HomeMy WebLinkAboutSecond Unit Size Limitation 04-13-2006CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE 3 - (23-0
CONTINUED TO '7 -1 - D (0
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 0 PASSED TO 2ND READING
FROM: Philip Drell, Director of Community Developmen
DATE: March 23, 2006
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Residential Second Unit Size Limitation Language
DISCUSSION:
When the second unit law was conceived in the early 1980's, it was based on the concept
that units would be carved out of large existing permitted dwellings.
Our current ordinance states:
The floor area of a detached or attached second unit shall not exceed thirty-
five (35%) percent of the floor area of the floor area of the originally
permitted and constructed primary unit, but in no event to be less then four
hundred (400) square feet.
I have interpreted this language to mean that if the originally constructed dwelling is 4,000
square feet, then the second unit could be 1,400 square feet (35% of 4,000) either as a
newly constructed detached unit or as part of the original dwelling. If it was included within
the existing dwelling, the primary unit would be reduced to 2,600 square feet.
Altematively, this language could be interpreted to mean that the 35% ratio is to be applied
not to the original primary permitted and constructed dwelling, but to the reduced primary
unit resulting from the creation of the second unit. Applying this interpretation to an original
4,000 square foot home, a detached second unit could still be up to 1,400 square feet
assuming that the lot was large enough, but a unit created within the original unit could only
be 1,025 square feet. Since I could not imagine why we would want to favor detached units
or enlarged units over use of existing space, I settled on the first interpretation based on
percentage of total original building area.
In the 4,000 square foot example, the difference amounts to approximately 400 square feet
reduction in the second unit and a corresponding increase in the primary unit. Since I
couldn't discern a significant public purpose either way, I went with the interpretation that
(W pdocs/tm/2ndunit.cc2)
Staff Report
Residential Second Unit Size
Page 2
March 23, 2006
could be uniformly applied regardless of whether the unit was created as a detached
structure, added attached, or incorporated into an original dwelling.
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Revie and Con
Homer Croy
ACM for Dev
ltm
ment Services
Review and Concur:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manager
Kim Housken 73237 Somera
Good afternoon Mayor Ferguson and councilmembers,
Nearly 3 years ago there was a public meeting held to discuss
and adopt a new 2nd Unit Ord meant to comply with State Legis
that would make the application for a 2nd unit a ministerial act,
done at the Planning counter w/o the option of a public hearing.
At that time we hashed out what I thought was a very reasonable
ordinance that specified a 2nd unit to be proportional in size to the
main unit. This was accomplished by a motion to amend the new
ordinance to include:
"...the maximum limit at 35% of the main unit square
th footage."
� ° This was passed on a 4-1 vote.
While reviewing the Planning Comm, minutes of February 7, I was
discouraged to discover that the intent of the ordinance is not
being realized, and a 2800 sq.ft. house is going to have a 1400
sq.ft. second unit.
Apparently the Planning Director is now interpreting the
maximum size to mean 35% of the total building, not 35% of the
main unit as approved by council.
The Staff Report gives an example using both interpretations and
claims the resulting difference of - 400 sq.ft. is not significant. In
actuality there is a 35% difference in the two methods of
calculating the second unit size. I find that very significant. How
would an employee feel if asked to take a 35% pay cut? Again,
significant.
Second units need to be kept proportional in size to the main
unit, so as to avoid the duplex type homes we've seen.
Remember these are supposed to be for inlawsmr caregivers etc.
and technically they could be as small as 220 sq.ft.
GA.0' SWye
hU. jhb hood a/n h 0t
b-
o(-ui des
r��
k1
Second Unit "carved out" of
existing 2000 sq.ft. home
x + .35x = 2000 sq.ft.
1.35x — 2000 sq.ft.
X = 2000
1.35
x = 1480 sq.ft. primary unit
.35x = 520 sq.ft. second unit
Formula for the "carving out" method
of creating a Second Unit
X = ....a.
1.35
Where:
x = sq.ft. of resulting main unit
a =total area of home (sq.ft.)
Once you have solved for "x", take
35% of that number (.35x) to find the
maximum size of the Second Unit.
