Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1983/04/26 - Regular=INITIATION 1. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temple City was called to order at 7:30 p.m., April 26, 1983, by Chairman Abraham. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 26, 1983 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Coolman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Breazeal, Coolman, Froehle,.Stacy, Abraham Absent: Commissioners.- None Also present: City Manager Koski, City Attorney Martin, Planning Director Shaw and Senior Planner Peterson. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of April 12, 1983 There being no additions or corrections to the minutes they were approved as written by roll call vote with Commissioner Coolman abstaining. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT ON R -1 ZONED PROPERTY Planning Director Shaw said this matter was set for Public Hearing for tonight at the last Planning Commission meeting. The purpose of the ordinance amendment is to implement State legislature Senate Bill No.1534 which requires cities to develop policies with respect to allowing a second unit on a single family lot. The amend- ment will also ensure that the creation of a "second dwelling unit" or "companion unit" will not create or add problems of overcrowding streets, utilities, parks and open spaces, and other community facilities, and that the addition of second units will not downgrade the living environment and life styles in the City. He continued by saying that two ordinances had been prepared for the Commission's consideration. Proposal "A" would allow second units only on large R -1 zoned lots and only when in compliance with specified standards. Proposal "B" would allow "companion units" on any R -1 zoned lot as long as standards relative to types of construction, size of unit, parking, and occupancy are incorporated into approval, and with conditional use permit approval. Both ordinances were pre- sented to the Commissioners for their consideration. Pursuant to the California Enfironmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, a Negative Declaration has been filed stating that the proposed amendment to the Code will not have an adverse impact on the environment. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. Harold Hess, 5043 Sultana, said he objected to the requirements or a t. wide driveway and a two -car garage for each unit on an R -zoned property. Mr. Shaw explained that the width of the driveway would allow one car to be parked on the driveway and another car could drive around it. The two - stall garage is a requirement for each single family residence in any zone. His property is zoned R -2. Mr. Robert Bock, 5328 Encinita, questioned the requirement for a 16 ft. driveway on a 60 ft. wide lot requirement. He has two houses on his property with a two -car garage and a single garage with a parking apron in the front and, in the twenty years he has lived there they have had no problems. The purpose of the ordinance proposal, in his opinion, is to provide more housing, especially for older people. The way the proposals are written they will not help many people. When asked about those parcels where the dwelling unit is in the rear or middle of the lot Mr. Shaw said a detached unit, if that proposal is accepted, could be built in the front, or rear, but under Alternative "B" the entrance of the "companion unit" is required to be in the rear and would, most probably, be more suitable for houses built at the front of a lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE TWO MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 Mr. Bock continued that there are over 500 houses in Temple City with two houses on them in the R -1 zone, and those properties are an asset to the City. The R -1 zoned lots presently having only one house on a large lot have problems maintaining the large grounds, with resultant overgrown yards, rubbish, and general maintenance problems. With refer- ence to the two -car garage requirement, Mr. Bock said that presently the Code prohibits carports, but that could be changed. Mr. Breazeal explained that a vast majority of the R -1 zoned lots developed with two or three units were built under County regulations. Mr. Bock agreed, saying his second unit was built 28 years ago. Mary Kokayko -6149 N. Camellia, was against the proposed amendment. If the property is zoned R -1 it should remain with only a single dwelling unit on it. People who bought R-1 zoned lots knew the restrictions when buying, and regarding the large lots, some people want a large lot. Mr. Robert Pitts, 5312 Degas, said he read both proposals and objected to the requirement for a covenant. If a conditional use permit is granted that would provide control. A covenent would encumber the property. He objected to the requirement for curbs and gutters to be installed as this would be an additional cost to the property owner. He preferred the pro- posal for a detached unit. Chairman Abraham explained that a covenant illruns with the property and a conditional use permit does not, and the property could change hands, which