HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 10 10 Other Handout for Agenda Item 502Date: October 10, 2011
This document from Ms. Terry Scarlata was
noted for the Record during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "502" at the
October 10, 2011 City Commission Regular
Meeting.
�1���1`�IE�►
���° �• % �'01�
CtTY OF WINI"Ef2 SPRINGS
October 6, 2011 OFFfCE OF THE CITY C�EFiK -
�= �1 �C?C �Lj �f CL'f� �G�
To: City Commissioners Jean Hovey, Rick Brown, Gary Bonner, Cade Resnick, ���,Yrd'yS�cu�r.5c.�
Joanne Krebs .�-���;�.��,� ��T�i
Mayor Charles Lacey
City Manager Kevin Smith
City Attorney Anthony Garganese
From: Terry Scarlata
Subject: Ordinance No. 2011-08
Home Occupations
I have concerns regarding the changes you propose for home occupations. Most of the
hames built in the older neighborhoods did not consider home occupations when they
were approved by the Commission. This is especially true for developments where the
streets are narrow and there are no sidewalks. The only indication there was any
consideration for the safety of children and pedestrians were in the HOA documents
which limited or prohibited business use in the homes.
And now I understand that you're not only permitting home occupations under PUD
designations, but you're setting the allowable use for home occupations at 30% of the air
conditioned area of the residence. I don't know if these regulations take precedent over
HOA documents, but in case they do I thought it best to err on the side of caution and
write this letter of concern.
Point One:
There are two statements in Article V to bring to your attention:
Section 20-452(a)8 states that "No traffic/parking shall be generated by the home
occupation or home office in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a
residential neighborhood."
Yet, in Section 20-452(a)6p, it states that "group instruction for more than two people" is
not considered home occupations. That would mean that group instruction for up to two
people does meet the qualification. In other words, it's inevitable that traffic will increase
in the neighborhood because people are allowed to provide instruction in their home.
In private communities which were not engineered for this kind of exposure, we may
have problems in the future depending on how many neighbors opt to go into a business
that requires customers to come to their homes. That risk increases if there is back to
back instruction scheduled throughout the day.
That takes me to the next point.
Point Two:
By relying on a fixed percentage (30%) to determine the allowable area for home
occupation, you are not considering a risk factor which deserves special consideration.
Take for example, the house on 1008 Nancy Circle. The property appraiser's office lists
the living space at 5399 sq. feet. Thirty percent of that home is 1620 sq. ft. That's like
fitting a small commercial building inside that home.
Now add that factor to the one I just mentioned—narrow streets with no sidewalks—and
you get a worse case scenario. It's a very real situation that you need to consider because
the cul de sac in front of that house is one of the few places where children are allowed to
play in this community without being harassed by the neighbors. With this new
regulation you are introducing another risk factor, which none of us in this community
need.
Presently, I have no reason to believe the current occupants of 1008 Nancy Circle intend
to use their home for anything but residential use, but there's always the fear that the next
owners will look at that commercial looking building and come up with other ideas.
In conclusion, you can reduce the exposure you are bringing into these badly engineered
communities with the following two changes:
(1) Put a cap on the square footage allowed for home occupations to keep McMansions
from further overpowering a neighbarhood; and,
(2) Put a cap on the number of people per day and/or per week who are allowed in a
home occupation for group instruction to control the traffic flow.
By setting tangible limits, you will give neighbors recourse to control the excesses
they're subjected to by their neighbors.