Second Unit added onto, or detached
from, an existing 2000 sq.ft. home
1\Ack, n
1000 .
Size of second unit = 35% of 2000
= 700 sq.ft.
Formula for a Second Unit added onto
a home, or detached from a home
Second unit size = .35(a)
Where:
a = total area of home (sq.ft.)
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
DATE: April 13, 2006
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Residential Second Unit Size Limitation Language
DISCUSSION:
In the April 24, 2003 City Council hearing I stated that a 1,200 square foot home could
have a 450 square foot second unit. This statement is consistent with my March 23, 2006
memo and the adopted ordinance.
Section 25.21.040 B states:
The second unit may be attached and incorporated within the living areas of
the existing dwelling, but separate, or may be detached.
Section C states:
The floor area of a detached or attached second unit shall not exceed thirty-
five (35%) percent of the floor area of the originally permitted and
constructed primary unit but in no event to be less then four hundred fifty
(450) square feet.
In the example discussed on April 24, 2003, the 1,200 square foot home represented the
existing originally permitted and constructed home referred to in the ordinance.
Pursuant to Section B, a 450 square foot second unit can be incorporated within the
existing dwelling or detached. In each case it cannot exceed 35% of the original unit or at
least 450 square feet. There was no discussion of the size of the resulting modified primary
unit if the 450 square foot second unit was incorporated into the originally permitted and
constructed primary unit.
(W pdocs/tm/2ndunit.cc4)
Staff Report
Residential Second Unit Size
Page 2
April 13, 2006
The consistency of interpretation identified in my original memo referred to the uniformity
of second unit size regardless of whether it is incorporated in the originally permitted and
constructed home or as new construction, attached or detached.
In each case the size of the primary unit will be substantially larger then the second unit.
While the size ratio of the modified primary to the second unit will change depending on
the extent of new construction, the maximum size of the second unit will remain constant.
Incorporation of second units into existing homes conserves building material, open space
and energy over the life of the home.
Reviewed and Approved by:
it Drell
Director of Community Development
Review nd Concu / Review . d Con sf'r:
Homer Croy
ACM for D
Itm
pment Services
-IrCarlos L. 0
City Mana
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
DATE: March 23, 2006
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Residential Second Unit Size Limitation Language
DISCUSSION:
When the second unit law was conceived in the early 1980's, it was based on the concept
that units would be carved out of large existing permitted dwellings.
Our current ordinance states:
The floor area of a detached or attached second unit shall not exceed thirty-
five (35%) percent of the floor area of the floor area of the originally
permitted and constructed primary unit, but in no event to be Tess then four
hundred (400) square feet.
I have interpreted this language to mean that if the originally constructed dwelling is 4,000
square feet, then the second unit could be 1,400 square feet (35% of 4,000) either as a
newly constructed detached unit or as part of the original dwelling. If it was included within
the existing dwelling, the primary unit would be reduced to 2,600 square feet.
Alternatively, this language could be interpreted to mean that the 35% ratio is to be applied
not to the original primary permitted and constructed dwelling, but to the reduced primary
unit resulting from the creation of the second unit. Applying this interpretation to an original
4,000 square foot home, a detached second unit could still be up to 1,400 square feet
assuming that the lot was large enough, but a unit created within the original unit could only
be 1,025 square feet. Since I could not imagine why we would want to favor detached units
or enlarged units over use of existing space, I settled on the first interpretation based on
percentage of total original building area.
In the 4,000 square foot example, the difference amounts to approximately 400 square feet
reduction in the second unit and a corresponding increase in the primary unit. Since I
couldn't discem a significant public purpose either way, I went with the interpretation that
(W pdocs/tm/2ndunit.cc2)
Staff Report
Residential Second Unit Size
Page 2
March 23, 2006
could be uniformly applied regardless of whether the unit was created as a detached
structure, added attached, or incorporated into an original dwelling.