is also the reason for requiring the owner of the property to be a resident in one of the units on the property. Mr. Pitts continued that the owner should be the person listed in the County Recorder's Office, not the Assessor's Office, as listed in the proposals. Commissioner Stacy said the Planning Commission and City Council require public works improvements from anyone improving their property be- yond a certain degree. It is one way of getting the City improved, and benefits all the citizens. Mr. Pitts had no argument with the requirement for a two -car additional garage or the driveway width of 16 ft. Mary Kokayko - 6149 N. Camellia, said the requirement to install public works improvements was not unique to Temple City. She had developed property or improved it in other cities and was required to provide public works improvements. Louise Gunderman, 5847 Oak Ave., said there are many properties in the City that are very deep, but only 50 ft. wide. Perhaps for different types of properties there could be different proposals, adopting "B" for the narrow, deep lots, and "A" for the others. Then more people would be able to provide housing for family members. Mr. Breazeal explained that the Supreme Court ruled that a restriction on housing for family members . only is illegal. Dorothy Bock, 5328 Encinita, questioned the requirement for a two -car garage for a companion unit when the elderly occupying that unit would have only one car or perhaps none. If the senior occupants die, or move away, would the unit have to be torn down? Or could it be rented? It was explained that if there was a condition which limited occupancy to a family member it could not be rented and if the City became aware that it was a rental the use would have to be discontinued if it was supposed to be a "com- panion unit ". Mrs. Bock continued that conditions change, and she and her husband may choose to occupy the companion unit and have one of their children live in the main part of the house, and she was told they would have to re -apply to the City. Chairman Abraham said, regarding the garage requirement, that the City issues between 500 -1000 on- street parking permits yearly because off - street parking is inadequate, and often these people cannot park in front of where they live but must park in front of an adjacent property, which is taking parking from someone else. With reference to a parking area or carport, the Zoning Code requires, in R -1 and R -2 that each residence must have a •two -car garage. Mrs. Bock felt it was unfair to require a two -car garage when adding just a couple rooms. Mr. Shaw explained that what the Commission was considering was the addi- tion of a dwelling unit attached to an existing residence, complete 'with kitchen. facilities. A property owner can expand an existing dwelling o accommodate additional members within that dwelling without constructing garage if he meets the City requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 Commissioner Coolman said that, in her experience, the young people need housing also, being unable to buy a house and rentals being so costly. These units should not be limited to the elderly. However, young people have cars and provisions should be made for them. Commissioner Stacy was in favor of requiring the presence on the lot of the property owner, but that the second unit in R -1 could be a rental. He was generally opposed to rentals in R -1. With the owner as an occup- ant he will have better control of the maintenance of the property and the tenants. As Mrs. Bock had pointed out, properties change hands, and for this reason he was in favor of requiring a covenant. The Planning Commission consistently is faced with people seeking a zone variance to permit a unit or more on their property, units which they were told when purchasing the property were legal. Mr. Robert Pitts., 5312 Degas, asked if he could break through the curb if he wanted to expand the width of his 10 ft. driveway to the required 16 ft. for a second unit on his property, and was told he could, although there are some restrictions. He was against second units being rentals in the R -1 zone. PAGE THREE iMr. Gilchrist, 5616 Pal Mal, asked questions about the two proposals, and said the "companion unit" eventually would result in a lot of illegal rentals if that approach is chosen by the Commission. Mr. Robert Bock, 5328 Encinita, said the City could not tell him who to rent to or that he has to live on his property - he has a nonconforming legal second unit. He asked about lot splits, and was told they are per- mitted under certain requirements. Mr. Bock said he didn't understand why the City should put restrictions on building a second unit on an R -1 property, as these units will be assets to the community. There being no one else to speak to the issue Commissioner Breazeal moved to close Public Hearing, seconded by Commissioner Froehle and carried. The Commissioners expressed a desire for a study sessinn to consider the comments offered from the public this evening and the two proposals before them, and the City Manager suggested kthey make a recommendation to the