pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� �8 �� �o �� 82 as �4 �� sE 8� 88 �u �o 91 --� .-�� 4.3 Any newly-proposed use identified by a zoning district as an accessory or permitted use must simply be allowed through the applicable administrative processes. Likewise, a proposed use which is designated as a conditional use in a zoning district may only be allowed through the formal conditional use review and approval process. More contemporary uses which may not have been anticipated (and are not identified) by the zoning code are regularly brought to the attention of Planning Division staff; if staff believes that such uses are consistent with the intent of the particular zoning district but could have significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties, the appropriate course of action is to amend the zoning code to identify the new use as a conditional use and then to seek the required conditional approval. Conversely, and contrary to an assertion made in the appeal, City staff certainly may not arbitrarily require that a new use seek conditional approval if the use is believed to be consistent with the purpose of the applicable zoning district and to be similar in nature (or have potential impacts that are comparable) to other uses permitted in the same zoning district. The purpose statement of the R-1 zoning district is as follows: 92 The R-1 District is designed to be the most restrictive of the residential districts. The intent is to °3 provide for a residential environment of predominantly low to moderate density one-family detached 94 residential structures along with other residentially related facilities that serve the residents in the 9: district or local neighborhood. [The puYpose statement continues with more information about 9C� maximum residential densities and additional requirements for specified conditional and permitted °7 uses.] 98 99 ,�oo "01 wo2 �os '04 iU5 106 1C7 ., o�: ,�� '10 �11 i1[ 113 i14 1 1 Ei 116 �i� i1S 4.4 In addition to the land uses that are specifically regulated by the R-1 zoning district's use list and the unanticipated uses that are not in the list, several structures and other features or uses which are commonly found in neighborhood settings are omitted from the list because they are not regulated. Although people may fall off of playground sets, drown in koi ponds, be injured by collapsing pergolas, or be pierced by thorn-bearing shrubs, uses and features of this sort are not regulated because they don't normally pose any risk to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Planning Division staff has determined that the same is true of well-maintained vegetable gardens, whether of a personal or community scale. 4.5 Significant stress is given by the appellant to the point that a community garden is identical to an agricultural or farming use and that Planning Division staff has recklessly overlooked this fact. Planning Division staff agrees that gardening at any scale is an inherently agricultural activity and, for this very reason, disagrees with the notion that a community garden cries out for regulation as a conditional use simply because it is a kind of agricultural activity. Whether "community garden", "urban agriculture", or some other terminology is used to describe the activity, the nature of the use remains the same. A community garden may well be larger than a typical private, suburban garden, but it is nonetheless the activity of a group of people who are exercising careful, intentional stewardship of a relatively small area of land for their own enjoyment or for the charitable benefit of others in the community at a scale which falls far short of anything that would resemble commercial "farming" or industrial "agriculture". �� 4.6 The appeal alternatively insists that the proposed community garden is a home � 20 occupation and that City staff is failing to recognize and regulate it as such. Despite the �� statement in footnote number 13 of the appeal letter, Planning Division staff does not find � 22 room for legitimate debate about whether a church achieves the status of a residential ' 2s dwelling by virtue of it being a"house of God." While the church is indeed in a Appeal_RCA_052410 Page 3 of 7