Item 6 - Rehearing of CUP 94-17 VAR 94-10 Ric & Barbara DuDeck
-
AGENDA R- ~PORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
- James L. Bowersox, City Mana~
FROM:
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager
Reba Wri ght-Quastl er, Di rector of Pl anni ng Services~i.DQ.
DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Re-hearing of Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Ric and
Barbara DuDeck, Applicants.
ABSTRACT
A request to legalize an existing second living unit which would permit its rental, and a
variance to allow the placement of a carport within the side-yard setback area for the
property located at 12859 luiseno Drive, 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 45 property owners
within 500 feet of the subject property and Ed Muscat.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Counc i 1 approve Conditi ona 1 Use Permi t 94-17 and Vari ance
94-10, subject to the conditions contained in the attached proposed resolution.
ACTION
e: le1 tYlplanm nglreport\eup9417a. sum
-
1 of 31 FEe 28 1995 ITEM 6 "t~
~ AGENDA REPOR
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager c9.
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: February 28, 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: February 28, 1995
SUBJECT: A re-heari ng of Conditi ona 1 Use Permit 94-17 and Vari ance 94-
10, Ric and Barbara DuDeck, applicants: A request to legalize
an existing second living unit which would permit its rental,
and a vari ance to all ow the placement of a carport wi th i n the
side-yard setback area for the property located at 12859
luiseno Drive, in the RR-C zone.
275-400-03
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 1995, the City Counci 1 approved the app 1 i cants' request for the
project descri bed above. Subsequently, a neighbor filed a request for re-hearing
of the subject, based on assertions that: inadequate notice had been given to
surrounding property owners; some affected property owners did not receive a
notice of the public hearing; and that a neighbor wishing to speak at the
original hearing was not permitted to do so.
On January 17, 1995, the City Counc i 1 granted the nei ghbor' s request for re-
heari ng and schedul ed it for February 28, 1995, in accordance with Sect ion
17.46.080 of the Poway Municipal Code.
FINDINGS
In response to neighborhood complaints relating to the wording of the public
hearing notice, the language of the notice has been expanded to add detail
r ACTION, I
))
2 of 31 H.t! ¡:: b 1995 IIt:.M 6
.'
Agenda Report
February 28, 1995
Page 2
regarding the potential for the legal rental of the second living unit, and a
description of the variance request to permit the construction of the required
covered parking for the benefit of the second unit within the setback area.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to ~
property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and Ed Muscat.
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.
JlB:RWQ:MVD:kls
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Letters Requesti ng Reheari ng
C. Original Agenda Packet
.
3 of 31 FEB 2 ß 1995 ITEM 6 r\
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO P-95-02, AND
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, the approval of the accessory apartment requi res the provi s i on of
one additional covered parking space; and
WHEREAS, the carport for the parki ng space i s requested to be bui lt withi n
the front sideyard setback, which requires the granting of a variance; and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 1995, the City Counci 1 approved the subject
application; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 1995, the City Counci 1 held a second publ ic
hearing on the above referenced item to solicit comments both pro & con.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinqs:
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: Findinqs:
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 arch itectura lly related impacts upon adjoi ni ng properti es,
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. There is one carport in the neighborhood located across
the street from the subject property.
3. That the approved project i s in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, except for the placement of the new carport, for which a
variance from minimum sideyard 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 withi n the City, as di scussed
in Finding #2. The applicants further agree to install a landscape
buffer along the east property 1 ine to provide screening of the new
parking area/carport, from the views of the adjoining neighbor to
the east.
4 of 31 FEB 2 B 1995 ITEM 6 - l7Ì
Resolution No. P-
Page 2
5. That the generation of a small amount of additional traffic will not
adversel y impact the capac ity and phys i ca 1 character of surround i ng
streets.
6. That there are public facilities and utilities available to service
the project.
7. That there will not be significant 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 speci a 1 ci rcumstances appl i cabl e to the property, and
because of this, the strict application 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
stri ngent zon i ng setback requi rements. At the time of construction,
minimum side yard setbacks were ten (10) feet. The request i s for
a minimum side yard setback of eight feet to accommodate the
carport.
3. That granti ng the vari ance or its mod i fi cat i on is necessary for the
preservat i on and enjoyment of a substanti a 1 property ri ght 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 vari ance or its modification will not be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
i njuri ous to the property or i mprovements in such vi ci n ity 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 1 imitation 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 1 iving unit, which is
permitted in all single-family zones with benefit of a conditional
use permit, and where required off-street parking is provided.
5 of 31 FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 H
Resolution No. P-
Page 3
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby resc i nds Reso 1 uti on No. P-95-02 and approves
Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, subject to the following
conditions:
Within 30 days of approval (1) the appl icant 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.
The use condit i ona 11 y granted by thi s permit shall not be conducted in
such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of
surroundi ng res i dent i a 1 uses.
This conditional use permit shall be subject to annual revi ew by the
Director of Planning Services for comp 1 i ance with the conditi ons of
approval and to address concerns that may have occurred during the past
year. If the permit is not i n comp 1 i ance with the cond it i ons of approval,
or the Pl anni ng Servi ces Department has recei ved comp 1 ai nts, the requi red
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 Fi re Code, and all other appl i cabl e codes and ord i nances i n effect
at the time of building permit issuance.
5. For each new residential dwelling, commercial or industrial unit(s), the
app 1 i cant shall pay Permit, Pl an Check and Inspect i on Fees and School Fees
at the established rate (in accordance with City-adopted policy and/or
ordinance).
6. A paved, covered park i ng space shall be constructed and a 1 andscaped
buffer shall be installed along the east property 1 ine, within 90 days
from the date of this approval.
7. An Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee of $2,500 shall be paid pri or to
building permit issuance.
6 of 31 FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 -k!
Resolution No. P-
Page 4
- 8. The outdoor storage area shall be permanently divided floor to ceil ing,
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 grad i ng practi ces and the Un iform Pl umbi ng
Code.
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 paid to the Engineering Services
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 fo 11 owi ng development i mpact fees shan be pai d to the Engi neeri ng
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 Counc i 1 of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 28th day of February, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 ~""
7 of 31
- I
JAN 91995
CITY OF POWAY
Meyor Higginson end City Council CITY CLERK'S OFFiCe
Subject: Request to eppeeltho docislon to grant CUP 94.17 and Variance 94.10 approving a
reRtal unit and sldo setback for a carport localed at 12859 Luiseno Dr,
1) At the maating on January 3, 1995 only three cards wore turned in opposing the above:
A) Jim Seifert - Community Protection Chairman representing approximately 1100 families
for the Green Valley Civic Association
B) Stuart Ed/eson - a neighbor
C) Ed Muscat. (myself) a neighbor that resides next door to the property in question
There was little opposition present at the meeting because the notice was misleading. After
speaking with neighbors upset by the City Council's decision to approve the above CUP and
Varience, I asked them why they were not in attendance at the meeting to voice their objections,
The response rang out over and over that the notice didn't say anything about a rental or side
yard setback or a carport, therefore, nobody became alarmed. For instance: an existing second
living unit for an elderly relative or an older child could possibly be accepted and is thought of as
a very different circumstance to an apartment for rent.
2) Stuart Edleson of 12826 Indian Trail attended the City Council meeting and filled out the card
requesting to speak out opposing the CUP and Varience, However, he was never called. He
was unsuccessful in getting the City Council's attention and therefore went unheard. The City
Clerk has his red card if you wish to investigate this further.
3) Three letters in support of the apartment were secured by the Dudecks: two from fellow
realtors and one from Allen Thrailkil, a neighbor immediately to the Dudeck's west side.
Although Mr. Thrailkil has no problem with the current renter making noise or being an
annoyance, he is against the building of a carport and any legalization of this unit for rental
purposes on a long term basis. When Ric Dudeck presented his letter for a signature he never
mentioned the need to add a carport or make any other changes to his property. Mr. Thrailkil will
be sending you a letter stating his opposition.
4) During the City Council meeting, Ric Dudeck stated at the podium that the carport would be
100 feet from the street and out of sight.! measured a maximum of 40 feet from the street to the
front of his garage and cannot see any possible way to hide it from sight. Construction of a
carport meeting Mr Dudeck's descriptlcn would require tearing down part of his house and the
removal of several trees.
5) The Varience for a setback and carport were approved at the same time as the CUP
Discussion about the setbacks and carport were never open for debate and thus were passed
without proper review and without the knowledge of the neighbors effected.
6) The Dudeck's, both of whom were reai:ors at the time of purchasing the home, knew that
multiple units on single family properties as rentals were not allowed in this area. The unit In
question was never a rental pnor to the Dudeck's owning the home.
7) City plans are created with the Intent of maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. Multiple
units on single family properties as rental units are discordant with this neighborhood and in
direct oppositIon to the plan for Green Valley.
Please grant a rehearing for CUP 94.1 ì and Varience 94-10,
Ed Muscat
12865 Lulseno Drive Poway, CA 92064
c c, GVCA
8 of 31 A TT ACHMENT B FEB 28 1995 itEM i;¡ . ~I
,-
- 1-
12848 LUISENO DR
- POWAY, CA 92064
JANUARY 8, 1995
MAYOR DON HIGGINSON & CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL
POBOX 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
FAMIL Y 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 "'DISCOVERED" GREEN VALLEY ON A DRIVE TO THE
"COUNTRY", PEACE--QUIET --ST ARS--SP ACE--CHILDREN-HORSESm
GREEN VALLEY HAD IT ALL! SPACE IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US.
MOVING FROM A 50' FRONTAGE HOME IN SAN DIEGO THE 1/2 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.
9 of 31 ATTACHMENT B
FEa 2 8 1995 ITEM b . ,.t
.~
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 IT!
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
APPROXIMA TEL Y 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,
é~ "' - '/' ,.¡ /. , /2o.L4 no~.~
-'kv it¡,,-.: . ~7\ . "'f'C:'ß¿tXýj
CHRISTINE l. HUDDY v' ROBERT l. MAIRE
CC: GVCA
fES 2. 8 1995 IîEM ,6 .1
10 of 31
-
January 8.1995
- Mayor Don Higginson and Counci1members
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 houses 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
A TT ACHMENT C
11 of 31 FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 '
~
Phyl1 is Howarrl
1~846 Stone C~nyon Rn.
