Loading...
PC - Minutes - 04-06-15Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 6, 2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Tang INVOCATION - Chair Eng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT— City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Planner Berri and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Greg Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02 AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES - Municipal Code Amendment 15.02 consists of a City initiated amendment to revise Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing regulations for nonconforming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment proposes to establish new development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that were approved by a discretionary entitlement. It also requires a Minor Exception application process for the addition of conforming structures on R-1 and R-2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential structures. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the City's continuing improvement by limiting the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be used, expanded, or replaced, while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without creating an economic hardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly, Municipal Code Amendment 15.02 proposes to eliminate the Zoning term and definition of "bachelor apartment" form Chapter 17.04.050, as it is outdated and the definition is no longer accepted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: • Return to the Planning Commission at a date certain with a resolution recommending the City Council approve these changes; • Modify the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date certain for further discussion and deliberation; • Continue to work on the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date uncertain; or • Such other direction as the Commission finds appropriate. City Planner Bermejo presented staff report and a power point presentation. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this request came about because staff has received a number of requests from applicants, whereas, the size of their properties would allow two (2) units on the site, but because they have one unit that is legal nonconforming, they cannot add the second unit. She added staff did research with surrounding cities to find out what they are doing and unfortunately there is no norm on how any City is handling this, so staff determined what would be best for our City. She explained that any addition would have meet today's code. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked if a home was built in 1951 and you moved into the City in 1976, where would those records be found to make sure it was built to code. Community Development Director Ramirez replied you would go to the Building Division to access those records. Commissioner Lopez asked if the City would have records of homes built in 1951. Community Development Director Ramirez replied if not, then they would have to go to the County to obtain those records. Commissioner Lopez asked if the County does not have any records on the property, then what would happen in that scenario. Community Development Director Ramirez stated either the City or the County of Los Angeles should have some type of records. Commissioner Lopez asked if this will hamper residents that have older homes that have not been rebuilt in the last twenty-five (25) years. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, typically they are able to find the records. She added they just may not be able to find the records for all the additions because they may have not been done legally. Commissioner Herrera asked if this will apply to the set -backs and everything else. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, it applies to the new home. Commissioner Lopez asked if the second home will have a size limit. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is based on the FAR of the whole lot. Commissioner Tang asked if the Zoning term of "bachelor apartment" is eliminated, will there be a replacement term for it or has it been updated. City Planner Berri replied no, and explained that the term Is outdated and the term "studio" is used now, which is what is used in the City's Zoning Code. She explained the reason they are eliminating it is because it talks about the relationship of individuals to a unit. Commissioner Herrera referred to a covenant in the title and that it be rented to a family member, and asked if it would be considered a duplex at this time. City Planner Bermejo explained for example it you had a lot In the R-1 zone, the R-1 density is that you get a single- family home for each 6,000 square feet of lot area. She stated there are some lot areas that are out there that have 12,000 square feet, so they could potentially come in and put in two (2) full fledge dwelling units and put two (2) single-family homes on them. Community Development Director Ramirez staled they can be rentals. Commissioner Tang asked but they cannot be subdivided into a flag lot. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct. Commissioner Tang asked regardless if it is a flag lot or not. Community Development Director Ramirez replied a flag lot would not meet the requirements. Chair Eng stated Commissioner Tang's question was if the lot is large enough to be subdivided can they still do it. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, this is not a subdivision, this is two (2) units on one lot and it would remain that way. Chair Eng asked if the number of units permitted on a lot is based on zoning, so if it is an R-1, it is one unit with a granny unit by statue. City Planner Bermejo replied typically that is how most cities regulate zoning R-1, but Rosemead allows more than one (1) on an R-1 lot and will have to meet the lot area requirement. