Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2003 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Jennings, Nassar, King and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Andy Byde, Senior Planner; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - July 22, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PA 03-028, Report on Contemplated Modification to the Recreational Vehicles Regulations The Dublin Planning Commission will be receiving an informational report regarding the existing residential off-street recreational vehicle parking regulations and considering whether changes to the existing regulations are warranted. Andy Byde, Senior Planner, presented the report. He explained that 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 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 2003 meeting, the City Council directed Staff to return with examples of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles and some potential size limitations for evaluation. The City Council directed Staff, at the June 17, 2003 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. 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 or side yard 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; (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 motor homes; 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 that the Planning Commission provide input to the contemplated changes (the requirement that recreational vehicles cannot cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard 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 that the height and/or lengths should be regulated, 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. There was a discussion on the surrounding cities regulations for parking recreational vehicles. Cm. Nassar asked if people are living in their RV's? Mr. Byde responded that the City's regulations do not allow people to live in their RV. Cm. Nassar asked why the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the regulations. Ms. Ram responded that the City Council recently approved an ordinance regulating on street parking of recreational vehicles, which in turn may cause more RV's parked on the owner's lot. The City Council directed Staff to bring back a status report on the regulations. Cm. Jennings asked for clarification on performance standards from the staff report. Mr. Byde stated that the Planning Commission should determine if it is appropriate to regulate vehicles on height and length. Ms. Ram said a good example for performance standards was the Planning Commission's review of the garage conversion ordinance; if certain findings can be met, a garage can be converted by a Conditional Use Permit. Cm. King asked Staff for clarification that the Commission is reviewing the removal of the dividing line between the side driveway area and side yard setback. Mr. Byde said that is correct. Cm. King asked about the point of the change. Mr. Byde said several members of the audience at the June 2003 City Council meeting had concerns with the dividing line between the driveway and side yard area. Their concerns were that with the dividing line it limits the size of the RV. Cm. King said the change would not affect safety one-way or the other. Mr. Byde agreed. Cm. Fasulkey said that these motor homes would be parked on spaces that would normally be reserved for setbacks. Mr. Byde responded yes. Cm. Fasulkey about the reason for setbacks. Mr. Byde said it is for health safety and welfare as well as aesthetics. Cm. Fasulkey explained to the audience the process of addressing the Planning Commission. Michael Manning 8601 Southwick Drive stated his frontage area is 92 feet. He has a sailboat on his lot behind a screened fence and a RV in front of his home. He stated that Dublin should go along with what Livermore allows. He feels he should be allowed to park in his front yard and the city should relax and not have such stringent codes. He stated that the City should consider the ramifications and become more liberal. Mr. George $ilveira, 8265 Wexford Court, stated that he owns a 32 foot motor home, which he parks in a storage facility but would like the option of parking on his property. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Silveira how much it cost to store a RV in a storage facility. Mr. Silveira responded $100 per month in a facility in Pleasanton. Cm. King asked Mr. Silveira if he has had problems with vandalism. Mr. $ilveira stated he has not personally had any problems with vandalism but has heard it is very common with storage lots. Cm. King asked if he would like the screening to go away. Mr. Silvera stated he would like the screening to go away and would like to park it where it belongs. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Silvera if there should be any constraints to the size. Mr. Silvera responded that there should be no size constraints. Alene Lewand, 7369 Glen Oaks Way, stated she owns a motor home and has done everything that the City has required to park it on her lot. She would not store it at a storage facility because of the potential for vandalism and the inconvenience. She stated the ordinance would work well if it was enforced. Cm. King asked Ms. Lewand if she was satisfied with the existing ordinance. Ms. Lewand said she would like to remove the dividing line between the driveway and side yard set back area. Cm. Fasulkey asked for a show of hands on how many people that own motor homes and straddle the dividing line between the driveway and side yard set back area. Approximately 40% of the group (audience) raised their hands. Jim McCuen, 6976 Cedar Lane, stated that he has a 27-foot motor home parked in his driveway. The biggest problem is the lack of storage in Dublin and vandalism. Dan Rodrigues, 6851 Ione Way, stated he owns a motor home and went through this process 5 years ago. He said that the current ordinance is fine and if the dividing line is eliminated it would be even better. He stated that the City should enforce the ordinance. The best way to deal with the situation is to set up parameters. If the vehicle fits, then it is okay to park it; if it doesn't fit then it is a violation. Cm. King asked if he is in favor of the screening. Mr. Rodrigues said it does not matter to him. It is convenient for those people who have a larger RV. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Rodriguez what is not being enforced. Mr. Rodrigues responded that the City needs better enforcement rather than waiting for someone to complain. Roger Marshall, 8722 Galindo Court, stated that one of the reasons he moved into his house was because he could park his RV there. He also agrees that the regulations are not being enforced. Most RV's are longer than what the current regulations allows. Cm. Fasulkey read comments for the record from Ellen Lynn, resident of 8796 Bandon Drive, - Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. My biggest objection to parking my motor home in a storage lot is the lack of security there. My experience with storage lots is that they didn't have surveillance cameras, watchdogs, security guards or any other security features that made me feel the motor home is as safe there as it is in my yard behind the fence. I am in favor of allowing citizens to park RV's on their own property. Thank you. Joe Banchero, resident of 7622 Quail Creek Circle, had concerns regarding visibility of old trailers/boats if the fence was taken down, which would create an 'eye-sore' for the neighbors. He also felt that if a trailer is parked in the yellow area of the driveway, it could obstruct the view of a driver pulling out of a driveway next door. Brian Larson, 8685 Galindo Drive, stated he has a motor home that encroaches from yellow area onto the blue area. He is in favor of changing the regulations as long as he is able to park his motor home in both the color zones. Donna McTee, resident of 6950 Portage Road, gave her input regarding the issue. She did not want the ordinance to be changed and felt that people should be allowed to park their trailers/motor homes in their driveway. She suggested that the City should provide a regulation for adequate clearance to move around the trailer/motor home rather than restricting the parking of the trailer/motor home. Brad Jones, resident of 8248 Wexford Court, was not in favor of changing the ordinance and adding restrictions to the property. Jon Pulliam, resident of 6856 Lancaster Road, voiced similar views as Mr. Jones. Bob Wright, resident of 7626 Canterbury Court, similarly expressed that he is not in favor of changing the ordinance. He was also opposed to the proposed regulation of parking the trailer/motor home on the grass. He sought clarification on the word 'screening'. Mr. Byde explained that in order to park a trailer/motor home in the side yard, it should be screened with a six-foot fence. Dick Bums, resident of 7574 San Sabana, wanted a clarification on the existing zoning regulation on parking a single licensed vehicle on the side of the house. Cm Fasulkey stated that the current zoning regulation allows parking a single vehicle on the side yard and Mr. Burns was in compliance. Cm Nassar asked if the proposed changes to the Ordinance allows potentially 3 vehicles to be stored at a residence. Mr. Byde responded that was correct. Shauna Collier, resident of 7648 Brighton Drive, stated that neighbors having problems with a trailer parked off-street should communicate with their neighbors rather than making an issue of it, prompting City regulations to be changed. Ken Chrisman, 8650 Galindo Drive, stated that he was in favor of removing the dividing line between the side driveway area and side yard set back. After everyone had a chance to give his or her input, Cm. Fasulkey closed the public input portion of the meeting. After a 5-minute recess, Cm. Fasulkey resumed the meeting and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Cm. King asked if the basis of this report stems from the fact that the City Council is adopting a policy for the removal of RVs parked on the street and if the issue is where to park the trailer/motor home once they remove it from the street and how to screen it so that it is not visible from the street? Ms. Ram confirmed that the 'yellow' and the 'blue' line theory evolved from this fact. Cm. King also asked about the types of complaints the city receives regarding RVs. Ms. Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner, responded that the majority of complaints received were based on the fact that people were living in the RVs and causing a nuisance in the neighborhood. Cm. Machtmes noted that the number of complaints received regarding RVs were 20 per year. Ms. Waffle responded that property maintenance is the most common complaint and Recreation Vehicle complaint is not a common occurrence. Cm. Nassar sought clarification to Mr. Rodrigues' comment and there was a discussion regarding his comment. Cm. Jennings had questions regarding the length of a Recreational Vehicle that can be parked at the yellow zone. There was a discussion between Staff and the Commissioners regarding the average RV length and size. Cm. King wanted to know the rationale behind the requirement for screening therecreational vehicle. Mr. Byde gave a brief background on the rationale. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding this issue. The Commissioners discussed their recommendation be. Their discussion is summarized in the following way: Cm. Jennings was in favor of not changing the zoning regulation but increasing enforcement. Cm. Nassar was also in favor of not amending the regulation, but had concerns with parking a large vehicle encroaching into the blue area. He would like to remove the dividing line to accommodate larger vehicles and restrict the number of vehicles that can be parked at a residence. Cm. King was unsure about amending the regulation, but would also like to remove the dividing line restriction to accommodate a larger RV. Cm. Fasulkey wanted these to be dealt on a case-by-case basis through a CUP process. Cm. King also agreed with this view. Cm. Machtmes' wanted a conformance standard for parking RVs in the driveway and therefore was in favor of not amending the Ordinance. Cm. Jennings suggested limiting the size of Recreational Vehicles that can be parked. A lot of discussion took place on this issue. The Planning Commission discussed the potential modifications regarding the parking of Recreational Vehicles. No action took place and the item was continued to a future Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - None NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ~ar~n'mg (~n~i'ssion Chair~~'