Pow~y, c~ 9~O64
"-vor !Jon Higginson
City Hon
p O. Box 789
?,>,.cy, 9~O64-0789
De~r M-yor Higginson, ?nn ~ity Council,
I "ould like to expr"ss my oPIosi Hon to the Counci l' s 0 pprov~l
to legalize e rent'l unit ~t 1?869 Luesino Dr. in the Del Norte
"-rea of Po'J~y, ~t the J~nuAry 3riÍ Public He~ring.
: received ~ notice of the Hearing during the busy holiday seêson,
~nd I ~m sure, like mony other Area residents, it was put aside,
And the He~ring being held the d~y after the Nev Yeers holid"y
'.eek-end caught m'ny unprepared.
I beliE"/E' a rental in our "City in the Country" ,,'ould spoil our
trenquil environment, ,.hich is '.hy most of us moven her" in the
first pl~ce, ~nd I think it could st".rt a precedent for ne>'
people moving here.
I sincerely rope you "i 11 reconsider your e~rlier decision with
a. rehearing for the concerned ci ti7pns in the area.
Respectfully yours,
lj ./1.-1/ :.;/ .'-/'~.L,--"y-"-¿-(
Phyllis S Hcward
ATTACHMENT D fEB 28 1995 ITEM .6 ¡q~
12 of 31
~,
- )
-
07 3an.1995
Christian Von Mueller
16111 Bennye Lee Drive
Poway, Ca. 92064
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!!! 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.
4. I have lived at 16111 Bennye Lee Dr. since 1986- I knew the
previous owners at the property in question. They HAD NOT used
the second living unit as a rental- The owners children had lived
in this dwelling.
ATTACHMENT E fEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 .\
13 of 31
s. This issue needs to be re-addressed. The city staff planners
need to take a closer look AGAIN at the impact it would have to
this neighborhood in Green Valley. It obviously was not looked at
very closely before.
~. q;4JL
Christian Von Mueller
-
ITEM 6 ,\
rEB 2 B 1995
14 of 31
-
- ,-
12826 Indian Trail
.- Poway, California 92064
january 5, 1995
Mayor Higginson and City 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 contributes to violating tlùs 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 pr~erty 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
FEB 2 S 1995 ITEM 6 . ,\
15 Of 31
Yes, Mr. Dudeck (who is a realtor and whose wife is a very successful
realtor) has improved 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 iIIegally 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 believe 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, 1 wish to express my surprise in finding out after the meeting that in
addition to granting Mr. Dudeck a conditional use pennit, 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 1 saw, and except for the
city manager saying that it was required before the conditional pennit
could go into effect, no discussion addressed the setback and apparent
carport which would be needed to meet the requirements of the
conditional use pennit.
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 woukllike another opportunity to voice my opinion,
Sincerely,
Stuart K, Edleson
C.c, GVCA
16 of 31 FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 - ,I
~,
- !-
january 6, 1995
-
Mayor. Don Higginson
City Hall
P. O. Box 789
Poway 92074-0789
Re: C.U.P.#94-1 7 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,
llived 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. 1 Øz ntP£:,Í1«-/~
nm Lea s
16144 Del Norte
ATTACHMENT G
17 of 31 FES 28 1995 ITEM }). 'I
1 RECEIVED-
. Donald Higgenson JAN 1 0 1995 8 January 1995
Mayor - City of Poway
City Hall CITYOFPOWAY
P.O. Box 789
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. It has
the appearance of being based upon a foundation of untruths as related to the Council by
Mr. antrMrs. 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? What 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 bliaht starts there is no stoDoina it!
Second issue. I don't 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 àfea 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
festerina wound in our neiahborhood ¡g enouah!
i5ti t¿J
Ù\-h~
6~i}J JJ. \; ATTACHMENT H FEB 28 1995 n¿M (¡
L8 of 31 ~ 1\1' ,I
. -
Thirdly, Mr Dudec seems to have a great disregard for building code. He has erected an
a-foot plywood eyesore he calls a fence between his 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 downsizing? Once inspected, it is
possible to remove the 'storage" partitians 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 scecial crivile<,¡e 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 'n a Drivileçe no
one else eniovs.
Mr. Daèfëc 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't 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,
6~~~
G.M. Huston
16138 Bennye Lee Drive
Poway, CA 92064
,
19 of 31 FEa 2 8 1995 ITEM- 6 ~,!
-
\ ¿Ja--rusJ /99-5
J~~n~~_u
--_.-7J~-_dJß]---~~~~- u- - ---
-- -...- - -- --------. -- -. .--- ._-
"' ~ --.7/u~ .<;/~~ ;-__u--__n- -.
- I __&~. ~-- ~- ~._~---u_-
--þ .~_~n /U-'~M::?-__-
¡ _.n./u;;~.-~_n_~ .-.- -- ---
]1 _.~ ~n_£ ~-;ý~ --
~ ...d j~ .f'S 7' c7"~ J
- - .----- - -- -.--nn- - --- - -
~ ÚYV~ j.AJ ~ ~ p~
¡ q e.-~~. þ ~.-.z:.~,~~~
f , ~~
u-. -~ <7~' ..Þ"Y'~.--._.. -y..
'I!~'""Þ - -
[1-- _n . ..--. .
r REC -- J~ ~~/
t - ~ E I V E D/l¿ ¿. t /JU-& 4/.h.dd/ ¿v~
It( JAN - 9 1995
CI7Y~~~;RWAY -._-
- - _8 OFFICë . . ___~_n._-
~-------U"_. -..-- - --- -___H' -----.
lÞ V;t J
~V ATTACHMENT I FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 ""' I
20 of 31
~
-
--
RECEIVED
JAN 11 1995
January 9, 1995 CITYOFPOWAY
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE
Mayor Higginson and City Council
Ci ty Hall
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 hardShi~ to be assured that we would have a neighborhood
that we would fee safe in and be proud of for years to come.
We feel that Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10 to Ric
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
vr! ~ I/.~
!J t~ ~
~!!?1 ATTACHMENT J FEB 28 1995 lïEM 6 .: \
21 of 31
-
AGENDA~~PORTSUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James l, Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~~ Jl
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Plan ing Services ~
DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance 94-10, Ric and 8arbara Dudeck,
applicants.
ABSTRACT
A request to legalize an existing second living unit for the property located at 12859
luiseno Drive, 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: Icitylplanninglreportlcup9417 .sum
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6
A TT ACHMENT C JAN 3 1995 n'EiId 8.-
22 of 31
-
if AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: HOM"bl, "'" ,"d ".b"~' cay C,"oo;l
FROM: James l. Bowersox, City Man
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assi stant City Manage~\ ~
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: January 3, 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: January 3, 1995
SUBJ ECT: Conditional 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 applicants 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 Yßit. This
wi 11 be accomp'tî shed by constructi ng exteri or wa 11 s 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.
ACTION:
I .. .
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 . ,I
23 of 31
-
)
Agenda Report
January 3, 1995
Page 2
The app 1 i cants are also aware of the requ i rement for one add it i ona 1 covered
space. They have agreed to construct a carport adjacent to the east side of the
existing garage. A setback variance win be needed to permit a twelve (12) foot
encroachment into the required 20 foot minimum side 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 i s a complete independent 1 iving unit, it is subject to
development impact fees which will include the following: Traffic Mitigation,
Drainage, Grading/Drainage Inspection, Parks, Schoo~ 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 --2Q
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: \city\planning\report\cup9417 .agn
JlB:JDF:RWQ:MVD:kls
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Zoning and location Map
C. Site Plan
D. Proposed Floor Plan
-.' ITEM
FEB 28 1995 h
24 of 31 JAN 3 1995 liEi'd "8
- .-
RESOLUTION NO. P-95-02
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 Us~ Permit 94-.17 and Variance 94-10, submitted by Ric
and Barbara Dudeck, appl icants, request the approval to legal ize 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 Findinas:
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: Findinas:
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 Zoning
Ordinance, except for the placement of the new carport, for which a
- variance from minimum side yard setback is sought. All other
pro~~rty 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 {o service
the project. _..
FEB 2 8 1995 ITËM 6 ..1
25 of 31 JAN 3 1995 ITEM g- ,
Resolution No. P- 95-02
Page 2
7. That there will not be significant 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 próject is consistent with the general plan as
discussed in #1 of CUP findings.
2. That there are special circumstances appl icable 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 less
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 i n the same vi ci n i ty and zoni ng for wh i ch 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 will 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 vartance does not allow a use or activity
wh i eft i s not otherwi se express ly authori zed by zoni ng 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: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 94-17 and Variance
94-10, subject to the following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in wrjting that
all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner sha 11 execute."a Covenant on Real Property.
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 .~"
26 -
of 31 .JAN ~ 100<:; rr;:;IA Q
- -
Resolution No. p...95-02
Page 3
-
The use cond it i ona 11 y granted by th i s permit shall not be conducted in
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 rev i ew by the
Director of Planning S.ervices for comp 1 i ance with the conditions of
approval and to address concerns that may have occurred during the past
year. If the permit is hot 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 Oepartment 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 landscaped
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 Affordabl e Housing 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 ~ompleted
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
demol ished.
10. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped
to comply with appropri ate gradi ng pract ices and the Uni form Pl umbi ng
Code. .-_.
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6
27 of 31 - ITëM
JAN 3 1995 8
\
Resolution No. P~5-02
Page 4
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED, COMPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES.
I. An inspection fee of $500 shall be paid to the Engineering Services
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 Counc i 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. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby
certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, 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 FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6
! 8 of 31 JAN 3 1995 -1ïì::\!-13
-
f( L " 'Y ~/ -1 Itl / ",. '\
i ~~ ~ I[lSI:1 : I Úo ",ie'\
~...:LJ.-: 11' 1. '-.'-7" -- - )
....,~\ 05-1'1 .
