decision is
let stand.
Mr. Mayor and Council Members, please give this matter your serious consideration as to the
consequences your decision may make in the Green Valley area.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Phippen
Virginia J. Phippen
~ JAN ! ? 1995 ITEM 6,]. 'l
RECEIV=u
JAN 1 ? 1995
CITY OF pO~AY ~ 2842 Stone G~nyon Road
- C~ MANGERS OFFICE Poway CA 92064
Janua~ 13, 1995
Mayor, Don Higginson
C~ty Staff
P.O. Box 789
P~Y CA 92064
Reference: Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson and City Staff,
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this letter as it is of
great concern of ours in regards to the legalization of an existing
_ second living unit very near our home.
To let you know a little about us, we have been a Poway resident for
eighteen years and absolutely love the city and the way it has matured
over the years. We have two boys attending the elementary and
middle school here in Poway and we are certain they will be graduates
from this school district. We adore our home, just as we do the
surrounding homes, which are all constructed on one-half minimum
acre lots.
There are a few concerns we have about the Use Permit and Variance
referenced at 12859 Luiseno Drive and they are as follows...
1.) When we first received the notice of public hearing,
scheduled for January 3, 1995, our understanding of the
notice was, "A reouest to leoalize an existint~ second living
unit...' We did not, at the time, see any reason to oppose
the request. In our minds if it passed, it would only be
JAN 1 ? 1995 {TF.M 6.1
legalizing (what we thought of as a 'Granny Room") an
existing second living unit.
2.) Much to our dismay, January 5th in the Poway News
Chieftain, we read the article stating how council supports
the second living unit. At no time were we informed
previously of this being a rental unit and in order to stay in
.*.*.-*compliance a covered car port with an access would need
to be constructed.
We feel, at this time, we have been mislead in the Use Permit 94-17
and Variance 94-10 and highly oppose the idea of a covered car port
being constructed only to stay in compliance of a rental unit in this
single family residence neighborhood.
As a long time Poway resident we ask you to please reconsider your
decision on approving the construction of this car port for a rental
property use. We will be attending the council meeting scheduled for
January 17th so we can receive all the facts involved.
Thank you again for taking your time in reading our letter. This issue
is of great concern of ours.
Pat and Terri Huth
(619)487-0148
JAN ! ? 1995 I'i'I::M ~6.1
- RECEIVED
January 16, 1995 /-
Mayor: Mr Don Higginson ~AN 1 7 1995
Council Members: Mr Micky Cafagna ~- crrYOFPOWA¥
Ms Susan Callery ~1TYCLER~SOFFICE
Mr Bob Emery
MS Betty Rexford
City Of Poway
13325 Civic Drive
Po~ay, California 92064
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10 pertaining to the
Poway address: 12859 Luiseno.
Dear Mr Mayor and Council Members:
We as property owners request (1) a re-hearing of your
decision granting a CUP for a rental living unit and non-
conforming carport at the "Subject" location, (2) we
strongly advise that both the CUP and Variance be denied as
being incompatible within the geographical location and not
serving the best interests of the citizens (and voters) of
the City of Poway.
- Basis of request for denial:
l. Non-conformance and inconsistency with the intent of the
General Plan.
2. Non-conformance and inconsistency with the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Allegedly, construction was performed by the current
"owners of record" with disregard to the construction
permitting process.
4. "Notice of Public Hearing" for the date of January 3,
1995 lacked sufficient information to impacted property
owners to understand and respond to a serious infringement
of community residental compatibility.
NOTE: Legal Notice was not provided as required. Our
ownership Darcel is: 275-353-04. We did not receive said
notice.
Aletha Z Motaling, gducat~
12845 Indian Trail
Poway CA 92064
ac', JAN 171995 rr M 61
Eric and Marilyn Lunde
12806 stone canyon Road
Poway, California 92064
RECEIVED
January 16, 1995 JAN 1 71995
'- CITY OF POWA¥
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Mayor Migginson and City Council Members
City Hall
PO BOX'789
Poway, California 92064-0789
Subject: CUP $94-17 and Var. ~94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson:
This matter has been brought to our attention by a neighbor.
Green Valley, a section of North Poway, made up of single family
dwellings has matured into a nice neighborhood. We would like to
see it kept that way. We realize that you complied with the law
when notifications were sent to people within 500 feet of the
property, but with the size of the lots in this neighborhood you
have limited the input and not obtained a reasonable response
from those this request could effect. Since we live on Stone
Canyon, around the corner from the residence in question you may
consider us out of the area in question.
Our parcel of land is larger than some, and we would have more
than enough room for a duplex with off street parking. But that
is not the Poway General Plan for the area, that is not the tone
of the area, and that is not why we moved here over 17 years ago.
We have enjoyed the peace and quiet, the space, room for our
children, and space for horses allowed by neighbors who have
complied with the zonong laws and the Poway General plan. we
would not like to see that changed by allowing rental units on
single family lots.
We feel you should not grant this CUP $94-17 and Var. ~94-10. We
knew the Drydens, the original owners of 12859 Luiseno Drive and
they did not rent the property. They did however have their
children move back with them because of financial problems.
It is strange that Mr. Dudeck, being an realtor, did not know
what type of neighborhood he was buying property in and that he
was not aware of the zoning. Now he wants special exceptions made
just for him! What is stranger is the City Council is more than
willing to go along with the Dudeck's suggestions. Something is
very wrong with this picture. The neighborhood does not need to
change just because Mr. Dudeck wants it too. Mr. Dudeck needs to
abide by the rules and regulations that have been here long
before he ever purchased the property. If he cannot, then sell
the property and move. Disregard of existing zoning and the
? ITEM 6
Poway General Plan ~ not an excuse or a reasc to change rules
for everyone else w~thout their input. Realtors a~ve all should
know the zoning of properties. The People in the neighborhood
seem to know the zoning.
The Dudeck's have built an addition without first obtaining a
permit and then asked the city to remedy the illegal situation.
They knowingly and illegally rented the secondary dwelling. The
City Council members should not allow the zoning laws to be
circumvented nor should they "reward" the Dudeck's for bypassing
the legal processes inacted to protect eye,one.
The council should not "reward" someone with a Conditional Use
Permit for a wrong doing and a Variance for a carport, for the
illeg~ renting of the addition.
So wha~ is the problem. Tell the man "NO" and let's get on with
the business of making this the best city to live in.
Sincerely,
Eric and Marilyn Lunde
12806 Stone Canyon Road
Poway, California 92069
,JAN 1 ? 1995 n'EM .6 !