Reviewed and Approved by:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Revie and ConReview and Concur:
Homer Croy
ACM for Dev
/tm
Carlos L. Ortega
ment Services City Manager
March 3, 2006
Re: Application of the Palm Desert Second Unit Ordinance
Dear Mayor Ferguson, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly, and Council members Benson, Crites and
Spiegel,
In reading through the recently approved minutes of the February 7, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting, I was shocked to discover that there was going to be a 1400 sq ft
second unit built in conjunction with a 2800 sq ft house (in regards to Variance 05-03 for
Savarovsky setbacks.) By my calculations that would make the second unit 50% the size
of the main unit, which is clearly larger that the 35% limit dictated by the ordinance that
took effect July 1, 2003. When I inquired about this difference, I was told the Director of
Planning is interpreting the ordinance to mean 35% of the total building size
(1400+280(k=4200, then 35% of 4200.)
The Planning Director's interpretation is in direct conflict with the discussion that
preceded the Council's vote on the adoption of the revised Second Unit Ordinance at the
April 24, 2003 City Council meeting. At that time, on two occasions (see attached
minutes,) Mr. Drell acknowledges that by using the 35% formula, a 1200 sq ft house
could have a 450 sq ft second unit (technically 35% of 1200 would be 420.)
Furthermore the ordinance was approved with the amendment to specify"...the maximum
limit at 35% of the main unit square footage."
Now that obtaining permission for a second unit has become a ministerial act, achieved at
the Planning Department counter, the residents of the city must rely on Planning staff to
properly interpret the Second Unit Ordinance and thus protect the interests of the R-1
neighborhoods that do not want their densities doubled with oversized second units
capable of housing an entire family. This is not the intent of second units!
I find it discouraging that the Planning Director would apparently disregard the Council' s
wishes regarding the proportional size of second units being limited to 35% of the main
unit. Fortunately we have the same Council seated as we did in April 2003 when the
Ordinance was revised. I am hoping you can provide clarity to this issue. Either
memories need to be refreshed or the wording of the Ordinance needs to be further
clarified to achieve the results you desired when approving the Second Unit Ordinance.
I do appreciate all you do for our city. I know it is a fulltime commitment.
Respectfully,
Kim Housken
73237 Somera
Palm Desert
346-3931
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
BAC Just a matter of what we want.
PD Correct.
BAC Okay. Thank you.
JF Yes, I want to thank Mrs. Housken for her obvious hard work in this. I've
been dealing with our attorneys and our staff and other folks for almost a
month on this, and you probably gave the best summary I've heard of the
reasons driving this whole debate. And I do think the intent of the
Legislature, both in terms of the new bill, AB1160, and the old bill was to
increase housing by having small accessory units for family members, for
parents, for nursing care providers and skilled assisted living providers. I
hope it wasn't the intent, and if it is, I for one will urge that we fight it, that we
double the densities in all of our neighborhoods, we make landlords out of
every resident, and certainly in the absence of an owner -occupied
requirement that people start buying up old homes, doubling their densities,
and all of a sudden we have apartment neighborhoods instead of single-
family neighborhoods, which has been the intent of our ordinance all along.
I like the 35% limitation. I think it's probably a little bit high. I just ran the
numbers based on my own home, if I were to be able to afford to do
something like that, and that would put 40% coverage on my lot, and I have
an 11,000 square foot lot and only a 2,900 square foot home. I would be
able to build a 20 by 50 foot structure in my back yard, which I'm not sure
would even fit. But if 35% is a threshold that, you know, folks are
comfortable with, I'm willing to listen to it, but to have no threshold
whatsoever and to have small units being the tail wagging the dog for a
much larger unit, I just don't think is keeping with the character, the
complexion, or the charm of our neighborhoods at all. And I'd at least like to
hear from our staff on the 35% limit.
PD It's clearly within the authority granted by the Legislature to do that. The only
language in the current State law is that efficiency language, which you can
limit it, she's right, to 260 square feet. Again...
JF No, the maximums.
PD Oh...no, you can limit that to the maximum if you wanted. You can limit that
for the maximum if you want.
JF
PD
Do you have a recommendation?
