Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-028 RecVehicleReg 08-26-2003 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 2& 2003 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: PA 03-028, Report on Contemplated Modification to the Recreational Vehicles Regulations, continued from the August 12, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting (Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner) Letter from Joe Banchero, received August 12, 2003; Agenda Statement dated August 12, 2003 BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the August 12, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting, please see the Agenda Statement dated August 12, 2003, for accompanying materials and recommendations. COPIES TO: PA File ITEM NO. Message Page 1 of 2 Andy Byde From: Jeri Ram Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:27 AM To: Fawn Holman Cc: Andy Byde Subject: RE: Web Site Comments Yes - Andy - please put copy for the commissioners with your agenda statement. ]eri ..... Original Message ..... From: Fawn Holman Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:33 AM To: .leri Ram Subject: FW: Web Site Comments Hi Jeri, did Toni forward this to you? Fawn ..... Original Message ..... From: HUCK162@aol.¢om [mailto:HUCK162@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:45 PM To: cityofdu blin@ci.dublin.ca.us Subject: Web Site Comments Please forward to planning commision. My name is Joe Banchero and I spoke at this evenings planning commision meeting. I would like to pass on a few comments on some items that came up tonight. On possible fire department related issues I can comment since I work for ACFD. Lets say you have a large motor home or trailer parked down the side access of the house. If either the house or motor home catches fire you run the very real risk of ending up with two houses and the RV burning. I would also suggest that you re evaluate allowing people to park what amounts to a large obstruction right next to their neighbors driveway within one foot of the sidewalk. This is UNSAFE for the neighbor any time they leave their driveway. The neighbor cannot see down the sidewalk while backing, they will not be able to see that child riding their bike or skateboarding down the street. If that neighbor gets in a wreck backing out of their driveway, even though the RV blocked their view I bet it will be the neighbors fault. I don't think the code would allow me to put a 7 or 8 foot tall fence along my property line within 1 foot of the sidewalk but that's what is happening right now in our city. If I'm wrong let me know. Thanks, Joe Banchero huck162@aol.com ATTACHMEHT t 8/21/2003 AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 12, 2003 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: PA 03-028, Report on Contemplated Modification to the Recreational Vehicles Regulations (Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner) 2. 3. 4. Location of Allowed Parking Spaces on a Residential Lot City Council Minutes of October 15, 2002; City Council Minutes of January 7, 2003; January 7, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement without Attachments; City Council Minutes of June 17, 2003; June 17, 2003, City Council Agenda Statement without Attachments; Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas, Section 8.76.060.E; Safety Analysis of Recreation Vehicle Parking. RECOMMENDATION: Receive Staff presentation and public testimony; Question Staff and the public; Provide Staff with direction regarding the City Council contemplated modification to the recreational vehicles regUlations or other changes to the recreational vehicle regulations that the Planning Commission determines are appropriate. BACKGROUND: At the October 15, 2002, City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report regarding the off-street parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. In January of 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with a report on recreation vehicles (see Attachment 4). The report discussed the history of regulating recreation vehicles within Dublin; the current regulations for off-street parking as they relate to recreation vehicles; and an inventory of existing recreation vehicles parked in off- street locations. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the City Council directed Staff to return with examples of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles (see Attachment 3, City Council Minutes of January 7, 2003) and some potential size limitations for evaluation. On June 17, 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with examples of heights and lengths of recreation vehicles with potential size limitations for evaluation (see Attachment 6 for Agenda Statement). At the conclusion of the June meeting, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the current regulations for recreational vehicle parking to allow for more flexibility in parking a recreational vehicle on a single family lot. Additionally, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate the resulting impacts from modifying the regulations. ITEM NO. Current Off-Street Parking Regulations: A recreational vehicle, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers, utility trailers, boats on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab, camping trailers, or tent trailers, with or without motive power. Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of required parking spaces on a residential lot and allows recreational vehicles to be parked in the following areas: (1) the driveway (gray area shown on Attachment 1); (2) the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (yellow area shown on Attachment 1); and (3) the side yard, and the rear yard (the blue area shown on Attachment 1). A maximum of one recreational vehicle may be parked/stored in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (the gray or yellow area shown on Attachment 1), provided that: (1) the vehicle does not encroach within one foot of the public right-of-way; (2) does not cross from the driveway and the nearest side lot line into the side yard area (the area shown as blue on Attachment 1); (3) is parked on a paved, all-weather surface; (4) is owned and registered to the occupants of the premises upon which it is parked/stored; and (5) is not used for living or sleeping purposes. A maximum of two recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked in the required side or rear yards (the blue area shown on Attachment 1) if screened by a 6-foot high fence. Size of Recreational Vehicles Currently Allowed: The existing regulations currently do not specifically regulate the size of recreational vehicles. However, based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and due to the similarity of the existing lot patterns within the City, the vast majority of the single-family residential lots would not allow a recreational vehicle, within the driveway or nearest side lot line area, larger than 19-24 feet in length (see diagram below), due to the lengths of driveways and the setback of the garage. Staff has conducted a cursory review of the lot patterns within the City and the vast majority have the garage setback between 20-22 feet, only few irregular lots have larger garage setbacks. The distance the garage is setback from the street effectively regulates the length of recreation vehicle that may be placed in the gray and yellow areas. Side/rear yard (Blue) Front Yard (Green) RESIDENCE Driveway (gray) 19-24' Area between driveway and nearest side lot line (Yellow) setback STREET City Council Direction: The City Council directed Staff, at the June 17, City Council meeting, to evaluate modifying where recreational vehicles may be parked. Specifically the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the requirement that recreation vehicles cannot cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard area (from the yellow into the blue area as shown on Attachment 1). Currently the recreational vehicle regulations state that a 6-foot fence must screen any vehicles parked within the side yard. The modification would eliminate the screening requirement and allow recreation vehicles to be located anywhere within the nearest side lot line area (yellow area) or side yard area (blue area) as long as the vehicle maintained a 1-foot setback from the public right-of-way. As part of evaluating the contemplated change to the recreation vehicle parking regulations, the City Council requested Staff to complete the following tasks prior to returning to the City Council for additional direction: (1) research the background of the requirement that recreation vehicles cannot encroach beyond the front of the house into the side yard area (from the yellow into the blue area); (2) confer with public safety staff to determine potential impacts to public safety resulting from modifying the parking regulations; (3) research the height and lengths of motorhomes; and (4) evaluate potential discretionary permit process to regulate recreation vehicles based on length and or height. Prior to having a subsequent hearing on modifying the recreational vehicle regulations, the City Council requested the Planning Commission provide input to the contemplated changes and any other modifications it felt were appropriate. Background of Recreation Vehicle Parking Regulations: In May 1982 (after incorporation), the City of Dublin adopted the Alameda County Planning and Zoning Ordinance as the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Over time, the City amended and modified the Zoning Ordinance to address specific needs and issues within the community. Under the early City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, recreational vehicles were prohibited from being stored in the Front Yard or required Side Yard in residential zoning districts. In 1986, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to regulate recreational vehicles to allow them to be stored in the driveway or nearest side lot line area (yellow area). Additionally, the amendment allowed vehicles to be parked within the Side or Rear Yard, provided that the vehicle was screened from view by a six-foot fence. Staffs research into the history and intent of the aforementioned requirements were two fold: (1) limit the lengths of vehicles visible from the front yard; and (2) provide various parking options (as long as the vehicle was screened from view). ANALYSIS: Public Safely Issues: Staff met with the public safety staff (consisting of Building and Safety Division, the Fire Prevention Division, and Police Services) to discuss whether the current off-street residential recreational vehicle parking regulations impacted public safety and whether changing the current regulations would impact public safety. Five