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the granny unit that Chair Eng has referred to is the "second dwelling unit" and that is different from what is being discussed this evening. Chair Eng asked if a property owner would like to build an additional second dwelling on their property, it will not be permitted because of the City's existing Zoning Code, due to the legal nonconforming situation of the lot. City Planner Bermejo replied due to structures on their lot or use. Chair Eng stated if the Amendment is approved and this moves forward, which will allow the addition for lots that are large enough to accommodate the second unit, and the applicant will be able to go through a Minor Exception process to apply for that. She asked if that will change because under the General Plan there are a certain number of units per acre. City Planner Bermejo explained if there is a lot that is vacant today that is R-1 and has 12,000 square feet you can put two (2) units on it. She added what is triggering the Code Amendment is that there is a provision in the Zoning Code that states, as long as you have a legal nonconforming building, use, or structure on a lot, you can essentially maintain it, you can go through a Minor Exception process to add to those legal nonconforming structures, but you cannot put on a new structure even if it is conforming there is that provision that limits it. Chair Eng stated so the City is trying to remove that obstacle. City Planner Bermejo stated if the Planning Commission desires to remove that obstacle for property owners in the R-1 and R-2 zones and it is only affecting those two (2) zones, planning staff has worked with the legal nonconforming ordinance to adjust it to allow that process. She explained the way they did that is to create the Minor Exception application process and tied to that the property owner submits an application, they have to verify that they have contacted their neighboring neighbors, and there is a list of code requirements to verify, add conditions to improve the buildings on site so they are architecturally pleasing, and there are standards that are put there to remove any type of hazards. Chair Eng asked if the Minor Exception process is at staff level approval. City Planner Bermejo replied that the application is noticed to the adjacent property owners and goes to the Community Development Director, she has the ability to have it addressed at the Planning Commission level; if this happens the Planning Commission may have approve it or have the City Council address it if necessary. She added that is the process for all applications not just the Minor Exception applications. Community Development Director Ramirez stated to answer Chair Eng's question it is approved by hear at a staff level. Commissioner Tang asked it the condition "to improve the existing structure architecturally pleasing' is a condition that is required if you build the second unit or is that the discretion of the Community Development Director. City Planner Bermejo replied there are a lot of other Zoning Code standards in general in R-1 and when you add structures then all the other buildings are addressed. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff would not make them bring it into conformity if that is Commissioner Tang's question. It is still a legal nonconforming structure and it would stay that way. Commissioner Tang asked if it is a 1950's home that is existing on the lot and they want to build a second unit that will look brand new, but is not in harmony, would the City make them look similar. Community Development Director Ramirez replied structurally they would not make them do anything, but they could be required to paint and/or landscape if it needed. City Attorney Murphy stated when the Minor Exception process started it was initially because of side yard set -backs and a few other issues, but primarily set -backs. He stated the way the City Ordinance reads with legal nonconforming structures you could not really upgrade or update a home, make it modern, add a family room, add a second story, if the house was into the current set -back. He continued that some of the current set -backs for some properties are pretty wide and there was also some buildings done under the County where they allowed houses to be very close to lot lines, so staff had been bringing a number of items to the Planning Commission for Variances. He stated legal got to a point where they had to tell staff they could no longer support Variances because one of the requirements for a Variance is that it is a unique circumstance. He stated they found so many circumstances In so many residential properties that they said we can't go to the Planning Commission and say this is unique; we have to find a different path. He stated staff created the Minor Exception process modeled on things they were able to find in other cities and apply the Minor Exception process to certain building standards and property development standards that the time the ordinance went into effect, were the ones that seemed to be more affected by the update of the code. He stated side yard set -backs, single -story homes of unusual height, and set -backs in the back yard where the garages are up against property lines are the reasons and now we are seeing a different type of issue. He stated the new issue is where the existing unit is out of conformity and staff has not taken a position one way or another on this. He stated when staff brought the original ordinance to the Planning Commission they brought this as a recommendation that this be adopted as part of the major Zoning Code overhaul, this Is brought to the Planning Commission as a policy decision. He explained as a Commission do they want to recommend