Loading...
11-10-1975 - Special 2 Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 10, 1975. • The adjourned regular meeting of City Council called to order at 4:30 P.M. by Mayor Ken Chappell in the City Manager's conference room. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chappell; Councilmen: Shearer, Miller, Browne, Tice Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager. George Wakefield, City Attorney Lela Preston, City Clerk Ramon Diaz, Acting Planning Director Richard Bonaparte, Special Services Officer RFVTFWOF REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE KEEPING OF HORSES: R-A Zone Mr. Diaz, Acting Planning Director referred Council to the reports they received from Staff at their meeting of October 14 and'the proposed changes underlined. Referring to the R-A Zone in particular, Item 5, Section 9203.d 5, stating this has caused some enforcement problems. Staff is proposing that the animals listed in Section 9203.d - 2 and 3 -"that those animals shall not be maintained or permitted to roam within 5' of any property line except when the animal is being placed onto or removed from the premises." Explained that anyone maintaining or keeping such animals must do so in compliance with the L.A. County Health Code and regulations. Further explained that what is attempted here is to clearly define the area in which the animals could be kept. The L.A. County Code calls for 351, the 5' from a property line is to keep horses from getting up to the property line, hanging its head over the fence or being a nuisance to the neighbor in any.manner. The County code does not call for the 5' from a property line. The County code says "maintain" which is in some cases broadly interpreted and in others it means "stabled". Staff wants to be very clear about that in West Covina and are saying horses can roam or can be rode within 5'. Right now there are no limitations as far as roaming or riding. Discussion followed an this phase; Councilman Shearer was concerned about the wording and wondered if the last sentence should say "...in addition anyone keeping .... must do so in compliance with.....". The City Attorney agreed that would make it clear that the 5' was not in addition to the 35' but could be included within the 35' which the County • requires. Councilman Shearer suggested that this change be made and Council indicated agreement. Mayor Chappell asked if this goes into effect will it apply to everyone in the City now or will there be a grandfather clause? Mr. Diaz stated there was a 6 month grandfather clause applying in both R-A and R-1 zones. CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING Page Two REVIEW OF REGULATIONS RE 11/10/75 KEEPING HORSES The Mayor pointed out that in reality this will force everyone having a horse in West Covina to build a fence 5' from their property line to contain the horse; Mr. Bonaparte said it would probably be handled on a complaint basis only - to many people they could care less • if a horse comes up to the property line but there are some that complain and in that particular case we would ask them to move it back. Councilman Shearer asked if this was going to cause the same problem previously encountered of "selective enforcement"? Discussion followed with staff explaining that the code does not require that a separate fence be put up but that the owner of the horse keep the horse 5' from the property line and this can be done by the use of a wire, electrified if needed. Councilman Shearer asked Mr. Wakefield if say mutual property owners both having horses agreed that the 5' restriction is rather silly could there be an exemption made? Mr. Wakefield stated that could be developed; Councilman Shearer felt that might solve the problem of selective enforce- ment. Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Bonaparte, Special Services Officer, if he saw any problem in.the enforcement of this? Mr. Bonaparte answered "with the change suggested to clarify it I see no problem." The Mayor asked how many people have complained --a half dozen? Mr. Bonaparte answered unfortunately that is probably true but just one complaint can cause a big problem. Council indicated they could live with the 51.inter- pretation. • Mr. Diaz stated on both R-1 and R-A staff is proposing that parcels within both zones that do not meet the above zoning standards on distances, health department codes and the 51 and whatever ratio is agreed to shall have 6 months in which to achieve compliance. One problem Mr. Bonaparte has had in enforcing compliance is that on lots that have less than an acre in R-1 and less than 209000 square feet in R-A the statement is brought up that we have had horses here since the year 1, and there is no way to prove it one way or the other and this proves that within 6 months or within a year - if Council prefers - that from this time on you have to be in compliance, and this ties in with the new ratio we are proposing. Council then discussed some of the problems of enforcement 'in the annexation of Valinda; future possible annexations discussed with reference to this proposed ordinance as compared to the present County ordinance. Staff stated this would be a little stricter than the County ordinance on paper; Mr. Diaz explained in further detail referring to particular areas. Ratio Changes: Mr. Diaz clarified the differences that exist now between the R-A and R-1 zones. The only differences, between the two zones are now in the R-A you can maintain a horse, goats, swine, • bovine animals if you have 20,000 square feet of area and can con- form to the other distance requirements. In the R-1 you can only maintain horses if you have at least one acre irregardless of how large. In the R-A the ratio is 20,000 square feet and the computation is that the number shall not exceed 3 per acre. In the R-1 you have to have a minimum of one acre and l horse per half acre and the acre is computed by staff at 439560 square