public safety issues associated with recreational vehicle parked and/or stored on a single family lot were identified by members of the public safety staff and are as follows (see Attachment 8 for a complete discussion on each of these safety impacts and issues): 1. Obstructing egress from the home in an emergency situation; 2. Obstructing access by emergency personnel to the rear of the home; 3. Obstructing site distance for motorists and pedestrians; 4. Potential for causing a fire to spread to adjacent structures; and, 5. Creating additional hiding places. Public Safety Issues Conclusions and Recommendations: The standard garage dimension is approximately 20' in length. Limiting the size of recreational vehicles to 20-25' feet in the side yard adjacent to the garage would keep them closer to the garage and farther from the living space of the home. Safety staff concluded that whether a recreational vehicle crosses the blue/yellow delineation does not pose additional life safety issues as longs as the recreational vehicle is kept further back from the sidewalk and closest to the garage portion of the home. Maintaining adequate distance from the sidewalk and keeping the vehicle close to the garage would ensure the vehicle is not blocking viewable site distance and would minimize obstructing egress from the bedroom windows. Height and Lengths of Motorhomes: Staff conducted research on various types of motorhomes, included below is a table of which includes the heights and length of various classes and model of motorhomes (please see pages 3 and 4 of Attachment 6 which includes the definitions of the three classes of motor homes). Small Class A Large Class A Class B Van Camper Small Class C Large Class C Vista (Volkswagen Minnie Winne (Van Model Name Sightseer Ultimate Freedom Volkswagen Camper Van) Chasis) Height 11 '-10" 12'-2" 6'-7" 10'-2" 11 '-7" Length 27'-1 O" 39'-11" 16'-11" 21 '-4" 31 '-4" Width 8'-5" 8'-5" 6'-1" 7'-3" 8'-5" Based on Staff's cursory review of various types of motorhomes the vast majority of newer Class A and the largest Class C motorhomes are over 30 feet in length. These types of vehicles would not fit within the driveway or nearest side lot line area, given the current regulations. Requested Direction from Planning Commission: The City Council requested the Planning Commission to provide input on the contemplated modification (the requirement that recreation vehicles cannot cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard area i.e. from the yellow into the blue area) or other changes to the recreational vehicle regulations that the Planning Commission determines are appropriate. Should the Planning Commission determine that the contemplated modification is appropriate, the Planning Commission should also provide recommendations on appropriate height and or lengths for recreational vehicles. Finally, if the Planning Commission determines height and or lengths should be regulated, then the Commission should also provide a recommendation to the City Council for the type of discretionary permit process to allow recreational vehicles in excess of a given size. Discretionarl: Permit Process to Regulate Recreation Vehicles: Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows a Variance for an applicant that wishes to deviate from any current development standard, including parking of a recreational vehicle. However there are 5 required findings to approve a Variance, these include: (1) special physical circumstances applicable to the property; (2) the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges; (3) the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare; (4) the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district; and (5) the variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any apPlicable Specific Plans. Findings 4 1 and 2 often prove to very difficult to find in the affirmative due to the similarity of the existing lot patterns within the City. Should the Planning Commission determine height and or lengths should be regulated an appropriate discretionary permit to grant exceptions to size regulations would be a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission could provide direction to the City Council if the Commission felt that it was important to consider such deviations. Considerations for determining the appropriateness of deviation could include: certain screening requirements, establishing minimum lot sizes, establishing minimum driveway lengths, requiring minimum setbacks from adjacent properties, and other performance related standards. At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff will present a PowerPoint presentation, which summarizes the information within this and the other attached reports. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Agenda Statement and Attachments and provide Staff with direction regarding the City Council contemplated modification to the recreational vehicles regulations or other changes to the recreational vehicle regulations that the Planning Commission determines are appropriate. U U EL OU~ L33~_LS ATTACHMENT and authorized the Mayor to executed the Agreement. OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS 7:29 p.m. 5.1 (570~20) Lt. Glenn Moon, Police Services, presented the Staff Report, indicating that a letter to the Mayor and City Council was received on September 10, 2007., from a group of residents of the Willow Creek Subdivision in Dublin. The letter described their safety concerns attributed to the parking of recreational vehicles and other oversized vehicles in the area of Shady Creek and Alamo Creek Parle The letter requested that the City adopt an Ordinance that would address the issue of recreational vehicle and oversized vehicle parking in the City of Dublin. In 1986, the City of Dublin adopted its current Recreational Vehicle Ordinance, which regulates off-street parking of recreational vehicles. This ordinance does not address the issue of the parking of commercial, oversized and non-motorized vehicles on City streets; but relied on the 7£-hour ordinance to address the problem of long~term parking. A review was conducted of several City ordinances from jurisdictions throughout California who have been successful in adopting specific Oversize Vehicle and Non~ Motorized Vehicle Ordinances. The City of Costa Mesa's recently adopted ordinance covered the parking of commercial, oversize and non-motorized vehicles on all city streets, and contains the following restrictions: No parking of commercial vehicles over 5 tons over 3 hours except for loading and unloading; No parking of non-motorized and recreational vehicles/campers in residential areas for more than 48 hours, with an additional 24 hours is allowed on a permit basis from the police departmeng No parking of oversized vehicles within 45 feet of an intersection; and Vehicles parked on the street for the 48~ 72 hour permitted period must then be moved from the City limits for a period of at least 48 hours. Staff recommended that an advisory committee be created in order to evaluate the feasibility of adopting an Oversized Vehicle Ordinance ff Council so desired, and asked for Council direction regarding this matter. Cm. McCormick asked for the definition of "oversized vehicle." CITY COUNCIL MINUTgS VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 2002 PAGE S 1 9 ATTACHMENT Lt. Moon advised that an oversized vehicle would be 22 feet in length or 7 feet in width or 7 feet in height. Mayor Lockhart asked about commercial vehicles. Lt. Moon indicated that Dublin's present Commercial Vehicle Ordinance does not allow commercial vehicles in residential areas unless loading or unloading, with a 5-ton or 10~000 lb. limit. Most recreational vehicles don't reach the 5~ton limit. The adoption of an ordinance for oversized vehicles needs to be adopted to cover allCity streets, not just the residential area. Otherwise, people will move their oversized vehicle out of the residential area into the commercial area, and then move it back. Staff suggests the vehicles be moved from City limits for a period of 48 hours. Mayor Lockhart asked how the ordinance would be monitored? Lt. Moon indicated that the Traffic Division of Dublin Polices Services is in tune to these vehicles already through citizen complaints. An ordinance would establish procedures, including a warning placard on the vehicle, and vehicle tracking. Cm. Zika asked if Dublin already had a Commercial Vehicle Ordinance? Lt. Moon indicated yes, an ordinance was adopted several years ago regarding major commercial vehicles (semi-trucks with trailers) on certain commercial streets, as well as restrictions on residential streets. These vehicles have a three-hour parking limit in restricted areas and cannot be parked overnight. Cm. Zika stated that Police Services is not doing good job of enforcing that ordinance now. Two dump trucks have been parking on Village Parkway for the past two weekends. City Manager Richard Ambrose asked where on Village Parkway the dump trucks were parked. The Commercial Vehicle Ordinance prohibits parking in residential districts, and certain restricted commercial areas. Some commercial areas allow for commercial vehicle parking. Cm. Zika indicated that the proposed ordinance amendment should exclude parking commercial vehicles along all of Village Parkway. Lt. Moon recommended that the ordinance encompass both commercial and oversize vehicles. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 2 I REGULAR MEETING October 1 $, 2002 PAGE 520 Mayor Lockhart advised that she always receives complaints about people bringing home work vehicles with trailers attached, and asked if the proposed ordinance would cover commercial vehicles parked in front of an employee own home? Lt. Moon indicated yes, if it falls under tonnage limit. This ordinance would allow for vehicles under 10,000 lbs and moved daily, so it wouldn't apply to that situation. Cm. Oravetz asked what happened to the camper on Shady Creek Road that instigated the neighborhood letter? Lt. Moon indicated that the vehicle stayed in place over 72 hours and was towed; however, it took several weeks to achieve that. Cm. Oravetz asked if the whole curb area on Shady Creek where this vehicle was parked could be painted red? Lt. Moon advised against that suggestion; it would take away too much parking for the park. Although an oversized vehicle on that portion of the road would cause safety concerns, regular vehicles would not. Mayor Lockhart read a letter submitted by 10 residents on Burnham Way and Frederiksen Lane, encouraging the Council to form a taskforce to consider amending the current ordinance. Mayor Lockhart read a speaker slip submitted by Jefrey Watts, lYederiksen Lane, who supported the concept of an ordinance against oversized vehicles parking on residential streets. Mayor Lockhart read a speaker slip submitted by Yvonne Nickles, Burnham Way, who supported the formation of a committee to discuss an ordinance amendment. Kathleen Robinson, Frederiksen Lane, encouraged the Council to review the Municipal Code section regarding parking motor homes on private property, and alleged that a motor home was parked in the driveway of a neighbor's house to provide housing for transient workers for a local fast-food restaurant. She distributed photos to the Council of the motor home. Cm. Sbranti recommended that, for safety and aesthetic reasons~ the Council establish a committee to look at on~street and off~street parking for all oversized commercial and recreational vehicles. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 2002 PAGE 521 Mr. Ambrose reviewed the current ordinance, which prohibits commercial vehicles in residential district, and those in excess of $ tons on any street, with several exceptions including delivery trucks, passenger buses, public utility vehicles, school buses, and garbage/recycling trucks. Currently, the Commercial Vehicle Ordinance in residential districts does not have a size limitation, but has a weight limitation of $ tons. Commercial districts are affected by other sections of the code, depending on how fhe streets are posted, the weight of the vehicle, etc. In terms of residential areas, Council has discussed the issue before and has prohibited vehicles based on weight. Mayor Lockhart asked the size of the motor home shown in the photo? Lt. Moon advised that the majority of motor homes are built light for fuel economy, and offered to look into the weight capacity of the vehicle in photo. Mr. Ambrose indicated that the current ordinance was precipitated by owner-operators of trucking businesses parking their rig on the residential street in front of their homes. The Council initiated and adopted the ordinance to preclude those types of commercial vehicles in residential districts. Cm. Sbranti asked if Council could direct a committee to review the existing ordinance and the new issue about oversized vehicles parking on residential streets? The Council and Staff discussed the scope of the committee, and how the meetings would be held. It was suggested that community input be derived from a series of town hall meetings, with an advisory committee with representatives from both sides of the issue, discussing and making recommendations. Cm. McCormick expressed a desire to really define the scope of the committee. The commercial area may not need to be looked at right now. Cm. Sbranti suggested that the committee look at the issue of oversized vehicle parking on residential streets. As a separate issue~ the Council could review and consider the issue of commercial vehicle parking in commercial districts at a future Council meeting. Cm. Zika felt that the Council still needed to consider off-street oversized vehicle parking in residential areas, as well as on-street parking. Lt. Moon indicated that Dublin's current Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance is part of the Zoning Ordinance, which dealt with designated off-street parking areas (driveway, paved area next to the roadway, rear yards, etc.) in private residences. He recommended any established committees dealing with on-street parking, and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 1 5, 2002 PAGE 522 commercial parking, should be handled separately from parking on private property because it would be too cumbersome. One is a private property zoning issue; the other is a traffic and a street issue. Cm. Oravetz made a motion to form an advisory committee in order to evaluate the feasibility of adopting an Oversized Vehicle Ordinance. The Committee should be made up of representatives from Police Services, Planning Department, Traffic Safety Committee, and community members appointed by Mayor Lockhart. Cm. McCormick seconded the motion for discussion. Cm. McCormick clarified that a committee would be created to look at one item: residential on~street parking. The other two issues, commercial vehicles parked in commercial districts and on-site RV Parking, are problems that should be dealt with by the Council. The Council concurred and indicated a desire for the issues to come back to Council in a timely manner. Mr. Ambrose advised that most of the complaints received by Staff were regarding inoperative vehicles on private property or on the public street; few complaints are received with respect to commercial vehicles parked on commercial streets. He asked Council's permission to look specifically into Cm. Zika's complaints to ascertain whether or not it's in compliance with our current ordinance. Cm. Zika agreed. Mayor Lockhart stated that it might resolve that particular issue; however, it is obvious that the oversized vehicles on private property zoning issue needs to be considered by Council. The Council concurred and directed Staff to prepare a Staff Report for a Council meeting in the near future regarding oversized vehicle parking on private property. On motion of Cm. Oravetz, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, Council accepted Staff's recommendation to establish a Committee, which would be advertised to the public, and set up a series of town hall meetings to discuss the issue of on-street parking of oversized vehicles in residential areas. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 21 REGULAR MEETING October 15, 2002 PAGE 523 PUBHC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1.04.070 AND ADDING SECTION 1.04.75 TO THE DUBI,IN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CLAIMS 8:02 p.m. 6.1 (170-10) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Kit Faubion presented to Staff and advised that this is the second reading of an Ordinance which would require that each person (rather than a representative claimant representing all similarly situated persons) seeking money or damages from the City, first submit a claim to the City. This ordinance would not prevent the refund of monies or payment of damages or prevent any person with a legitimate claim from obtaining relief. It would merely require each person seeking relief to file a claim prior to bringing a lawsuit. New section 1.04.075 would apply the same requirements to claims thatare subject to Tort Claims Act, but only if such claims are claims for refunds from the City. It is designed to avoid administrative expenses that benefit neither the claimants nor the City and to provide refunds quickly and efficiently to those that want them ff their claims are meritorious. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. McCormick, and by unanimous vote, the CoUncil adopted ORDINANCE NO. 17 - 0Z ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING SECTION 1.04.070 AND ADDING SECTION 1.04.075 TO THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CLAIMS' PUBLIC I-[EARING AMENDMENT TO THE SMOKING POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE 8:04 p.m. 6.2 (560-90) Mayor Lockhart opened the public hearing. Administrative Analyst Jason Behrmann presented the Staff Report and advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance which would bring the existing provisions of Chapter 5.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code regulating smoking into conformity with CITY COUNCIL MINLrFES VOLUME Z I REGULAR MEETING October 15, 2002 PAGE 524 ORDINANCE NO. 1 -03 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.68 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD PRIORITIES AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS 7:45 p.m. 7.1 (570-20/570-50) Planning Manager Jeri Ram presented the Staff Report and advised that at the City Council's request, Staff prepared an informational report on the City's current off-street, residential recreational vehicle regulations. The report included information on enforcement of these regulations and also looks at how surrounding cities regulate recreational vehicles. A survey of vehicle storage facilities was also included which identifies the proximity and availability of storage facilities. Assistant Planner Marnie Waffle discussed the existing regulations. Ms. Ram stated Staff requested direction as to whether additional studies should be conducted. Ms. Ram advised that we received 20 formal complaints in 2002. Cm. McCormick asked about the complaints we had received. Ms. Ram stated Staff tried to get people to comply. We tried to work w/th the citizens and we have a pretty good success rate. Cm. Zika asked if they toured all the streets, or how they selected the streets. Ms. Ram stated most of thc complaints were in the western part of town and they just picked a 24 block random selected area. Mr. Ambrose pointed out that in the older part of the community, lots tend to be larger. ~ ~ 5 COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING Jamaa~~ 7, PAGE 7 ATTACHMENT Cm. Sbranti asked about the nature of most of the complaints. Ms. Ram stated a few reportedly had people living in them or were parked on the lawn, or not screened. Staff will work on code enforcement for the $4 found in non- conformance. Mr. Ambrose discussed the history of the Zoning Ordinance. Over the years it has been modified by Councils to include certain things on a proactive basis rather than just by complaint. Cm. Zika clarified that RV's parked on the street are a different issue. We're forming a committee to deal with these. Kathleen Robinson, Frederiksen Lane, stated she was here in October showing photos of an oversized vehicle parked in what was displayed as ~he green area. RV's should not be able to be parked in front yards. She lives right next door to one parked in a front yard and it is huge. These large ones need to be parked off-site. The older neighborhoods rely on the City to work with the neighbors to have a charming and quaint neighborhood. Code enforcement is the only means they have of maintaining their neighborhoods. She requested that we look at size limitations. Cm. Oravetz stated he clearly agreed that the overly large RV's don't belong in front yards. There is, however, only one storage spot available in Dublin. Ms. Robinson stated there is a new site opening in Concord and a new one in Fremont and asked, isn't it the person's responsibility to find parking for their oversized RV? This shouldn't be up to the City. Cm. Oravetz stated he did not disagree, but when people bought these, they felt they could legally park them in accordance with Dublin's rules. We need to come up with something to tell these folks regarding where they can park their RV's. Mayor Lockhart stated she has been interested in getting some zoning along Dougherty Road as uses change to get some storage in there. She hasn't been successful. Cm. Oravetz stated he felt