to the City Council that the Minor Exception process be expanded based on another kind of development constraint or do they not want to make that recommendation. He added so do you want to say no you can't add a second unit because it is the policy of the City that we need to start bringing everything into conformity or do you want to say this is something there should bean exception for because even though on a wide space basis we don't want to allow too much overbuilding until you come into conformity, this is the type of situation you want to add to that overall perception. He stated this is his advice and there is nothing legal to this item, it is simply a policy decision. Chair Eng thanked City Attorney Murphy. Commissioner Lopez asked if the City of Rosemead has a lot of properties that can do this. City Planner Berri replied staff has not done that research. Commissioner Lopez stated that he is concerned with the impacts of allowing properties being built on properties, such as; overcrowding of people, too many cars per household, not enough parking, the streets being crowded and how this will effect the City of Rosemead in fifteen (15) years from now. He referred to previous discussions of mixed-use projects by the Planning Commission and how they will impact the City. He added the Planning Commission needs to think about the community and how big do they really want it to get. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Planning Commission and stated that is why staff is not taking a position on this issue. She explained that this is not good planning doing it this way. She asked if this was resident friendly and stated yes. She stated the Planning Commission had brought up some good points and they are points staff has discussed. She stated staff receives calls for this requests, how many are out there, staff does not know. City Attorney Murphy stated one of the other things that happens is that it might not always be an entirely new second residence; it could be an accessory structure such as a pool house or anything else that would be required under the code to get permits as an accessory structure. He stated so under the code as strictly interpreted, no other accessory structure can be added to the properly. Chair Eng stated she appreciates Commissioner Tang's and Commissioner Lopez's point of views and need to be addressed. She asked staff if the calls that they are receiving are for new homes or are they request for pool house, laundry room, enclosed patios, or something else. City Planner Bermejo replied the majority of request is for new units because there is already a process in place to add onto an existing structure. Chair Eng stated what is needed is an inventory of how many legal nonconformity residential homes there are in Rosemead. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff would have to survey every single residential home in Rosemead. Chair Eng stated if that has to be done, then that is what will have to be done, and it may take some time. She recommended that this be thought out a little longer because more intense commercial developments are coming in and that has to be taken into consideration. She stated we know there are issues with traffic, circulation, and the City needs to plan, so it can grow smart in a way so the community can interact without stepping on each other. She added we also do not want to deprive property owners of their right to use their properties, especially if the residents contact the City to apply and do it in the proper way. She stated if the City has a process that is too frustrating, then residents start doing things without coming to the City and that creates more problems. She added the City has a lot of challenges on hand and the City of Rosemead is not a big city. Commissioner Lopez commented that he moved to the City of Rosemead in 1976 and there were still horses on properties. He stated this was a ranch style community and properties were averaging 5,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet all over the city. He stated when mansions started to get built property owners started selling their properties at high prices, so two or three properties could be built. He stated this is alright and is something that needs to be done for the City but he is concerned it will be overdone. He added he has watched the City grow, has seen a lot of these changes, approved a lot of these projects, and because the community is getting larger he sees the obstacles. Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with Commissioner Lopez in terms of too much development in a small neighborhood but regardless if the house is already in conformance and if they have a lot that is at least 12,000 square feet he asked staff it they can build their second unit. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained it you took the nonconformity part out and the unit was legal they would be able to do this. She added all that is being addressed this evening is if the unit is legal nonconforming would the Planning Commission want to allow a residential second unit. Chair Eng asked if the reason for nonconformity is usually because of setbacks and parking. City Attorney Murphy replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated since there is not an inventory, whether it be 10 homes or 100 homes, the City needs to set the policy whether or not to allow those legal nonconforming lots to develop a second unit or do they want the properties to be brought up to code. Chair Eng asked a question for a resident, "Will this amendment force property owners to tear down nonconforming structures that have been grandfathered in as a result of zoning change," and she said she thinks the answer is no. City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct. Chair Eng asked if an owner with a legal nonconforming property wanted to add a laundry room, will the property owner be able to do this through the Minor Exception process. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Chair Eng asked if the approval will be at staff level unless the Community Development Director feels it needs to be escalated. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Chair Eng asked what the effect of 17.72.040 "Exhibit B" is referring to legal nonconforming structures. City Planner Bermejo replied that section still contains that first section for the Minor Exception to add on any structure that is legal nonconforming due to setbacks, it goes through the repairs and maintenance provision, which are existing, and types of maintenance work that can be completed. Chair Eng asked if the addition permitted under Section 17.72.070 is the Minor Exception. City Planner Bermejo replied yes, those would be for the residential exceptions. She added "Section A" discusses where an existing single family or duplex dwelling with nonconforming. Chair Eng read Section "A3" and asked if that is the most current permitted improvement City Planner Bermejo replied yes, and explained Ordinance 851 took place when the City did the Mansionization Ordinance and what it did was change the setback requirements. She explained "A" is saying if it is solely nonconforming based on side -yard setback the property owner can do an addition without going through a Minor Exception provided that the addition does not exceed fifty percent (50%). She added if the property owner wants to do more than that, then they have to go through the Minor Exception process. Chair Eng asked it Ordinance 851 is for Mansion ization and when did it go into effect. City Planner Bermejo replied yes and it took place in 2006/2007. Chair Eng referred to "Exhibit B" 17.72.020 C. "subject to the satisfaction of the Building Official" and asked if the Building Official has guidelines or criteria he needs to do this or is it arbitrary. City Planner Bermejo replied the Building Official does this on a daily basis and the City has a handout called "Building Permit History". She stated it provides information on where to go for your permits if your building was built before 1933 through 1954 and It is the City's Building Official that can make the interpretation of those permits. Chair Eng referred to "Exhibit B"17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses (E (1) A and B) and asked what impacts that would have on R-1 and R-2 zones. City Planner Bermejo replied E (1) A and B is simply Nonresidential Zones and E 2, Residential Garages, that would take place where you have an existing garage today that doesn't meet interior dimensions. She explained that the City of Rosemead's Zoning Code requires interior dimensions of 20 x 20 and LA County standards were less than that (18 x 18) but still it's a two -car garage. She added they run those building permits through the Building Official and he says yes, that is correct according to current impasse codes and staff does not require the property owner to increase the size of their garage If they want to do an addition to their home. She stated they consider that garage an existing garage that fulfills the requirement to do what they want to do, as soon as they require more parking, then they have to come into compliance. Chair Eng referred to F2 and asked what the intent is on that one. City Planner Bermejo explained that it is just reiterating that when there is not a type of discretionary permit approval. She read F2 and used a church as an example to explain if it was approved prior to the City's incorporation, then the City would allow that church to continue prior to its original standards, but it is not allowed to expand. If the church is permitted in that zone and they wanted to expand, then they would come to the City to request a permit and that permit would be a Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Murphy explained if a restaurant was approved with a Conditional Use Permit for certain hours of operation and has not been going to the limit of those hours, because they have that permit in place, they could expand their use and intensity it up to the limits previously granted. Where if it was a restaurant where it had been allowed by right and now is legal nonconforming, they are constrained by the extent of what they have been doing. He added if they had been operating from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm, then they are stuck and they could not go from 6:00 am to midnight. Whereas the restaurant with the Conditional Use Permit expressly authorized them to operate from 6:00 am to midnight could make that change because they have a permit that allows them to. He stated that is generally consistent with good legal requirements. Chair Eng asked if 17.72.050 and 17.72.060 were just being renumbered and moved to the front City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Chair Eng referred to 17.72.090 Amortization and asked if there are criteria in place currently for the City to do this or is it reviewed by case by case. City Planner Bermejo replied the City does not have any current standards for Amortization Ordinance and explained the standards were removed in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update because they were unevenly treated and the City could no longer enforce them. Chair Eng stated so it gave the City Council a blanket authority to pursuit an Amortization policy and there are no standards. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin expressed that he is not sure making it easier for everybody to add more residences is necessarily a good idea. He stated he understands for those properties that have conforming structures and have a parcel large enough they can legally do it by right and he does not have an issue with that. He recommended that what needs to be considered is that you can to some extent control some growth in the residential sector and the City will be intensifying growth elsewhere. He stated hopefully the City can mitigate some of that within R-1 and R-2 to the extent that it reasonably can. He stated retaining the existing conditions for existing residential conditions would be a good idea because it would force any new additions to bring the whole property into compliance and the City would not be depriving them from their property rights. He referred to the Negative Declaration and asked if there are potentially having a considerably number of new residences added where they could not currently be added, if that would constitute a No -Impact Declaration. He suggested in terms in reigning in growth is to consider doing this just for accessory structures but not be able to add a new house and if they want to do that you would remove or omit that from this proposed ordinance. He recommended allowing a new house that they would have to bring everything into compliance. He stated if the ordinance is going to be kept as it is, he referred to 17.72.030 E (1) A and (2) A, Exhibit B and read a portion and recommended adding "any unsafe conditions and/or other incidences of noncompliance with Rosemead Municipal Code determined to exist by the Community Development Director." He stated those two provisions will force the property owner to address any other issues that happen to exist within that property. He recommended this be added to address noncompliance and if they do not, then it will be addressed by Code Enforcement. He referred to 17.72.030 E (2) B, the third line down, "any single-family detached dwelling which is nonconforming due to,' and stated due to what, and requested a clarification. He suggested a provision number 4, be added to that section stating, "The site is otherwise in full compliance with Rosemead Municipal Code:' For the same reason he suggested the previous modification above. He referred to 17.72.070, Residential Exceptions A (3) and recommended adding a baseline or clarifying the baseline so they cannot exceed over the fifty (50) percent continually. He referred to B (1) and recommended putting something in about eliminating noncompliance. He stated that all of this is to make sure that if the City is going to give the property owners the ability to do this, then the City should make sure before they get started that they have fixed everything else that may or not be a safety hazard. He stated he would like the Planning Commission to consider omitting "Housing" from this as a way of ensuring that the increase in density that we do have is in full conformance with the current Municipal Code. Resident James Berry stated that some of these existing nonconforming structures or some that have been remodeled may have safety concerns. He referred to parking regulations and asked if it is required to have a garage and what are the required standards. Chair Eng replied yes, and explained there are garage standards and it is according to the number of bedrooms. She added the standard is a two (2) car garage for up to four (4) bedrooms and anything above (4) bedrooms will require a three (3) car garage. Resident Berry stated he supports the change of the new regulations to change the structures. Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She requested that the Planning Commission discuss the options that are being presented and give staff guidance on what may be needed. She asked staff to explain the options that are being presented. City Planner Bermejo read the following options: • Return to the Planning Commission at a date certain with a resolution recommending the City Council approve these changes; • Modify the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date certain for further discussion and deliberation; • Continue to work on the proposed changes and return to the Planning Commission at a date uncertain; or • Such other direction as the Commission finds appropriate. Chair Eng stated Resident Brian Lewin brought up a few good points, but she does not agree with him on restricting growth on residential properties. She added that will keep property owners in R-1 and R-2 zones hostage because the City will not let them improve their lots because of these higher mixed-use buildings coming in and stated that it is not fair. She added what she does agree with Brian Lewin on is that if someone wants to take the time and investment to build onto a lot that is allowed they should bring it into conformance. She stated that is important and is something she is willing to support. Commissioner Lopez slated staff is doing a great job and by bringing this item to the Planning Commission is trying to do a better job. He added that he supports this item, recommended that a few modifications/adjustments be made, and brought back to the Planning Commission at a later date. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff did not discuss making any changes and was not given any guidance on what changes the Planning Commission would like to see. She stated it was her understanding according to Chair Eng to leave the code as is and that there would not be any changes. She addressed Commissioner Lopez and stated it sounds like he is in favor of the code according to changes made, but she is not clear on what changes and what direction of the Planning Commission would want. Commissioner Lopez stated as long as staff can tell the Planning Commission that everything they look at and the decisions they make is for the community to make sure it is right, then he will support it. Community Development Director Ramirez slated once this code goes into place the City would follow this code and we are not looking at the reasoning on why they are doing this and everyone will