My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2012 0221
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
Packet 2012 0221
>
3A Public Hearing 2012 0221
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2012 3:27:13 PM
Creation date
2/15/2012 5:44:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
2/21/2012
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2012 0221 CD+RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2012\Packet 2012 0221
10A Action 2012 0305
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2012\Packet 2012 0305
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B: Excerpt of the Minutes of the Board of Zoning <br />Adjustments meeting of January 5, 2012 <br />Item 8A: Miscellaneous <br />A. Consideration of Amendments to the City of San Leandro Zoning Code related to <br />Large Family Day Care, Accessory Structures, Fences in the Residential Single - <br />Family View Preservation Overlay District, and Paving in Residential Front Yards in <br />Residential Districts. ( Barros) <br />Senior Planner Barros explained that the subject items have been on the list of Zoning <br />Code cleanup items for some time, and she's tried to group together items that have <br />something in common — in this case, residential districts. Proposed amendments involve <br />four items: <br />1) Large Family Daycare State regulations allow residentially based providers who <br />care for up to six children to be permitted by right without further regulation by local <br />jurisdictions. With facilities that serve from seven to 14 children, cities can exercise <br />discretionary approvals and impose regulations and assess impacts of the operation on <br />the neighborhood. Senior Planner Barros said situations have arisen in which a daycare <br />operator's home didn't have sufficient frontage to provide the 32 -foot minimum <br />requirement (basically to accommodate two vehicles) for on- street parking. <br />The proposal is to use an administrative review by the Zoning Enforcement Official for <br />providers who don't meet the criteria rather than imposing the burdensome process of <br />applying for a CUP. As with CUPs, Senior Planner Barros explained, the Administrative <br />Exception process enables the City to impose conditions of approval. <br />2) Accessory Structures Senior Planner Barros said she's distilled the language <br />related to the maximum height and minimum setbacks for accessory structures (in RS, <br />RD and RM Districts) into an easier -to- follow table that also clarifies language that <br />seemed inconsistent and that strikes out language that was contradictory between the <br />height and location parameters for setbacks. <br />Maximum Height <br />Minimum Setback <br />Up to 8 feet <br />zero <br />8+ feet to 12 feet <br />3 feet <br />12+ feet to 15 <br />feet <br />5 feet <br />Chair Daly asked whether his understanding is correct that accessory structures built <br />on the property line cannot exceed 120 square feet. Senior Planner Barros explained <br />that current code allows structures of less than 120 square feet in area and less than <br />eight feet in height to be closer to the property line than 5 feet. However, in the rear 25 <br />feet of a lot, an accessory structure exceeding 120 square feet (10x20 feet) can be up <br />to three feet from the property line. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.