The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/05/1994, 2 - TA 108-93: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS TO SIMPLIFY PROCESSING, ADD AND CHANGE DEFENITIONS, CLARIFY WORDING AND FORMAT, AND MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Illu^I I��II�III��Al; � f MEETING GATE: lul pill;lulc� o san iuIs osispo —�— r-�---� REP ITS""NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA iNl FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develo ment Director 0 (9-9-4M, BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner Date, I schNduled SUBJECT: TA 108-93: Amendment to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make minor changes to development standards. CAO RECONEMWNDATION Pass to print an ordinance adopting a negative declaration of environmental impact, and modifying the Zoning Regulations, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Report-in-brief The Hughes, Heiss & Associates reorganization study (1992), commissioned by the City Council, recommended that some changes be made to Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations, to streamline processing of.permits for some uses. In addition, planning staff identified other changes to the table and to other parts of the regulations to clarify and update the uses allowed, and to change cumbersome procedures. This phase (the second of four) of amendments modifies and adds definitions, clarifies wording and simplifies processing, and includes a few changes to standards. Six changes are highlighted: * Neighborhood grocery markets would be allowed in three residential and four commercial zones, instead of one residential and two commercial. Standards would be relaxed, to encourage their development. * Slope calculations would be simplified, to provide an easier, more equitable way to determine density on sloping lots or lots with creeks. * Fence height exceptions would be reviewed by the Director, rather than at a hearing (although a hearing could still be required at times). * Parking Muirements would be allowed to be reduced for more mixed-use situations than presently, and space requirements would be lowered for low-income housing projects. * S-zone groj_ects would be reviewed at Administrative Hearings, rather than Planning Commission. * The Architectural Review Commission would be able to act on minor exceptions to property development standards. The amendments should allow projects that conform with City goals and policies to proceed with minimum delays, yet would still provide opportunities for review and public comment, consistent with City policies on public access. 04-� ��►►�I�Il��li° �U111 city of San Luis OBispo - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The total package of zoning regulations amendments is extensive, and difficult to absorb at one time. Therefore, it has been broken down into four groups. The first group, which contained only changes to Table 9, was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1993. The Planning Commission reviewed the phase II changes on January 26, 1994, made some changes, and recommends approval of the amendments as revised. Data Summary Address: Citywide Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Zoning: Changes affect all zones. General Plan: All designations are affected. Environmental status: The Director granted a negative declaration of environmental impact on October 15, 1993 Project action deadline: There are no State-mandated deadlines for legislative actions. Project Description The project is the amendment of the City's Zoning Regulations. Changes include: Changes in process * from Plannine Commission to Administrative use permit Projects within the "Special considerations" (S)overlay zones would require approval of an administrative use permit, rather than a Planning Commission use permit * from Admini tra 've usevermit to Director ap royal Several uses now require approval of an administrative use permit. The proposal would allow a few of these uses to be approved by the Community Development Director, by letter. Affects: day care homes and centers temporary uses, such as fruit stands fence height exceptions In each case, there is some form of notification to neighbors: either by letter or a posted sign on the property. If there are concerns raised with the request, either by neighbors or by the Director, then a public hearing may be scheduled. llolU city of San LUSS OBIspo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TA 108-93 Page 3 * to eliminate Administrative use permit requirement: The requirement for approval of an Administrative use permit for development of a non-conforming lot has been eliminated. * to allow the Architectural Review Commission to act on some minor exceptions: Where a project requires both an administrative use permit for relaxation of property development standards, and review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the ARC will be able to act on both requests. New definitions * Definitions for the following have been added or changed: boardinghouse or rooming house, convenience store, day care, dormitory, guest house, hostel, neighborhood grocery market, professional organization, residential care facility. Modifications have been made to definitions of day care uses, which are within the use regulations section. Clarification * Wording has been changed to clarify sections that have appeared to be ambiguous in the past, and to codify common interpretations. Word changes do not change the regulations, but only clarify. Affects: - home occupations - density allowed on nonconforming lot - satellite dish antennas - yard standards - group housing occupancy limits - day care uses (expanded to include adult day care) Additional references have been added to the list of other regulations that may apply to development (section 17.16.005). The Fire protection section within the performance standards section is proposed to be eliminated. A duplicate paragraph (paragraph E in section 17.62.010) is to be eliminated. The day care section has been rearranged, and the parking section divided into more paragraphs. The sections on temporary and intermittent uses have been reorganized for consistency. a?3 ��H�i ►�IIIIIp��U city Of San tins OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TA 108-94 Page 4 Minor changes to standards * Some minor changes are proposed: - day care parking requirement changed - method for calculating the average cross-slope of sites has been modified - reduction in the parking requirement is proposed for shared parking lots and for low-income housing projects - use permit time limit established, for uses that cease operation - a parking requirement for hostels has been added requirements to accommodate recycling containers and to design for energy efficiency have been added neighborhood grocery stores would be allowed in more zones, with approval of an administrative use permit. Some of the restrictive standards governing placement of these stores would be eliminated. The enclosed annotated version of the amendments explains each of the changes briefly, just ahead of the affected sections. EVALUATION The following paragraphs explain some of the more significant changes in greater detail than the annotations. Discussion by the Planning Commission is indicated by italics: 1. Neighborhood grocery markets. The changes to the regulations would loosen up the requirements for neighborhood markets, by eliminating significant obstructions to their establishment. The changes are meant to provide opportunities for development of more small neighborhood markets throughout the city. Changes can be found in sections 17.04.273 (definition), 17.08.095 (uses allowed in several zones - includes standards), and 17.30 (R-4 standards). The current regulations allow neighborhood grocery markets, which are limited to 2,000 square feet in area and may not sell alcoholic beverages, in three zones: High-density residential (R-4), Central Commercial (C-C) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-N). In the R-4 zone, a neighborhood grocery market must be "an accessory use in a residential development which is under one ownership and contains a minimum of forty individual dwelling units." Several standards must be met by all neighborhood markets. o? ��u� ►�IIIII��JI��IJN city of San LUIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TX 108-9.3 Page 5 The current regulations effectively restrict market uses so that it is unlikely that any markets could be established in the R-4 zone, beyond the existing one at Mustang Village. The proposed changes would allow for establishment of neighborhood markets, up to 3,000 square feet in area, in the three higher-density zones (R-2, R-3, and R-4), as well as in the Office (0) and Tourist Commercial (C-T) zones, with approval of an administrative use permit. These markets would be allowed by right in the C-N and C-C zones, as they are now. The requirement, that markets be allowed only in developments of 40 or more dwellings, would be eliminated. Most of the existing standards would be retained. These standards, including the prohibition of alcohol sales in residential zones, and the need for a use permit, would assure that convenience stores, such as Circle K or 7-11 markets, would not be located in residential areas. These changes would allow development of small markets within neighborhoods, rather than just within high-density apartment complexes. If such markets were to be developed, they could serve the minor needs of residents within walking or bicycling distance, thus cutting down on automobile traffic and pollution, and providing greater convenience to the neighborhood. Standards should assure that the markets do not create compatibility problems. The Planning Commission generally felt that establishment of neighborhood markets in residential areas is consistent with concepts of "neo-traditional town planning"and would serve a need. Individual Commissioners, who supported the concept, commented that the prohibition of alcohol sales in residential zones would likely discourage people ,from establishing these markets, however. The Commission deleted the requirement for a "good neighbor plan", saying that if such a plan is warranted it can always be required through the use permit process. Otherwise it would bean additional burden. One Commissioner, opposed to the change, was concerned that mixing such uses in residential areas could lead to compatibility problems. 2. Density on sloping lots. The regulations now require a reduction in allowed density as the "average cross-slope" of the site increases. Changes have been made to two aspects of how the average cross-slope is calculated: 1) The way the regulations are currently written has led to some confusion over what is the "natural" topography of the site. The proposed changes would base calculations on "existing" topography, or that which will exist after standard public improvements (streets and sidewalks) are constructed. 2) The standard method for determining the average cross-slope creates widely differing slopes for lots with creeks, depending on how deep the creek is. Rather than include the slope of creek banks in the calculations, it is easier and more fair to exclude the creek area altogether, and base calculations on the remainder of the site. Planning Commission discussion focussed on 1) how density would be calculated on new subdivisions (where grading is a part of the design); and Z)the effect of excluding the creek area on essentially flat Iat lots. owl' ��i►�IIIIIII�P°N�►��III city of san lues oBIspo Ili;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TA 108-93 Page 6 To respond to the fust concern, the language was amended to say "approved on-site grading". As to the second issue, some Commissioners felt that excluding the creek area from lot area calculations would penalize property owners. The Commission consensus (5-2), though, was that such changes would make calculations easier and made logical sense. 3. Fence height exceptions. Currently, all fence height exceptions have to go to an administrative hearing, no matter how small. The majority of these exceptions are reasonable and are approved, with no objections from neighbors. To shorten the staff time spent on these minor exceptions, and correspondingly, to reduce the cost to the applicant, staff is recommending that fence heights be approved in a manner similar to home occupation permits. A sign would be posted at the site, and after five days the exception may be approved by letter. If objections to the exception are received within that time, the request may be scheduled for a public hearing. One Commissioner, voicing a philosophical opposition to fencing in general, objected to making exceptions easier to get. The remainder of the Commission supported the change. 4. Parking requirements. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) encourages limiting the number of parking spaces provided for commercial uses, to encourage employers and customers to share rides and use other means of transportation. .The recommended changes to the required parking section would reduce the number of parking spaces available for certain uses. Currently, a mixed-use parking reduction may be granted (by administrative use permit), when more than one use shares available parking, when the peak hours of the various uses do not coincide. Up to a maximum reduction of 20% may be granted. The changes propose a new category: "shared parking". Up to a 10% reduction could be granted if more than one use shares parldng, whether or not the peak hours coincide. If the different uses do have different peak hours, then up to a 30% reduction may be granted. Therefore, the changes would allow mixed uses up to a 10% greater reduction than is currently possible. Other changes: * Housing occupied exclusively by very-low to moderate-income persons, as defined by the State, may provide only one automobile and one bicycle space. * On-site parking for day care uses (in addition to parking for the residence) will not always be required, if adequate on-street parking exists for dropping off and picking up of clients. * A parking requirement for hostels has been added. In the previous phase of zoning regulations amendments, "hostels" were added to the "uses allowed" table, } �"��► ��IIIfI�Pn�°��UIII City Of San LUIS OBISPO WN oil COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TA 108-93 Page 7 because the City Council felt this use is different from motels and hotels, and wanted to encourage the establishment of compatible hostels in higher-density (R- 3 and R-4) residential areas. According to members of American Youth Hostels (AYH), 60% of hostel guests typically arrive by public transportation or bicycles. Forty percent arrive in cars, with an average of three persons per car. On average, then, every ten guests would require one to two parking spaces. The proposed parking requirement reflects the upper limit(two spaces per ten persons, in addition to managers' spaces). Some Planning Commissioners felt most developers will provide as little parking as possible, but the Commission supported the possible reductions. An additional proposed amendment, to include a statement that a use permit could set a maximum, as well as minimum, limit on the number of spaces, met with opposition and was narrowly defeated. 