~ . I í, Eapola .--R~d .'
)1 I L LA - T T "- tt.
- ^ \ (!J-~. T Iii r:=
, - ~,~ íI = rr ~ '-
), - ( \. -=- .. - )'- -----
, - :--\1 h:¡ -- p~ t ~
. B\ -'::=!: ~ ~ ~~">l 'In~
ò ~;œ A 'r-1\.? ì-
<: y( ¡!-~"'"'<:: \ ~,y" ,- J 7" h=
!! '- 'I- ì ß ~ :::::::: ~
0 ~ ,.J"" I =r
'r: Ir ':::J I 1./ ~
«~ ,\ V . - v 1-"--\11,
. j I I \ \) . - = r--J,.. ';. V .I"" 'r-
= .1 ;;.J. ~
¡IID'/I! I ./ =- ::::J~~ r-"
~~\\~ },IT$II L -r i~= ~ ~ ý
J- ß j \ 7L1i I ,j- Ì'~ ,/
'11.-\ ./ J-.I /'-.. I ~ ~
fjc I V ~ ~ ~-=V: ñ'\ ~~\:If Jr. I(
~~r"' \- -I- \'hr-u ~ Tì Y- "t~ J11f / TI'- Tfí
'JT ,;~ ~ J. ~ H_! "N~ Ie Jill rt1 í(jr-- 1 I
];t ~ 2:'/ ',,- r-:: tL~ '-dl 1 ~ 1.. I ~ ~
.J.' 'rT ",-" '~ -- ~ - -<:" -':I ~
Ii ~ );~:: '" -.; ~- N
~ (Qq-I I ~~~'- J/IT ß t ¡
CITY OF POW A Y ITEM: CUP 94-17/VAR 94-10
@ TIT L E: ZCNING & I.O:ATICN MAP
II FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 I
SCALE: N<M: .'. ATTACHMENT: B
29 of 31 -I
"" ^ ._-- .--.. -
;-
. L "'_0 .shod /
.'r'
7'
I ,
I \
I \~ [
, \-l~ \' f
1 ' C,arOj~ c;:;.'C . \~
II. /5 S'
I
I \
I Z~'!2 -.,.f,
$/ \
' ,
/ \
I' \~
~". \
I \
- ,
I '" \
' i J \
L - - - - - - - _\
/3"1.0'
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 ."
".' " L (" = 2é)'
,--"C<:1 e 1:J- I
JAN 3 1995 fïci\t 0 ,
30 fa 31 ATTACHMEN'!' ('
- ~
.~:¡3\~."-.
T ":~,~:.,
I ' Co
. f LlIlI.oJ
, '-'c...'
: I "
I
i : -
'5'>@
I
i '! ."e'~ BYR I
! , ~~1:.~ !
, I I
; BF'- ; ¡
- 1 i í
I ,
:1
f' I
"""5" -t- /3'(,,"- B;
r::-~:'.- ". - ¡ . : I
, ,t'- .
.. I' ,~,.." i
L' .. v ,
I R -::: .-'
. "f ø C9) L3A 15/'7"
F P , ¡ ,
@ a:J Ii'
I '(~ ¡<,. ...., I rò'(tt ¡ i
I "...PI? '" ,;- \ ' t: . I
0° e" . ..... - .
.25' e,eð.: £~ ' 1. ~ 13'6 "--t I. :
¡ ~oo'~ 13/ f(! i I
I 1:,1f\ 7, In /0'
I \ ! 14'~"1 B f' 8^ i
I . t 1 , _1-
I
. :::---:-.._~ "..~j t-------- .:I.) '{o ., ----1 ;
L""/ .
, ~
GAr:Aje.;~'
. . <':.. FEB 281995 ,ITEM b :., , I
31 ~:'; 1 . ~;¡f,~,~~~~Joj~ii4;~..,çi~";;'f l~~~~~~, ~è.
¿;;¿) ;;0 /45 J ~ 2--¿{-9S
---
A t:t Pre he d ,'s rIte re 5 pONSé' 5 -¿o
J....e tteR 5 +A At- W fì S j e I\) e v A- te d CDtV ce'ýNi~
OuR. PevfYì:-t d- /) A y,' A- rJ c~ #7'1-/7 d-
~ LiL/-IO A 5 dAte c1 ;2 -;:¿ I - q 5
RECEIVED
'5 ;rvceveLl ¡: r. ~ ~~ . ;.~..
CiTY OF POW¡\Y
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
,. C5?~ D~~
c'2? ~
FEe 2 B 1995 ITEM 6 If
---- ~
------..-
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. Muscat,
First of alii want to say that you and your family have made it very difficult to be
neighhbors. It seems like just yesterday that we moved in. I was your newest best
friend because I saved your family from getting beat up and harrassed by the family
who used to live here. You went on to say that your innocent older boys(2) were
always at the mercy of the boys who used to live here. As time went by we discovered
what kind of boys you really had. The disrespect of children as well as adults became
very well known,it did not take long before your older boys began cussing,shouting and
harrassing me. Come to find out it was not just me but anyone who would not put up
with their disrespectfulness. Even at the bus stop in the momings it was noticed that
the bullying and cussing was something that was not dealt with at home.
This became evident by the shouting contests between you and your boys. I honestly
thought I would have to call the police or paramedics. There were a few times I felt
sorry for Mrs. Muscat as far as how the boys talked and yelled down to her. The
disrespect of other people's property became worse as the years went on. The pelting
of eggs at my house, cigarette butts littering my property from your boys and their
friends, bottles and beer cans also littering my property, and throwing fruit over the fence
when we had company over became quite a nuisance.
It became evident finally that I should put up a fence and once again my newest best
friend came over to ask what I was doing, when I said that I was going to put up a
fence, I was really caught off guard when Mr. Muscat said,"1 won't be able to watch
Barbara get undressed anymore." (My wife never dressed in front of an open window
as long as we have lived here). You then left me wondering about the whole family.
It was two years later that I extended the height of the fence mainly for further privacy
and to help support your oleander bushes which are at least fifteen feet high. I frankly
was tired of having to trim bushes which hang over my property four to five feet.
We have certainly tried over the years to get along with your older boys. I don't think
you are aware of what your children do when you are gone, and by the way the maid
you leave in charge just can't hanldle the older boys. You put me in a position of
watching your kids when you are not home and I don't appreciate it. I think the classic
one is when I had to call the police to break up a pool party at 2:00am one Sunday
when you and your wife were out of town. I did not move here with the intention of
caretaking your family or at least the ones left home alone with the maid. I especially
felt sorry for Sean this past summer when he got ahold of an m-80 and almost blew his
hand off. But there I was ready to take him to the hospital should he need it.
For all these years not one word came from you as far as the back unit. Of course this
is the first male tenant we have had. The comments about our renter you yelled at the
City Council meeting were heard by many and totally uncalled for.
With the boys growing up and the sessions with Dr. Robinson they really do seem to be
on the right track. My conflicts with you over the years are ones I'd rather forget about.
We have no intention of moving as we love our home and cherish the time we are here.
FEB 28 1995 ITEM Ó I
I'm sorry if over the years we have not gotten along as I'm sure we may have. But win
or lose our conditional use permit, we will still be here!!
Just to reiterate it's nice to drive home and not have one of your boys harrass us,as I
stated I'm glad they are growing up and leaming respect.
As far as the fireplace in my room addition goes, I've checked with the City of Poway
and the manufacturer and raising the stack mayor may not help the smoke stay out of
your yard. The City says it's to code. I have no direct control in air current.
If more examples are needed please let me know, smoke bomb almost thrown through
our front screen,pomographic material put in our mail box,being caught toilet papering
our home and then your boys denying it, more examples are available upon request,but
I think these should suffice.
As for you comment concerning the distance between the projected carport, I was
stating the distance from your house to the carport not the distance of the carport to the
street as you implied I said.
City plans are certainly created to maintain integrity within the neighborhoods. If we
thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would not be
requesting this. The fact is as you know we have had someone in our back unit on and
off for the last five years. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week plus
one renter certainly has little impact when compared to your household of nine which
includes your live-in maid. With the two motor homes,two corvettes and five more
assorted vehicles including a horsetrailer,a boat,a truck, etc. I can understand your
concern for my renter's vehicle.
The above stated remarks are the opinions of only myself.
~~elb£~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
22 respondents to The City of Poway re: CUP
FEB 2 ß 1995 ITEM 6 .,j
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs,
This letter is in response to yours dated Jan.11, 1995. I apologize for the lack of
accurate notification that was sent out to the surrounding area by the City. I feel the
same way you do as far as the carport. The last thing in the world I want is to be
compared to my across the street neighbor at 12856 Luiseno. The room addition that I
built last year has been remedied through the proper channels of the City. Since Mr.
Muscat has reported us to the City we now have a situation that we are trying to
legalize.
If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would
not be requesting this. The fact is we have had someone in our back unit on and off for
the past five years. We have never had a complaint of any of our neighbors,ever. Our
family of two adults and a daughter twice a week has little impact compared to our
neighbors who have lodged the complaint with a household of nine which includes a
Mexican live-in maid. This maid is also left in charge when the Muscats are out of
town. This is a sad situation as I have had to call the police to break up parties on
different occasions.
Finally to set your mind at ease listed below are my requests I will be making to the City
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. I can only hope that the City will approve the conditions stated above as a
compromise to our situation. I hope this letter enlightens you as to the whole situation
versus just one side.
Please let me know in writing to me or the City of poway as a response to this letter.
Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
c:R:el£).~..f) ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
fEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó :I'I>
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kowal,
This letter is in response to yours received Jan.12,1995. First of all please let me set
the record straight. The room addition that was added last year was an extension of
our master bedroom not the unit we are now applying for a conditional use permit. You
can't see our back unit from the street.lt was built on to the existing home and is
attached. I do have a variance and a building permit for that master bedroom
extension.
I certainly agree with you as far as the carport goes, this is not my suggestion but one
of the City's. I do apologize for the lack of notice to you and several other neighbors
from the City.
If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would
not be requesting this. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week certainly
has little impact compared to our neighbors who have lodged the complaint with a
household of nine which includes a Mexican live-in maid. This is a sad situation as I
have had to call the police to break up parties on different occasions when the maid is
in charge and Mr. and Mrs. Muscat are out of town.
We have had someone in our back unit off and on for the past five years and
never,never had one complaint from our neighbors. We have no intention of selling our
home in the near future and as you have stated,we also love this area we live in.
Finally to set your mind at ease listed below are my requests I wil be making to the City
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concems.
SinCerelYfj....fJ
éX~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 ",~
February 20,1995
Dear Mark Wisnosky,
I am writing you this letter in response to yours dated Jan.16,1995. I do apologize for
the confusion in the notice the City sent out regarding our back unit. First of all the
hearing that was held last year was to grant a variance and building permit on an
addition to our master bedroom. This is not the same structure we are dealing with
here,at this time. The back unit of our home has always been there,it is attached to our
home. It cannot even be seen from the street.
The fact is we have had someone in our back unit on and off for the last five years,we
have never had a complaint of any sort from our neighbors. Our family of two adults
and a daughter twice a week certainly has little impact on the neighborhood compared
to our neighbors who have lodged the complaint with a household of nine,which
includes a Mexican live-in maid. This maid is also left in charge in the past when Mr.
and Mrs. Muscat are out of town. This is a sad situation as I have had to call the police
to break up parties on different occasions.
I am writing this letter to you to set the record straight. The structure we are asking the
City to grant us a conditional use permit does indeed conform with the surrounding
area. The carport would certainly be an eyesore,as is evidenced by the one across the
street at 12856 Luiseno. Not only is their carport an eyesore but the constant debris
has always been evident since 1989. I have even called the fire marshall to respond.
Finally to set your mind at ease we will be asking the City to waive or address the
following items regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting this from the City. I can only hope that the City will approve
the conditions stated above as a compromise to our situation. I hope this letter
enlightens you as to the whole situation versus just one side.
Please let me know in writing to me or the City of Poway as a response to this letter.
Should you have any questions or concems please feel free to contact me.
Sincerelb....f)
c:S<~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó .,
February 20,1995
Dear Mrs. O'Sullivan,
This letter is in response to your letter as dated Jan.1 0, 1995. I certainly do apologize
for you not receiving the proper notice from the City. Asking for a conditional use
permit under our circumstances is an option that each and everyone of us as
homeowners have the right to ask of our City. In the Poway Plan I'm sure the
conditional use permit is mentioned. Refering to your letter you are certainly correct
and you can rent your home. I believe the granting of our particular situation would in
no way harm the conformity of our community of which we love and may also retire
here.
I understand your apprehension regarding rentals in the are however,1 will be asking for
the following should the City of Poway agree to it regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future,we also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting this from the City.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any other concerns you may have.
sincereM
CX~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
fEB 28 1995 ITEM 6
February 20,1995
-
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Engler,
I am sending you this letter in response to your letter dated Jan.11, 1995. Thank you
for noticing my fence. Did you also notice it was not always that high. I raised it to
prevent Mr. Muscat's oleanders from hanging over onto my property. How can you see
the fence anyway? Please let me know should you decide to put up a fence around
your property as I'm sure all the neighbors would find it an improvement(since they
have stated that your yard is an eyesore).
I understand your apprehension regarding rentals in the area however,1 will be asking
for the following should the City of Poway agree to it regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future,we also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting this from the City.
Please feel free to contact me directly with any other concems you may have.
&cerelb)
~ ....fJ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEe 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 . I
February 20,1995
Dear Harrison O.Daigh,
I am sending you this letter in response to your letter dated Jan.10,1995. I can
certainly appreciate your concerns regarding the approval of our conditional use permit.
First of all,if we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we
certainly would not be requesting this from the City. The granting or not will not deter
others on a case by case basis from applying for a conditional use permit,as it is
anyone's right who so chooses.
The fact that I have stated and requested a permit for rental purposes should not be
taken any less than to request a conditional use permit period. What I'm asking for is
certainly in the general plan and I have the right as a homeowner to do so.
I understand your apprehension regarding a rental in the area however I will be asking
for the following should the City of Poway agree to it regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. Please feel free to contact me directly with any other concerns you may have.
Sincerelfj...Q
6<~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 28 1995 ITEM Ó
- February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Navidi,
This letter is in response to your letter dated Jan.S,1995. First of all this is not going to
set a precident as this is certainly not the first conditional use pennit to be requested. I
can understand your concem as to the rental unit. Let me give you my assurance that
my wife and I are very selective as to the renter of our unit due to the close proximity to
our own home and lifestyle. We take our time to find just the right person and the unit
has gone vacant for as much as six months as we are not dependent on that income.
We are not trying to make this an investment property
I understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area, but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following from the
City regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To tenninate our conditional use pennit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use pennit from the City. If you have any more
concems,please feel free to call me directly.
&!e~~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM b ,\
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Huth,
This is in response to your letter of Jan. 13,1995. To let you know my wife and I have
been Poway residents on and off for the last 15 years. I have a daughter that attends
school here and she will graduate from poway High in the future,as we love the school
district and love the area we live in.
I apologize for the notice that was sent out to you,! certainly was unaware of the
untouched issues in that notice put out by the City. I do agree with you as to erecting a
carport, again this was not my suggestion but one of the City's. This is a situation of
which we inherited and are just trying to correct.
I understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in, If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City. If you have any more
concerns, please feel free to call me directly.
&n:e~~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
fEB 28 1995 ITEM 6
February 20,1995
Dear Phyllis,
This is in response to your letter. I'm very sorry that my public hearing held Jan.3, 1995
"caught you unprepared." As far as to set a precedent in our area,1 can't answer that.
What I will say is that it is my right as a home owner to request what I am requesting
and it is certainly your right to voice your objections.
6?~e~~~
Ric DuDec
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
rEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó .,
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fawcett,
This letter is in response to your's dated Jan.1 0, 1995.
I also have a daughter, aged 14 that I am raising here. At the top of our list is harmony
and conformity and the person who is priviledged to be considered in the back unit
must be beyond reproach to say the least. I'm sure a conditional use permit conforms
with the Poway general plan. I do agree with you as far as the carport and setbacks.
This is not my choosing but rather one of the City.
I can assure you that at no time in the last five years that we have had someone living
in the back unit on and off has there been any complaints. Our renters have been
courteous,honest,trustworthy,and an addition to the community. We have no intention
of selling our home in the near future,we also love the area we live in. If we thought we
were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would not be requesting
this from the City.
I understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
&~b~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 I'
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Griffith,
This letter is in response to your's dated Jan.8,1995. I do agree with you as far as the
carport situation,l am going to ask to have that waived. Thank you for the time you
allowed me at your home in response to our situation. And thank you for stating that
you never even knew we had a renter over the last five years because our property was
very quiet. Especially living as close as you do it seems this shows that there is and
has been very little if any impact on the neighborhood. You further stated that you
have never had a confrontation or a problem with anyone at any time regarding our
property.
I appreciate further your suggestion to have any or all of the council members including
the members of the City Manager's office over to get a true picture of our situation. I do
understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City. If you have any more
concems please feel free to call me directly.
SincereM,
Q :.... ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
FEB 2 B 1995 ITEM 6
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. Von Mueller,
Being a renter and not a homeowner is certainly a point of which you are
familiar,however, you certainly do have as much say as a homeowner.
I also agree with your concems regarding a carport. After all two carports within three
hundred feet would be a bit much. However, if we had to build one,wouldn't you think
that it would confonn with our house and lifestyle not like the eyesore across the street.
I do apologize for the notice that was sent out to you ,as not being as fully detailed as it
should have been and again do agree with you on this matter. I do understand your
apprehension as far as a rental in the area, but this will not be a transferable situation
when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit,
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To tenninate our conditional use pennit upon the sale of our home, and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use pennit from the City. If you have any more
concems please feel free to call me directly.
Sincerely, ~
é5(~~
Ric DuDec
673-1534
f!t: f¡{~ ~r(y cf POuJFly
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6
- February 20,1995
Dear Mr. Edleson,
I am sending this letter in response to your's dated Jan. 5,1995. Thank you for
acknowledging the fact that our one renter will have a small to no impact to the City.
Your statements in your letter hold little credence. If we thought we were changing the
character of the neighborhood we certainly would not be requesting this. The fact is,we
have had someone in our back unit on and off for the past five years. We have never
had one complaint. However, you and your wife have blocked our tenant's parking
space on several occasions when you park your horse trailer to load and unload to go
riding with the Muscats. Please refrain from this in the future.
As far as my utility bills go,l sure it is much less than yours or Mr. Muscafs. And as far
as added traffic is concemed once again, our vehicle count is less than yours and Mr.
Muscat's. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week certainly has little
impact compared to our neighbor who has lodged the complaint with a household of
nine which includes a Mexican live-In-maid. Not to mention the 2 large rv's,2
corvettes,and I believe four more vehicles plus a horse trailer, a boat and a truck.
In regard to our tenants, the people who have been priviledged enough to be
considered had to be beyond reproach,honest,clean,trustworthy,and above all,never
park an old or inoperable vehicle on or near the property at any time.
I do understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home, and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we
certainly would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City.
To answer your question as far as why am I now requesting the conditional use permit?
That's pretty easy to answer,Mr. Muscat reported his displeasure and now I'm simply
trying to get it legalized. Funny, but Mr. Muscat never,never,ever complained when our
tenants were female.
GtrrefJ~.u.k.
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
Ct~ 'f)/G ðrry or PCILc..llly
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 -II
'-"-
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Phippen,
I am writing you this letter in response to your's dated Jan. 10,1995. I do apologize for
the misunderstanding regarding the City's notice about our current legalization of our
back unit. First of alii would like to say whether you have cc&r's or not, the city still has
the power to grant items such as a conditional use permit or not. This is the whole idea
of a conditional use permit, the City has the control to assure the surrounding area
neighbors that the quality of life does not change. I find it strange that I have never had
a single neighbor or anyone else even question our situation,because at the top of our
list was harmony and conformity. The people who have been priviledged enough to be
considered for our back unit had to be beyond reproach,honest,clean,trustworthy,and
above all, never park an old or inoperable vehicle on or near the property at any time.