feet rather than the commercial acre of 409000 square feet. What is 2 - CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING REVIEW OF REGULATIONS RE KEEPING HORSES Page Three 11/10/75 proposed here is to make both ordinances the same as far as ratio. In the R-A zone we are really not changing anything; 1 horse for each 201,000 square feet, 2 horses for 35,000 and .3 horses for each acre. On parcels of more than one acre we are recommending that an animal may be kept for each 59000 square . feet with a maximum number of 10 animals on 2 acres or more. Staff contacted Cal -Poly Horse Farm and read them these suggestions and they said "yes, these distances were good and the breakdown was proper." Mr. Diaz further explained what this does: It opens.up R-1 area - 20,000 square feet lots 2 horses. Pointed out the lots across from West Covina High School - R-A can now have horses. Mayor Chappell asked if there were any horses in there now - Mr. Diaz replied there were not. Council suggested rezoning that area to R-1 thereby solving the horse problem. Other areas in the City discussed by Council and staff. Mr. Bonaparte discussed some of the complaints received and the areas that now have horses and Would not be allowed to have horses under the proposed changes; also pointed out areas that possibly would be allowed to have horses and do not have horses now. Council indicated a great concern over opening up other areas for the keeping of horses, areas that have never had horses. Mr. Diaz said staff considered the possibility of an overlay zone possibly applied on Area Districts 3, 4 and 5. Open discussion followed by Council and staff. Sizes of lots on Vanderhoof discussed and those in other areas of the city; Councilman Tice suggested a possible permit procedure; Councilman Shearer against the permit procedure stating his reasons; City Attorney said he thought zoning for a horse by • contract or permit should not be permitted; explained some of the various problems; permit by distance is not a problem if you have two neighbors agreeing but saying you can have a horse is another thing. Mayor Chappell asked - are we getting complaints now - what caused the proposed recommendation of 209000 square feet? Mr. Diaz stated primarily two things. One, the problem of enforcement and the other was the general feeling that the areas east of the City boundaries, areas now in the County, staff thought would be in the best interests of the City to annex or at least look at for possible annexation and the current horse regulations as written now would prevent or discourage those areas from coming into the City and considering the area in general staff felt these regulations would fit. Mayor Chappell asked Mr. Wakefield: On an annexation when we all agree that they come into our City as now constituted wouldn't that allow them to continue to have horses? Mr. Wakefield: Yes, Mr. Mayor, the underlying statutory provisions of annexations is if the City has a prezoned area it comes into the City with the same limitations as exist in the unincorporated area at the time. On the other hand that is not a permanent thing at all and from the standpoint of the property owner once he gets into the City the City might then change the • requirements or change the zoning applicable to his property, so he doesn't have any real assurance that things are going to stay that way forever. Councilman Browne: Say we annex a property and the owner sells, would the new owner be under the annexation provision? - 3 - CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING Page Four REVIEW OF REGULATIONS -RE 11/10/75 KEEPING HORSES .� .Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, the zoning rights run with the property and not the indivi.- dual. Councilman Shearer: Mr. Mayor, I am not satisfied with this • aspect. I would vote again-s-t it on the basis the map is not complete, that there are sprinklings of 20,000 square foot lots throughout the City. I do recognize the problem we face. I think some provi- sion tied in with Area Districts, not the size of the individual lot, and it would have to be the majority of the lots in the area, whatever district, it should be on that basis or some variation east or wherever - there may be an overlay provisions to give the opportunity, and it may be a rare one but it is those rare cases that can cause Mr.. Bonaparte and Council pro- blems. I don't know what the answer is but I think some tie in with the area concept rather than the size along with the 5' I would be receptive to that. Councilman Tice: Mr. Mayor, I think Councilman Shearer has expressed my feelings on this. I would have to vote "no". I am inclined to think it should be set on certain areas of the City. Councilman Browne: I would go along with that also, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Miller: Mr. Mayor, the 5' provision I can visualize at this point but I am very hesitant on the square footage. If we went to some kind of an overlay or area provision I still don't like to categorize area;; in just part of the City eligible for horses and other areas are not. I don't think that is being consistent either. I am not saying that we lower the standards for the genera3.city, I think we have it proper the way it is. I am assuming.that will not rule out. the eligibility in other parts of the City if they maintain an acre. If you go Area District you are saying they will have a lower standard and the other areas in the city will have a higher standard - isn't that what you are saying? Mr. Diaz: No, what we are saying is if an indivi- dual has a 40,000 square foot lot in the R-1, say west of Citrus Avenue, since the surrounding lots are probably going to be in the 7500 and 9500 area that he should -have at least an acre before he can have a horse, but east of Citrus since generally all the lots are of 20,000 square feet and horses were already kept there, as is the case now, it would be more consistent