Again, it seems a little inconsistent that we made a determination, and if
you're building an apartment, that people shouldn't live in a unit Tess than
19
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
JF
600 square feet, but if we do this calculation, it comes out to 200 or 300
square feet. So, I have no problem...remember, the total development on
the lot is still limited by what you can build as a single-family home. So the
total amount of building area is fixed, whether it is a single-family home or
with a single-family home and a second unit. That is established by the
coverage requirement and the setbacks, and those don't change whether
we're talking about single-family homes or single-family homes with
accessory units. If you want to create a...if you feel comfortable having a
1,200 square foot house, and 35% yields 450 square feet, and you're happy
with that as a minimum, then that is perfectly fine. I don't have...1've lived in
a 450 square foot apartment in my life, and if efficiently designed, it provides
an acceptable place to live.
I think the thought was if there was no minimum, we wouldn't have to worry
about what the minimum is. The maximum would be 35% of whatever the
base unit is.
PD Right. 1 have no problem with that.
JF Okay.
BAC
PD
One other one. The answer is probably obvious, but Item D under
requirements notes the second unit is not intended for sale. Is that a fancy
way of saying you can't sell it?
You can't sell it apart, separately, from the main unit. So it doesn't subdivide
the lot that you can sell two units. The second unit has to be associated, in
terms of ownership, with the primary unit.
BAC Why don't we just say that?
PD I didn't write it.
BAC It's not a major issue, but I'm just saying...
PD I think that's taken right out of the State law, but...
RSK Well, I guess just that I would prefer the 600 minimum.
JF This isn't a public hearing?
RAS It's closed, we closed it.
JF We already closed it?
20
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
BAC Yes. Well, I'll just try moving, then, a motion that limits the size maximum to
35% of the main unit, period.
RAS Without a minimum?
BAC Without a minimum.
JF I'll second it.
RSK Question before the vote. What does that do if somebody comes to us and
wants 300 feet?
BAC If that's what they want to do to their mother...1 mean, it's designed...
RSK Seems shortsighted to me, so I still think 600 feet...I think we have all kinds
of health and safety ordinances, and I think the health and safety ordinance
here would be that we wouldn't ask somebody to live in a unit less than 600
square feet...one man's humble opinion.
JF Well, but if I heard Phil correctly and Mrs. Housken, the bill does provide in
certain instances for 225 square feet.
RSK Yeah, he doesn't live in 225 square feet.
PD The State legislation, the City of Palm Desert doesn't, as far as a standard
apartment, we don't allow something less than 600 square feet.
BAC Well, then, let me ask a question. We have a minimum of 1,200 square feet
for an R-1.
PD Correct.
BAC So 35% is 450 square feet. So the minimum in an R-1 would be 450, and we
have probably very few 1,200 square foot R-1 homes.
4PD Correct.
BAC So in most cases, it would be...
PD 1,400 - 1,600.
RAS So would you add to your motion a minimum of 450 square feet?
BAC I could live with that.
21
PRELIMINARY MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 24, 2003
RAS All right.
BAC I'd be happy to so amend the motion.
JF So seconded.
RSK Motion carries 4-1, Councilman Kelly voting NO.
To clarify the motion, Councilman Crites moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No. 1044 to second reading, as amended to specify the minimum limit at 450
square feet and the maximum limit at 35% of the main unit square footage. Motion was
seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Kelly voting NO.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL AND A CITY COUNCIL REQUEST FOR
REVIEW REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN
ATTACHED SECOND UNIT AT 44-574 PORTOLA AVENUE
Case No. CUP 02-14 (Jerome M. Beauvais, Applicant)
(Douglass & Kathleen Kopp, Appellants) (Continued from the meeting of
April 10, 2003).
The following is a verbatim transcript of Public Hearing B:
Key
JMB Mayor Jean M. Benson
CLO Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager
FU Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner
HL Harry Lesseos
JF Councilman Jim Ferguson
KH Kim Housken
DJE David J. Erwin, City Attomey
RAS Mayor Pro Tempore Robert A. Spiegel
JB Jerry Beauvais
JMC Justin McCarthy, ACM for Redevelopment
DK Douglass Kopp
LG Linda Garbarini
RSK Councilman Richard S. Kelly
BAC Councilman Buford A. Crites
RDK Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
JMB Next item is Consideration of an Appeal and a City Council Request for
Review Regarding Planning Commission Approval of an Attached Second
Unit at 44-574 Portola Avenue, Case No. CUP 02-14 (Jerome M. Beauvais,
22