Loomis planners begin targeted refresh of 1984 zoning code; short-term rentals and home-occupation rules top list

Planning Director Christie asked the Loomis Planning Commission to identify priority sections of the town’s 1984 zoning ordinance for a planned, periodic update, highlighting recurring conflicts and items that generate the most questions for staff.

Christie told commissioners the municipal code has been amended more than 300 times since adoption in 1984 and that staff has prepared a list of ordinance sections that often cause confusion or conflict. She said staff wants the commission’s input before preparing focused draft changes.

Why it matters: Commissioners stressed the value of an iterative approach — tweaking a few high-value sections at a time rather than attempting a wholesale rewrite — so staff can draft clearer rules that reduce repeated permit questions and enforcement burdens.

Key issues flagged by commissioners and staff included: - Short-term rentals: Commissioners called short-term rental regulation a top issue. The commission confirmed Loomis does not currently have a short-term-rental ordinance and discussed whether to prohibit such rentals or adopt permitting, occupancy-tax collection and data-sharing requirements for enforcement. Christie noted that a transient-occupancy tax exists and would apply to short-term stays, but without a local ordinance hosts are not being required to register or remit tax. - Home occupations: Commissioners asked staff to clarify what counts as an allowable home occupation (office-only uses versus customer-facing activities), whether box trucks or frequent deliveries should be limited, and how many on-site visitors or classes (e.g., yoga) are acceptable without converting the home into a commercial use. - Event permits and backyard venues: Commissioners described recurring problems when large private events are operated like commercial venues. The commission discussed frequency limits (an example from Placer County is six permitted personal events per year), special-event permits, and whether enforcement and fees make commercial use economically infeasible for residential properties. - Accessory structures and definitions: Staff and commissioners raised examples of very large accessory buildings (cited in discussion up to roughly 11,000 square feet) and asked whether the town should limit accessory building size relative to the primary residence or adopt a general cap. They also discussed the unintended consequences of naming conventions (e.g., 'barn' vs 'garage') and suggested using neutral terms such as 'structure.' - Technical code conflicts: Staff pointed out a specific conflict between the ordinance and the California Building Code: the ordinance currently references a 62-inch floor-to-sill measurement for bedroom windows while the building code requires 44 inches for egress windows. Staff asked whether the commission wants to adopt a new methodology to resolve sight-line or sill-height rules. - Administrative and permit processes: Commissioners asked whether the town should create a lower-cost, administrative permit that requires less staff time and neighbor notification than a formal minor use permit, and discussed historical permit-fee levels that have sometimes been higher than initially estimated.

Christie said staff will compile commissioners’ top items (the commission suggested focusing on the top three recurring issues), circulate draft language or options, and schedule follow-up meetings that target one topic at a time. She invited commissioners to email additional items they encounter in practice.

A planning commissioner summarized the enforcement trade-offs: "Code enforcement is complaint-driven; if something is happening off-hours the town may need contracted enforcement to respond," underscoring the commission’s repeated point that permitting rules that are clear and administratively feasible aid enforceability.

The discussion closed with staff asking for additional examples and context for problematic cases so they can craft clearer, enforceable ordinance language. The commission did not adopt any ordinance changes at the meeting; staff will return with targeted drafts and options for the items identified.