5. The S-zone. Currently, all development within the Special Consideration (S) overlay zone requires approval of a Planning Commission use permit. This review requirement has resulted in many minor projects being sent to the PC, with all the time and expense that involves. The proposed changes would instead require an administrative use permit for new uses in S zones. Of course, the Administrative Hearing Officer will still be able to refer any items to the Planning Commission that seem beyond the scope of an administrative hearing. This change will help streamline the City's permit process, consistent with recommendations contained in the Hughes, Heiss and Associates reorganization study. The Planning Commission supported this change with little discussion. One Commissioner asked that staff return with a report after one year, summarizing actions within S-zones. 6. Use permit action by ARC. Development projects often require minor property development exceptions (such as reduced yards) as well as architectural review. The Hearing Officer ales to coordinate his actions with those of the ARC, sometimes by asking for the ARC's recommendation on exceptions. The ARC considers all aspects of physical development, including the size of yards and the height of buildings, because these elements affect the design and compatibility of buildings. It seems logical, therefore, for the ARC to have the ability to act on property development exceptions as part of its action on a project as a whole. The proposed changes allow a single application (for architectural review) to be filed when minor exceptions are requested as well. This change would be similar to the regulations allowing only a PC use permit application to be filed when both PC and administrative use permits are required, and also similar to the City Council's ability to authorize exceptions as part of a subdivision request. The consolidation of review processes is also in keeping with recommendations of the City's Economic Strategy Task Force. Most Commissioners supported this change. One Commissioner was concerned that if the ARC"s role is expanded, that commission may eventually .be acting on uses, ��►�►��IIIIIp��i j��► city of San tUis OBispo Mis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TA 108-93 Page 8 which are not within its purview. The proposed amendments would allow action only on exceptions to pmpeity development standards. FISCAL E14PACT Most of the recommended changes would have the effect of reducing the time staff spends on minor permits, and therefore allow present Planning staff levels to remain fairly constant, which would have a favorable effect on the budget. The changes would also help the City provide better service to applicants and to the citizens of our community. Many minor permits will be processed in less time and for lower fees, and activities will be permitted (or permitted with fewer restrictions) in area where they will benefit citizens (neighborhood markets, day care homes). In years of high activity, the effect on the budget could be significant: In 1987 and 1988, when permit levels were high, fence height exceptions averaged 17 per year, and S-zone applications 9 per year. An average of 43 use permits for yard exceptions were processed in each of these two years, .many of which were associated with architectural review. According to time estimates in the Hughes-Heiss report, this number of applications represents about 840 hours, or 21 person-weeks per year. The proposed changes are estimated to reduce the amount of time spent on similar applications by about two-thirds, primarily because of the reduction of time associated with preparing for Planning Commission or Administrative hearings. Current permit levels are low. This situation allows staff to spend more time on longer-range and more difficult projects. ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the amendments with revisions to wording. The Council may deny some or all of the amendments. The Council may continue discussion. Direction should be given to staff. Attached. Draft ordinance (includes legislative draft) Planning Commission minutes - January 26, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. (1994 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS TEXT TO SIMPLIFY PROCESSING, ADD AND CHANGE DEFINITIONS, CLARIFY WORDING AND FORMAT, AND MAKE MINOR CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (TA 108-93) WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider the zoning text amendment request TA 108-93 , amending various sections of the Zoning Regulations as shown on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings; Findings• 1. The proposed amendments conform to the general plan. 2. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on August 23 , 1993 , that describes environmental impacts associated with the text changes. The Community Development Director has reviewed the environmental initial study and granted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration of environmental impact adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed zoning text change, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2 . The zoning text amendment TA 108-93 , as shown on Exhibit A, attached, is hereby approved. SECTION 3 . A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in Ordinance no. (1994 Series) TA 108-93 : Citywide Page 2 the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1994, on motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: At orne a-�o P-C, vewslon Zoning Regulations Amendments Phase H The annotated version Legend: goM is used to indicate words to be added. SL-ike eu letters are used to indicate words to be deleted. === indicates "end of section". ... means the paragraph continues, but has not been reproduced here. Annotations: Explanations of changes are indicated by text, WRITTEN IN SMALL CAPITALS, bounded by straight horizontal lines. THE Duwmw: THE BOARDINGHOUSE AND ROOMINGHOUSE DEFINITION REFLECTS CHANGES IN THE USE ITSELF: MEALS ARE NOT ALWAYS PROVIDED, AND OTHER SERVICES MAY BE. THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY DEFINITION HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT CHANGES IN STATE LAW. THE DEFINITION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY MARKET HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND MOVED FROM THE R-4 SECTION (SECTION 17.30) SO THAT IT CAN BE FOUND MORE EASILY, AND BECAUSE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS INCLUDE ALLOWING SUCH MARKETS IN OTHER ZONES. THE DEFINITION FOR DAYCARE FACRXnES HAS BEEN MOVED FROM SECTION 17.08 (AND MODIFIED SLIGHTLY). FIVE NEW DEFINITIONS ARE PROVIDED. SOME ARE NEEDED TO ASSIST IN ENFORCEMENT (GUEST HOUSE). OTHERS DEFINE USES ADDED TO THE REGULATIONS (CONVENIENCE STORE, HOSTEL). A DEFINITION FOR A "PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION" WAS NEEDED BECAUSE THE USE IS LISTED IN TABLE 9, AND ITS MEANING WAS UNCLEAR TO THE PUBLIC. THE DEFINITION OF "DORMITORY" WAS ADDED TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER USES. C 1 e ts Ve"to ki o2 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 2 17.04 DEFINITIONS 7Q ►1}Slh€><> >sSoard';: ;oue< r';rdmu..:Ttio ....,.......:::.....: :::::: : . ..::..:..::.::.. :: ::::.::.: :. :.: ..:::..::: :: .:. tlwellii uiitl VWO part tltie of, i t w1utl�; for coFnpensation, Iadgang as provadei� tea. aore tt�ala r ersota d adeaatty of eac[t otk�t<r,a cludtng ixatenutaes and , . sRiitz#t ealsasas. afl�ered'#w resats as wetk< 17.04.050 Beardinghousft n n buildings,fnems a building or- f exeluding€mtemities and semi-hies. (Gfd. 1102 1 Ex. A(!),) 1 no^7, QFd 94 e 3xttall .gOceiy aEtdnaClt Store that Cater przaYtaraIy to the automabtle= '�"' : . :i::.;....ii.i::': : :::: .:ii:i)::.;{:i:.:1'Vi'.i:.i':iM'. X. I ,1 .09 y Care, alsoRt sideat�at care facalaty .I I :ay care facility" means a facility which provides nonmedical care attdlt an E�uchon to children under 18 years of age anti adufts 1� years a > 3rra :fie in need of personal services, su rvision, or assistance Pe essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual on less than a 24-hour basis. " " Br "Family day care home" means a home which regularly provides nonmedical care, protection, supervision, and/or instruction of 14' or fewer children, in the providers own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, and includes the following: "Small family day care home" means a home which provides family day care to sk-f6) or fewer children including children under the age of 10 who reside at the home. 02-/02 Zoning regulations Phase U amendments Page 3 b-.- "Large family day care home" means a home which provides family day care to 9 to 10 children, inclusive, including children under the age of 10 who reside in the home. ... ................... .... ..... mer ...An ►forma ................. ....................t. ...... ......... fj aA"', "b.W el;gt OW" ....... M�Vr.:iM.... qa%* .:;..Y .. ..rqa A at ............... XI:monastery,.... . . or BEEF ........... .... .... ......17:04►. ... ........... e od . .......................... .M.....O...that......caters........ ........ .............................................. .................bat.... exclusively,... . .............................. ... ......................... travelers wh ave b bit la .inn. .. q Neighborhood grocery market. A retail grocery store with a gross floor area of 2-,GN x square feet or less, V mtd ineluded es an meessery use in a mideft&4 deyelepment whieh is under-on ewfter-ship and eentains a fniflimum ef—figAy (40) individual dweRing tknits. NeighbeMeed FnaFkets sh&U a full range of food products 00 ineluding meat, dftir-y, Yegetables, &uits, dr-y geeds, - non aleehelie beyefageg, and shall eaters "§#* primarily to customers who arrive by foot, bicycle, or other non-motorized vehicle transportation. 9 m.-IM ...... ..... s anim: an l i assOC�a#ron,whose tnrnbers ars to the same �o2s:9. S.".4 WIV.belong . ......... . ... ............iw... X .: Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 4 46 +cam':facie"; ` Any Stat- eet�setl fam�ty horntrr group Cite Eacxl�ty, which pr+ov�des for24 ifaur�ont�ed�eal<�ze �� a re�.dential s�ttang foz aduttis or e}uldrerc id geed gf strzv� s, au Bing, upery on, ar as stance essent far sus. ing e t�vYties n� � fang, of far Ehe pxotect}on of tie inchvxdua�, :; p " e_adults mmz• �o r — ^eh eefaFn datiens a^ _ idea in the GeAifefnia iiee&h a . eede 9204.11 ........................................................... Chapter 17.08 USES ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES SECTIONS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED AND RENUMBERED. SIMILAR USES ARE GROUPED UNDER THE SAME HEADING TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO FIND. 1:7.08.020 Mineral efen. 17.08.030 Sefw;ee qtatienT 17.08.040 Home eeenpationsw 17.08.045 Day Gore Homes and Genters 17.08.050 ublie- 060---signs. . . 17.08.080 Vending mmN 17.08.090 Outdoor . =708."r 110 Homeless-sheken Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 5 t cuxreat sales.t#�.mt�tn r fuel d alCo.0: c beer ges. 7.+48.t15�.NendFng tu�8. 1 ,t0 06U El0cdrexuc;gatne atnusement.:centers.. ., 8. {} f#; t e »ex�rac6 €17,�.OS0,2.04. u# i t . y M4;its xt` h €' tdtil> ":.:spite': O. he TEMPORARY USES: MINOR WORD CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE SECTION. THE DEFINITION OF INTERMITTENT USES HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE USES THAT OCCUR UP TO 90 DAYS IN A YEAR, AND UP TO SEVEN DAYS IN A ROW. THE REVIEW PROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL FOR: 1) REAL ESTATE OFFICES IN A TRACT; AND 2) CERTAIN LIMITED OUTDOOR SALES (SEASONAL PRODUCTS). 17.08.010 Temporary " ' �'t�Tint�rttitite # Uses. A. Purpose and Intent. The provisions codified in this chapter provide for certain temporary a >' tertent uses . It establishes :::::......::.:.::.:.::::::::::.:::.:.: standards and procedures to assure that such uses are compatible with their surroundings and the intent of these regulations. lex: afau�tg a tparat} ;or. attttettt t�set the Dttctor may estate retrecnents zelate t�� b� �t lirniteil �, slags arxd hots; a€�x�xa��nrt� partang tepoary structures,,;and sate plattttrng �addti ��ttt�rforrt►ance stanclnrdS s�ec.�liud ltelt�w. Thi 17ir�Wr shah iletermtne t#te eat�nt to .whicE� ao ; Y pem,�uaent on bite � and other �actlzuss tzta saasf `tte rniretrtanta�for the xpmposed " fi 1 xeonr r.; ay refer> Y Prag�a #eiuga aFy sir�ntermrtf enti use to a.. adnu s#rattve heansg de.00.h' PI o iss o fssr arc n. MUM Rho s< A temporary use is one which is established at a particular location for less than one year. An intermittent use is one which occurs no more than 69 .00 days in a year and-feF but which may continue from year-to-year. Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 6 AWWW.. 9- = s Real Estate Sales Office in Tract. 4-.A temporary real estate sales office may be established in a residential development for the initial sale of property in that development, upon yr t ""`"'` t` at h.k.. '< "' ` "pit. Such an office may be located within a residence or a common or temporary building. If a temporary building is used, it shall be removed upon termination of the use. the dkeeter, they may be eentinued up le ene addifienal year-. E 2. Mobile Home as Construction Office. sj A mobile home may be used as a temporary office at a construction site for not more than six months upon written approval of the Chief Building Official subject to any conditions he deems necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare. Upon written request received prior to expiration, the use may be continued for six-month periods, not to exceed a total of eighteen months, by the Chief Building Official. An administrative use permit is required to allow a mobile home as a temporary corsrrsttn XXX ..:::.......:...:...:::::.:::. office when the mobile home is not located on the same property as the construction site. The same time limitations as stipulated above for an on-site mobile home would apply:; with approvals for extensions of the use made by the Director. Also with the Chief Building Official's or Director's approval, the mobile home may be occupied by a resident guard or caretaker, provided it is properly connected to city utilities or other safe means of waste disposal is assured. Mobile Home as Temporary Residence at Building Site. G-. .4-',.- Construction Activities. H- Educational Conferences. PARADES: THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PARADES, CARNIVALS, FAIRS, AND FESTIVALS HAS BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT THE EXISTENCE OF A PERMIT PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. THE REVISION ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A PERMIT FOR EVENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 7 , , led-; 6 < 'aads` aza `» ais ' esti ads.. 1 o€patey owtz Pxrr for parades, crntvals, arr ,and 1esavals reluires approvai o An aEiitt3i strati a use hermit Gt here€Hese events i1#vglve public grape#y,eao�dtnatton i 6 r� v.v1Vik, VAkkW:iJ M ; i Other- T-efnpeiayAntemiittent Uses A teinpefaFy use is eae whieb is established a4 60 days in a year and fer- fie mere than seven eensmutiye days, but whieh fnay eentiiiue ffe.m. eeftsisfent with the purposes ef these mgttlatieits. Trefapemry er- inteffnittefit FeEEA sales shag be fifnited te the types of retail se4es aflewed 6y-the leeatiefts zoner In appFeying—a e9e pemit Per. a telilpefar-y er intemittent use, the a:_,._..._ ..hall establish requirements for-puking and other- €aeiift}es to-sefve the tise. The-difeete>- sh&de«�fte th� etent to hieh RJ Ye nt Ya rk ib ..A other- faeilifies ided c,. w uses en l. r Th a - J rr c t t Plannifig n n c.._ . 7fl ' `ern oi > ttterxt Tsesr �pa�a�pp�val o�am artanlshve permit, the t��wrctor inaay approue� tmporary or Ift us, ititg hit tt�iitl toy`;utlssalren#s, au+rnoi�s, estate sales; cl0tft�rig Qutle�:: esu �tor�ru�t#�s,..`�arxz��i�sales, ani ear.s�tc�vus.i v2 �� Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 8 , sales eq > tempefwy pewer peles, and ether tefnpewy stfuefums shag he kept behind a ten feet sethaek &efn &H stfea rights of way and they A41 be Feineyed widiin ten days after- the elese ef the sale > banners, > . 6. Applieam shag pest a fefeadable depesit ef $150.00 with the C-efafatinity De-velepfftell sites :7. Fife e3tfifiguisher.9 shall bepre-vided w4hin 75 feet efe4i points efi site (2A!OB.G). Aftytrves � �D8s41� >= ati�ooir;Sa ? a: :# 8E ?d El Ag#t6tu i�rc3duGcs : lgot�;wniten approval h ttie Due��: � � mai den�t�1 � map h� ;t�s�;fc�x tha �.e of�htxs�s ...........:.. i S �st111 3h ttrC. aS tries, u mplsn ,o seat prods and relati accessary .. ...... Sa1os of els s tl r ►t be Haat ducted befon: ng ar after Me'=bet 2�5 dudlzct .tapumplcnci pE ,?c saps shah be xt�bect to luec; rapprval Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 9 . The sits:sfta # €tratned xn a neat d......".. i orderly manner at alt tt All sales stems, sales mt to arary � }roles, d other<temporary structures, and sigpgge shad be kept ehxnd a Cert t setback frc all stxeet tyghts-of wad and they shah be zemnYed V..Vj ten days Atex the close of the sale, ' `zshand;recyct�u receptacles spatl he pzovtded rn a convenient .. lae� n� for'c�staets�> < f. A:ctm crr tr* fOL orrttght scuritymay 6 parked on-$rte, for the duration taf the t; zf.: ttit ire>th i;<;ll ° x ba C c�:r the wM h tofu>: M. x.:. A std peaut shah h ;rzhtaned far arty prtxased stgnae» Mar murn sxgn area; shalt not creed 3 stte feetk htnartg sups,barriers, #lgs>wEtFlkgigs or .r:attention gettrng dev�es sha'�be shspla tit s�� r+�thout l�irect�r approval ; 6 ' lten site use is tenlperrazy crit rntezrirttent, the appheant maybe regiured to post a refundable depostt, set by theomruuty Derrelapraeettt Duecioz, wrth the Community Development iartrrient tosst� sate clean ug, cif necessary losrt shall lac the farm of a cashier's . check azul sly:tze [rade mor ttr occupyutg tie site: . . .. 7utzloores..lots."are sttb�ect to all ,fie satety tneastires, aludutg 3ocattoit of fire etgutslters; as zeuecb by tate Sze Marshal 8. Y.. t si as trees"said fiix use rn pulxltc facHO 4::s shall be tlam4�pzovfed wtth a state f are ) tshal:apprtitr� mat�zt,by a state licensed apphcatzbrt,.. c3 App- HAlcat sal v€�taxn a Cray busrttss tax certificate copy oe Dtrecfpr's approvald ate bustitess tic.c�Fticate shall 8e pasted ret a ronsieuous icauon at all trines when the use Itl, appticaiat shall secure a buil ling geM for y structure requ tg a pzrmxt,a�ssocaated' tit the use The plan, sit shrew tic prnpa vehicular circutati ori patterx parkuig layout? a tocton of .Pis shal :ats demonstrate rAtrtplaance wtth Title 2a requizemerts or> ecees5iiti ::::.....::.,..v...,..,:,v::::... «. .. .:...: :..,:.:. ,..:<::>. 1 ut:e t Y ..... .. !. .its rof the bounty a1t <Depaztmen.,., 2.Restroom£mattes shall tie prx�vI pid,0.11 site oz oo a.nearhy to operty to the sattsfacttap Of <chi uiltfut l3fficial 13 » o;saes€ tlr 7a ::shall€talre: taceht>tlu ' rbtcri Tufa n.........:....:.........:.:......................:....:.............<...:.:...:....:........:. Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 10 14.I3�ron;wnitert rer�rpt�f�amplarnts€torn th�e;p�tbllc�r the PapeIIepartnaerit, ibe L1�rector's approval ttlay he scheduled fol adrttmsiratlue hearing Fevrew, At the pulllc heaulg, the Hea�ng�f�icer daa)r add; deleted yr rrtpolfy cond�itons of appxcryal, or may revoke the approval': B (3ther autdoc�r sales. C3ntdoor saes of nortagrfcultural products, such.; as Toad carts';; tarbeetlesk and swap beets sltail;be hnu€ted io die ty df Mail sales allowed: rt itte Iacauon's aane:'::."Qutdc sa3+�s" ma .Etetemparary, internlttent,;,�rper�nanent1Jatdpor sates° dti not Include<<xd ;:: t :;�. :Ia ; :>tne�cha��e:>� :; lit::a:>:husrness:<nc ro . :::A. R.::.•::}::..:::::: :.::::::..R..:.:.}rc;::::::;::::::::. .::::::.:: :.:. .:.ii:ii:is ii:.}%+..Yi'.:!:::: ..:::::.:. .:.::::.:::::::.::::::::.:.:y.:y::::::::::.:::..:::.:::::.:::.::::::. ::.:.`:.`::}A}i:}}'.}:.::.`iii.. �Ig oxr the s1tt�,., ' sad +��`thxng� ustxal'fy scsld outdoors, sr�ch as ba�ats, vewcles>..and litiitdtng i ri .. rtttat rats. ( atstr chapter lis Soli mors acid Peddlers and;Chapt t Sales Street atld SidewatleS 1. �tber outdoor sales r�qu re apprax+at !a an adnunistrative use permit, except rtt cases where tfti �i eetar dete tr... a Planrt dg ommtssfon use perdu�vouId be mare apprgpnaie. Padang re9� setba Wad storage areas, safety arid:aesthet c scree ung, . nd other dt standards usually € tX. sd ivstldmgs shad,; establrshed by permit approval;? HOME OCCUPATIONS: CHANGES TO THIS SECTION ARE INTENDED TO CODIFY LONG-STANDING INTERPRETATIONS: THAT ANY BUSINESS OPERATED FROM A HOME IS A HOME OCCUPATION; THAT AUTOMOBILE REPAIR OFF-SITE IS ACCEPTABLE AS A HOME OCCUPATION, AND THAT COUNSELING SERVICES ON A SMALL SCALE CAN BE DONE FROM THE HOME. 17.08.0400 Home occupation. B. Permit Required. 1. The conduct of home occupation requires the approval of a home occupation permit by the Director, who may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this section. A permit is uire.d when a person does business in his/her home us ` Eu:s '>Ito le addFess as 'a ..:::..:.:ii...::.: .::: :: i:«:.ii;'ii:.i:.ii'.i::.:i.i:i.:>; :i:.;ii:.:;i. : . bpss;address u;basin ;; ;hwne ; Home occupations may be conducted from dwellings located in residential zones or from dwellings located in commercial zones where dwellings are an allowed or conditionally allowed use. D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses by their operation or nature may interfere with residential welfare and diminish the convenience intended for commercial zones, and therefore shall not be permitted as home occupations: 1. Automotive repair (body or mechanical), or detailing, upholstery or painting of automobiles, .:::::: . ::.:........:::...:...: ::::.. ::............... ......:.....:. ..:..::............................�::.i:.i:i.i::.ii}.::.iii;}::i:.i:.i:.i;:.i:.i:.i:ii.iii:.i:.i:.ii:.i:.i:.i>:.i;:.ii:.};;}:.i...::.'.}:.::.:,,:.::.ii:.i:.i:.i':.i:.:.:.i:<.i::.i:: :::::._:..::..::.... rl ori:itrtt;>tfsasrte>as lte floie a .. .cam, l? Via.. lv?tf stdvt�rk rs pemusted �;20 Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 11 5. Medical offices, clinics, laboratories, except that cb tnsetlip is permitted, .ben no'mar.e than ......... ...... . . .. ._. ............. ane c.znt pr guru sins:'...e at ont: tze, NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS: STANDARDS (EXCEPT FOR PARKING) FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THIS SECTION FROM THE R-4 SECTION (17.30.030). THE MODIFIED DEFINITION WAS MOVED TO THE "DEFINITIONS" SECTION (17.04.273). THE PARKING REQUIREAgNT REMAINS IN THE "PARKING REQUIREMENTS" TABLE (TABLE 6). 17.08.095 Neighborhood grocery markets. 17-.30.040 Development Standards for neighborhood greeery mar4ets., ;t�.y it t fi '1i`he sbWdards m this sectton ark u tended to assure that rieaglrbari ood maikets will sere perssfans w Itver waxn neaiby netbornoods, artd Wba rill narmatly not Deed an auttse,ttt gett market'. 'the standards should'ensure t1at such markets offer adequate ectad ark ` supplies to aittact custt�trters why wcsuid otherwise drive to a 3arge supermarket.: Lrmits ort l}wtrs and alWhal des and ot}tet provtsions'wlll prevent such stares from:becoming s ztulsatce to tie rleighr}iond B. Standards. The following standards shall apply to all neighborhood grocery markets. Ar. Maximum Size. Gross floor area shall not exceed 2-,Wo 3t{I00 square feet per business. Floor area for"accessory residential use shall not be counted toward the allowed market floor area. B- Height, Setback, a Lot Coverage-Density. Neighborhood grocery markets shall comply with the height, setback, and coverage requirements for the r-esideial r€t;ering zone in whieh i! is le > comply wrth standards for tt : ne. A neighbor E Loading and Deliveries. One curbside or off-street loading space shall be provided per business. Loading and deliveries is permitted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. �02� Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 12 l-- Hours of Operation. Neighborhood grocery markets shall open for business no earlier than 7:30 a.m., and shall close no later than 10 p.m. R Alcohol Sales. Neighborhood grocery markets: reA Wext a[ e5 shall be prohibited ..__:..: ......._... from selling alcoholic beverages of any kind. F— .&': Performance Standards. Neighborhood grocery markets shall comply with Performance Standards, Chapter 17.18 of the Zoning Regulations. In addition, all exterior trash enclosures, outdoor storage, heating or cooling equipment, refrigerators, and similar equipment shall be visually screened, and located and/or designed to avoid noise, odor, glare, or vibration impacts to neighboring properties. G Architectural Review. Neighborhood grocery markets shall be compatible with neighboring structures in terms of scale, massing, architectural style or character, colors and materials, access, exterior lighting and landscaping. Exterior changes shall require architectural review, as provided in Chapter 2.48 of the Municipal Code. H , neighbefheed gr-eeer-y ma&et shafl submit a Geed Neighber- -PI—en with thpir. r-equest. The } A eenfliet fnedistien and mspease pmgFm, eudining respensible pafties, phefte atimbers, the event ef nen eemplianee With use per-mit eenditiens or- the Geed Neighber- Pim. The plan beundeAes ef the maAed site) of the pian. , pfeyiding at least efte exter-ief finer- feeeptaele near eaeh eRtFy, and periodie lifter piek up . DAY CARE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, BOTH IN LETTER AND INTENT. TO SIMPLIFY ADMINISTRATION, CHANGES MAKE NO DISTINCTIONS IN PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN CHILD AND ADULT DAY CARE. PARKING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SU"LIFIED TO MAKE THEM EASIER TO CALCULATE IN A VARIETY �-ate Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 13 OF SITUATIONS. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMITS, FOR HOMES WITH 14 OR FEWER CLIENTS, HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL BY LETTER. 17.08.845 x:04 , 'adult Day Care Homes and Gente A. Intent. The provisions set forth in this section are intended to enable child iWdadu1E tla care .........: :: u..t...::.. opportunities throughout the city, to ensure that day care facilities will be compatible with residential uses, and to comply with alrEale> ect'ors of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. DEFu4moN OF "DAY CARE FACILITY" HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE BEGINNING OF THESE REGULATIONS. THE SEPARATE DEFINITION FOR "DAY CARE CENTER" HAS BEEN ELIMINATED BECAUSE THE DISTINCTION IS MORE CONFUSING THAN USEFUL. setts- 3. nDay eue n eaFe e whieh regahu4y pr-evidesr f e to 7 er- mere e for perieds ef less than 24 heur-9, peels. C— 1 Permits Required. aRewed. . Da care 1Fa�'�tirs.ser+�ng$rnr�`evrex ctie�s`ora site a�orae taupe are cors dered:restdentlal the pu s s:of xaAt :zegulatxon,. T[tey day 'be. gm.b xshccl to atl zones where t�fN��irt�S�Ce.'itlltJ�W+�. ,BTU i35�j1e�?Ikl�'iS Fef�t11FE(I. 2. LaEge-€amily-day-eaFe heme. The epemfieR ef a large fawAly ky eaFe heme we &Hewed. 