As far as how many more units mayor may not be approved in the future is as
unknown as the Chargers were in the final score of the Superbowl. If this were just a
situation of parking inoperable vehicles on my property I suppose this would not even
be in question. By the way,with the four vehicles you have parked in your driveway and
the other one in the middle of your front yard, I'm surprised no one has approached you,
I do understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home, and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City.
Please let me know if you have any other concerns on our situation, feel free to call me
direct or respond to the City concerning the conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
CX~~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 -, I
Febnuary 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bellini,
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your letter dated Jan.9, 1995. I do apologize
for the lack of notice to you from the City. I understand that several other people did
not get notices either.
I do agree with you in regards to constructing a carport,it might certainly be an eyesore.
As an example,my neighbors across the street at 12856 Luiseno, not only is the carport
an eyesore but the constant debris that is always evident, and has been since 1989. I
have even called the Fire Marshall to respond.
If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would
not be requesting a conditional use penn it. The fact is that we have had someone in
our back unit on and off for the past five years,we have never had a complaint of any of
our neighbors, ever. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week certainly has
little impact as compared to our neighbors who have lodged the complaint with a
household of nine which includes a live-in-maid. This maid is also left in charge when
Mr. and Mrs. Muscat are out of town. This certainly is a sad situation as I have had to
call the police to break up parties on different occasions. Also,Mr. Muscat relayed
incorrect information to you regarding the carport. I stated the carport would be
approximately 100 feet from his house not 100 feet from the street. He stated that I
said it would be 100 feet from the street.
Finally to set your mind at ease as we discussed on Jan.28, 1995,my suggestions to the
City regarding this issue are as follows:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have aways done).
4. To tenninate our conditional use penn it upon the sale of our home,and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. As you have stated we
also love the area we live in. I can only hope the City will approve the conditions as
stated above as a compromise to our situation. If the above stated conditions are
acceptable to you,plelase briefly state that in a letter, or if you have any other concems
please feel free to let me know directly.
&~eltJ~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
Lauer and Frank,Attomeys at Law
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM 6 ,i
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ramseyer,
This letter is in response to your's dated Jan. 5,1995.
I agree with you as far as the carport goes and I'm going to ask the City to waive that
condition. As far as the density being increased due to our one tenant,1 don't believe
that will be an issue. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week has little
impact on the neighborhood compared to our neighbor who has lodged the complaint
with a household of 9,which includes a Mexican live-in-maid. This maid is also left in
charge when the Muscats are out of town. This is certainly a sad situation as I have
had to call the police to break up parties on different occasions.
I do understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area, but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home,and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting this from the City.
Please let me know if you have any other concerns on our situation " and feel free to
call me direct or respond to the City conceming the conditional use permit.
sincer~...Q
c:::x ;..., (Y Jz.
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
FEB 28 1995 ITEM b 1<
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Leighton,
This letter is in response to your's dated Jan. 9,1995. I certainly do apologize to you for
the lack of necessary wording in the original notice you received from the City of
Poway. Thank you for noticing the fact that most of us do take pride in our homes and
upkeep.
Our back unit certainly does conform with the area as it looks like a part of the main
house and cannot even be seen from the street. I do also agree with you as far as the
carport. The last thing I want people to compare us with is our neighbor's across the
street at 12856 Luiseno, who have a carport that most consider "an eyesore" as was
stated in other letters received from concemed parties.
If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly would
not be requesting this action. The fact is we have had someone in our back unit on
and off for the past five years,and have never had one complaint. In reality, nothing
has changed in our routine. Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week
certainly has little impact compared to our neighbors who have lodged the complaint
with a household of 9 which includes a Mexican live-in-maid. This maid is also left in
charge when the Muscats are out of town. This is certainly a sad situation as I have
had to call the police to break up parties on different occasions.
I do understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area, but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home,and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting this from the City.
Please let me know if you have any other concems on our situation,and feel free to call
me direct or respond to the City conceming the conditional use permit.
sincereM
<5(~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of Poway
-
fEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 ,.
'--.
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. Maire and Mrs. Huddy,
This letter is in response to yours dated Jan. 8,1995. I apologize for the lack of
necessary wording in the original notice you received from the City of Poway.
I do understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,however, you have
never complained in the past five years regarding this situation and in reality nothing
has changed. This will not be a transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be
asking for the following regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home,and remove the
stove.
As we have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area
we live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we
certainly would not be requesting this from the City.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that you are reacting in such a manner. Never when you
were running your business out of your garage were there ever any complaints from us
regarding delivery vehicles or excess traffic on the street. We believed then as we do
now that if it doesn't infringe on other neighbors let it be.
Please let me know if you have any other concems on our situation, and feel free to call
me direct or respond to the City conceming the conditional use permit.
Sincer~.....f)
ð=<~ ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: City of poway
fEB 2 ß 1995 ITEM h . \!
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thrailkill,
Thank you for allowing me to respond to your letter dated Jan. 9,1995.
I do understand that you are in the middle of this situation due to the fact that Mrs.
Thrailkill is employed by Mr. Muscat. I do agree wiith you as to having to erect a
carport. It would certainly be an eyesore. You already have an unsightly situation
across the street at 12856 Luiseno,the home of John and Julie Engler. Not only is the
carport an eyesore but the constant debris that has always been evident since 1989. I
have even called the city to have the fire marshall respond.
To set your mind at ease as we discussed on January 23,1995 my suggestions to the
City will be as follows:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person at a time{as we have always done)
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home,and remove the
stove.
As we have no intention of selling our home in the near future, I can only hope that the
City will approve the following conditions as a compromise to our situation.
If these conditions are acceptable to you,could you please briefly state that in a letter,or
if you have any other concems please feel free to let me know directly.
Sincerely,
c5? ~ fL.£)...J<.
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: City of poway
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM b ~,I
----C- .
February 20,1995
Dear Mr. Schafer,
This letter is in response to your's dated Jan.1 0,1995. First of alii would like to confirm
that at this time I have only been approved of one variance and that is an extension of
our master bedroom. The variance on the projected carport is certainly one which I
don't like either,however,it seems to be what the City is asking for at this time. The
conditional use permit again is something the City requires in order to continue in the
same manner as we have been doing on and off for the last five years.
I do apologize for your lack of notice,as again,l can only state that the City was
following their guidelines of 500 feet notice and I believe your home was outside of
their diameter.
Our family of two adults and a daughter twice a week certainly has little impact as
compared to our neighbors who lodged the complaint with a household of nine which
includes a live in Mexican maid.
I understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
3. To only rent to one person(as we have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City. If you have any more
concems,please feel free to call me directly.
&:efJ~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM b
-
February 20,1995
Dear Konni Leavens,
I am sending this letter in response to your's dated Jan.6,1995. Like you I lived in
poway many years ago,moved away and came back in 1989. I also love raising my
daughter in Poway. I do appreciate your agreeing with many of the other neighbors in
the area as to our inheriting a bad situation(referring to the back unit). I certainly do
agree also with you as far as the carport that the City wants us to construct. An
eyesore maybe, but not as bad as the carport across the street from us. As far as more
rentals in the area I can't answer that. But I do know as a homeowner that I have a
right to request a conditional use permit and as you already know,you have a right to
voice your opinion.
I do apologize for you lack of notice from the City. As far as the details of our
conditional use permit, again I apologize and I know the new notices have since been
delivered or at least sent out in the mail.
I understand your apprehension as far as a rental in the area,but this will not be a
transferable situation when we sell our home. I will be asking for the following
regarding this situation:
1. Do not construct a carport.
2. To make no other alterations to our house or to the back unit.
- 3. To only rent to one person at a time(as wwe have always done).
4. To terminate our conditional use permit upon the sale of our home and remove the
stove.
We have no intention of selling our home in the near future. We also love the area we
live in. If we thought we were changing the character of the neighborhood we certainly
would not be requesting a conditional use permit from the City. If you have any more
concems,please feel free to call me directly.
Sincerel~ (\
c:x ~ ~~~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534
cc: The City of poway
FEB 28 1995 I¡EM 6
--~-
February 20,1995
To The Honorable Mayor Higginson,Susan Callery, Bob Emery,Mickey Cafagna,Betty
Rexford,
I am writing you this letter in response to Mr.and Mrs. Griffith's letter dated Jan. 8,1995.
Their suggestion and we certainly concure is that to be fully educated in our situation is
to come over and take a look at our home.
We respectfully request you do so individually or together. We believe you will see all
the facts exactly as we have stated up to this point. Should you not find things as were
stated we certainly would not expect you to vote yes on our conditional use permit.
6~t:r~ .£j ~
Ric DuDeck
673-1534 RECEIVED
::¡::s "',I ¡':;S';
CiTY OF PC""'AY
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó
February 20,1995
To the City of poway and City Manager Staff,
This letter is in response to the letter received by Mr. and Mrs. Griffith as dated
Jan.8,1995.
Their suggestion is to have City Council members come over and look at our property .
But I would like to take it one step further and request that the City Manager and/or any
of his staff come over to get a first hand look at our particular situation. If at that time
you find things different or other than we have already informed you,then I certainly
would not expect you to support or to make suggestions to back our proposed
conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
<5< ~ ~....Ð~
Ric DuDec
673-1534 RECEIVED
,
Ftb ;~j. 199:;
Clï't OF rO\'lA'(""
CITY CLERK'S OFfiCE
-
FEe 2 8 1995 ITEM .6
)J ~-ÞI-I 2tjlfS
'-i7J/ç~ v~
February 23. 1995 -~
- ~ ^-~
Mayor Don Higginson
City Hall
P.O. Box 789
Poway,CA 92064
Regarding C.U.P. 94-17, Var. 94-10
Dear Mayor Higginson:
We are writing this letter to ask you to reconsider your vote on the above mentioned
variance 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 did
not find the unit discordant with the area. We 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. Your vote for the variance is
a vote against the General Plan established for Poway.