City Council, who can set a public hearing on the 3rd of May for the 17th, since the State has imposed a time restriction to develop a second unit ordinance, and in the interim the City Council and Planning Commission 40 could meet and exchange ideas on the subject. Commissioner Breazeal moved to continue the meeting by going to Agenda Item 6, and upon completion of the agenda items 6 -11, to adjourn to the North Meeting Room to consider the comments and make a decision on Item 5. Motion carried. Chairman Abraham declared a recess at 9 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE 5535 N. Pal Mal Avenue (No. 83 -87) In giving the staff report, Mr. Shaw said there is an abundance of trash, debris and miscellaneous storage in the rear yard area of the property. The Zoning Code provides that no storage should be maintained on any resi- dential property which may pose a fire hazard. Mr. Shaw continued that the property owner contacted staff, and staff inspected the property that afternoon and noted some improvement but still insignificant to improve the property. He concluded by showing a film clip of the site. •Commissioner Breazeal said this case had been before the Planning Commission before, and had the conditions been corrected the first time, and was told they had been, and that they were the same conditions as prompted this case. However, the owner has allowed the accumulation of storage and debris again. Responding to question from Commissioner Froehle, Mr. Shaw said the Fire Department had not been notified of this property as it has not deteriorated to that extent yet. The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak and the Public Hearing was closed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 PAGE FOUR SThe Commissioners were in agreement that a public nuisance exists on the property. Commissioner Coolman moved to declare the property a nuisance and to recommend to the City Council abatement of same within 30 days, and to adopt by title only the resolution to that effect. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stacy and carried unanimously. Chairman Abraham read title to Resolution 83- 1055PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE EXISTS AT 5535 N. PAL MAL AVENUE AND ORDERING ABATEMENT OF SAME. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE 9044 Olive Street (No. 83 -88) This public nuisance case deals with an abundance of trash, debris and mis- cellaneous storage in the rear of the property and is in violation of the Temple City Zoning Code as it may pose a fire hazard. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has also inspected this property and ordered abate - ment of the problem. Mr. Shaw reported that the property owner has started cleaning up the property. Staff inspected the site this afternoon and found that there remains a significant amount of trash and storage still to be removed. The Public Hearing was declared open. Mr. James Graham, 9044 Olive Street, said he has started cleaning up the storage and removing it, and is repairing the fences. He has not yet started cleaning up the rear of the property. He does not live on the site and has not been there for some time. He has owned the property for 15 -16 years. Chairman Abraham said that since 1972 the City has filed nine separate property nuisances against the property. Mr. Graham re- plied he has not been living there and because of his work he is unable to care for the property as it should be cared for. Chairman Abraham asked Mr. Graham if he felt the condition of his property affected the value of adjacent properties, and the answer was affirmative, although Mr. Graham added that he has spoken to his neighbors and none of them complained about the condition of his place. He agreed there was a lot to do to clean it up, but about three weeks would give him ample time. There being no one else to speak to the issue the public hearing was closed. In Commission discussion it was agreed that thirty days abatement was the . maximum time to allow the property owner to clean up the property. Com- missioner Breazeal moved to recommend to the City Council the abatement of the property nuisance in 30 days, and adopt by title only the resolution, to this effect. Motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Chairman Abraham read title to Resolution No.83- 1056PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DETERMINING THE EXIST- ENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 9044 OLIVE STREET AND RECO1`DIENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ABATEMENT OF SAME. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE 4811 Camellia (No. 83 -89) Mr. Shaw reported that this case involves the overgrown condition of an unoccupied residence at the above address. Growth in the front yard has reached a height of approximately 24 inches and is in violation of the Zoning Code of the City. A film clip of the property was shown. He con- cluded by saying the City has been unable to contact the owner and all mail to the recorded owner has been returned unopened. The Public Hearing was declared open. No one came forward to speak and 111 the Public Hearing was closed. In Commission discussion it was determined that, since the City is unable to contact the owner, a 10 -day abatement period be recommended, after which City crews will clear the property at the owner's expense. Com- missioner Froehle moved to declare the property a nuisance and recommend abatement to the City Council, and to adopt the resolution by title only. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Coolman and carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 PAGE FIVE Chairman Abraham read title to Resolution No. 83- 1057PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT 4811 CAMELLIA AVE. AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ABATEMENT OF SAME. 9. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. 10. TIME FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK - No one came forward. 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS Set Public Hearing to Determine Existence of a Public Nuisance for May 10, 1983, for 9649 Longden Avenue (Case No. 83 -91) Mr. Shaw showed a film clip of the property which has overgrown vegetation, debris, and is a detriment to nearby property or property values. The Commissioners agreed and set Public Hearing on the matter for May 10,1983. ADJOURNMENT TO STUDY SESSION RE: SECOND UNITS IN R -1 ZONE The Chairman declared the meeting would adjourn to a study session in the North Meeting Room to consider further Agenda Item 5 regarding the pro- ("posed amendment to the Zoning Code to permit a second dwelling unit on. R -1 zoned property. Commissioner Froehle said the Commission is to determine what is the goal and intent of this proposal - is it to increase the number of rentals in Temple City or, provide housing for elderly or family members or limited to two people. Chairman Abraham expressed concern that we would be zoning lots, not neighborhoods, and the reason for zoning neighborhoods was to maintain character. The R -1 lots would become R -2 in essence. He would favor the proposal which will have the least impact on the existing Temple City character. Commissioner Coolman agreed; the rental unit would not have to be rented to a relative or elderly, but to not more than two people. She was con- cerned about requiring a two -car (400 sq. ft.) garage for 640 sq.ft. dwell- ing unit. No mention is made in that proposal for a 16 ft. wide driveway., Plan B does not address lot size and would be available to more residents. Commissioner Stacy favored modification of Plan B - second dwelling units with standards of minimum lot size, width, two -car garage; a companion unit would have different standards. Perhaps a combination of both plans is desirable. He favored limiting the size of a companion unit and would .like a limitation on sizes for a detached unit. In both instances a two - car garage should be required. Commissioner Coolman favored Plan A - ten years from now the City will be one of rental units; this plan restricts second dwelling units to only large lots. She could accept a 12 ft. driveway, even a carport. The reason Temple City is an attractive residential community is because the requirements are stringent. She was concerned about the long -term impact of either plan, felt Plan A would pose less problems. She was not in favor of a covenant. Commissioner Breazeal felt Plan B would preserve the visual integrity of the Community. A definition of companion units should be included in the proposal similar to the San Marino ordinance. The Commissioners consulted a chart on exhibit showing the number of lots of 14,400 sq. ft. in size in the R -1 Zone, how many would be affected by the proposal. Chairman Abraham said that eventually the City would have to address the problem of large R -1 lots. With Plan B anyone can add to an existing dwelling. He favored a second unit which would add to the property values of a neighborhood, with no restrictions as to who can rent it, and with criteria as to size, separate parking a covenant, and that the owner be required to live in one of the dwellings. Commissioner Stacy said the companion unit is just like "adding on" and a lot of them look unsightly and will have an impact on the neighborhood and suggested a lot size restriction wtih Plan "B ". PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 PAGE SIX ity Manager Koski, in discussing the requirement for a covenant, said t would be difficult to enforce to ensure that the companion unit would of be a rental; the City does not have sufficient staff, and violations would have to be pursued in court which is a long procedure and time con- suming. Commissioner Abraham expressed the opinion that a second unit on a large lot would do away with some property nuisances. Commissioner Froehle said a lot of people in the community are under the impression that this ordinance is the "Granny Flat" ordinance - which it is not. Many of them hope to develop facilities for elderly parents. Plan B would provide a place for parents on some parcels. Commissioner Coolman replied a guest house is permissible now. Commissioner Abraham expressed concern about the increase in density, and