2. False ara <fues servlttg:4 1+ cl ettls c 1 a#+€rrt itme may be established in any zone where dwellings are allowed, subject to performance standards listed below. These facilities require written approval by the Community Development Director, consistent with the following review procedures: 4;�-40P3 Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 14 a. Ne6eing t of ce. Not less feWd than 10 days prior to the Director's action to approve XX or deny ah.."!�ppltcatit>n for day Cary facalty settfittg 9 to 14 cltegts day-eafe-per-�rE, mailed notice of the proposed use shall be given to all property owners within no more than a 100-foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed fac3 ;E ste luge family day eafe hem . If no WEEta equeSpF.hangs received by the Community Development Department within ten days from the mailing of these notices, the Director may approve the retsEe s upon submission of all required information and without further notice or public hearing. b. Public Hearing. Ne public hearing shall be required €er day—eafe pertnif tifrless if requested in writing by the applicant or any other affected person. c. hermit Approval. The Director is authorized to approve .1nes>se g:.. 4 cli �efmits subject to the provisions of Cha ter 17.6 6 of this e. n TitlI .-.... � J PPS P P accordance with "tce€5eo ' > te California Health and SafetyCode SeeEiex 1§97.46(a)(3), the Director shall approve t he a-dey-eafe�ermit when he or she determines that the proposed facility: 1. complies with all applicable provisions of the Fire Code regarding health and safety; and 2. complies with property development standards contained in Chapter 17.16 of this Title and with City sign regulations; and 3. has been issued a luge-€afa}1y day care heme license from the State of California, Department of Social Services; and 4. will satisfy performance standards of this section relating to noise, traffic, gid parldng, ........ THE FOLLOWING REGULATION WAS ELIMINATED BECAUSE IT IS SUPERFLUOUS. IT CONTAINS NO INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ZONING MATRIX OR ELSEWHERE IN THESE REGULATIONS. ..1 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 15 Parldfig stmdeds. may ear8 fac �ties Ser9uig inose than 14 clienfs requFr�agprmral of an administrative use it dot fltbzwaEse atlowed or prolubted,- anststent uuxth.Sectton i7 22 ,010Tses A)Iow+ byoe acid Swtrn i 7.58 Elseermit . These faelliues ares..subject to thepeformance staffs>�t ;et� i ; s B. Day Gwe PeFfni (moved to Section 2 above.) E-.-M Performance standards for day fac itttes sert�rn «Wore than a clzertts age-€airily 1. Noise. The day care facility shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code). Where the day care facility Cf . ........ . ... .... is adjacent to housing in a residential zone, outdoor play vt;es shall be prohibited prior .....:.:...:..:::::.:....::....:. to 9:00 a.m. 2. Traffic. Designated delivery and pick-up areas shall not pose any traffic or safety hazards. ...................... Operators of day care faca{l ti[es '-emes and eent -9 shall provide carpool matching services to all clients. 3. Parkin A g a-site-paAdfi g )~€ centers t6. $ .34P...... te garktrrg space is u il, rtt ac to si ,Ap a ig regtrrr d fcrr tiie resrdeitce, except when the Du-ecw;. ds flis date on4stt `�ar ing exists dor drop rn off anti piciCiog up ckents Centers grrW more khan 14 the tfi§ must be provided-a tie-e€ two spaces:peri facrl�fy (svheri noc a liame):an l:sem:for 14' tfa ram,citetzts (based ao the ::ac�lxty's lscense), rounded to th neareA wnr5le:tturrtber, t uon to ate spate far:MO.: n .__ =r=== per _-- SM See Section 17.16.060 of this Title. s..., e faeilities, lefaes. Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 16 I� T�a�r care as an accesstary;use ti�hert dad care;faclhttes are accessory to another use r gmnvg a permit, vnty une permit appllcad steed be filed and acted on As accessory uses tri schools etttd churches; and where ori employer provides ori=stte child care to 12''or fewer cEtldreA th6 exctulve use of:�msloyees, day'care Is allowed by nglt, prow ding the prAmary use its Ctty.psrlan� stattdartCs F— Exceptions. Nothing in this section shall prohibit applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from the strict interpretation of zoning regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations. The Director may authorize minor exceptions to performance standards upon finding that: 1. The modification is in accord C with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations, and consistent with City elm day care policy. G-fg Nonconforming status. All & cafe f tite eek licensed by the State at the time of ordinance adoption (19 } shall be considered legal .........:::.:..: nonconforming uses, consistent with Chapter 17.10 of these regulations, except that ...................... nonconforming day care Ii#es heroes may not be changed to another nonconforming use. �spper Iirast oa mrmber:acl eta€�r eaEk;typc of dap care facility�s sub�sct to chaage,coasFsteat::xnth Emits e4tsGsigd hp the SYa�e or €ntnia (Ord. 1225, 1992) NONCONFORMING LOTS: THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A NONCONFORMING LOT) HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: IF ALL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CAN BE MET, THEN SUCH A PERMIT IS UNNECESSARY. IF EXCEPTIONS ARE REQUIRED, AN EXCEPTION PROCESS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE THAT ALLOWS REVIEW. THE PROVISION ALLOWING A DWELLING TO BE BUILT ON A NONCONFORMING LOT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO CLARIFY THE INTENT: THAT DENSITY STANDARDS DO APPLY, EXCEPT THAT IF THE LOT IS EXTREMELY SMALL, A MINIMUM-SIZE DWELLING CAN BE BUILT THERE. 6 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 17 NONCONFORMING LOTS 17.12.020 Regulations. E Property development standards shall apply to nonconforming lots, except that the density standards shall not prevent construction of a single d*ffin dweHin unit;{ .W:: o M where otherwise permitted by this chapter.(see Section 17.16.010, Density). (Ord. 1 1.102 - 1 Ex. A(5), 1987; Ord. 1085 - 1 Ex. A (part), 1987; Ord, 1006 - 1 (part), 1984: Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.3(B)) OTHER PROVISIONS: THE REGULATIONS REFER TO OTHER CITY CODES THAT MAY AFFECT DEVELOPMENT. THIS LISTING HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THREE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS. 17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions. A. Development of property within the city may be subject to provisions of this code not contained in this section or chapter, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Fire prevention code, Chapter 15.08; 2. Building regulations, Chapter 15.04; 3. Demolition and moving of buildings, Chapter 15.36; 4. Subdivision regulations, Title 16; 5. Building setback line (plan line), Chapter 17.74; 6. Street right-of-way dedication and improvement, Chapter 17.76; 7. E*eavafien and gmAiag, Ghaptef 17.7 - K 8. Architectural feview commission, Chapter 2.48; 9. General plan amendment regulations, Chapter 17.80; 10. Sign regulations, Chapter 15.40; 11. Condominium development and conversion regulations, Chapter 17.82; 12. Flood damage prevention regulations, Chapter 17.84; 13. Downtown housing conversion permits, Chapter 17.86; 14. Growth management regulations, Chapter 17.88; 15. Resource deficiency, Chapter 2.44; 16. Environmental review guidelines, adopted by council Resolution 3919-1979. 'tllrll €`: ItS :> R .lt':1>> 74 ffi <'»>: <f792 94 �a� Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 18 DENSITY ON SLOPING LOTS: THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE "AVERAGE CROSS-SLOPE" HAS BEEN MODIFIED IN TWO WAYS: 1) THE CALCULATIONS WILL BE BASED ON THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, RATHER THAN "NATURAL", BECAUSE IN MOST INFILL LOTS THE SLOPE IS NOT "NATURAL", AND BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO BASE CALCULATIONS ON THE CONDITION OF THE SITE AFTER REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE; AND 2) ON SITES WITH CREEKS A FAIRER DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE BY SUBTRACTING THE CREEK AREA, WHICH IS ALWAYS UNBUILDABLE, FROM THE TOTAL SITE AREA. 17.16.010 Density. 2. The following procedure shall be used to determine the maximum development allowed on a given lot or land area: a. Determine the Average Cross-slope of the Site. "Average cross-slope" is the ratio, expressed as a percentage of the difference in elevation to the horizontal distance between two points on the perimeter of the area for which slope is being determined. The line along which slope is measure shall run essentially Pendicular to the contours. S. g 1vustrt ,,::: e............... s`..x.........t he ..gm ... .............:....n.....:...:.....: i. Where a site does not slope uniformly, average cross-slope is to be determined by proportional weighting of the cross-slopes of uniformly sloping subareas, as determined by the :.�--t; engin ..:....:...:..... u. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the oaEx�o} ei ys ri topography of the rie site _X.....: urs after urltutg for ar� v an-site gracing necsry tccnrmm�date ngh#-af way h e p a before grading dor o b ragosed on�s€te tf rover �e+r . »" %Qpe sly ire tcut d r t et t�.area tefus;ve ©f xxgh-af wad aad cmc areas:. r�zt::ai`:::the1 :betwn::th <:t♦a ::csf::b�nk ......................................................:..... . . .... ¢'?::':ifiS::.`�::::;:'•.:::::::5:r:3:::2:i:: ": ::�::?":::::::::::::::'.; :>'::'::: IN, Viii02VjL1'LGiil!?:Y.Y.iti:4�#6F`#ilR'u:ai+.4ua :i:IO i:i ::? .:. .:.:;._..0.............i'...:.:...... ,:....i!:... ....I:..t.:._. QtI ,<1:.:..:.:... ...:Ci?aSS:5 .:. :.:::S.a�CIt,�EI .........:::.:.:..................................... 46. ivy Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be rounded up. No slope-rated density reduction is required in the C/OS, C-R, C-C or PF zones. v- The maximum development allowed for each average cross-slope category....... Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 19 YARDS: THE DESCRIPTION OF "YARD" HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF "LANDSCAPE BEAUTY" TO THE REASONS FOR HAVING YARDS. A CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE SECTION ON REDUCED STREET YARDS, TO CLARIFY WHEN A GARAGE MAY BE LOCATED LESS THAN 20' FROM THE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THIS CHANGE CODIFIES A LONG-STANDING INTERPRETATION. 17.16.020 Yards. A. Definitions and Purpose. 1. A "yard" is an area along a property line within which no structures, parking spaces or parking backup spaces may be located, except as otherwise provided in these regulations. Yards are intended to help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. They also provide separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings. Yards are further intended to help provide dsce'l3'> air circulation, views and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use of solar energy. 2. Discretionary Exceptions. a. Reduced Street Yards. Upon approval of a use permit, the director may allow street yards of not less than ten feet, :fclx;ttF. tructur�s and weztclos # garlang spaces x ludtng carports Rei#uciia s ra be raced m ara es, wit n the drive.". Vas InngF"p. tc acconim date a;,�ar�ie� :+ ,;tx.ds 'k a�rering,:te;sd��vac. FENCES: TWO CHANGES: 1) A PROVISION HAS BEEN ADDED TO ADDRESS FENCES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN REQUIRED YARDS. IN THESE LOCATIONS, WHERE A BUILDING COULD BE BUILT, FENCES ARE LIMPCED TO EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT WHERE THEY ARE CLEARLY A PART OF A BUILDING. IN THAT CASE, THE HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR THE ZONE APPLY. 2) EXCEPTIONS TO THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS CAN BE GRANTED BY LETTER, RATHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, SIMILAR TO HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS. ��9 Zoning regulations Phase 1[ amendments Page 20 17.16.050 Fences, walls and hedges. Fences, walls or hedges may be placed within required yards, provided: A-.g The maximum height in any street yard shall be as shown in Figure 9; &Z: The maximum height in any other yard shall be six feet; D cantde .. ........ ....... MEW Wtae the taxi xs conned to9Tb !h g4..s.e : .. .a...y... bt. hOkr 0WW. InAhi . fundi 1, C. Where fences or walls are located on retaining walls, the height of the retaining wall shall be considered as part of the overall height of the fence or wall; D. The Director may grant exceptions to these standards by appfeving an admiaistFaikre use peFmit subject to a finding that no public purpose would be served by strict compliance with these standards. Ei pu6c nuts shall be postai the scte of each .............. 6d f'ince":- -,'- h i p..p.:..,. Tf anyone directorinforms the Cotunurttty Der�eIopuentepartrent of a reasonable th . ........... . . . ...... ...... .. schedule. . . permits If ............... ts o XX. .. so . .. hve days after.. MAI . .. ... ................I ........ f t fn and tirclutx x JN .................. (Ord. 1006 - I (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - I (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.5(F)) PARKING: CHANGES IN THIS SECTION INCLUDE: 1) THE ADDITION OF "SHARED PARKING REDUCTION", WHICH WOULD ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED WHEN SPACES ARE SHARED BY TWO OR MORE USES, REGARDLESS OF THE OPERATING TIMES OF THE USES. 2) EXPANSION OF "MDMD-USE" REDUCTION ALLOWANCE - UP TO A 30% REDUCTION IN TOTAL SPACES CAN BE GRANTED, WHEN THE USES SHARING THE SPACES HAVE DIFFERENT PEAK DEMAND PERIODS. 3) INTRODUCTION OF THE ABILITY TO SET A MAXIMUM ON THE NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED, AS WELL AS A MINIMUM. 4) FORMAT CHANGES WERE MADE TO HELP Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 21 READERS FIND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS MORE EASILY. 