this could be a business opportunity for someone. He suggested if we change the rules, give them a fair amount of time to move them, such as 6 months. CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING 3'anua~: 7~ 200_3 Cm. McCormick stated she felt for new owners, it should be immediate. We should put a foot limit on those that could be stored in yards. She questioned ff there is ever a penalty for disregarding our code. Ms. Ram stated yes, we have a graduated citation basis from $100 to $500 and then it goes to misdemeanor. They generally comply. Moving and screening takes some time, but we've been fairly successful. Cm. Zika stated he has a big problem with storing them in front yards and would like to see a length limit and would also like to see them not just one foot, but 10' back from the sidewalk and screened. Mr. Ambrose requested clarification on some of the issues and areas. Cm. Zika pointed out where he would like to see a fence allowed. Cm. Oravetz stated he isn't interested in changing the Zoning Ordinance, but would rather use enforcement and get the big ones out. Ms. Ram pointed out at one time we did allow them to park in the green area. These are non-conforming uses. Ms. Silver stated even if you have a legal non~conforming use, you can require a legal amortization period. Mayor Lockhart stated she feR if you are going to allow anything in the front or side yard, you have to control the size. Mr. Ambrose stated for the gray and yellow areas, Staff will bring back size limitation options. Staff will bring back some examples of heights and lengths. For the blue area, Staff will look at limiting length and height. Cm. Zika felt the main issues are height and length and setback from sidewalk. He would like to see us look at at least 3' and maybe even 10'. Ms. Robinson asked if currently it is okay to pave a spot on the green area? Mr. Ambrose stated the green area is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Lockhart stated she feR we should look at not allowing this anymore. People are on notice that we are going to be studying this. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REG U LAR ME£TiNG January 7, 2003 PA~=E 9 Rich Bond stated personally~ he felt any boat trailer or RV parked in the front yard is an eyesore. Height is very important. Could we do something to say if the ownership of the property changes, the old rules would no longer apply? Cm. Sbranti stated he felt this is a good idea, but difficult to track. Cm. McCormick stated she would rather just phase it in. Cm. Sbranti asked why we didn't merge the two issues together in relation to the RV's? Mayor Lockhart explained that one is looking at changing an Ordinance and the other is looking at a neighborhood issue and the police deal with this as a traffic safety issue. This committee (Oversized Vehicle Parking Committee) will be formed in the very near future. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION CELEBRATION 8:22 p.m. 7.2 (610~20) Assistant to the City Manager Julie Carter presented the Staff Report, which included an evaluation of the City's second Volunteer Recognition Celebration which was held on October 11,2002. The Council Subcommittee (Mayor Lockhart and Cm. Zika) met with Staff to discuss past and future events. The Council Subcommittee proposed changes as follows: I) Move the Volunteer Recognition Dinner event date from October to February, beginning in 2004. The event would include a banquet dinner and the guest list would include the Mayor and City Council, all nominees for Citizen and Organization of the Year, outgoing Commission/Committee members~ current Commission/Committee members, City Manager, City Department Heads, State and Local Elected Officials, Local Agencies/Service Groups (limited to Board Members or President/Vice President), City Volunteers, and City Staff members who are assigned as liaison to City Commissions/ Committees or Volunteers. CITY CO'UNC~L MINUTES VOLU¢~E 22 REGULAR MEETING January 7, 2.803 PAGE i@ SUBJECT: CITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCZL MEETING DATE: 3anuary 7, 2003 Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations Report Prepared by: Jeri Ram, Planning Manager and Marnie R. Waffle, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENT: 1. City Council Minutes of October 15, 2002 2. History of Recreational Vehicle Ordinance Amendments 3. Location of Required Parking Spaces, Section 8.76.070.A. 14 4. Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas, Section 8.76.060.E 5. Inventory of Recreational Vehicles Parked on Residential Lots 6. Survey of Surrounding Cities 7. Off-Site Storage Facility Survey RECOMMENDATION: /QAt~I. Receive Staff Presentation.  ~ g v '~- 2. Direct staff as to whether additional studies should be conducted. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. DESCRIPTION: At the October 15, 2002 City Council meeting, during a presentation by Police Department staff on oversized vehicle parking on residential streets, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report regarding the off-street parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas (Attachment 1). In May 1982 (after incorporation), the City of Dublin adopted the Alameda County Planning and Zoning Ordinance as the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Over time, the City amended and modified the Zoning Ordinance to address specific needs and issues within the community. Under the early City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, utility trailers, unmounted camper tops and boats were prohibited from being stored in the Front Yard or required Side Yard in residential zoning districts. Since 1982, the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to off-street parking of recreational vehicles, was amended three times (Attachment 2). In 1997, a comprehensive revision of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance was accomplished and Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations was adopted. Off-Street Parking Regulations: Chapter $.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of required parking spaces on a residential lot and allows recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway, the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line, the side yard, and the rear yard (Attachment 3). A maximum of one recreational vehicle may be parked/stored in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line, provided that: 1) the vehicle does not encroach within one foot of the public right-of-way, 2) is parked on a paved, all-weather surface, 3) is owned and registered to the occupants of the premises upon which it is parked/stored, and 4) is not used for living or sleeping purposes. A maximum of two recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked in the required side or rear yards if screened by a 6 foot high fence (Attachment 4). .~ .ATTAG ENt- COPIES TO: } ~'L ITEM NO. ~ A recreational vehicle, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers, utility trailers, boats on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab, camping trailers, or tent trailers, with or without motive power. Inventory of Recreational Vehicles: An inventory of recreational vehicles was conducted in the month of November to determine the degree to which recreational vehicles are being parked/stored off-street in residential areas. The inventory took place in West Dublin because off-street parking/storage of recreational vehicles in East Dublin has not been an issue thus far. For every off-street recreational vehicle observed, a notation was made as to whether it was being parked/stored in accordance with Dublin's recreational vehicle regulations (without respect to registration). The inventory comprised approximately 24 streets. A total of 76 recreational vehicles were counted. 43 recreational vehicles were parked/stored properly and 33 were parked/stored improperly. Of those vehicles parked/stored improperly, boats on trailers were disproportionately in violation of the City's current regulations (Attachment 5). Enforcement Issues: In 2002, the City received 20 formal complaints regarding the parking/storage of recreational vehicles in residential areas. The nature of the complaints included, more than one recreational vehicle being parked/stored in the front yard; the parking of recreational vehicles on the front lawn; and possible living or sleeping in a recreational vehicle. The most common violation involving recreational vehicles is encroachment into the required 1' setback from the public sidewalk. Boats on trailers are found to encroach into this area more than any other recreational vehicle. Often, boats are parked diagonally across the driveway to achieve compliance. This type of violation is usually discovered during general field inspections and not received as a complaint. Survey of Surrounding Cities: Since 1997, Dublin's recreational vehicle regulations have not undergone any substantial revisions. In comparing Dublin's regulations with those of Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Danville, Walnut Creek, and Hayward, the following similarities were observed: 1) Most cities regulate where a recreational vehicle can be parked/stored on a residential lot; and 2) Parking and/or storage of recreational vehicles in side and/or rear yards is typically permitted provided that the vehicle is screened from view. The majority of other cities also place size limitations on recreational vehicles being parked/stored on a residential lot (Attachment 6). Off-Site Storage Facility Survey: A survey of vehicle storage facilities, within a 26 mile radius of Dublin, was conducted in November 2002 to determine the availability of spaces for off-site recreational vehicle storage. One facility, located in Dublin, has 10 vehicle storage spaces. Only one space was available for rent when contacted. Pleasanton, Livermore and Castro Valley also have vehicle storage facilities however, very limited space was available when contacted (Attachment 7). RECOMMENDATION: Receive Staff presentation and direct staff as to whether additional studies should be conducted. Ms. Lowart pointed out we revised all the other policies in October, so if we entertain another group, that we bring all the policies back once again. This would require public noticing. Our community group category was very broad and we had a number of different non-profit groups that had members that served our community, but generally they were statewide organizations. If we look at more local focus with Dublin addresses, we may need to review this. It is amazing how many different non-profit categories there are. No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Lockhart closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, Seconded by