Commissioner Breazeal says there would be no change in the number of par - cels. Mr. Abraham said there would be an increase in people. He also favored separate criteria for attached or detached. Mr. Breazeal called ttention to the requirements in the Code for size of units - 800 sq. ft. for a one bedroom. The City Manager said this applied to a free-standing unit. Commissioner Froehle said with Plan B the owner would be more selective as to the person living next to him. Commissioner Breazeal commented with a separate unit there is more pressure on the part of the owner to rent to pay for the second unit. Commissioner Coolman said construction costs are not a valid argument as there is not that much difference. Chairman Abraham said the word "attached" is rather unique because a breezeway or roof could attach a second unit. The Commissioners considered a combination of the two proposals with separate criteria for each approach. Chairman Abraham said the Commission must con- sider the impact this ordinance will have on the community. If the commun- ity is tending towards rentals the ordinance can be less restrictive, but if it is continuing to be a single - family residential community, the ordinance should be more restrictive. Commissioner Breazeal felt most people live here because of the size of the lots and the residential character of the City, it is a nice area of homes and there is no public pressure to increase the density in the R -1 area. .City Manager Koski said that there are only 405 lots in the R -1 Zone over 14,400 sq. ft. and many already have rentals on them; those rentals could be made legal and conforming under the ordinance. The lots available for an additional unit are only a couple hundred. Commissioner Breazeal expressed preference for detached units with minimum square footage, two -car garage. Commissioner Stacy did not want to encourage the addition of units in R -1. He favored proposal B or a combination of the two proposals. Commissioner Froehle said if the Commission prefers detached he would go along with it. Commissioner Coolman was in favor of Plan A as was Chairman Abraham. Commissioner Froehle said in his opinion, under B, every lot in the City could have a companion unit unless there is a minimum lot size attached to the ordinance. It was agreed that Plan "A" was preferred. Chairman Abraham reviewed the conditions of Plan A, and the agreement was to limit the width to a requirement of 60 ft. There were too few that met the 70 ft. minimum. They were in agreement that the detached unit must have adequate sewer and water facilities, the lot must have curb and gutter and a fully improved street of 36 ft. width, a two -car garage, and a 12 ft. driveway. Mr. Shaw suggested that a minimum square footage of open space or each unit of 500 sq. ft. be required to replace the arbitrary wording Condition 6. It was further determined to have a maximum of 1000 sq. ft. with a minimum of 800 sq. ft. for one of the units on the property, inasmuch as the existing unit may already be small and this would permit the con- struction of a larger unit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1983 PAGE SEVEN It was agreed that the second unit should be compatible with the primary unit, that any lot developed with a second unit under this ordinance shall be under single ownership as recorded in the County Recorder's office; condition 9 should read a second dwelling unit shall not be per - mitted on a lot which has a guest house or more than one unit. A new condition was recommended which required that the applicant be the owner (i.e., have an equity interest in the property and be an occupant on the site.) City Manager Koski questioned the legality of the requirement restricting the owner from leaving his property and Chairman Abraham suggested that this item be referred to the City Attorney. Finally, the condition for a covenant running with the land to be recorded by every applicant to enforce these provisions at . the cost of the owner was agreed upon. The Study Session was closed. The Planning Commission reconvened. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO PERMIT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT ON R -1 ZONED PROPERTY. Commissioner Breazeal moved to recommend to the City Council an amendment to the Zoning Code relating to allowing second units in the R -1 Single Family Zone, subject to the City Attorney review and comments to the City Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Coolman and carried with Commissioner Stacy voting against it. His reason was that the proposal was not restrictive enough, he favored a 70 ft. street frontage on any lot considering a second unit in the R -1 Zone to reduce the impact this ordinance will have on the community because what the Commission is presenting will made considerable change in the character of the R -1 Zone. Chairman Abraham read title to Resolution No. 83- 1054PC, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RECOMMENDING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO ALLOWING SECOND UNITS IN THE R -1, SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: Secr •