5) CHANGES WERE MADE IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR DAY CARE FACILITIES AND HOSTELS. 17.16.060 Parking space requirements A. Intent. This section is intended to ensure provision of adequate off-street parking, considering the demands likely to result from various uses, combinations of uses, and settings. It is the citys intent, where possible, to consolidate parking and to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. ... Stxared par g redo oo Where tzuo or ori©re uses staar ;cdmmos� pa Id areas;; the total ifumber cif paig sees requiret Ina be reduced by t,p u� l0%� wltl approval of an adm�usCrative per�itt 1�here shams parking is Zoeated uh mare than one paxce� af#`ected part�,eS' must t'e�rd an>�greentent governing;the sksaired parlor►g, to the.'satlsfachari of the Drecla B. PAked Uses. Whefe inere than efte type of use is leeated en a lot er- withiR a pr-ejeet with will Ret eeineide. C Mtxel- ptong reduet<ork, lay apprgvt4g azI adtrttrustrative tise permit, erector may ce a parkthg ter uiremettt 1"or oJeot$sting pat tttg by up 20 percent, W as i on to shared etion, #ora total sxtrrt�m parltFng reduction of 3091x, upon finding that the tic s b i Siauiunt par roriiv .......tiSes wt11 riot Gontcid : G. 1'3 Off-site Parldng. The Director may, by approving an administrative use permit, allow some or all of the required parking to be located on a site different from the use. Such off-site parldng shall be within a zone where the use is allowed or conditionally allowed, or within an office, commercial or manufacturing zone. It shall be within three hundred feet of the use and shall not be separated from the use by any feature which would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the parking is located shall be owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use. (Ord. 1006 - 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9202.5(G)) �3/ Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 22 FL : Bicycle and Motorcycle Spaces. Each use or development which requires ten or more spaces shall provide facilities for parking bicycles and motorcycles at the rate of one bicycle space and one motorcycle space for each twenty car spaces. Projects which provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five motorcycle or bicycle spaces, up to a ten percent reduction. F Requirements by Type of Use. Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, for every structure erected or enlarged and for any land or structure devoted to a new use requiring more spaces according to the schedule set out in this subsection, there shall be provided the indicated minimum number of off-street parking spaces located on the site of the use. The right to occupy and use any premises shall be contingent on maintaining the required parking. In no case may required parking spaces for a use be rented or leased to off-site uses or used for other purposes. Parking in addition to these requirements may be required as a condition of use permit approval. E Uses Not Listed. The Director shall determine the parking requirement for uses which are not listed. His/her determination shall be based on similarity to listed uses, and may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 1. The parking requirement is based on the gross floor area of the entire use, unless stated otherwise. 2. When the calculation of required parking results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded to the next highest whole number if the fraction is one-half or more; otherwise it shall be rounded down to the next lowest whole number. e :a Fe Ifl regti d parkt�ng, 2 1 tlttng spaces trust be avatta.e fot cnmmou use ar►dMal-:exciustv�Iy ass��netl to any ui�itnd�ral'use' 441"4z Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 23 For residential uses, when parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem (that is, one space behind the other) subject to approval of the Community Development Director. Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged sixty-two or older may provide one-half space per dtietgg unit or one space per four occupants of a group quarters. Housing i ncCued ecluveky by Secyow� ]over f pr moderate fncorne households, as tlefine b tate S Y tateF tlnay paovzde vne eax and'one btcycie space pec dwelling unit:. H-IN Additions and Changes in Use for Existing Uses or Structures which do not meet current parking standards. Dwellings R-1 and C/OS: 2 spaces per dwelling, one of which must be covered. All other zones: I per studio apartment: 1- 1/2 for first bedroom plus 1/2 for each additional bedroom in a unit, plus 1 for each five units in developments of more than five units. t s > SE <':,:ark :: <i redu 'd p; Day Care Small family day care - same as for "Dwellings". Large family day care Goe spaee per- 300 square feet gross Reef - e-dweg tae spice pfttS arequ�red resder�#al parlong Day care center - 7W..'spaces plUs orte peettts 8r�ee Home business - see Section 17.08.040 Homeless shelters Two spaces for the facility plus one space for each six occupants at maximum allowed occupancy �33 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 24 Hospitals One space per bed Hostel l space per five beds, plus;one space fo-r nxarrager Whey theos is part of a xesidene, spacest eve becEs, zr acftinit.En two spae�s f��tki residence. Hot tubs - commercial use One space per tub Insurance service - local One space per 300 square feet gross floor area FhtE PROTECTION: THE FOLLOWING SECTION HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT DUPLICATES THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. 17.16.080 Fire pre4eetien-. T-e enstwe 4 11 1. •1 a 111.• iblte C-efigh F7.... ,. I building ____ ___ _J �. -- .. after the eff�etive date of these fegulatiens shall eemply with the fellewifft.- eapabie of suppefting firefighting with an all weather- tinebstfueted fdriving suffeee, paved width of ne! less than sixteeft feet, veffieal eleumee ef net less thm thWceen feet 9i inehes, and •r. v .r... and vY..vY haying an 4lJ1YV feet; fadius ef twenty eight feet and an etitSid V single � e story h11R inns and single family a two r •1] dwellings a height, ll eether- .. inti..•.- . buildings 1--- -'`---`- J within r � rr r , - fire-suppmsien-systems-are appreved by the tee fnanhel. (Ord. 1096 1 qwl),19£34, efd- 941 1 ftwO, 1982. prier. eede 9202.5(1)) SATELIM DISHES: CHANGES MADE TO THIS SECTION ARE TO CLARIFY WORDING THAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CONFUSING. NO CHANGES TO THE PROCESS OR STANDARDS ARE MADE. 17.16.110 Satellite Dish Antenna A. Purpose Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 25 To establish regulations which regulate the installation of dish-type satellite antenna to help protect public safety and preserve view corridors and neighborhood character. B. Definition 1. A satellite dish antenna is a device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar-configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn or cornucopia, that is used to transmit and/or receive radio microwave, or other electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based use. C. Residential Performance Standards The installation of dish-type satellite antenna may be permitted in all residential zones subject to the following criteria: 1. Antenna size: Maximum diameter to be ten feet. 2. Setback: f;& ... a&satellite dish antenna� 2�jF sla neE be located in anrequired :::::' ''`t ... V. fl.....1. G,. a0... ..J,.-,. ....:. _J:-- -J in n-- "-- 1:7.16.920.. ..r .iy ....: r>�a0 aril - - .. �;..,. ..,...,. .... : _• ,.,,,.. Antennas located outside a street yard setback but between the residence and the street are prohibited. 3. Height: Maximum antenna height to be thirteen feet. All satellite disheslghe than pr.ejee&g-evff side or rear yard fences shall be screened from neighboring properties. Roof-mounted installations or pole-mounted installations attached to eaves are prohibited except by use permit. Any antenna which may block significant views from neighboring buildings or from public areas shall be subject to architectural review. 4. One dish type satellite antenna is allowed per situ. ''4u shag in addition to normal television and radio antennas. ... D. Commercial Performance Standards. The installation of dish-type satellite antenna may be permitted in the Office, Commercial, and Industrial zones subject to the following criteria: 1. Installation shall be subject to A4rchitectural W' ew in accordance with the adopted Architectural Review Commission Ordinance and guidelines. The difeetef shall dete f.-.....-J..J a.. a0... A ebit...tuml T .y GeFflFftissien C 2. Installations shall not be permitted within streetyard. 3. Installations shall be located so as to minimize visibility from adjoining properties and rights-of-way. a -35' Zoning regulations Phase 11 amendments Page 26 E. Exceptions. Dish-type satellite antenna installations which cannot meet the performance standards included in paragraphs C and D above, may be considered if an administrative use permit is obtained as outlined by Chapter 17.58. Conditions imposed as part of use permit approval would typically include requirements to minimize the visibility of the installation, including blockage of significant public and private views of hillsides, city vistas, or open space areas. Acceptable techniques to reduce the visibility of dish installations include use of alternative materials (wire mesh instead of solid surface), painting the dish in a subdued or natural color, and landscaped screening. F. Open Space/Conservation Standards. The installation of dish-type satellite antennas may be permitted in the Open Space/Conservation zone subject to an administrative use permit and subject to fhgrchitectural Rieview in accordance with the adopted ARC ordinance and guidelines. G. Building Permit Required. All satellite dish installations require issuance of a building permit. This is to insure that dishes are structurally sound and properly grounded. if by use lans submitted for a building permit for a roof-mounted or pole-mounted installation require certification by a registered engineer. (Ord. 1107 - 1 Ex. A, 1987) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: ADDmoNS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECYCLING CONTAINERS AND TO EMPHASIZE THE NEED TO DESIGN TO CONSERVE ENERGY. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Sections: 17.18.010 Noise. 17.18.020 Vibration. 17.18.030 Illumination. 17.18.040 Air Contaminants. 17.18.050 Discharges to water or public sewer system. 17.18.060 Heat. 17.18.070 Solid waste. ................. "General and special conditions. .. ....:.... . ...... �3 � Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 27 17.18.050 Discharges to water or public sewer system. A. Discharges to groundwater or waterways, whether direct or indirect, shall conform with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game. B. Discharges to the city sewer system shall conform to Article H of Chapter 13.08 of this code. (Ord. 941 - l(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.6(E)) 17.18.070 Solid waste. Solid wastes shall be handled and stored so as to prevent nuisancesx hW:fh and fire hazards<and W tz�te C t 1 . Suitable containers shall be provided to prevent blowing or scattering of trash by animals. Suitable she at�d contatncrs Slyall b pv�ded to eneciurage an site sorting dccsjiecuu a-INIXire� ctex (See also Chapter 8.04) (Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.6(G)) ' ' e use o coaventtunal enemy sflurces #ctr space 7zeabrtg d clitrg, water heatand na£rb shah be murruzecl Ety ttlea of proper design and brlent2tlon, ttudtng pmv�slviF aid protecc��tr off`solar�atposwre; RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY: TIHS SECTION SETS L mus ON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ALLOWED IN GROUP HOUSING. TIM SECTION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FROM THE CATEGORY OF "GROUP HOUSING". Chapter 17.20 RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY STANDARDS Sections: 17.20.010 Group housing - Permitted upon approval of use permit. 17.20.020 Group housing - Occupancy limits. �-3 7 Zoning regulations Phase H amendments Page 29 17.20.010 Group housing- Permitted upon approval of use permit Group housing (such as dormitory, rest home, boardinghouse or fraternity) which is occupied by six or more individuals may be permitted upon approval of whatever type of use permit is required by the zone district provisions. (Ord. 941 - l(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.7(A)) 17.20.020 Group housing - Occupancy limits Use permits for group housing shall stipulate a maximum occupancy. res this ...... ..... ..... Th occupancy limits usmz::�. e Less "fid h W- W erect shall reflect habitable space within buildings and aviiiable pa'rldn"gand shall not exceed the following standards based on the general plan: TABLE 8 MAXIMUM POPULATION DENSITY FOR EACH ZONE Maximum Population Density Zone (persons per net acre) R-1 21 R-2, 0, C-N, C-T 25 R-3 40 R-4, C-R, C-C 55 (Ord. 941 - l(part), 1982: prior code - 9202.7(B)) ADDITIONS TO TABLE OF ALLOWED USES: TABLE 9 HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF "CONVENIENCE STORES" TO THE "RETAEL SALES -GROCERIES" CATEGORY; NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY MARKETS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST OF USES ALLOWED WITH A USE PERMIT, IN THREE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, THE OFFICE ZONE, AND THE TouRisT COMMERCIAL ZONE. STANDARDS FOR THESE STORES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AND MOVED TO THE "USES ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES" SECTION (17.08.095). j-38 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 29 Table 9 addition: Uses allowed R-2 R-3 R4 O C-N C-R C-C C-T C-S Retail sales - groceries, A A A PC D liquor and specialized foods (bakery, meats, dairy items, etc.), CtSAttB"Stt1a Retail sales - i] #),43 A A iJ neighborhood grocery market NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERIES: THE DEFINITION HAS BEEN CHANGED AND MOVED TO THE "DEFINITIONS" SECTION OF THESE REGULATIONS. STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AND MOVED TO SECTION -- (USES ALLOWED IN SEVERAL ZONES). 