We 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 stand by your vote and help us to convince the other council members to
reconsider their 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.
We are also strongly opposed to the variance which would allow the placement of a
carport within the side-yard setback area. Carports are not consistent with the majority
of the homes in this area and we feel it will be an eyesore as well as not meet setback
requirements for the area.
S~iiÞ/1<~!} ~
John and Julia Engle
12856 Luiseno
Poway, CA 92064
FEB 2 B 1995 ITEM £,
C¡STRfBUTEDu' ~ '? Iff~';
Mr. Don 81&&lnson, Mayor February 22,199S
MI. Susan CaUery, Deputy Mayor
Mr. Mickey Cafagna, Council Member RECEIVED
Mr. Bob Emery, Council Member
Ms. Betty Rexford, Council Member r U¡ 2 7 1995
City of Poway Copied lor:
13323 Civic Drive City Council
poway, California 92064 CITY OF POWAY City Clerk
CITY MANAGERS OFFICE JLB/JDF/RW.O
Subject: CUP-94-17 and Variance 94-10 for 12839 Luiseno Drive
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Thank you for granting a re-hearing on the subject Conditional Use Permit and
Variance. Attached is our original letter on this subject that addresses the key
points at issue.
We have reviewed the proposed resolution on this suhject and flDd it defective!
Although our January 10, 1995 letter addresses the defects in the resolution, we wish
to emphasize the following points:
1. A rental unit is inconsistent ",;th the 2eneral clan
The proposal is inconsistent with the area and general plan in that it
is a second dwelling for rental purposes, This is a single family home
area as properly identified b)' the city staff. Rental units have no
place in this area. A second living unit as an accessory to a single
family residence does not connote a rental unit.
2. The caroort variance is in-aoorooriate
The addition of carport is a significant variance of community
st3ndsrds. There is only one other carport in our area, Although
we would prefer tbat tbere were no carports, this structure does not
encroucb on any set-backs, as proposed in this variance.
3. The oroiect is not harmonious with other structures in the area
..
.. Man)' of us in this area have expended considerable effort to
assure thnt our re-modeling and additions have been consistent
with our homes architecture. \Ve have taken &reat pains to assure
improvement in appearance of our area. The room addition visible
from the strcet lit this addrcss Is Mrchitectulllly Inconsistent and the
Addition tlf the cAr ltlrt CODlIIIlIlIllls tbls lrohlenl.
""'" . FEO ¡¡ 8 !DDS
.-..---,---- ITEM 6 .. I
----
Based on the above and the attached, we urge you to denv the subiect CUP and
Variance.
Very Truly Yours,
,2\~
Ron and Kathy Fawcett
12841 Luiseno
Poway, California 92064
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM b .\'
--- .--.
January 10, 1995
MA YOR: Don Higginson
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mickey Cafagna
Susan Callery
Bob Emery
Betty Rexford
City of Poway
13325 Civic Drive
Poway, Ca. 92064
Dear Council Members:
SUBJECT: CUP-94-17 and Variance 94-10 for 12B59 Luiseno
We respectfully request a re-hearing of your decision to grant II conditionlll use
permit for II ~ living unit IInd substllntilll vllrillnce for II cllrpon lit the IIbove
IIddress. We recommend thllt you re-hellr this cllse IInd vote IIgllinst the vllrillnces.
BACKGROUND:
We hllve lived lit 12841 Luiseno since 1981, We moved to this home beclluse
of the fllmily IItmosphere, low trllffic IInd custom homes on IlIrge lots. Our children,
IIges 1111nd 14, hllve been rllised in this IIrell with fllmilies who III so hllve children IInd
lire IIccustomed to will king, riding IInd plilying IIround the streets, We hllve mllde
substllntilll investments in improvements of our propeny, liS hllve others.
The proposed vllrillnce IInd use permit is ~ inconsistent with this
neighborhood.
The following IIddresses the key points to consider:
,. Inconsistent with oenerlll oliln
The project is inconsistent with the generlll plan in thllt it
is II second dwelling for !!ll11Dl purposes. We chose to live
in this IIrell knowing thllt it WIIS not zoned for rentlll units.
2. Will hllve IIdverse IIrchitecture
Although the dwelling in question is not visible from the street,
the required cllrpon IInd encrollchment of set-bllcks is visible IInd
inllpproprillte.
3. Inllooroorillte cllroon vllrillnce
The vllrillnce for the cllrpon is Inllpproprillte IInd is II deteriorlltion
of community stllndllrds.
4. Project discourlloes the orderlv IInd hllTmonious IIODBllrllnce of
structures
The cllrpon is not hllrmonious with the structures in this neighborhood.
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó
CUP-!J4..17 (continued)
5. Inaoorooriate traffic
Many people have moved Into this area to raise families, All of us in
this area are aware of the children playing In the area. ~ who do
not have an Investment In the community nor have families will not be
as aware of child safety and pose an increased threat,
6. Sinale familv area
As acknowledged by the city, this Is a ~ family dwelling
area, not a multiple unit rental area.
7, Zonina allows second Ilvina unit. not rental unit
The zoning contemplates second living units but not for rental
DurDoses.
8. Lack of disclosure
The extent of the variance for the carport was not disclosed
prior to the hearing on January 3, 7995.
Based on the above, we believe the cause for re-hearing is well estabUshed.
Very Truly Yours,
Ronald & Kathy Fawcett
72847 Luiseno
Poway, Ca, 92064
FES 2 8 1995 ITEM Ó ,
February 22, 1995
RECEIVED
City Council FEa 27 1995
City Hall CITYOFPOWAY Copied for:
p,O, Box 789 City Council
Poway 92074-0789 CITY MANAGERS OFFICE City Clerk
JLB/JDF/RW-Q
Re: Variance for Ric and Barbara DuDeck
c.U.P.#94-17 Var, 94-10
12859 Luiseno Dr.
Dear Mayor Higginson and City Council Members,
1 have previously written a letter to the City Council about this
matter and was not inclined to do so again, however in today's mail I
received a letter from Mr. DuDeck which brings up some concerns for me.
Mr. DuDeck is apparently trying to make attaining a variance into a
neighborhood feud, From the tone of this letter I believe there is an
attempt to sway the City Council members into allowing a conditional
use permit based on a "good guy - bad guy" policy. One would be
appalled to think the city council members would allow such heresy and
neighbor animosity to influence their decisions, None of these personal
matters have anything to do with the issues at hand,
1 believe the City Council must consider this C.U.P. as making new
policy for the entire neighborhood. If you are going to give permission
for this rental then all neighbors must be allowed the same courtesy. It
has been stated the DuDecks need this rental to be financially able to
stay in their home, Believe me if financial need is going to be the
criteria then 1 will be next in line asking for special privileges, If given
latitude 1 can be very creative in using my property to generate personal
income. At this time I have great need in doing so.
Simply put, I am asking the council members to very carefully
weigh their decision on this matter, Members should not be giving a
permit that allows only one family special rights. You must be aware
that the make up of the neighborhood is at stake.
I will make every effort to attend the meeting on the 28th, however
at the moment this is still impossible for me. 1 hope this letter will carry
some weight in my behalf. "'t"he.nk you for considering this matter,
, ... -i.¡ø~dØ~
RECl V onni Leavens
FE-b l 1614;4 Del Norte
fTowax. CA
CITY OF POWI.,
Cï",-' . 'I~GERS OFFC:
rEB 28 1995 ITEM 6
--
rRECEIVED,
2/24/95 FEB 2 71995 :
'. CITY OF POWAY -(
To The Honorable Mayor Higginson CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
and Members of the City Council of Po way
I am writing this letter in behalf ofRic and Barbara Dudeck who reside at 12859 Luiseno,
Poway CA. We have lived at 16435 Avenida Florencia for approximately 8 years and
never realized that the Dudecks had a rental unit on their property. We are quite active
in the community with boy and girl scouts, PTSA, soccer, baseball, local church, etc. and
have not once heard of a single problem with any of the local residents regarding this
situation. Because of the undeserved pressure that they are receiving at this time we felt
the need to voice our opinion.
We are as concemed as the next person about setting a precedence for rental units in our
neighborhood. But, due to the fact that the Dudecks have agreed to the recording of a
covenant deed stating that they will rent to only one person at a time, that they have been
very careful in the selection of a tenant, and that the conditional use pennit will not
transfer with the sale of the property we feel free to give our endorsement.
We feel it only proper that they be granted the conditional use pennit, since the City
Council has already reviewed this matter and voted in their favor.
Sincerely,
--: J~: ¡J :1J!::J;
/- (-I // /L.ð r;;~ d--
Mr. & Mrs. James D. McCarty
(C,
FEB 28 1995 ITEM 6 ¡
- ----.--
February 22, 1995
I RECEIVED
r ,
Honorable Mayor Don Higginson FEB 2 7 1995
Members of the City Council (
City of Po way CITY OF POWAY -
Poway, Ca. 92064 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ref: Kic and Barbara DuDeck
12859 Luiseno Drive, Poway
My husband and I have been associated with Ric and Barbara for many years on
both a business and social level. We live in their immediate neighborhood and have owned
our home for over 20 years
Many of our neighbors have additional units on their property which are used for a
variety of purposes, both permitted and unpermitted. At the time the DuDeck's purchased
their home, the back unit was in place, cannot be seen from the front of the property, and
has been used as a single individual rental since their purchase of the property. As far as
we know, their tenants have never caused a problem.
In speaking with the DuDecks about this circumstance, I understand that they are
not trying to set a precedent They are willing to take the initiative and record a covenant
deed stating they will rent to only one person at anyone time - the most to whom they
have ever rented - and that upon sale of the property the conditional use permit will be
terminated. Since Barbara and Ric are active in the real estate industry, that information
will be disclosed in any listing agreement and in the disclosure documents required by the
Department of Real Estate when any purchase transfer is initiated.
It seems to us as though a disgruntled neighbor is trying to make an issue out of
nothing. Where was this neighbor's complaint a year ago or more realistically, where was
his complaint when the house changed hands to the DuDecks.
