3A Public Hearing 2012 0221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of .fanuary 19, 2012 Page 2 (?f'6 reasonable standards, noting that those already in the code have been reflected in San Leandro's regulations since the 1980s and staff wasn't looking to change them but only to simplify the process. Commissioner Rennie asked for confirmation that with the change, a simpler, over -the- counter process would kick in for providers who don't quite meet the criteria specified rather than the CUP /public hearing process. Senior Planner Barros said that his understanding was correct, but administrative exceptions aren't handled over -the- counter. Notice would still go to immediate neighbors, the ZEO would make the decision, and letters would go to neighbors to inform them so they could comment or object. Any ZEO decision, whether administrative or not, may be appealed to the BZA, and from that level, to the City Council. In response to a further question from Commissioner Rennie, Senior Planner Barros said that she isn't aware of any recent appeals of any ZEO decisions or CUPs in terms of Large Family Day Care operations. Chair Collier said that the notice area should encompass neighbors within 300 feet of a Large Family Day Care operation, and not be confined to the immediate neighbors. In the instance she has in mind, she said that there are only two adjacent neighbors, because the lot backs up against the creek, and the annoyance comes from the unsupervised, misbehaving children walking by other neighbors' homes going to and from school. Senior Planner Barros said that the proposal would require additional text to expand the notice area, but, she pointed out, the immediate neighbors would include three across the street from the subject address, one on either side, and three behind. Commissioner Dlugosh asked about the increased cost to the applicant if the notice area were to be expanded. Senior Planner Barros said that the current pricing is based on notifying the adjacent neighbors and the fee schedule might have to change for this particular type of administrative exception to ensure cost recovery for an expanded radius. 2) Accessory Structures (in RS, RD and RM Districts): Senior Planner Barros said she's added a maximum area dimension to the language about lot coverage for accessory structures, and distilled the language related to the maximum height and minimum setbacks into an easier -to- follow table that clarifies the text and eliminates inconsistencies regarding the height and location parameters for setbacks. She said that in response to a BZA member who was particularly concerned about smaller accessory structures requiring no setback, she changed the proposed language to specify that only accessory structures up to eight feet in height and not requiring a building permit under the San Leandro Building Code would qualify for no setback. At this point, she said, accessory structures of less than 120 square feet do not require a building permit, but she didn't want to indicate a specific size in case the Building Code changes. As Senior Planner Barros explained, the proposal also includes additional language that allows residential garages to be less than five feet from the property line. She explained that in many cases property owners who have no setbacks on their existing garages, primarily in the North Area, come to the permit counter because they want to replace their garage and move it back somewhat. Because the current Zoning Code requires a five -foot setback; it forces them to shift the driveway over, creating more impervious surface in the rear yard, and to lose yard space as well. This change would give those homeowners more flexibility, she said. Additionally, in response to a BZA member comment, she revised the proposed text to enable sending requests for exceptions to the BZA for a CUP in cases where the ZEO considers a project beyond the scope of the administrative exception process.