to have the 20,000 square feet because you have 20,000 square foot lots all around you. Councilman Miller: That basically is what I was saying, but going one step further, with the ordinance you now have you ran into a problem of compliance and many people broke the law, now we are adjusting the ordinance to meet a legality, so they can be legal - and down the • road apiece - whatever the changes are it is definitely going to have to be sound, because whatever it turns out to be somebody comes in and wants. a substandard you then start the process all over again and now you are started down that road again. So I am just saying you have to be aware of that. So with that in mind at this point I will just be hesitant. - 4 - CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.RE KEEPING HORSES Page Five 11/10/75 Mayor Chappell: Well Council has said this before and we are now just saying it with a little bit of variation, but we still do not want horses all over town, we want them protected. We do know if a realtor is asked "where can I go and have horses" - that is the area they take them too. And I find no fault with that part of • it because that is basically established, but to lower the limits and then have horses cropping up all over the City - no way - I don't want a horse next door to me and I don't know but what my neighbor next door could comply with this recommendation. Councilman Shearer: Going back to the map - are all of the R-A zoned properties up there - and I know they are not - so I wonder if we should embark on this because in all of those green areas if they have 20,000 square feet they can keep a pig in the green areas. So I wonder if we shouldn't look now at rezoning those properties because as far as I am concerned I don't think pigs should be kept in the city at all, (Explained the problems with keeping pigs, goats, etc.) I think maybe we should refer this to the Planning Commission and staff - that maybe we should rezone those properties. I don't think pigs and goats are compatible in a residential community. Mr. Diaz explained that at the request of a citizen a.questionnaire was sent to twenty property owners in a specified area asking them if they would want the property rezoned from R-A to R-1 at no cost to them initiated by the City, and we had 8 returns. Five of them said "no", three said "yes" and of the three one was the citizen requesting it. From the • standpoint of staff there is no dispute we would recommend re- zoning all the R-A properties in that area to R-1 but the people currently sitting on those R-A properties would object to it. From the planning standpoint it is really the best way to go. Councilman Shearer asked Mr. Wakefield can we tie the zoning change into a change of hands on the pro- perty? Mr. Wakefield: I don't see how you would do that really. I have always believed, and not all public attorneys agree with me, that the right to keep animals in a particular zone was sort of like an incidental use to the primary use of a property for residential purposes and you didn't acquire any so called vested rights to residential uses that were subject to being changed by the appropriate change of the ordinances and if you prohibit a certain incidental use in a R-1 zone it seems to me that what you end up with is saying to those people that have goats or swine at the time that in effect you have a nonconforming use right, you have the right to maintain what you have. And then you get into a problem of what limits there are to that use, is it a perpetual one of nonconforming use or can it be limited to the sale of property. And again, I am not at all sure that you can by zoning controls make the right contingent upon who owns the property. I think you have to decide whether it is an • appropriate thing or it isn't. Councilman Shearer: Could we make it then on the basis of a continuing use? (Explained) If in the sale of property someone didn't want to keep sheep or whatever, then it would stop? - 5 - CITY COUNCIL ADJ. MEETING REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.RE KEEPING HORSES Page Six 11/10/75 Fir. Wakefield: That essentially is what we have in our nonconforming use provisions at the present time. If the nonconforming use is discontinued for a period of 6 months.then the right is lost, someone else can't come back and reactivate the use. We do have • a precedent on that. If you treat it as a nonconforming use then the present provisions governing nonconforming uses would say if discontinued for 6 months then it -is lost. (Referred back to the Merced Horse Ranch problem.) Really I think if you wanted to spell it out I would do it in a separate provision rather than rely on the general nonconforming use provisions. If the main- tenance of sheep, goats or swine was discontinued for 6 months then the right would be lost. (Council agreed, saying this was one of their big concerns.) Mr. Diaz: Mr. Mayor,.what I would like to do - we now have concurrence on two items - is go back and rework this ordinance, get the information Council asked for with regard to the map, showing the number of lots and sizes, starting with east of Citrus and get these proposed ordinances back to you in the form of a staff report and if okay then set that ordinance for hearing before the Planning Commission and if not then get your feedback on it rather than going direct to the Planning Commission and then getting your feedback on it. (Council agreed) Motion by Councilman Shearer to direct staff at its convenience to investigate the subject of the R-A Zones in the City with the intent to rezone to R-l; seconded by Councilman Browne and carried. • (Mr. Bonaparte asked if Council wanted to see the R-A lots that are big enough now to have animals on and Council said they would like to have that information also.) • ADJOURNMENT Mayor Chappell adjourned the meeting at 5:45 P.M. to Council meeting at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. - 6 -