17.30.030 Neighborhood Greeery 14farket defined, " A r-eteg greeery store with a gross fleer aFea ef-2,9W squefe feet er less, and ineluded as an bevemges and shag emer- ' , bieyele, n THE S ZONE: THE REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES IN THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ZONES HAS BEEN LOWERED FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADMINISTRATIVE. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (S) ZONE Sections: 17.56.010 Purpose and application. �39 Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 30 17.56.020 Allowed uses. 17.56.030 Property development standards. 17.56.040 Procedure - Subdivisions - Waiver of use permit requirement when property subject to subdivision map application. 17.56.010 Purpose and application. The S zone has two purposes: A. In combination with any zone, to require approval of an<'artin;sticate use permit }e ........ planning eeinwAssien before any use may be established. The use permit requirement is intended to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given site. Such development review may also be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard. 17.56.020 Allowed uses. Subject to approval of ark' use permit , any allowed or conditionally allowed use in the underlying zone may be established. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(B)) 17.56.030 Property development standards. .................................. As provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the .ad=n n strat. d may establish conditions relating to improvements, building location, access, and so on, which are more restrictive than provided in the underlying zone, in order to fulfill the intent of these regulations. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(C)) 17.56.040 Procedure - Subdivisions - Waiver of use permit requirement when property subject to subdivision map application. The director may waive the requirement for a use permit when property proposed for development is the subject of a subdivision map application. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(D)) a-�o Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 31 USE PERMITS: 1) USE PERMrr PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXPIRATION OF A USE PERMIT, WHEN THE USE HAS CEASED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. 2) A SENTENCE HAS BEEN ADDED THAT ALLOWS CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE EXPIRATION DATES, AND A NOTE HAS BEEN ADDED THAT CLARIFIES THAT CONDITIONS MAY NOT LIMIT USES TO SPECIFIC PERSONS OR GROUPS. 3) PROCEDURES ARE CHANGED TO ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION (ARC), WHEN ARC REVIEW Is ALREADY REQUIRED. Chapter 17.58 USE PERMITS 17.58.030 Procedures. .. . op N '}:., y � �.. M'i 4}'�vY��46.1.riMiW tt�if Idr Y!•Qi yMi�.+!+1: S►Clt©then ti��mad s�esf�the coirditu�ts of appraual>, Ien reinstatement of that Ise 1xe a1�aWed anf�ivaava� o�.a:�te�.use Wit. ..::i::isi.._.....f::��::iY....ii::i::{i::i>::n:i::i`.:iY.,v,.:i'�::...vi:'(:i:!>':i:{i!%::::::i:::ii:!>{:i' ":.i•:ii::ii:�.�i;:::`:i::::)�:f!:.J..):i:{.`:Y.)pi':i::...`:::%.i:iJ}::vi:i::..!:::...............::.......:.:...:........::.v........:n..:::...... .... 'lie ntnu�xty 13e�Xap��rrectoi• map extend the yeax tz stated t� � 1, abv�ve uao?t.receapt t�f a:wtt request;uppu fittdtng t[sat ctrcutnssaares hkave uat chged slgintcanti . ,:.. . sznce tlte<h:me the ttse ceased+ attarti,; Section 17.58.050 Conditions of approval Conditions imposed by the director, planning commission or council may include:; - ark;;not {{.ii'J.!.:x{.iitiIXn✓..:nii::p:.y.y{{:rc,y:.::::::::... ..:....:::i::'..: �v'ii�::��'iii::{{iY.{'::^`::...iii:iiiiii:n:::ii:.`::i::iiii'._:i:i`i'f..i'.i in{.ii:..iiii:.::.:{..{{:{{{{.::Yf:iG`i l�At <:Rtei>:fK181:>tliC: 11: .::::..... ...,; . BatSE:>Lf1a <:91t :..::,:`.;:;;..f;,..teiiJ:.;:i•;';.ni::i J:.i: ::.........::....:::::::;.:.:::::::.:::.:.:.:..........:........... on nod,be .pati strict the use tst scite„pers wou (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.2(E)) Section 17.58.070 Requirement for and compliance with use permits o� Zoning regulations Phase II amendments Page 32 A. For any given development or proposed use,when more than one use permit - including more than one type of use permit - is required by individual sections of these regulations, only one use permit application need be filed and acted upon. If both an administrative use permit or permits would simultaneously be required by separate sections, one planning commission use permit shall beprocessed to cover all requirements. I bz .... iit...s..t.;:;.;:.;;:.:u;::;e:.>::>::us ' :::. i:a:?l:fai",>.I� .l .: : ,h, ::ai:;%i:%:F`.;::;::: f or s t c e eltxp e t xxr tto�s, arty r+ vre�x+ NOW 1Zevtes� Co�ru�ssion #t > t as rew 66d bebe..ileci . PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS: A PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ELIMINATED THAT WAS A DUPLICATE. 17.62.010 Preliminary development plan. Application for planned development shall be made to the community development department and shall consist of a preliminary development plan, to include: D. A quantified description of the total number and type of dwelling units, parcel sizes, coverage, modified and natural open space, grading, residential densities, and area devoted to nonresidential uses; E. , > gmding, residefi694 densities, 1-Identification of portions of the development which would otherwise require a variance, and reason for the deviation from normal standards; Fr. A site plan and supporting maps, drawn to a suitable scale and clearly labeled, showing, if applicable: H. Information on land area adjacent to the proposed development, indicating important relationships between the proposal and surrounding land uses, circulation systems, public facilities and natural features; r Any additional information which may be required by the director to evaluate the character and impact of the planned development. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9204.4(A)) Top— P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 1 draft MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo January 26, 1994 PRESENT: Comm s. Mary Whittlesey, Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross, Sandra Sigurdson, Charles Senn and Chairman Barry Karleskint ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager; Judith Lautner, Associate Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; and Diane Wright, Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meetings of December 1, 1993 and December 15, 1993 were approved as submitted and the minutes of the regular meeting of December 29, 1993 were approved as amended. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 1 General Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 157-93 . Consideration of a City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to eliminate the "major expansion area" designation from the 190 acre (+/-) Dalidio area and to designate Service-Commercial/Light Industrial, Retail-Commercial, Medium-High Density Residential, Interim Conservation/Open Space, and Conservation/Open Space land use designations for the Dalidio planning area and an amendment to the text of the adopted 1977 Land Use Element regarding comparison retail-commercial and open space policies; 981 Madonna Road; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Whisenand presented the staff report and said the amendment was initiated by the City Council at the request of the Dalidio family and the City Council believed it was appropriate to remove the "major expansion area" designation so that a specific plan was not required. He explained that the item was being introduced so that Municipal Code requirements would be met, and he suggested the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain. Commr. Hoffman asked why this was necessary because of the designation in the draft LUE and its adoption schedule. 44. /:7 P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 2 Ron Whisenand said that the City Council had requested the General Plan Amendment be processed in the event the draft LUE did not get adopted on time. Commr. Whittlesey moved to continue Item 1, General Plan Amendment/ Rezoning GP/R 157-93, to a date uncertain. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Whittlesey, Hoffman, Williams, Cross, Sigurdson, Senn and Rarleskint NOES - None ABSENT - None The motion passed. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 2. Use Permit A 166-93. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's action conditionally approving a request to allow a second dwelling unit; 71 Benton Way; R-1 zone; Bud & Betty Retzloff, applicants; Helen M. Alexander, appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judith Lautner presented the staff report and explained that an administrative use permit allowing a second dwelling was approved on December 17, 1993, and a neighbor appealed that decision on the grounds it might set a precedent and increase water runoff on properties on Broad Street. She said the request met all standards for second dwellings and that granting this request would not set a precedent because each request is considered on its own ability to meet standards. She explained that grading regulations prohibit additional drainage onto adjacent properties. She confirmed that the Commission received letters from Florence Tartaglia opposing the use permit and a letter from the applicants. She recommended that the condition requiring architectural review be deleted because no exterior changes were proposed and that the Commission uphold the hearing officer's approval and deny the appeal with findings and conditions. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Judith Lautner explained the requirements for second dwellings. Commr. Whittlesey said she had visited the site and talked with the applicant. Judith Lautner pointed out the location of properties concerned about drainage on an overhead map. She said the building division had determined that the request met all standards. q P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 3 Ron Whisenand explained that allowing second dwellings to increase affordable housing had been mandated by the State. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. No one chose to speak. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Commr. Williams asked if the trailer would have to be removed to provide the required four parking spaces. Judith Lautner said when the space was rented out, the trailer would have to be removed. Commr. Williams moved to uphold the hearing officer's decision and deny the appeal with the five findings and five conditions as suggested by staff. Commr. Sigurdson seconded the motion. In answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint, Judith Lautner said staff was not aware of any sewage problems in the area. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Sigurdson, Whittlesey, Hoffman, Cross, Senn and Karleskint NOES - None ABSENT - None The motion passed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Item 3 . Zoning Regulations Amendments R 108-93. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations to simplify processing, add and change definitions, clarify wording and format, and make minor changes to the development standards; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from January 12, 1994) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judith Lautner presented the staff report and explained that changes to the Zoning Regulations suggested by staff were divided into phases and this was phase two. She said staff was recommending changes to allow grocery markets in R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones with an administrative use permit, to base slope determinations on existing grade and exclude creek areas in computing allowed density, and to allow approval of fence height exceptions by letter from the Community Development Director instead of by an administrative use permit. She recommended parking regulations be modified to allow a 10 percent reduction for �-�Jr P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 4 shared parking with an additional 20 percent reduction if peak hour usage did not coincide, a reduction in parking requirements for very low to moderate income housing and day care uses, and the addition of a parking requirement for hostels. She recommended that a use permit not be required when an office use moved into a residence in the office zone and did not expand the building, that an administrative use permit be required for "S" zones instead of a Planning Commission use permit, and that the Architectural Review Commission be able to grant administrative use permits for exceptions to development standards when ARC review was also required. She explained that the changes would reduce the amount of time staff spent on minor issues, simplify processing, encourage neighborhood grocery stores and hostels, and encourage less dependence on private automobiles. She recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council. Chairman Karleskint announced that the Commission would begin by considering the change for neighborhood grocery markets and continue following the list in the staff report. Commr. Williams expressed concern that the "good neighbor plan" on page 12, item 8 was a dis-incentive. Judith Lautner explained that the "good neighbor plan" originated with a market at Mustang Village. Commr. Williams said review would be required if complaints were received and she recommended deleting item s. She felt an addition to encourage recycling was needed somewhere in the regulations. Commr. Karleskint said that requiring a crime prevention emergency response program for neighborhood markets in the "good neighbor plan" created liability problems for the markets. Commr. Cross expressed concern about compatibility. He said he did not agree with allowing small grocery stores in any residential zone except for R-4. Commr. Hoffman felt it was a market place decision. Chairman Karleskint asked if there was a consensus to eliminate the "good neighbor plan. " The Commission unanimously agreed. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Judith Lautner said as written, sale of alcohol would be prohibited in residential zones. Commr. Senn said that if a small grocery store wanted to open and was inappropriate, many nearby residents would formally oppose it. P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 5 He believed a 3, 000 square foot grocery store would not be economically feasible if alcohol sales were prohibited. The Commission agreed 6-1 to allow neighborhood grocery markets in residential neighborhoods with Commr. Cross objecting to the proposal. Commr. Whittlesey requested that a recycling plan be added to performance standards. Commrs. Williams and Karleskint agreed with Commr. Whittlesey. 2. Density on Sloping Lots In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Judith Lautner explained that basing density on existing topography could reduce allowed density if improvements such as sidewalks created slopes. She said existing topography had been looked at for developments such as Stoneridge because lots had not been created. Commr. Karleskint expressed concern about the statement regarding on site grading because it could mean a recalculation after the grading was done. Judith Lautner said that was a valid concern and the wording could be changed, but she believed that "existing grade" should replace "natural grade. " Commr. Hoffman felt the proposed wording was appropriate because it stated that the slope was based on the lot as exists when a building permit was applied for. He did not believe excavation appeared to be included. Commr. Cross said a builder could excavate a hillside and then ask for a slope determination. Judith Lautner suggested adding the words "Council approved grading" so that excavation could not be included. Commr. Senn said he was opposed to taking creek banks out of the slope calculations. He believed property could be devaluated if creeks were not included in the area of the site. He said it was easier to determine parcel size than the irregular bank of a creek. Commr. Hoffman disagreed and said including the creek in the slope of the lot has often decreased the allowed density. A-� P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 6 Commr. Senn said section 17. 16.01 referred to density as the number of dwellings per acre. He said he understood the proposal would reduce the density calculation by the amount of the creek area. Judith Lautner drew a diagram to explain how cross-slope calculations including the creek area were done and what was being proposed. Commr. Senn said he did not object to the slope of creek areas being eliminated from slope calculations, but he felt the creek area should be included in density calculations. He said he did not disagree with protecting 'creek areas, but he was concerned that it could down zone someone's property. Judith Lautner explained that the maximum number of units allowed was for flat land, and a steeper slope reduced the number of units allowed per acre. She said more density would be often allowed by eliminating the creek area. Ron Whisenand said a greater density could be allowed on property that remained after the creek area is eliminated from the calculations. Commr. Cross felt it is inappropriate to allow people more density because a creek runs across a lot. Comm s. Hoffman and Karleskint said they supported staff's proposal. Commr. Hoffman expressed concern about density being determined by units in section 1716.010. He said it would be more realistic to determine density by square footage. Judith Lautner said staff would be discussing a change from units to square footage in the next phase of Zoning Regulation Amendments. The Commission voted 5-2 to add "previously approved" to the description of on-site grading with Commrs. Senn and Cross casting the dissenting votes. 3 . Fence Height Exceptions Commr. Cross said if someone wanted an exception to the code, that person should expect to pay more and to go through the process. Judith Lautner said most of the fence height exceptions were very minor in nature and a large number were requested every year. a-� P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 7 Ron Whisenand said about 99.9 percent of the requests were approved and that indicated that either too many were being approved or that the process needed to be made simpler. Commr. Cross felt neighbors were reluctant to complain about fence heights. Ron Whisenand disagreed and said neighborhood residents appear to be vocal. The Commission voted 6-1 to accept staff's proposal for changes for fence height exceptions with Commr. Cross casting the dissenting vote. 4. Parking Requirements Commr. Senn expressed concern about a use permit being able to establish a maximum number of parking spaces. Commr. Whittlesey said she preferred not to encourage more parking than was necessary. Commr. Senn said he did not disagree with discouraging excess parking, but he felt it should be done by incentive not by requirement. He said a maximum limit would result in people opposing projects because of too much parking. Judith Lautner explained that the statement was intended to give the public notice that a maximum amount of parking could be imposed. She said it was a suggestion by the APCD. Commr. Hoffman asked if staff were considering establishing a maximum number of parking spaces that was less than what was required by the Zoning Code. Judith Lautner said no. Commr. Senn said setting a maximum penalized successful businesses. He presented an example of a successful restaurant wanting to open at another location. He did not believe it sent a proper message to applicants. Ron Whisenand said the language could be modified to state that a minimum amount of parking is allowed by right but a use permit could restrict the amount of additional parking requested. Commr. Cross said applicants do not generally want more parking. He said State Farm proposed more parking because it intended to expand on the site. a-�9 P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 8 Commrs. Karleskint, Whittlesey and Williams agreed with Commr. Senn. Commr. Whittlesey said she understood Commr. Senn's concerns, but felt it would give notice of the possibility that a maximum could be imposed. Commr. Senn felt the language in the General Plan already sent that message because it stated that single vehicle trips were being discouraged. Commr. Sigurdson said she supported adding the language for the possibility of a maximum number. Commr. Cross said it should be added because it would be honest with applicants. The Commission voted 4-3 not to add the proposed sentence stating that a use permit could establish a maximum number of parking spaces with Commrs. Cross, Sigurdson and Whittlesey casting the dissenting votes. Commr. Cross asked staff about parking for day care. Ron Whisenand directed the Commission to Number 3 on Page 15 of the Regulations. Commr. Cross asked if there would be white curbs indicating loading and unloading zones for day care. Judith Lautner said that was not staff's intention. She explained that it was difficult for day care centers to provide additional parking and the City would be going against the intent of State Law to impose that parking. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Elaine Simer, 1677 McCollum Street, said she had been a member of American Youth Hostels for 10 years and had traveled with youth across the United States. She said she was interested in opening a hostel in San Luis Obispo, had located a building, but the parking requirements couldn't be met. She said one parking space for every 10 beds would be appropriate because many clients arrive by bicycle or bus. She felt one space for managers was sufficient because most managers of hostels were not married. Judith Lautner said the City Council had not yet adopted parking standards for hostels. She said staff was recommending two parking spaces for every 10 beds and one space for the manager unless the a -moo P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 9 hostel was part of a residence and then additional spaces would be required for the residents. Ms. Simer said she was interested in establishing a 12-16 bed hostel. Ron Whisenand explained that there were two different types of hostels, one where a home was the primary use of the site with the hostel being an accessory use and one to three additional spaces would be required for the home, and the other where the hostel was the primary use with a manager staying on the premises. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. The Commission unanimously agreed to accept staff's recommendation for hostels. 5. Offices Commr. Senn moved to accept staff's recommendation for offices. Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. Commr. Cross asked if offices would require director approval. Judith Lautner said yes, except when no additions were made to an existing building. Commr. Cross asked how the proposal was compatible with the adopted LUE which stated that the City would review conversions of homes to offices for compatibility with surrounding uses and for the preservation of the architectural character of the buildings. Judith Lautner said the historical nature of the building would not be affected because the building would still exist. Commr. Cross directed staff to page 17 of the 1977 General Plan. He said a General Plan Amendment would be needed for the change. Judith Lautner said Commr. Cross' concern was valid and suggested the item be withdrawn at this time and considered at a later time. Chairman Karleskint thanked Commr. Cross. Commr. Senn withdrew his motion. Ron Whisenand asked if the Commission had been discussing the Office zones. He said the policy might still be in the draft. 'A-V P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 10 The Commission said offices had been discussed. Commr. Senn said it had also been discussed in regard to the Housing Element. 6. The S-zone Judith Lautner described several areas in the City that were targeted by this item. Ron Whisenand said staff's intention was to streamline the process by allowing the hearing officer to grant non-controversial use permits in S zones. The Commission unanimously agreed to staff's suggestion for the S- zone. Commr. Cross requested that if the change is approved, staff present a report to the Commission so that the Commission could determine if the Hearing Officer considers issues that the Commission should consider. It was decided to provide a summary update to the Commission after one year. 7 . Use permit action by ARC Commr. Rarleskint believed that the ARC should not consider use permits. Judith Lautner said staff was recommending that the ARC only act on property development exceptions, not those regarding uses. Commr. Cross said that ARC's role appeared to have expanded beyond its original intent and some people in the development community believed the ARC was making decisions beyond its purview. He said the Planning Commission is in an awkward position when it does not agree with exceptions given to projects by the ARC through schematic approval. He said the process needed to be changed so that the Commission could determine exceptions before ARC schematic approval. Ron Whisenand said the intent was not to limit the Planning Commission's authority on exceptions. He said only administrative hearing officer exceptions would be decided upon by the ARC. He said that he had attended most of the ARC meetings since he has been with the City and he did not feel the ARC was making decisions beyond its purview. He believed site plan design issues were in a-AA P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 11 the purview of the ARC and the exception process was part of that process. Commr. Cross said the Planning Commission needed to have purview over land uses and exceptions to standards were land use issues. Commr. Senn felt staff was asking the Commission to trust staff's judgment as to whether it is appropriate for exceptions to be handled by the ARC or the Commission. He said the process could be changed in the future if the Commission believes it is not working. Commr. Hoffman asked staff if the proposal gave authority to the ARC to consider administrative use permits. Judith Lautner said yes, but only those relating to property development standards. Commr. Hoffman asked where appeals of ARC administrative use permits would go. Judith Lautner said the appeals would go to the City Council. Ron Whisenand presented an example of an administrative use permit that granted an exception for a specific number of feet, and the ARC believed the design would work better on the site with a modification to the exception, but the ARC could not make that change. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Judith Lautner explained that if permits for site development exceptions and ARC review were required, an administrative use permit would not be required and only ARC review would be needed. She said currently when an administrative use permit and a Planning Commission use permit are required, only a Planning Commission use permit is filed. Ron Whisenand said it would give ARC jurisdiction over granting exceptions to its own standards. Judith Lautner said the ARC can already grant exceptions for creek setback standards and trash enclosures in the street yard. Commr. Hoffman said that administrative use permits were generally appealed to the City Council and that would still occur without Commission review. Chairman Karleskint asked the Commission if it agreed with the other items on page 31 of the amendment package including the expiration of use permits. dol—53 P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 12 Judith Lautner presented an example of a use permit for a sorority granted in 1955 that ceased for several years yet not having to reapply for a use permit. Commr. Hoffman asked Cindy Clemens if this change would be retroactive or only affect use permits granted after adoption. Ron Whisenand suggested that the Commission pass the item tonight with staff researching that concern before it was considered by the City Council. Commr. Whittlesey requested the Commission consider including a solid waste plan and a recycling plan as conditions of approval. Commr. Sigurdson stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Commr. Whittlesey suggested adding a letter M, stating that recycling and solid waste plans may be included, under Section 17 . 