Cm. Zika, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, w/th the understanding that there will be other language added in the future RESOLUTION NO. 134- 03 ESTABLISHING FACILITY USE POLICY AND RENTAL FEES FOR USE OF THE DUBLIN LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003) RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING REGULATIONS ALTERNATIVES 8:14 p.m. 7.1 (570-20/570~$0) Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. The City Council reviewed potential alternatives to the existing off-street recreational vehicle parking regulations, which regulate where recreation vehicles may be parked on a residential lot. Several alternatives were presented to the City Council for consideration, including: Alternative 1 - maintain existing regulations; Alternative 2 - increase setback from right~of~way; Alternative S - regulate parking within the driveway and nearest side lot line based on size; and Alternative 4 - regulate parking within the side and rear yards based on size. The Staff Report indicated that if the Council determines that modifications should be made to the existing off-street parking regulations regarding recreation vehicles, the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 R~ULAR ME~ ~'~ Jutle !7, 20~3 ATTACHMEN'I . Council should determine if it is appropriate to phase out the pre-existing (legal non- conforming use) recreation vehicle parking. A Legal non-conforming use (such as off- street parking for recreation vehicles) is a use that was legally constructed and used prior to the effective date of the revised ordinance and does not conform to the then current provisions of the ordinance. If it is determined that this legal non-conforming parking should be phased out, Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, would prepare an ordinance to determine the proper methodology for identifying the legal non-conforming parking and the appropriate amortization period in which all existing legal non-conforming recreation vehicle parking would be eliminated. Mter the amortization period is passed, all future recreation vehicle parking would be required to be in compliance with the new regulations. If the City Council determines that modifications should be made to the existing off- street parking regulations, Staff will prepare an agenda statement and ordinance and bring them before the Planning Commission for review and return to the City Council for two public hearings. The new ordinance would then be in effect $0 days after adoption. Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Jutie Whitney. 'tim very concerned about the possibility of the law changing not allowing RV parMng on our own property. We have an RV (a newer one) that fits in our driveway. I feel we should have the right to park any vehicle we want on our own property. I don't think any changes should be made to the existing law." Alene Lewand~ Glenoaks Way, stated she has been a homeowner in Dublin for 23 years. When they bought a motor home they contacted the City to follow the regulations and paid $500 for a bond. It is 10' back from the sidewalk and behind a fence. She feels they are in accordance with the ordinance right now and it would be very inconvenient if they are not. They don't want to have to pay a storage fee and chance vandalism. She asked how they will be notified if there are public hearings. Maybe this new GIS system could print out a mailing List on this. Mayor Lockhart explained all the noticing we do. Before any changes are made it will go back before the Planning Commission and the City Council. It will be thoroughly advertised. Brian Larson, Galindo Driv% stated he saw his house on one of the pictures displayed. It was the picture that showed two motor homes parked side-by-side. Staff says they are both legal, but actually, they are both illegal. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES V©LC'M E 22 REGI_iLAR MEETING 3~:ne i77 20~3 PAGE 406 Mr. Byde stated he did not take the Picture, commented on the perspective, and stated he appreciates him pointing this out. Mr. Larson stated he bought this house because it had a slab. The slab goes all the way back. If there are any changes to the ordinance, there will be big problems. Donna McTee, Fortage Road, stated she moved to Dublin 3 years ago and has owned a business here for 13 years. She would like to see the ordinance stay as is. She currently has a 22' Class C motor home and it fits in her driveway with the 1' needed space. She spoke to Cm. Zika about expanding this distance. Fortunately, she can put hers in the back yard but this is not fair to her neighbors who don't have the space. She spoke to a lot of neighbors today and let them know this was coming up. If you force people to move them out from their homes, they will have to move them to the street to load and unload them and there will be cords stretched across the front. If your neighbors don't have a problem, she did not understand what the issue is. Adding additional footage she did not feel would work. There are a lot of owners out here who will not be happy being told what they can't have in their driveway. Roxanne Mohandro, Honey Court, stated the pictures are all San Ramon Village. There are some bigger RVs up in Silvergate. She has lived here $0 or 40 years and in her current home for 20 years. In 1991 they complied with the ordinance and spent quite a bit of money pouring a driveway. Right now, they cannot financially afford to comply with this. There is no space around here to store motor homes. Will thc City Council send out things so they can find space? Dan Rodrigues, lone Way, stated he has been a resident over $ 5 years and Dublin is a nice city to live in and it is informal. Three or four years ago, the City enacted an ordinance to control RVs for on-site storage. The Planning Commission previously reported only 20 complaints filed in 2002 and when investigated, most were satisfactorily resolved. There is no real need for changes to the ordinance. Unusual situations should be looked on a case-by-case basis. Continued violations could be dealt with by fines. Don't punish those people who play by the rules because of a few who don't. One foot away from the sidewalks is no more dangerous than shrubs. Jon Carlson, Edenberry Place, stated they have been residents for over 20 years and have a Class A motor home in their driveway. They can't move back any further. This would be a very big inconvenience for them. Storage is not available in Dublin, and Pleasanton is extremely expensive. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REG U LAR NtEET!NG Judy Jentzen, Bandon Drive, stated she has lived in Dublin about 25 years. She recently became an RV owner and for awhile she parked it in Livermore which was very inconvenient. She looked at putting it in her side yard on a pad behind the fence. She didn't understand the yellow and blue thing. Owning an RV is the 3anerican dream and if you take that way, some people will be very unhappy with the City Council. There are a lot of people who didn't hear about this meeting. Mayor Lockhart stated she had concerns about the side yard thing. A lot of people are pouring pads and not encumbering the sidewalk and she didn't understand why it can't cross between the blue and yellow zones. Mr. Byde read from the Ordinance and stated you can't have a 6' high fence in your front yard. Mayor Lockhart stated she felt the language around screening could be looked at. She explained that the reason the City Council is looking at this was because people brought pictures of RVs that were intruding in people's lives. What the Council is trying to do is look at both sides of the issue and try and come up with solutions. She clarified the City Council is not picking on anyone and is certainly not trying to ban motor homes in Dublin, contrary to some information going around. Cm. Zika stated the people that called him say it is a safety issue. We should craft an ordinance saying you have to have it 5' back, but it can be in the yellow and/or blue zones. Cm. Sbranti stated he agreed with the blue/yellow issue. He felt a 5' setback would be too much. Intent was to try to regulate some of the large units. Bigger concern was on~ street. He suggested they look at modifications regarding size and height. Vm. McCormick stated she was not concerned with Class B and C, but a 4 5' recreational vehicle does not belong on Dublin residential property. These are the ones that need to be addressed. With the others, people have done their best. The big ones we need to look at. She stated she had no problem with yellow/blue zones. Mr. Ambrose stated staff could talk to building and fire people related to potential health and safety issues and report back. Cm. Oravetz stated he felt we should keep the ordinance as is and enforce it, but look at the yellow/blue issue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES V©LU3,~E 22 REGULAR MEETING june :}7, 20¢.3 FAGE Mr. Ambrose discussed the fact that we respond on a complaint basis. If there are issues not being reported, we are not going out and looking for violations. Mayor Lockhart stated they could look at height and length to determine what could fit in a driveway. Some people could accommodate them in their back yards. Vm. McCormick commented neighboring cities don't allow this at all. It looks like 2 5' is the maximum allowed by other cities. Cm. Sbranti pointed out that right now we have the most liberal standards. He suggested we set standards and write into policy where someone could go before the Planning Commission to get a variance from the policy. Is this legally possible? Mr. Byde stated some kind of discretionary action with a set height and length and perhaps a CUP could be approved. Cm. Sbranti stated he would like to have a standard, but with the ability to have the Planning Commission look at possibly approving it, if it is over 2 5'. Cm. Zika asked what the findings would be to allow? Aesthetics get subjective. Mayor Lockhart stated it should revolve around safety issues. Cm. Zika stated the resolved 1' setback is fine. Eliminate yellow/blue - if it fits. If you allow 1' setback, you have to set some kind of limit on size. Cm. Sbranti talked about 130' length and 10' height. This would still make us the most liberal in the valley. If someone didn't meet this standard, they could apply for a CUP. Vm. McCormick stated she felt 130' and 10' is very generous. Cm. Oravetz stated he felt this is a good thing. Planning Manager Jeri Ram stated if you talk about different lengths, it is difficult to enforce because we can't go on the property. The yellow and blue areas can be seen from the right-of-way. Cm. Sbranti ask how other ci~ies can enforce. Ms. Ram stated they probably go onto next door property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ¥OLUME 