Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report.pdf1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 18, 2011 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Christopher Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: Christopher Riordan, AICP ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Amendments to Sections 7-20.220, 14-70.080, 16-17.160 and Various Sections of Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the City Code ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND: On May 4, 2011, the City Council open and conducted a public hearing, introduced the ordinance, and voted to place the ordinance for a second reading and adoption on consent. DISCUSSION: The proposed amendments are not intended to make substantive changes to the code. The table below summarizes the amendments in the order they appear in the ordinance and the City Code. The full text of the ordinance showing specific changes is attached. Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Commercial/Community Stables City Code Section 7-20.220 concerns the keeping of horses in Saratoga. The Code does not specifically include “training” and “breeding” as purposes for which horses may be kept. Staff is proposing to add the words “training” and “breeding” to the definition of both Commercial Stable and Community Stable to clarify how horses may be kept. Voluntary Merger The wording of City Code Section 14-70.080 assumes that a lot merger will be followed by a resubdivision. In some cases, such as the recent Thunder Ranch annexation, parcels are merged and there is no resubdivision. Staff is proposing to add text that states that a merger of contiguous parcels under common ownership is authorized with only staff review if no resubdivision is requested and may be accomplished by simple recordation of a deed of merger. Change the word Adjacent to Abutting and related clarifications There are frequent uses of the word “adjacent” in the City Code when referring to properties sharing a common property line. The Zoning Code does not include a definition Staff is proposing to replace the word “adjacent” with “abutting” in those code sections where the use of the word “adjacent” refers to a property sharing a common property line. In addition, staff 2 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes for “adjacent”. However, section 15- 06.020 of the Zoning Code defines “Abutting” as having property lines or district lines in common. Recent case law has held that the word “adjacent” means “nearby” but not necessarily having a common property line. is proposing to replace “adjacent” with “immediately adjacent” in code sections where the term abutting would not be appropriate. Change QPF (Quasi- Public Facility) to CFS (Community Facility) During the 2007 update to the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan, the name of the Quasi-Public Facilities (QPF) General Plan Designation was changed to Community Facilities (CFS). References to the QPF designation still exist in the Code. Staff is proposing to replace QPF with CFS in the various code sections where QPF is still referenced. Solar Panels City Code Section 15-80.030(f) states that with the approval of the Community Development Director, solar panels not exceeding six feet in height may be located with a rear setback. Staff is proposing to remove the height and setback restriction from the Zoning Code as recent changes to State law preempt Zoning Code requirements limiting installation of solar panels. (Health & Safety Code section 17959.1.) This same State law also restricts cities and counties from requiring Design Review approval or Conditional Use Permits for solar panels. However, this exemption from regulations is not applicable if the Building Official has a good faith belief (based on written standards, policies, or conditions) that the solar energy system could have specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety. In such cases discretionary review would be allowed in accordance with the law. Appeal Time Limits City Code Section 15-90.050(a) (Appeals) states that 10 calendar days is the time limit for filing an appeal to the Planning Commission decision. However, City Code Section 15-45.065(c) states that a decision of the Community Developer is appealable to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days. Staff is proposing to correct this inconsistency by modifying the appeal period specified in City Code Section 15-90.050(a) from 10 days to 15 days. 3 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Driveways During the 2009 Code Clean-up the City amended the standards for driveways to add required widths for driveways: A minimum 12 foot wide driveway for driveways that service one parcel and a 14 foot wide driveway with one foot shoulder on each side for driveways that service more than one parcel. A greater width may be required by the Fire department. This change was inadvertently deleted during the 2010 update to the Building Code. Staff is proposing to include the driveway standards as they were adopted in 2009. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Deny the proposed ordinance amendment; 2. Modify the proposed ordinance amendment. FOLLOW UP ACTION: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance