3A Public Hearing 2013 0520 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner Rennie asked what the residential signage allotment is. Planner Barros said it’s a total of 25 square feet for nonresidential uses in residential zoning. Chair Collier said signage for home occupation is not allowed. Planner Barros explained that this isn’t a pure home occupation situation, which is why the staff is proposing a whole new section for CFOs in the Zoning Code. She said that Planning staff conferred about this, and at first borrowed signage restrictions from the home occupation rules before realizing that state law does not give us the authority to do that. A local agency is able to regulate only “spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control relating to those homes.” Commissioner Rennie said that according to the law, he thinks the CFOs are ancillary residential uses. Ms. Faught said he might be correct, but she didn’t recall seeing that. In the past, Planner Barros said, signage requirements in residential districts have been linked to non-residential uses in those districts, such as churches and day care operations. Commissioner Rennie read from a list in the HSC (Government Code Section 51035) that local jurisdictions can “classify a CFO as a permitted use of residential property” and “CFOs shall be considered residences for the purposes of the State Uniform Building Standards Code and local building and fire codes.” After a brief recess, Commissioner Hernandez requested a summary of the Planning Commission’s recommendations. Commissioner Rennie summarized again the changes he proposed (see above). Commissioner Leichner pointed out that Regulation C-7 includes the term “home occupation,” which he suggested should be changed to “CFO.” Planner Barros thanked him for catching that. Planner Barros said that staff would be taking the proposed Zoning Code amendments to the City Council (scheduled for the May 20, 2013 agenda), and the Planning Commission recommendations will be included along with BZA comments. While the BZA is not the recommending body, Planner Barros said, the BZA comments also will be relayed to the Council, because BZA members have substantial “on the ground” knowledge about uses, and most of the items they hear relate directly to zoning matters, CUPs, design reviews, etc. They hear often from residents in single-family neighborhoods about proposals for additions and other uses that affect them. She said that some of the BZA members favored spacing CFOs considerably more than 300 feet apart, even as much as 500 feet. Commissioner Rennie said that 300 feet for noticing purposes doesn’t seem to be a good basis for regulating a use. The use would be more appropriately regulated on the basis of its impact. He said that the Large Family Day Care operations have a lot of people showing up all at once to drop children off and pick them up, a burst of impact twice a day in terms of traffic. With the CFOs, he said, the situation is different, with people coming and going throughout the course of the day, but we don’t know what to expect that traffic impact to be. Even so, he said by the very nature of the operation, the comparison to Large Family Day Care isn’t appropriate. He said he is open to hearing a rationale for the 300-foot spacing requirement, but hasn’t heard one yet. In response to Chair Collier, Planner Barros affirmed that she’s talking about 300 linear feet, covering both sides of the street along the front of the property, rather than a 300 -foot radius around the property. Chair Collier noted that would be six lots. Commissioner Rennie said he favors 150 feet. Commissioner Hernandez asked whether the spacing issue could be decided on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Faught said the Zoning Code could omit spacing requirements altogether or use any number for which a rational basis could be established.