58.50, discussed on page 31 of the amendment package. Ron Whisenand said that earlier the Commission voted 4-3 to eliminate a reference to maximum parking spaces and this would be an appropriate place to include a statement that a maximum number of parking spaces may be considered to provide notice. The Commission did not agree with Ron Whisenand's suggestion. Commr. Sigurdson rejoined the meeting. Commr. Karleskint said he generally supported permit action by the ARC as stated in the amendment package, but suggested that the last sentence be eliminated. Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Karleskint. Commr. Karleskint said although he could agree to the change, he was concerned that the ARC would begin to do things it was not qualified to do. Commr. Cross said he could not support ARC use permits because it was not within their purview. The Commission decided 6-1 to approve staff's recommendation for use permit action by the ARC with the elimination of the last sentence and with Commr. Cross casting the dissenting vote. Other Issues P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 13 Commr. Whittlesey suggested clarifying that day care facilities could have many children enrolled but only 8 on site at one time in B. 1 on page 13 by adding the words "on site at one time" in B. 1 and B.2. She expressed concern about item D on page 15 because there could be performance standards besides parking that might not be looked at for the primary use. For example, she said a day care center at a church could have noise and traffic impacts not analyzed for the permanent use. Judith Lautner explained that the impacts of a secondary use would be considered but the primary and secondary uses would be under one use permit. Commr. Whittlesey suggested adding the words "space and" before the word "containers" under solid waste and recycling on page 26. The other Commissioners agreed. Commr. Hoffman suggested a definition of big box stores be included on the first page. He said he agreed with Ron Whisenand that the use matrix should be changed to add it as an allowable use. He said he did not believe that big box stores fit under the general retail definition. He suggested acknowledging a new category for big box stores and modifying Table 9 to allow big box stores in C-R and C-S zones with a Planning Commission use permit. Commr. Senn believed big boxes fit under the current retail definition but he said he would not object to Commr. Hoffman's suggestion. Commr. Sigurdson felt the current retail definition was . adequate and it was not necessary to spend staff time developing a new category. Commr. Senn said a big box use would be appealed to the City Council. He read from page 49 of the Zoning Code which stated retail uses over 60, 000 square feet required a Planning Commission use permit. Commr. Hoffman withdrew his suggestion because he did not have the current version of the Zoning Code. Ron Whisenand briefly left the meeting to get 1993 copies of the Zoning Code for Commissioners who did not have that version. Commr. Hoffman suggested adding occupations which use non-inert compressed gases to prohibited home occupation uses on Page 10 of the Phase 2 amendments. P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 14 Judith Lautner directed the Commission to the Zoning Regulation on page 12 which discussed standards including fire and safety for home occupations. The Commission decided the verbiage on page 12 was sufficient. Commr. Williams expressed concern about financial services being offered to residents of a boarding house as mentioned in the last sentence in the first paragraph on page 2 of the Phase 2 Amendments. She suggested the word "financial" be replaced with the words "personal services. " The other Commissioners agreed. Commr. Williams suggested eliminating the sentence on page 3 under neighborhood grocery markets that referred to catering to people who arrive by non-motorized vehicles because this was understood to be a characteristic of neighborhood markets. She suggested it read: "A retail grocery store with a gross floor area of 3 , 000 square feet or less which sells a full range of food products and some convenience items. " There was not support on the Commission to remove the statement about catering to non-motorized vehicles. Commr. Williams suggested replacing "no longer than 30 days" with "for the duration of the permit" in paragraph 4 on page 8 . The Commission and staff agreed with Commr. Williams. Commr. Williams suggested that paragraph 6 be modified to state "When the use is temporary or intermittent the applicant may be required to post a refundable deposit" and eliminate the words "if necessary" because it was redundant. Commr. Whittlesey suggested eliminating the dollar amount because the amount could change. Commr. Hoffman expressed concern that saying "may" instead of "shall" and eliminating the dollar amount might result in not everyone being treated the same. Cindy Clemens said it could result in discretionary complaints. Commr. Karleskint felt "shall" should be used instead of "may. " Ron Whisenand suggested stating "deposit set by the Community Development Director" instead of stating a specific amount. P S40 P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 15 Commr. Senn left the meeting at 10: 00 p.m. due to a prior commitment. Commr. Hoffman felt "shall" should be used instead of "may" and an exemption should be included for non-profit organizations. Cindy Clemens suggested the wording "Exceptions may be granted for a show of good cause. " There was not a consensus on the Commission to change "may" to "shall. " Commr. Williams said she had asked Judith Lautner if outdoor signs needed to be addressed and was told that signs would be addressed in the administrative use permit process. She asked the other Commissioners if they would support addressing home occupations in mobile home parks on page 10 and suggested adding "Requirements for home occupation permits in mobile home parks may be different from those in other residential areas. Ron Whisenand expressed concern about treating mobile home parks different than other residential areas. Cindy Clemens advised that it would be better to analyze individual requests based on restraints of a particular mobile home park than to include a broad requirement for all mobile home parks. Commr. Williams suggested that a definition for satellite dishes be included on page 24 and Judith Lautner agreed. Commr. Cross commented that the more attempts that were made to streamline the process, the more complex it was becoming. Commr. Williams moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Regulations Amendments R 108-93 to the City Council as modified by the Commission and based on the two findings as listed by staff in the December 29, 1993 staff report. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Comm s. Williams, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Cross, Sigurdson and Karleskint NOES - None ABSENT - Commr. Senn The motion passed. The Commission thanked staff for a job well done. P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 16 Chairman Karleskint announced that the Commission would now be considering a Business Item. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 4. General Plan Conformity Report. Determination of whether the purchase of two parcels by the County of San Luis Obispo for future expansion of the County Government Center conforms with the City's General Plan; 1108 and 1144 Monterey Street; C-R zone; County of San Luis Obispo, applicant. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Whisenand said that State Law requires the County to ask the City. He explained that the Commission could chose not to respond, and it would be assumed that the request was acceptable. He explained that the Downtown Concept Plan was not technically part of the General Plan, but because of its importance, staff had included determinations of conformity. He recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution based on the two findings in the staff report. Commr. Hoffman questioned why the parcels were described as level in the site description. In answer to questions from other Commissioners, Chairman Karleskint explained that the Mitsubishi and Volkswagen dealerships were being consolidated with Kimbell Motors and notice had already been given to employees. He said he believed the County chose not to expand across the street for security reasons. Commr. Whittlesey felt it was important to keep County government in downtown. Commr. Hoffman moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commr. Williams seconded the motion. Commr. Cross expressed concern that by having County Government in the downtown something else was being excluded. He said the County was slowly taking over downtown, and County Government did not produce tax revenue because it was not retail use. He said more was being lost than gained. He felt that County had a responsibility to find less expensive sites to develop on. Commr. Whittlesey said she shared some of Commr. Cross' concerns, but she believed it was good for businesses and could be a magnet for more business in that area of downtown. P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 17 Commr. Williams and Sigurdson agreed that it would benefit downtown businesses. Commr. Williams noted that it was on the periphery of downtown and she said she supported the proposal. Commr. Cross said major civic centers appear to be a wasteland and are forever expanding. VOTING: AYES - Comm s. Hoffman, Williams, Whittlesey, Sigurdson and Karleskint NOES - Commr. Cross ABSENT - Commr. Senn The motion passed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Ron Whisenand said the final LUE draft would be coming back to the Commission on February 23, 1994. He said the Porter project would be coming back with revisions after being denied by the City Council. He mentioned that the Ferr ini-Rosemont project was tentatively scheduled to be considered by the City Council on February 15. Commr. Hoffman recommended that Commissioners seriously consider attending the Planning Institute Conference in San Diego. Commr. Karleskint agreed. It was announced that it was Commr. Sigurdson's birthday. Commr. Cross mentioned that the Cripe project on South Higuera had been approved without requiring improvements because the owner described it as a temporary use. He said the business had been operating for about three years. Ron Whisenand confirmed that the Commissioners received a letter from Whitney McIlvaine about a large black truck parked on the sidewalk next to the Cripe property. Commr. Hoffman said he disagreed with the conclusion of the memo that the truck was parked in a driveway. Ron Whisenand explained that staff did not regulate where the vehicle was parked, but staff regulated the parking spaces. Commr. Hoffman said it was parked off the driveway. He said if it was not an approved parking space it should be abated. a�9 P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 18 Ron Whisenand said the information would be passed ' on to the abatement and zoning code officer. The Commission mentioned several vehicles were parked on front lawns on Oceanaire and Fredericks streets . Cindy Clemens said that there was some question whether or not current zoning code language was sufficient to allow people to be cited for parking on lawns, but a change was in the process of being adopted by the City Council which would make it easier to do SO. Commr. Cross mentioned that when discussing the Brizzolara Street project the Commission determined that Highway 101 would probably not be widened in the future. He said a copy of the District 5 Long Term Transportation document specifically outlined programs to widen Highway 101 to six lanes from Highway 41 to Santa Barbara. Commr. Whittlesey said it was also in the Circulation Element. She asked staff to look into the cost of providing free bus service compared to widening roads. She asked when the Laguna Mobile Home Park was scheduled. Ron Whisenand said it would be in the near future, but no specific date had been scheduled. He said a memo would be prepared for the Commission by staff and Cindy Clemens to be reviewed before the meeting. Cindy Clemens said the tenant group representing the Mobile Home Park had hired an attorney and had become more aware of the legal issues. Commr. Whittlesey said the hot dog cart at the former Rexall location had tables and chairs. Ron Whisenand said chairs had been approved but tables had not. Chairman Karleskint announced that former Mayor Dunin had had a slight stroke and was at Sierra Vista Hospital and doing fairly well and that his wife, Helen, was temporarily at Cabrillo. He said the manner of processing items from the Planning Commission to the City Council was discussed at the Mayor's quarterly meeting and a special meeting was being set up in March to further discuss that issue. He asked the Commission to provide him with comments and said Commissioners could accompany him to the meeting. Ron Whisenand said he believed staff had done an excellent job of outlining everyone's concerns on the Leitcher project. a?-do P.C. Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 19 Chairman Karleskint said applications for Planning Commission vacancies were currently being accepted and interviewing would probably begin February. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to a special meeting of the Planning Commission on February 2, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, Diane Wright Recording Secretary