Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 6 CC Minutes 11/4/03 No testimony was entered by any member of the public relative to this issue. Mayor Pro Tempore Me Connick closed. the public heari.ng. On motion of Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Sbranti, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Lockhart absent), the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 218 - 03 APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATION BY DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES FOR 2003 BLOCK GRANT FUNP$ ($16,398 and approved a Budget Change. -.+ RESIDENfIAL OFF-STREET RECREATIONAL VEffiCLE (RV) PARKING REGULATIONS AL'rERNATIVES . 7:37 p.m. 7.1 (570-20) Senior Planner Andy Byde presented the Staff Report. Following discussion by the City Council at the October 15, 2002, January and June 17, 2003 City Council meetings related to off-street parking of recreational vehicles, the Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the requirement that RV's cannot Cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard area. Currently, the RV regulations state that a 6' fence must screen any vehicles parked within the side yard. The modification would eliminate the screening requirement and allow RV's to be located anywhere within the nearest side lot line area or side yard area as long as the vehicle maintained a l' setback from the public right-of-way. 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' in length. These types of vehicles would not fit within the driveway or nearest side lot line area, given the current regulations. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission provide input on the contemplated modification (the requirement that the RV's cannot cross .from the nearçst side lot area into the side yard area) or other changes to the RV regulations that the Planning Commission determined appropriate. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 2003 PAGE 635 -.. "' -.' - ,. ,.", -..: '~'.- :."." ~,.... ,. .... ..<..", :>"-.-<'.' "-,:-...' ,;. . :', .- .--:: ~...;':.'" ," ATTACHMENT ~O The Planning Commission unanimously voted that no changes be made to the Ordinance, with a request that the City Council direct Staff to more proactivelyenforce the current RV regulations. ' Staff discussed: Background of Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations; Public Safety Issues; Height and Lengths of Motorh~mes; Requested Direction from Planning Commission; and Discretionary Permit Process to Regulate Recreational Vehicles. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows a VarÏa11ce for aI1, applicant that wishes to deviate from any current development standard, including parking of an RV. However, there are 5 required findings to approve a Variance, which 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 1 and 2 often prove to be very difficult to find in the affirrriative due to the similarity of the existing lot patterns within the City. Staff suggested perhaps if the City Council wished, they could consider granting a CUP. In summary, Staff requested that the City Council determine whether or not to maintain the existing off-street parking regulations, and if not, to provide Staff with direction regarding desired modification (8). Cm. Sbranti asked about the time period prior to 1986 RV's were not allowed. He thought they got stricter. Mr. Byde stated there was probably a disconnect from whatwa.s pqt,Ïtt tþç.. ..,.. . .... .' neighborhoods and the City's ordinance. They were not allowed in the front -ór -šide' yard. Cm. Sbranti asked about the original intent of the blue and yellow area differentiation. Mr. Byde stated it was based on self regulation and lot size. They spoke with the planner who worked on this originally. The length of RV's 15 years ago were substantially different than what's out there tQday. Cm. Sbranti asked if there was anything discussed with proximity to fence or house related to safety issues? CITY COUNCILMINiFFÊ's" -" VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 2003 PAGE 636 "';-._~-i1->">~_",.__ .:<:,,,,..,.,;. '.;.-, . --"':'''.'', ..~' '" .,,-,., ',..>.....".....'":-...,....<-~;._, Mr. Byde stated there was some discussion by Staff and the discussion was framed by how safety impacts would be with change. Cm. Zika talked about safety issue of parking on garage side versus other side of the house and asked if it was felt this may be a problem with people getting out of their house? Mr. Byde stated windows are provided for ingress/egress. Ultimately they provide for emergency, so if an RV is parked next to a window area of bedrooms, potentially you could obscure access from bedrooms. Bob Fasulkey stated the Planning Commission took their role very seriously. They had a full audience both nights when this issue was discussed. They wanted to make a credible recommendation. They felt there were really no good alternatives and tþey took seriously the needs of people with monolithic motor homes. The yellow/blue line issue became very important for their discussion. One thread amongst the folks, even those with motorhomes, asked that better enforcement occur. We have good guidelines in place, and we should now go toward more active enforcement. Dan Rodrigues, lone Way, stated this zoning regulation has been in force for many years with only a couple of violations. The Ordinance as it reads now is very good and he would hate to see any changes. The one foot from sidewalk provides enough clearance for safety purposes. Another feature is the difference between the yellow and blue line. This doesn't affect him very much one way or another, but if there is a change put in a provision if fence is removed to accommodate an oversize vehicle, whenever the vehicle is not there that a fence or gate be put there. The back yard should not be visible from the street. Brian Larson, Galindo Drive, stated he has one of the trailers which he himself pointed out isn't following the rules. He wants to see the yellow blue line disappear. He has a Mini - Winnie and it doesn't fit in his 20' driveway. He has a fence at the back of his garage. He stated he doesn't see the purpose of blue and yellow line and would like it gone. Arlene Lewand stated she would also like to see the blue and yellow line disappear. By leaving, you create hardships on people who are only over it a couple of feet. It really isn't in any body's way. The rest of the Ordinance is okay. For people with boats, it is sometimes just the engine that sticks out, but if that line is there, they may not be able to keep it there. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 2003 PAGE 637 Linda Lamke, Tamarack Drive, asked what about the boats? In her neighborhood, this is their problem, not motorhomes. They have 2 or 3 boats put irt driveways and consequently their cars/vans are put out in the street and they block views when you are trying to get out of your driveway. Let's look at boats also. The City Council clarified they were talking about boats also as they are classified as an RV. Donna McTee, Portage Road, brought up the issue of boats/RV's parked kitty corner in driveways and stated she would like to see them parked at 90 degree angle instead of 45 degree angle and taking up the whole driveway. A lot of the houses in Dublin, if you park at 45 degree angle, you are also blocking entrance to the home. She stated she delivers flowers and has had to go around boats to get to the front porch. Please consider not allowing parking kitty corner. Cm. Zika stated he has no problem with the yellow/blue areas, as long as it doesn't exceed 25'. If you have a 40 footer, you'd better have a yard big enough to store it in. Most houses would have an outside entrance from the garage which would not obstruct access. Maximum allowed would be 25' and anything over that you get in trouble. He stated he agreed with the Planning Commission that we be proactive with enforcement rather than reactive. Neighbors don't want to tell on neighbors, but they can get upset with the City. Mr. Byde clarified he wanted 25' length or less so they would still be l' back from the sidewalk. Cm. Oravetz agreed that the Planning Commission did a good job and he also felt we should keep the existing Ordinance and improve enforcement. We shouldbuildso:r:ne flexibility into the Ordinance such as if someone has a 30' RV and they can show they can park it safely. We could go with the CUP process and try it for 6 months and see how much Staff time this takes. Cm. Sbranti asked how a process would work? Mr. Byde stated we would have to do a Zoning Ordinance amendment and take it back to the Planning Commission and it would include an application fee of $50 and they would have to submit site plan, drawing in the length of the vehicle. A CUP has to be acted on at a public hearing and it would either go before the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission. CITY couNciL MINUtES' VOLUME 22 REGULAR l\1EETING November 4, 2003 PAGE 638 Cm. Zika asked if all property own~rs within 300' would have to be notified? If they don't like it do they appeal to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council? Mr. Byde stated yes this was correct. Cm. Sbranti stated he likes the idea of flexibility. Both on-street and off-street came up near the same time and they got sorta clouded. He was glad we have resolved the on- street. He stated he likes maintaining the Ordinance the way it is, but he could support extertding the blue/yellow area to 25'. If they can show they have enough room, he had no problem with allowing a CUP. Mayor Pro Tempore McConnick questioned wouldn't we have criteria with a CUP even before they would apply? Mr. Byde discussed how this could work. We could tighten up the criteria so people would know in advance. Mayor Pro Tempore McConnick brought up the issue with fence. Should we have regulations for fence if the RV is gone? Mr. Byde stated fencing regulations relate to how high and where they can be, but don't state you have to have a fence. Cm. Sbranti stated he likes the idea of allowing the 25' because we have tightened up the on-street and we can now allow more leniency with off..street, but it has to comply with a plan. One boat could take away all options for cars in a driveway as the resident mentioned, so a modification could accommodate this. This won't work for everyone, but it will for some. We could give them the extra 5' with a CUP potential if the room is there and if they have a good plan. This will help with some of the parking. Cm. Zika stated the same rules apply to boats as to any other RV. He would be reluctant since we allow people to convert garages to say that they can't park on the vertical. Linda Lamke sta~ people that observe the rules are never the problem. Who is going to regulate this? Keep in mind who the people are who are going to be abusive of this. 1\.1r. Ambrose discussed past policies and stated in the past the City Council adopted various types of Zoning Ordinance regulations and specifically how enforcement works. Planning Manager Jeri Ram stated enforcement is proactive, but pointed out that we have one enforcement officer. wè concentratefirston commercial areas and graffiti. In CITY cÕirÑcïL-ÑtïNIJT"ES- -~""" VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 2003 PAGE 639 _..:-¡ ,.-",,-,,___._; ..; .__ '!' ;.:.."..-.:;...::..c,. ;: ,....:."~.$,.. . residential areas we first look at property maintenance issues and when we have time we look at RV's. They shoot to the top with complaints. Cm. Sbranti stated the Planning Commission gave a recommendation and if the City Council agrees, this is a priority. Mayor Pro Tempore McCormick stated we may need to look at this with the budget for increased enforcement. The City Council supported 25'. Mr. Ambrose clarified that the 25' would be carteþlanche, to move yellow line back 6' and 30' would only be an issue if they cross the blue/yellow line. They can be 26' from the property line and a CUP process can look at situations if they exceed that length in the blue/yellow area. Cm. Sbranti stated Staff can come back with criteria and also increase enforcement. Mr. Ambrose asked for parking solely in the blue area if this still requires screening. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Crn. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote (Mayor Lockhart absent), the Council agreed to maintain the current Ordinance with. the exception of extending the yellow area to 26'. Staff will bring back what the CUP process criteria will be for any residents that go beyond 26' in yellow/blue areas and more proactively enforce the Ordinance. .. AGREEMENT wrm THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTR:ICT (BART) REGARDING FUNDING FOR TIlE WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANfON BART STATION IMPROVEMENTS 8:25 p.m. 8.1 (600-40) City Engineer Melissa Morton presented the Staff Report and advised that this agreement with BART will allow the City of Dublin to pass $4 million in Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee funds through to BART for the West Dublin BART Station project. BART is responsible for the constmction and management of this project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING N ovem her 4, 2003 PAGE 640