We support the DuDecks wholeheartedly and request that the City do so as well..
They are strong, supportive members of the community, support and participate in the
Chamber of Commerce, and strive to promote the best of the town in which we all live.
Sincerely,
~.:.= ~
12908 Camino Del Valle
Poway, Ca. 92064
FEB 28 1995 ITEMó j
RECEIVED f¿" ,;~ /77,)"
.' \
FEB 2 7 ¡995
CITY OF PO'NAY ,
N " /?1. ~LERK'S OFFICE ~ ~
4 ~ Ð;t ~~
~.' ¿J.:œ.--.v ~ h}~ h¡~
ø~ "^'-- zio.., ~ ~ t ~
~~~ d-I')'-S?~~
£d ~ Iluo' ~ ~ £d- ~ ~ ~
?udt ¿L ~a¡ ~ ~ þu. ~ ~. ,e~
.[)~~. ~ c.--I ~ ~ ~ ~~
úJ L CVu-- ~ .;ti¿t ~ ~,.I ~ L ff:ðf
~¿;:~~ ~-~~~. aJ~
~..J ;.t.é..t dL ~ 'I P-'4t ~ z ,Þ~
IJZ,< . ¿2'~ /Jv,-, f)~ ~ ~ ~ f-
t£- ~~,
~r
tí) ~ -/I-. 171~'
'-?11 ~ ¿ /?1 ~
FEB 2 8 1995 ITEM ó .
..--.--
/' R E eEl V E D '\
FEB 2 í'1995 I
i February 23, 1995
'. CITY OF POWAY ....,.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
To whom it may concern:
I have observed these past few weeks what I perceive to be an alarming
character assassination of two solid, giving members of our community. It gives
new meaning to the term "Can't we all just get along?" What began as a simple
request for a special use permit, has turned into a three ring circus with accusations
flying back and forth in peaceful Green Valley. It is my understanding that the cause
for all this behavior is the use of Rick and Barbara Dudeck's guest house on
their property.
Although Green Valley is a neighborhood anyone could be proud of, the
hurtful remarks about the Dudecks and their guest certainly gives one pause.
Rick and Barbara have given tirelessly to this community over the years. Since
they are not the type of people to volunteer and then toot their own horn, a lot
of their contributions are done quietly and sometimes anonymously. Barbara and
Rick are noted for their contributions to Painted Rock Elementary School just
down the road. One year they even supplied the T-shirts for the fun run. Their
work with the organization "For Kid's Sake" provided so much to this community.
To even think that Rick or Barbara would be violating any laws, or skirting
around laws for personal gain that would negatively affect their neighbors would
be laughable if it weren't so hurtful to them both. To have such honorable peoples'
names bandied about as a blight on the neighborhood truly holds up to
ridicule the source of such innuendoes
If at anytime Rick and Barbara chose to relocate, I would be honored to have
such dependable, caring people as my neighbors. We all face difficult economic
times in the 90's. At times it causes people to look for problems and act out in
unbecoming ways. I would certainly hope that if those people who are so adamant
about creating mountains out of molehills were to sit down and intelligently discuss
their difficulties with the Dudecks, an amenable solution could be reached. At
the very least I am sure the Dudecks could point in the right direction charitable
events these people with so much time on their hands could contribute to with all
that excess energy.
NEIGHBORS! May I be so bold as to suggest REAL Neighborhood problems?
CRACK HOUSES!! METH LABS!! GUN TOTING NEIGHBORS!! DRUNKEN, ABUSIVE
NEIGHBORS!!! NEIGHBORS WITH CHILDREN WHO THROW PARTIES ALL NIGHT
LONG!!!! LETS GET OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TAKE IT ON A NATIONAL
LEVEL; POVERTY, ABUSE, TEENAGE PREGNANCIES, TEEN DRUG USE, THE
WELFARE SYSTEM, THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT. GLOBAL?? HOW ABOUT
AIDES, MURDER, SOCIAL UPHEAVAL, THE RACE ISSUE???
CO: ~;¡ ~J.I. 6 ..\
~ fEe 2 8. 19~'
I truly believe for everyone on that particular Green Valley street, there is
probably one family that has a problem and the rest are sadly misinformed.
I would be honored to have the Dudecks as a neighbor! I am honored
to have such decent people as friends. Before you make up your mind about
this special use permit, do yourself a great favor and talk personally to Rick and
Barbara. You will walk away much assured that the neighborhood is safe and
sound, but more importantly, you will have been lucky to meet two fabulous
people that are truly an asset to your neighborhood.
I truly believe that out of misunderstandings come wonderful things and
our community is full of wonderful people with open minds. Truth will win out
in the end. Until then, please give Rick and Barbara a break!! Get to know them
and don't believe all the negative garbage a very few are "putting out on their curbs!"
ß~
N,,""Y Ch;oo;". ~
(' North Poway Residentlhomeowner
-
fEB 28 1995 ITEM b
---- --------.--
, -:::;,d " -I c; .'
\... ,"" ///"-::;
, Poway
~ ' J, ' Ca jfo~nia
, c ..JL ¡.k- ð-1 ~,-,), ~
, .11 l(";-<::,,-)/('-----"L'l~':-
m-,~,¡"~ ~" :,. - r V ' ð.í'
,-' 1. ¡.
(! '-7 't r-~ "'J"~ , "
, Fr.u27í995 )
V,,¿<I /. \. CiTY OF POWAY ../
~.;..J:t:7--,,- ./---í i_, ,CITY CLER OFFICE 1
(./- r L-<C-,- 1'-' ~ - " '<..
/) D.., b~L ,~--4,-, ./~--w.J,-< e(-;f--
~}"...--t-<'-, <"- J}- Ó -, ;If " i' (r-¡' .
, ..:; í ' -..-L-..c...-,c.{:'. r-t~"""-" _~7_. .;,.. ,--t:.~
:t- ;< I C -( -t<-' (f:) }
¿t> , (. 1.::;'; -:.J (-,J--s:.- c.--......~, :/~ ,A:.£! f-'l--
5 Æ..~-j ..--¥-' 1 ~ ,I .J
" 7 '""~">, ,.,-",---.:~ n'~ a,~' ,-L','. '
.4W-- r" ¿ ~ (l"""'..â ,/......--<1' .....~-::r~./ - ...~:*.;;::t £,
, 'ß.-Yf. t/
ý...)-«--- , ,""". I~'- /V<r,"'~ --(., ~ ~-:::.("-- /'7
¿-rr-:~' J)<~ -t.. cc-¡j«ef 1"~ '
/-"7l~~ «....J ,~"h' r "-~., " u.>.
tf~ ,,~ ..A<'-<'4<~1 £! þu- "I. < è.
;:e- ~ 1: t.</t.<l¿. -."J ;,~k~ ;.>-::;~¡¿ cA-r-.~J Y, +-
A""":C~ ..f~¿ ,. /~" "1/"; r~
A- - {" "r-7'..,d~çr?;"~ ¿- j:::x "-~* I :~Ä.~. c
...-/:: '1;'-"'7- -C(.l~" ~ -0.> ';:"7~U'....f -c. ...-I-..c-"¿~ "L ....",,7
/ -
FEB 2 8 1995 .. eM 6
,>I
~ l< -t¿ /-/ "....ß /< ~ Æ <'<=-
/h~CY'-<--- d~ ,1~~L,-, fr~"_cI 7L:'
1/ -,0 JJ L'¡ . , J "
//,~~ ,.7"..-'~ -tY~ ~~ ¿~.ÞT a--4
ß ,:?!, //.'<-~ .,-v,-:"'/-Ù, J~;¡ "¿'~-e.
ú' f I' .-J 1b !/
.A./~ fl", /u~--"'.; r - ßv7' J..-_..-<.-?,
¿","" .fi'-<~ rA- ./'~~<4~ I U?".,d«.;;1
~ /'" - ~_-1 &
,;:<..p.-'/.-<- -b~,/ ,\,~, /:....-.-.-<- - ~":'-"7~t..o
/ ¡J ¡1 L,... ...,/Y.A' .J-I, 2' .....---' ,/t . ,.d-,
'[1-' "- o~.<' ," Z"'" '- ~
'" ~ ?<,j ~'- l;:!..-l.é...c. Á~j-_/,.t.f
,r~r:Z 1; h ~ ~v...¿£.~- -Cf¿~ ...-J~t.
rv-J:.--" ;- ,', . - I ' j (1 /.' -::--.J,
;' ~,~~ "t)"L t L~r'1-~.--I.' C'?,.-r~~-v" Y , ,Z,
fA, - L 7. p~' d".' /C,.. '
'~fi' ,C,;r ¡? ß..",,' ,j 'c'- /" ,/-I 7
)~,:,/?'~Æ- J~ .'
J. .-A -?'- . ') 17' t ._~;
,flY' ",' , '-V:":lV:' 1//' {/-",~- /' ".' ~',
~ ~f;.:t ..J ¿:i...~.,..1 ~-,'----"<--"--' .
, /; .......,- -<"?~"'v ...t- ----
-{; þ~4 .' v< - .'.'".....L< ~ ~ ~-:
:..><~} ~J"- ~~ - ¡},~ T-"'" þ",.-.c.:.-
2..;Ç",~, ~-,;'¡;-/ ---;r~ .,-.J.í/c"7:, ¡;¡c"~,' ;,'~,.:..- ~
~,:::)- ,~J é..c.~J'.r>~ r, -'.7
, -(~ v;..¿ .1.(,.......-r. - /-.r-
, " ' l: " ~...... <....""'¡<-' < , --.'- ~
,1"'", ,.:.-- ~,k', " . ,,=r..,A> <.., .~
;;~ ...-1 :/-/j- , ,~ --'-'
l:t,):{ -r1 -;"'1,-¡)~J' -jj , {"-r""",,,-q, , '00// .J
t' _~A' U"'" ¡J 'V"-'" "A, , d '-r,Ã"'-~~-
u ~""~," 'f,r-"- '..J, ,-:r-., v"""'" -
j ---C-p/" ~ CA.,"}
fEB 28 1995 ITEM /;)
....-1
------- I
/ ~
J ~,
~
'. /! -r-'" Poway
/ iß~~_. ~".J2"r.~~/!)ifOrnia
+ -t::£, ¿ ,-,- ...,.¿~~ 2-
,~ r'~ //¡~~.¡; ~/,-~_-C -::/ é,/"7
d ,-./ ~~/' --1. ,/,.-
.' t- ~ -'.- -c.:~ C/- ?.....,¿ ..,..,c-':J-
-i¿ "'7 (1~~,-;'./ aJ<.~ . c7
/~/J?~p-- -t:~ ,éLj-;-- I -'. 1~ ,8 re
l-"" -<ell < . "4(7.d...Ä" ./ ~7J,/!.H.<': .
