Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Occupation And Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission opens code review of home-occupation rules and single-family design standards; staff to return with revisions
Summary
Commission held an extended discussion about updating home-occupation permitting and single-family dwelling design standards to reflect changes since 2002, including questions about permitting outbuildings, enforcement and allowing varied roof forms; staff will draft specific code updates.
On Jan. 9 the Planning Commission conducted a discussion-only session on two interrelated code topics: home-occupation regulations and single-family dwelling design standards. Staff asked for guidance and said they would return with draft code language.
Home occupations: Staff said the county's home-occupation code dates to 2002 and contains processes that do not match current practice (for example, applications are currently handled by the business-license clerk rather than directly by the planning department). Staff reported about 250275 active home-occupation permits in the county and said inspections occur only in response to complaints.
Commissioners and staff discussed whether and when outbuildings (garages or sheds) should be allowed to host home-occupation activity, how to limit noxious outdoor uses (storage of flammable chemicals, heavy equipment), and whether the permit should be processed administratively with neighbor notice or as a conditional use that triggers additional review and enforceable conditions. The countys fire district and health department raised concerns about hazardous materials stored in garages, and commissioners said stricter rules should apply if activity or storage is outside the conditioned home.
Design standards: Staff reviewed a 2002-era single-family design standard requiring pitched roofs, minimum eave overhangs and minimum primary-dwelling depths intended to prevent trailer-style or temporary housing forms. Commissioners noted changes in contemporary mountain architecture (flat roofs, parapet walls, linked conditioned appendages) and asked whether the code should continue to prohibit parapet walls and whether conditioned connections between structures should count as "attached" or remain "detached" for setback and accessory-use calculations.
Commissioners expressed varying views. Several said the county should not overregulate aesthetic design but should retain rules preventing circumvention of accessory-structure placement rules (for example, avoiding long conditioned corridors used to reclassify a detached accessory structure as part of the main dwelling). Staff said they will draft code updates that clarify the conditions under which appendages count as attached, set reasonable maximum dimensions for conditioned connections, and propose clearer rules for whether outbuildings may be used for business activities.
Outcome: The item was discussion-only. Staff will return with draft code amendments addressing administrative processing, outbuilding limits, hazardous-material safeguards, appropriate review pathways (administrative vs. conditional use) and clarifications on conditioned appendages and roof-form allowances.