22 REGULAR ME ET[NG ~/, 2803 Phil Brinlee, Tamarack Drive, stated he doesn't have an RV but if you set a 1/mit, you need to have some education on sizes. Just because we have the most liberal guidelines isn't a reason to necessarily change them. A person who failed to complete a speaker slip stated he lives on the comer of Shamrock Place and can put a 55' motor home in his yard that you can't see. With a front yard adjustment, getting them out of the front yard is sufficient. If both neighbors have them, however, fire people can't get back there. Ray Coffee (no speaker slip) stated he felt the way to get around yellow/blue zone issue is yellow should be able to encroach into the blue zone. Kendall Crismon, Galindo Drive (no speaker slip) stated a few years back, the Zoning Officer left a letter saying his was illegal. It was on gravel at the time. Since that time, he has poured concrete. His home is very well taken care of. His motor home is 34' long and 11.7' to the top, Class C. He bought this motor home in 1995 and this is the third one he has had. We arc trying to change the boat in the middle of the lake. When you go to Dublin Ranch, you can't even fit a decent size car on the driveways. If you put a height limit on him, where does he go? Dublin doesn't even have any storage you can go to, to put RVs. They will have to go and let some other city get the revenue. The Dublin Fire Department gave him a letter saying his was okay. Mayor Lockhart stated a survey was done in west Dublin on 24 streets. Six mobile homes were properly parked and 5 improperly parked. Thirteen boats were properly parked and 23 improperly parked. There is an issue out there and they are trying to address it. Cm. Zika suggested having staff address the ordinance to get rid of the blue/yellow line and I' back from the sidewalk and whether eliminating blue/yellow line is a fire or safety hazard. Staff to research size and what safety/visual impacts might be. Send the existing ordinance back to staff who will research background information related to the importance of yellow/blue line and if there is a safety issue and do research on size (is 10'/30' appropriate) and what impact this could have on visual safety. Mayor Lockhart asked if they can make this more lenient and have a place where people can park CiTY COUNCt'L MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING 'TAG~; 4.84 Cm. Sbranti added Staff should look at a potential process for CUP - under what guidelines could someone apply for CUP - ff we limit the size. He felt it important that there is an opportunity for exceptions. People could register their vehicle and if we change the rules, this could be problematic. Grandfathering could be looked at to determine how to deal with specific cases. Other issue is ff we do look at height and size limitations, look at what a CUP process would be in order to get a CUP. Thc City Council stated they were not ready to recommend changes to thc ordinance at this point. Mr. Ambrose asked if staff should go to the Planning Commission with these issues, or come back directly to the City Council? Vm. McCormick stated she felt it would be good to get comments from the Planning Commission. Mr. Ambrose asked if staff should go with a report or with an ordinance? Mayor Lockhart stated she felt we should ask them ff they feel a change in the ordinance would be warranted. They could make recommendations to the City Council. Mark Cooley (no speaker slip) stated he has lived here since 1967. He commented the survey may be wrong, since two of the pictures shown were wrong. RECESS 9:21 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for short recess. At 9:28 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened with all Councilmembers present. ON~STREET PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES 9:28 p.m. 7.2 (570-20) Assistant City Manager Joni Fattillo presented the Staff Report, which was additionally prepared Lieutenant Glenn Moon, Dublin Police Services, and Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner. CiTY COUNCIL M[N'UTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June 17, 2003 PAGE 405 Ms. Pattillo discussed the Oversized Vehicle Committee appointments and meetings and recognized Committee members: Bob Abbey, Robert Branaugh, Lisa Trujillo, Sam Wills, Chris Moller, Bill Burnham, Gaylene Burkett and Beth Howard. She also recognized Lt. Glenn Moon and Marnie Waffle. Several alternatives were presented, along with the pros and cons of each, including: Alternative 1 - Adopt the Proposed New Ordinance (as recommended by the Overs/zed Vehicle Committee). The provisions of a new Ordinance were discussed, which would require the movement of identified oversized vehicles from the City streets for a minimum of 48 hours. The ordinance would allow 48~hour preparation and cleanup period for oversized vehicles parked in front of owner's residence, and ordinance would allow 5~day guest parking for oversized vehicles. If the City Council direction is to proceed with Alternative 1, the following identifies the next steps: 1) Staff to publish/post Public Hearing Notice introducing the proposed Ordinance for minimum of 10 days; 2) Staff to bring back the proposed Ordinance for City Councit consideration; 3) Staff to develop a public education campaign if the proposed Ordinance is passed; and 4) Staff to develop an operating procedure on the issuance of the 24-hour resident and 5-day visitor permits. Alternative 2 - Amend the Existing Ordinance (to include a provision that would prohibit the parking of any vehicle, motorized or non-motorized, which is 6' or more in height, within 45' of any intersection within the City of Dublin). If the City Council direction is to proceed with Alternative 2, the following identifies the next steps: 1) Staff to publish/post Public Hearing Notice introducing the amended Ordinance for minimum of 10 days; and 2) Staff to bring back the amended Ordinance for City Council considerat/on. Alternative 3 - Community Education (no change to the existing Ordinance). If the City Council direction is to proceed with Alternative 3, the next step would be for Staff to develop information pamphlet and distribute them when complaints are received regarding the violations of the current 72-hour on-street vehicle storage. Alternative 4 - Maintain the Existing Regulations. If the City Council direction is to proceed with Alternative 4, there would be no further steps required. Vm. McCormick asked about the 5 day guest pass. Would they be allowed to occupy the motor home? Ms. Pattillo replied no, this is against the law. It is a health and safety issue. CITY COUNCiL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June i 7, 2003 Cm. Sbranti asked what is done to discern the weight of the vehicle? Lt. Moon stated currently, commercial weight is 6,000 lbs., and most agencies look at 5 tons as being the maximum allowed in a residential area. You can usually average it by the manufactures. Commercial weight limit and RVs are two separate issues. Cm. Zika asked if thc 5~day visitor permit would be per month or per year or what? Lt. Moon replied it could be once in a 50 day period and they have to live outside the City limits of Dublin, at least 50 miles away. Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Gaylene Burkett, Burnham Way: support ~e new Ora)'nance for Oversize Vehicles.-" Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Denise Watts, Frederiksen Lane: I support the new ordinance." Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted byJefrey Watts: "Isupport the formation of an ordinance prohibiting the parla'n$ of oversized vehicles on residential streets. Simply put, this is an issue oFpublic safe~y. The large, solid vehicles block driveFs sishtlines, making haole'nS out of driveways and two cars passing a dangerous and poten~'ally deadly hazard. ~ Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Yvonne Nickles, Burnham Way: supporl to amend the oversized gV ordinance. " Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Margarita Watts, concerned driver: support the oversized vehicle ord." Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Neighborhood Watch Group from Frederiksen Lane area: 4people support ordinance" Mayor Lockhart read separate statements signed by: Cindy Young & Ken ¥oun~ Kathleen Robinson & £obert Knabe, Jo Anne Hailer, CaIhe~ne Grocnewold & DavidJ. Groenewold- I/We support the proposed new ordinance repealing and replacing section 5.04-.430 reSarch'ng on-street storage of vehicles and repeaI and replacement of oIher affected sections of Ihe Dublin MunicipM Code." CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~AGE 4¢7 Mayor Lockhart read an unsigned statement which was submitted with two pictures of an RV, one captioned "Please noteproximi& to fire hydranF; and one captioned "Please note dangerous visibility blockage out of driveway in front of gV':' '7 called three RV storage places today, all in Dublin. Ail three had available R Vstorage. Dublin Security Storage had 12 various sized spaces from 32 feet long to 30 feet long. Dublin U-haul had 3 spaces available 10 ar 30, 12 x 30 and I2 x 40. Dublin Self Storage has 2 10 x 20 spaces and their sister company in Ziverrnore has a dedicated RV storage facility with many spaces available. Those wer~ the only three I checked with, there may be more storage available in Dublin, but they all had vacancies. Roxanne Mohandro was called on to speak, but had apparently left the meeting. John T. Collins, stated alternative 4 says maintain existing regulations but not address the safety issues of on-street parking. Imagine his surprise when he learned there were less accidents than where the view was clear. A bad current ordinance is worse than a worse new one. The ordinance itself got state of emergency added to it. This misses the point entirely. If we have a huge earthquake, he could probably not get to it so the food he could provide to many people wouldn't be there, because his RV isn't there. In the event of a serious emergency involving terrorists, the RV might not even be there. Phillip Brenlee~ Tamarack Drive, admitted he has an illegally parked vehicle. The proposal of alternative 1 seems to be unenforceable. He is concerned about safety. His vehicle is 32' long and 13 V2' tall. He parks in front of his house even though this is illegal. He doesn't get complaints from his neighbor. Alternative 2 is much better. Alternative $ is fine with him, which seems to be a do nothing thing. He stated he doesn't like Alternative 4. People that wrote the original letter deserve resolution. Hc has a satellite broadcast truck and provides news. If for some reason he is no longer able' to park his vehicle at his house, he will have no employment. He urged the Council just don't do nothing. Dan Rodrigues stated some of the people who visit may have rental motor homes and also 10,000 lbs is not very much weight. Cm. Zika commented on wanting to get the RVs off the public street. Cm. Sbranti commended the Committee. He agreed with Cm. Zika. We are looking at ways to allow for off-street parking of these vehicles, but from aesthetic and safety issues of neighborhood, the guidelines are reasonable. He stated he would also like to see community education. When we get our off-street regulations, the education should include both. Go forward with education program. CITY COL~NCiL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June 17, 2~03 PAGE 4.