;t.~~ "A ItÞ:"" ":'" ,...,.~. :.k<Õ Z;
/~'Î .~........'-t!'-?"- .,.j..' ~~.<? ¡:"7d~ :""7:"'-:-
I § . ./ U" J-
&/¡/,~-'7'-' (.~' ?-/Y~-lt.A':: ",,~_" .V.,",'~"
z.~..A-è - V--'" é:----'T:f~.. ,/' r 7r~ "'l /X~.-/
) Î- / ',,/~ ~~~ .
....{/.""'_""? ./..' , - '-, - 7
/ / -, } /'
~~~~ / L~~-?~ L
L¡,.;/'.p ::r: ¿/:"'!J",-",-^--
J?~7'1 5!t/f (,.<"/_d":-> /-;1
~ - /
!tt-,~, {,.: é!.?r-c..</
I
f£B 28 1995 ITEM
6íi>M
O~STRiBUTEu ;lJ~ o?Æ;Jf¿
Honorable Mayor Don Higginson February 24, 199.')
Memhers of Foway City Council
As a resident of Green Valley, City of Poway for over 25 years,
and a member of the Green Valley Civic Assnciation as well as a
neightor of Ric and Barœra Dudeck of 12859 Luiseno, Poway,
it is my opinion that the attached unit to their home is in no
way an undesirable or demeaning element to the neighborhood.
Considering that the unit in question was a part of th~. bul1~lng
when the Dudecks purchased it and cannot be seen from the street,
also that it has evidently not prev~ously caused concern in the
neighborhood to the best of my knowledge for the many years it
has existed, should warrant no change from your recent Actio/! to
approve a conditional use permit which I believe Was taken,
I strongly recommend approval of a conditional use permit as
req uested.
Sincerely,
(1); ~~.
William. Je en
fIB 28 1995 1TEM .6 ~ i
--.---....
WEBBER TEL -619-485-7422 Feb 2~ 95 20:34 No.002 P.Ol
February 27, 1995
Mr. Ed Muscat
12865 Luiseno
Poway, California 92064
Dear Mr, Muscat:
Regarding your telephone inquiry of yesterday, 1 believe that the
presence of a rental unit on a lot in a single family reBidential
neighborhood would be n concern to neighborB and to a prospective
buyer and could negatively affect the value of nearby propertie...
1 certainly would feel obligated to disclose such information to any
client I was showing homes to in that neighborhood. In fact, my
neighborhood in Ranch Bernardo has CC & R's that specifically
prohibit owners from renting out any portion of their property.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Very truly yours, . \
otJ~ tUÞU--.
Diana Webber
Realtor Associate
i
I
I J.-).S-í5;
I ~~
-f-- "---..-...-....---
I CC"~C""TB CO'ICB, ,.... IIv"..,.v <;""v' L',I.,'v. "v.. L"v'.... '.'^ <""'". «1<>, .'"77..0
--------'-.--------.----------------------- .----.-------
~ I¡,
~ .Q.
~ ~
't- :)
.:t ...¡ '"
- - r ~ t
"'\ ~... ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ -
~ v!~ ! ~ t ~ I~
- /"'1 .J oJ
~ >1
~ ':J VI ~
~ ~ ~ I :; ~
.c 0 J ..¡...
~ ..\¿ ~ } J::
--- .Q.
~ ----- ~
--~ ~x ~
^ 3 -- ~
~ ~ Q ~
- h ~ J ~
~ ~ '-
~ ---
~ '"
~ '-" ~
.. ~ ~ -
«.j "'1: "=
~ ~ - 4.
- <t::..\:. ¡ P
~ ~ ~
:t ... "'\ ----
u-- t; }J 0
X v 0 ~
~ ~ \11.0
-- IL. ""< '"
~X' ~ - ~--
~ ~ "I ~ ---
~ ~ ~~ 3
~ ~~ ... ill
-{< -J ~s: ç:¡ ¡:'OC
~~ 4= 11\ t
... - '"
-:. 3""
--- ~ -- -- '-
}. ~
\l ::10 '"' "I
~ ~ ~ '" "'1: ~
~ .. Q.. .. t:2. '-D
'.. ~ '5 ~ ~::
~ .... :t 3 '"
~ - y~' ~ l;~ ~
.) ~ ~ ~~ Q
~ ... t- ~ -
~ ~ ~ -~. ï-
/;:' ¡i ~ ;"i- ~~-:
»> ~,
...X~ *--;:- ~
- ~ ~
~. ~+ - \ ~ D ;2.-;).3-45
'--...... ~ . ,.. .¡t- (".
- ì ~ -
.'_m.'__'_-....
To: Mayor Higginson & the Poway City Council
Date: January 27, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted to live in a neighborhood with large
lots and single family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family homes and we are opposed to any
type of CUP or Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood for multiple units
whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the existing plan for our neighborhood. We,
the undersigned, urge you to vote AGAINST CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
"
l' II
I) ,
It \ \
.... 0< 1
\( 'I U
--"""-""----"---""-------"""--------"--- -"---"-
To: Mayor Higginson & the Poway City Council
Date: January 27, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted to live in a neighborhood with large
lots and single family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family homes and we are opposed to any
type of CUP or Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood for multiple units
whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the existing plan for our neighborhood. We,
the undersigned, urge you to vote AGAINST CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
..........-................. _...._.._..._....._---~_..._---_._._.._....._._._._-_...-...-.-..........-... -. ---.
-
To: ,. Mayor Higginson & the Poway City Council
Date: January 27, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted to live in a neighborhood with large
lots and single family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family homes and we are opposed to any
type of CUP or Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood for multiple units
whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the existing plan for our neighborhood. We,
the undersigned, urge you to vote AGAINST CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10.
,.
I
I
To: Mayor Higgenson and the Poway City Council
Date: January 20, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted
to live in a neighborhood with large lots and single
family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family
homes and we are opposed to any type of CUP or
Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood
for multiple units whether on a temporary or per-
manent basis,
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the
existing plan for our neighborhood. We, the
undersigned, urge you to vote against CUP 94-17
and Variance 94-10.
Nkr'I t---
DATE SIGNATURE PRINT AOORßS ADDRESS
Ip>/q;- ~ /f.TIH-/h ¿kiLL /2B<>3 hvf5~c)
~s/9s ~d ~~ e)¡ris!rlle L. Huddy /õl.f{lff? Lu/sP/JO Dr ,
;/d.shS" ~ ~,;,\ .!Jf{il1J6 irJ. I-/ltflfKIN 5 /~ fOs" S-hne Cuu¡., 'IfYJ f!J
tlzliqS ~Ct~~'1 c ~i<t5 IZ8ö5S/c\iU2-0w.'(0Vlr2J.
~/ -::j 7AJ\('~~ U ~ \\\ au Î ~ b+too ~,
'/1-( ,L,l,.-7/
I. 2r!:- ,~ fZ$ll~ s~-rcþ.l'o'- ve-þ>.- ß'I"
/,),1 £/j <tJ ) II (; f 'f
l{Zo¡fc¡)' ~~%, ld-g;nÝfft\lfJl¡¡v,/cv. c9bL ftt-l;£rcvrz~~
r!z-L/C-¡S- ~~' (2fð1~~E.eyrV,?j) þk ~r/iff..-7f4Z-?L
1(, Áfì(\ I R~ ~, . u-u- I L ç 41 Lu(¡){¡\Ilò red. J (¿{L thy FCtt.JJL,z--(t-
.2.l '1 I.L LJUU. '8 lh/;Að AI" M f/.o...+hltÞn Ko().Jo--!
YJ.7 95 /~ ~3 v~"-" ) G()..(y KDLvCt /
V~7/Cfc; ~'. . ,1 r r ~ 1. f'
;¡~ qr ~ t¿J Ib/J-:?-~{ Mf'R- lrYlKIS -:/C l<t¥'-'
"
To: Mayor Higgenson and the Poway City Council
Date: January 20, 1995
Subject: CUP 94-17 and Variance 94-10
1) We purchased our homes here because we wanted
to live in a neighborhood with large lots and single
family homes.
2) We want our neighborhood to remain single family
homes and we are opposed to any type of CUP or
Variance that makes allowances in our neighborhood
for multiple units whether on a temporary or per-
manent basis,
3) We expect our elected officials to uphold the
existing plan for our neighborhood, We, the
undersigned, urge you to vote against CUP 94-17
and Variance 94-10.
/lJ14<-t ~
DATE ~~RE PRINT ADDRCSS ADDRESS
1-.98-- ?~ . .td~ f(&.'<h'l~' ¡"/'/..'õc". lIP {1}'l (JiòI.- /JciJ.,. {JR-.
I, JJI-qS-W~ n~~ eld)¡;/( r t{þ"M~r:y~~ ~
5rr~e~ ' (/-gIS/~
J -).E-? ~) ~e:sf. 1<'o\52-:De1 ~oR:Te.
1'\1o<eL.\ LW::,v,J16
/ ~2ff-91) ïé-I:f'L- /2$2k :z;.d[a--/~ }P::.::J
[- z~- Co s- '-so..l !v\w..."" lb\~ \)~\ rv....~ ~ "'1 C f\ ";"vQb""'-
&_12«~ ALL""" ..
~~cß:)~ \"2-'335;"....,'50<.-
--