have to be treated the same, thereby if the code says they can do it regardless if it is a rental or owner -occupied, they would be allowed to do it. She stated it is just a matter if the Planning Commission wants to continue to have the matter of nonconformity to exist and allow the second unit or accessory structure to be built. Chair Eng asked for clarification of the current code and what the property owner is required to do Community Development Director Ramirez explained the code that is in place currently states if the property owner has a legal nonconforming unit or structure on site and they wanted to build a second unit, then they would have to bring everything into conformity to today's standards. She stated the way the new code is written is allowing them to keep that nonconformity and add the second structure or accessory unit. Chair Eng stated if the City is going to give property owners the ability to make improvements to the lot, she recommends that the property owner should bring everything into conformity to today's current standards. She added that it will benefit the property owner, bring property value up, and it will be the property owners decision or consideration if the expense is worth it. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that this new code, in no way, would make that site legal conforming; it would still remain nonconforming because they have a nonconforming structure or use. Chair Eng asked if the property owner wanted to expand or make the additional unit, can the Planning Commission request that staff go back to the Amendment to require that if they have the ability to build a second structure they would have to bring the other nonconformity structures to current standards. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that is how the Code is written now and changes would not have to be made. She stated the recommendation would be, "not to recommend approval of this ordinance". She added if it is the will of the Planning Commission, then staff would bring back an ordinance to the next Planning Commission meeting stating that the Planning Commission is recommending denial of this ordinance to the City Council and that is how it will be presented to the City Council. Chair Eng asked if another Public Hearing process will be made when this is presented to the City Council to give the public the opportunity to comment. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with Chair Eng and Resident Brian Lewin that if a property owner wants to add a second unit they should be willing to bring the existing nonconforming home to the current code. He stated this will create uniformity and value in the City. He commented that if this amendment is allowed to go through, then it would take a while before that uniformity can be created. City Attorney Murphy referred to accessory structures and asked if the primary residence is in the setback area and the owner wants to tear down and build a new garage or some other type of accessory structure is that something that the Planning Commission is in favor of allowing through the Minor Exception process. He explained the current Minor Exception process allows an upgrade to residence itself as long as the new addition does not go into the setback. He asked if the Planning Commission would be willing to have other structures on the property be upgraded, changed, or added as long as they were in conformity and is it the will of the Planning Commission that the entire addition of the residences and other structures of the property not be allowed. Community Development Director Ramirez added staff has not received any of those request. She stated that the request has been for single-family homes. Chair Eng asked if this is primarily for R-1 and R-2 zones. Community Development Director Ramirez and City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Chair Eng asked does the property owner, under the current code, who wants to build an accessory structure have to build it to today's standards and codes. 10 City Planner Berri replied the building code currently exempts any type of accessory structure below 120 square feet, so as policy, Planning staff guides the property owner on placement, but they will get a 120 freebie, and go to the Building & Safety Department for their permits. Chair Eng asked if that is a patio. City Planner Bermejo replied it is like storage shed. Commissioner Tang recommended that if this is done it should be across the board, because it you allow it for accessory structures it can open this to possible code violations and illegal conversions. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Commissioner Tang has brought up a good point and that would be the one question staff would be asked by the public on why the City allows accessory but not a single- family unit. Chair Eng asked so currently property owners of R-1 and R-2 lots who have a large enough lot to accommodate a second unit cannot do anything unless they are willing to bring the lot to conformity and today's standards. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, to today's code, except for the Minor Exception where if they wanted to add on, they would be allowed to do that. Commissioner Tang asked if the Minor Exception would still be allowed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, that is already in the code and will remain. Chair Eng asked if this Amendment is forcing property owners of illegal nonconforming structure to have to take it down and demolish it. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no this code will allow them to keep it. Chair Eng stated she would like for property owners to be able to utilize their property, get the most value for it, and be able to upgrade. She added at the same time, she thinks it's important for safety reasons because there are a lot of permit issues on properties within the City and we need to find a way to fix them. She stated in the long term it's for the good of the community as well as the property owner. She stated she does not want to deprive the property owner to build or add if they have the ability and space, but at the same time the City needs some type of insurance that will help the Planning Commission upgrade the City. She stated the property owner currently has the ability to build and add as long as they are willing to bring the site to the current code. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion tonight would be to direct staff on what the Planning Commission would like staff to come back with. He stated it would not be the first option which is a resolution recommending changes to City Council. He stated it sounds like the Planning Commission would like a resolution recommending that these changes not be made and that staff work with what has been said on the record tonight to make the proper findings to support that. Chair Eng stated she would like to ask staff if they can give the Planning Commission a little more time to work on it, and to see if there is a way to help property owners, in terms of having the ability and for those that have the lot, to improve on it in a fair and equitable way. Commissioner Tang asked if there could be an incentive offered to those homeowners if they want to build that second home unit to update their nonconforming unit. He asked staff is there are any tools within the City that would make that possible. Community Development Director Ramirez replied typically you either allow it or you don't allow it, staff has taken about five (5) months in researching other cities and in writing this ordinance and this is what staff has been able to come up with. She explained something needs to be done that is considered fair across the board, where the City is not giving one person an unfair advantage that someone else could not take advantage of. She added a lot of time went into this, a lot of research, a lot of writing and rewriting, a lot of help from the City Attorney, and as a result of everything, this is what staff thinks is the best that they can do. Chair Eng referred to the staff report and that it states the neighboring cities do not have anything similar to this and asked how the neighboring cities address something like this. City Planner Bermejo stated staff has a survey and some cities are very restrictive and some are not and gave a brief summary of survey results. She stated Rosemead is unique in allowing R-1 Zoning Districts to build additional units where other cities do not and is very resident friendly. Community Development Director Ramirez reiterated that most of the surrounding cities do not allow two units in a R- 1 zoning district and Rosemead is very unique in this situation. Chair Eng stated so currently R-1 zoning can build two units, they just have to bring it up to today's standards. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Lopez recommended it be lett the same way and if a property owner would like to build an additional unit, then the other unit should be brought up to today's standards. Chair Eng thanked staff for all their hard work. City Attorney Murphy asked what date staff would like to set to bring this item back to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez stated after discussion it should be brought back to the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, May 18, 2015. City Attorney Murphy asked if it is the will of the Planning Commission for changes not related to the R-1 and Minor Exception process, (changes in regards to parking, establishment of legal nonconforming status, the bachelor apartment definition) to move forward but the other changes do move forward, or would you like to see the entire ordinance not move forward. He would like to make sure they get what they want as they move forward to the May 18, 2015 meeting. Chair Eng stated she would like to see that any of the changes that were made to clarity, to eliminate outdated information, or to make the process easier, that those changes be kept. She added in terms of the second home she would like to see that the second unit not be built unless the property owner is willing to bring the legal nonconforming home up to today's standards and to leave it as it is. City Attorney Murphy requested a motion and a second to bring forward a resolution based upon the Planning Commission's discussion and direction to the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. 12 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to bring forward a resolution based upon the Planning Commission's discussion and direction this evening to the May 18, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated this item passes and explained that there is not an appeal process because this item will be brought back to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. 4. CONSENTCALENDAR A. Minutes of March 16, 2015 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: Herrera Absent: None S. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date, time, and locations of the Young Americans and Relay for Life events. Chair Eng encouraged everyone to attend they Young Americans production as it is very entertaining and to also participate In the Relay for Life, which is a great cause. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Chair Eng thanked staff for having the graffiti on Walnut Grove removed so quickly. She thanked City Planner Bermejo and staff for their hard work. 13 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. The nett regular Planning Commission meeting will beheld on Monday, April 20, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. Il Nancy Eng Chair A EST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 14