¢8 Cm. Oravetz concurred with Cm. Sbranti and Cm. Zika and stated he likes the new ordinance. The 72-hours rule always bothered him. Vm. McCormick stated she also supports alternative 1 and likes it that the Committee drafted it. She also likes the idea of including community education with it. Mayor Lockhart thanked the Committee. They did an exceptional job. There were a variety of opinions and they came together with various opinions. She stated she likes seeing the visitor provision. She will also support Alternative 1 with a public education aspect. Cm. Sbranti would also like to see off-street education as part of this. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the Council accepted Alternative 1, with steps outlined in Staff Report. (Staff to publish/post Public Hearing Notice introducing the proposed Ordinance minimum of 10 days; Staff to bring back the proposed Ordinance for City Council's consideration; Staff to develop a public education campaign ff the proposed Ordinance is passed; and Staff to develop an operating procedure on the issuance of the 24-hour resident and 5-day visitor permits) FAIRWAY RANCH AFFORDABLE PROJECT 9:5~ p.m. 7.3 (450-80) City Attorney Elizabeth Silver presented the Staff Report. This agenda item was to update the City Council on discussions Staff has had with the Lin Family's representatives and representatives of potential lenders related to the issue of subordination. The informational Staff Report addressed: Proposed Multi-Family, Senior and Condominium Housing Projects; City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations and Density Bonus Ordinance; Proposed Financing; What is Subordination and what would its impact be on the proposed Fairway Ranch Project; and Status of Discussions between Lin Family and Staff. Martin Inderbitzen, representing the Lin Family, offered a heartfelt thank you to the City Council for helping them move this project forward. Focus and dedication has allowed CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 .-~a~ne 17~ 2903 CITY CLERK File # AGENDA STATEMENT 70 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 17, 2003 SUBJECT: Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations Alternatives. Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location of Allowed Parking Spaces on Residential Lot 2. City Council Minutes of January 7, 2003; 3. Recreation Vehicle Specifications and Vehicle Examples; 4. Agenda Statement dated January 7, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive Staff Presentation; 2. Ma/ma/n the existing off-street parking regulations (Alternative 1); or 3. Provide Staff with direction regarding the proposed alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) to modify the Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations and provide direction if it is appropriate to phase out the pre-existing (legal non- conforming) recreation vehicle parking. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. DESCRIPTION: At the October 15, 2002, City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report regarding the off-street parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. In January of 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with a report on recreation vehicles. The report discussed the history of regulating recreation vehicles within the Dublin; the current regulations for off-street parking as they relate to recreation vehicles; and an inventory of existing recreation vehicles parked in off-street locations. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the City Council directed Staff to return with examPles of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles (see Attachment 4) and some potential size limitations for evaluation (see page 9 of Attachment 2). Qff-Street Parking Regulations: A recreational vehicle, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers, utility trailers, boats on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab, camping trailers, or tent trailers, with or without motive power. Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of required parking spaces on a residential lot and allows recreational vehicles to be parked in the following areas: (1) the driveway (gray area shown on Attachment 1); (2) the area between the dr/veway and the nearest side lot line (yellow area shown on Attachment 1); and (3) the side yard, and the rear yard (the blue area shown on Attachment 1). ATTACHMENT IT ln do. A maximum of one recreational vehicle may be parked/stored in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (the gray or yellow area shown on Attachment 1), provided that: (1) the vekicle does not encroach within one foot of the public right-of-way; (2) does not cross from the driveway and the nearest side lot line into the side yard area (the area shown as blue on Attachment 1); (3) is parked on a paved, all-weather surface; (4) is owned and registered to the occupants of the premises upon which it is parked/stored; and (5) is not used for living or sleeping purposes. A maximum of two recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked in the required side or rear yards (the blue area shown on Attachment 1) if screened by a 6-foot high fence. Size of Recreationa! Vehicles Currently Allowed The existing regulations currently do not specifically regulate the size of recreational vehicles. However, based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and due to the similarity of the existing lot patterns within the City, the vast majority of the single-family residential lots would not allow a recreational vehicle larger than 19-24 feet in length (see diagram below), due to the lengths of driveways and the setback of the garage. Staff has conducted a cursory review of the lot pattems within the City and the vast majority have the garage setback between 20-22 feet, only few irregular lots have larger garage setbacks. The distance the garage is setback from the street regulates the length of recreation vehicle that may be placed in the gray and yellow areas. I Side/rear ~ yard (Blue) RESIDENCE driveway and Driveway n~,r~t side Front Yard (gray) l,a line (Crr~n) O'ellow) 19-24' setback STREET Review of Recreational Vehicles: In 2002, the City received 20 formal complaints regarding the parking/storage of recreational vehicles in residential areas. The nature of the complaints included, more than one recreational vehicle being parked/stored in the front yard; the parking of recreational vehicles on the front lawn; and possible living or sleeping in a recreational vehicle. The most common violation involving recreational vehicles is encroachment into the required 1' setback from the public sidewalk. Boats on trailers are found to encroach into this area more than any other 2 ~O i._~ ,,- : ~.. almost eliminate any type of boat on a trailer (except personal watercraft, which are 12-14 in trailer length), any type of motor home, and the majority of travel trailers. The majority of utility trailers and tent trailers would still fit within the remaining space. Increasing the setback to 10 feet would essential prohibit almost all types of recreation vehicles, except on irregular lots with large garage setbacks. Alternative 3-regulate parking within the driveway and nearest side lot line based on size: This alternative would regulate recreational vehicles parked in the driveway or area between driveway and nearest side lot line (the gray and yellow color shown on Attachment 1) based on length and height. For example, the ordinance could be amended to limit the length of recreational vehicles to no more than 25 feet in length and no more than 1 O-feet in height. This would have the effect of prohibiting the Class A type motorhomes, while allowing smaller, Class B and C and the other types of recreational vehicles. This alternative can be combined with Alternative 2, which would have the effect of further limiting recreational vehicle parking. Alternative 4- regulate parking within the side and rear yards based on size: 'This alternative would regulate the length and height of vehicles located within the side and rear yard (the blue colored area shown on Attachment 1). For example the ordinance could be amended to limit the length of recreation vehicles to no more than 35 feet in length and to not be visible above the highest point of the fence (the Zoning Ordinance allows solid fences to be 6 feet in height, plus 2 feet of semi-open lattice on top, for a total of 8 feet). This modification would have the effect of prohibiting Class A type motorhomes and significantly restricting Class C type motorhomes. However, other types of recreation vehicles would still be allowed in this area, due to their lower profile. This alternative can be combined with the other alternatives. Alternatives Area on lot Level of Affect Level of Affect Alternative would Alternative would reduce off-street result in increased parlcing demand for on- street Alternative/-maintain None Maintain existing No Change existing regulations parking Alternative 2-increase Driveway/side lot line Significantly reduce Significantly setback from right-of- the size and types of increase demand for way recreation vehicles on-street parking that would be permitted Alternative 3-regulate Driveway/side lot line Moderately reduce Moderately increase parking within the the amount of demand for on-street driveway parking and would parking prohibit the Class A type motorhomes Alternative 4- regulate Side and Rear Yard Would prohibit Significantly parking within the side Class A and increase demand for and rear significantly on-street parking restricting Class C, while allowing other types of RVs Amortization: If the City Council determines that modifications should be made to the existing off-street parking regulations regarding recreation vehicles, the City Council should determine if it is appropriate to phase out the pre-existing (legal non-conforming use) recreation vehicle parking. A Legal non-conforming use (such a off-street parking for recreation vehicles) is a use that was legally constructed and used prior to the effective date of the revised ordinance and does not conform to the then current provisions of the ordinance. If it is determined that this legal non-conforming parking should be phased out, Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, would prepare an ordinance to determine the proper methodology for identifying the legal non-conforming parking and the appropriate amortization period in which all existing legal non-conforming recreation vehicle parking would be eliminated. After the amortization period is passed, all furore recreation vehicle parking would be required to be in compliance with the new regulations. Process: If the City Council determines that modifications should be made to the existing off-street parking regulations, Staff will prepare an agenda statement and ordinance and bring them before the Planning Commission for review and return to the City Council for two public hearings. The new ordinance would then be in effect 30-days after adoption. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the Agenda Statement and Attachments and maintain the existing off-street parking regulations (Alternative 1); or provide Staff with direction regarding the proposed alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) to modify the Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations and provide direction if it is appropriate to phase out the pre-existing (legal non- conforming) recreation vehicle parking. 6 ~,~ C) recreational vehicle. Often, boats are parked diagonally across the driveway to achieve compliance. Encroachment into the required setback is usually discovered during general field inspections and not received as a complaint. Staff has conducted a cursory review of recreational vehicles to determine the range of lengths and heights. Recreation vehicles come in a very wide range of lengths and heights, however based on Staff's review, the vehicles generally fit into two length categories (see diagrams below which illustrate types of vehicles): R. V.s generally over 19-24 feet in length Motor Homes Boats on Trailers R. V.s generally under 19-24 feet in length Travel trailers, camping trailers, or tent trailers Campers Utility trailers, Horse trailers Tent Trailer Travel Trailer Camper FiEh-Wheel Travel Trailer Class A Motorhome Class B Notorhorne Class C Hotorhome After determining which types of recreation vehicles were over the 19-24 foot length, Staff conducted a further review of the general dimensions of boats on trailers and motor homes. Boats on Trailers: Trailerable boats come in an incredible variety of shapes and sizes. Trailerable boats range in size from 8' to 25'. At the small end of the spectrum are boats such as personal watercraft (8'-12' in length) and one-design small sailboats (such as Lasers and Sunfish which are approximately 12' in length and have a overall height, when stored, of 2.5'). The large end of the spectrum includes small cabin cruisers (such as a Bayliner 2252 which is 23' long and has an overall height of 8'-12"). Boats as large as a cabin cruiser are rarely found on a trailer due to several factors: (1) the overall weight of the boat; (2) there are limited vehicles that are able to tow such a large and heavy boat; and (3) the width of such boats often exceeds 8.5' and lhus requires a special permit to drive on a public road. As previously mentioned the most common violation involving recreational vehicles is encroachment into the required 1' setback from the public sidewalk and based on Staff's cursory review of boats on trailers, the majority exceeds the 19-24 feet in length of a driveway apron when the boat is longer than 18 feet in length. This is due to the required length of the "trailer tongue", wkich is required to provide adequate maneuverability of the trailer (see figure below). ITrailer t°ngueI Motorhomes : A motorhome is built on or as an integral part of a self-propelled motor vehicle chassis, combining transportation and living quarters in one unit. There are three different types or classes of motorhomes, Class A, B, and C. The Class A motorhome, also commonly referred to as the conventional motorhome, is the largest, most luxurious of the motorized RVs -- a virtual "home-away from-home" on wheels, fully loaded and equipped. The type A is entirely constructed on a bare, specially designed motor vehicle chassis. The size ranges from 21 to 45 feet in length and cost and average of $117,500. Class B, also commonly referred to as the van camper, is a cargo van that has been customized to include temporary sleeping, eating and bathroom facilities and ranges in size from 16 to 21 feet and cost an average of $56,520. The type C motorhome, sometimes referred to as a mini-motorhome, provides the conveniences of a larger motorhome in a scaled-down version and at a lower price. The type C is built on an automotive manufactured van frame with an attached cab section. The size ranges from 20 to 31 feet in length and cost an average of $56,770. See Attachment 3 for a sample of motorhome class and model specifications relating to length, height, width, weight, and volume. ALTERNATIVES: Pursuant to City Council direction from the January City Council meeting, Staff has prepared 5 alternatives relating to the off-street parking regulations of recreation vehicles. One of the alternatives includes maintaining the existing regulations; the other alternatives would regulate the parking of recreation vehicles based on size and or location. Modifying any of the existing regulations would reduce the amount of recreation vehicles parking on an individual residential lot; likewise the further reduction of parking options on an individual lot will increase demand of parking on the street. The resulting parking restrictions and impacts are discussed in greater detail in each of the alternatives. While evaluating the proposed alternatives it is noted that recreation vehicle storage facilities are very limited within the area. Staff prepared the proposed alternatives based upon a review of the existing ordinance and researching the size of vehicles that exceed the typical garage setback of 20-25 feet (boats on trailers and motorhomes). Staff has determined the following alternatives for modifying the existing ordinance: Alternative i-maintain existing regulations: Alternative 1 would be to not amend the existing ordinance, which would maintain the existing parking regulations related to recreation vehicles. Alternative 2-increase setbackfrom right-of-way: This alternative would increase the required setback beyond the existing one-foot setback from the public right-of-way in driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (the gray or yellow area shown on Attachment 1). This alternative would significantly reduce the size and types of recreation vehicles that would be permitted in these two areas. Increasing the setback in excess of 5 feet would Go OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Chapter 8.76 van, or automobile only which is no larger than 3/4 ton as permitted by this Title under Chapter 8.64, Home Occupations. Disabled Accessible Parking. Parking lots shall include the number of disabled accessible parking spaces as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Such spaces shall be designed as required by Section 8.76.070.A.8, Disabled Accessible Parking. Disabled spaces count toward the total number of parking spaces required by Section 8.76.080, Parking Regulations by Use Type. Recreational Vehicle parking in residential areas. One Recreational Vehicle (RV) as defined in this Title may be parked on a driveway, or paved area between the driveway and the nearest Side Lot Line subject to the following requirements: 1. The RV plus any accessories shall not encroach to within one foot of the public right-of-way. 2. Paving. The area between the driveway and the nearest Side Lot Line used for RV parking shall be paved with an all-weather surface to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 3. Curb Cut. A curb cut may be considered by the Director of Public Works for an RV parking space permitted pursuant to this Section. 4. Alternate location. In unusual situations where there is insufficient room between the driveway and the nearest Side Lot Line to park an RV, the Director of Community Development may permit paved parking for that purpose in an alternate location. 5. Ownership. An RV parked as required in this Section, shall be owned by and registered to the occupant of the premises upon which it is parked or stored. 6. Parking in Side Yard, Street Side Yard, and Rear Yard. A maximum of two vehicles, including RV's, may be parked at a residence in the following areas, if screened by a 6 foot high fence or wall: in the Side Yard, Street Side Yard, Rear Yard, or the area between the Rear Yard and the rear of the residence. Parking within a designated parking space. All vehicles shall be parked within the confines of parking spaces as striped on the ground and as shown on an approved Off-Street Parking and Loading Plan. Rev. Ord. 16-02 (November 2002) Living or sleeping in vehicle parked upon any public right of way. At no time shall a Motorhome, recreational vehicle, mobile home or similar vehicle as determined by the Director of Community Development, parked upon any public right-of-way in any zoning district be occupied for living or sleeping purposes. Rev' Ord. 16-02 t~ovember 2oo2 ll[ Cl.l [. l City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance 76-6 September, 1997 Amended April 1, 2003 living area of the home. This delays the time in which the living area of the home, where the occupants would be sleeping, would catch fire. Creating Additional Hiding Places: The current off-street residential recreational vehicle parking regulations allow for one recreational vehicle to be parked in the front of a residence and up to two to be parked in the side and/or rear yards of a residence. Police Services indicated that each residence should be restricted to one recreational vehicle being parked and/or stored at their residence. Allowing multiple vehicles to be parked on one property creates additional hiding places for potential or actual criminal activity. Attachment 8 living area of the home. This delays the time in which the living area of the home, where the occupants would be sleeping, would catch fire. Creating Additional Hiding Places: The current off-street residential recreational vehicle parking regulations allow for one recreational vehicle to be parked in the front of a residence and up to two to be parked in the side and/or rear yards of a residence. Police Services indicated that each residence should be restricted to one recreational vehicle being parked and/or stored at their residence. Allowing multiple vehicles to be parked on one property creates additional hiding places for potential or actual criminal activity. Attachment 8