Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 OffStRecreationParking CITY C'LERK File # '7'J l'l AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations Alternatives. Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: o Location of Allowed Parking Spaces on a Residential Lot; Planning Commission Minutes of August 12, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 2003 City Council Minutes of June 17, 2003 Safety Analysis of Recreation Vehicle Parking Receive Staff Presentation; Maintain the existing off-street parking regulations; or Provide Staff with direction regarding desired modification(s) to the Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time. 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. 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 recreational 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 and some potential size limitations for evaluation. On June 17, 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with examples of heights and lengths of recreational vehicles with potential size limitations for evaluation. 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 and to evaluate the resulting impacts from modifying the regulations. Specifically the City Council directed Staff to evaluate modifying the requirement that recreational 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 recreational vehicles to be located anywhere within the nearest side lot COPIES TO: GSPA#L2003\03-028 Recreational VehicIe\ccsr off street 11-04-03 direction.doc In House Distribution ITEM NO. 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 recreational 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 recreational 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 recreational 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 Recreational Vehicle Parkiny( 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. Staff's 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 Sa£ety 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 vehicles parked and/or stored on a single family lot were identified by members of the public safety staff and are as follows (see Attachment 5 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, which includes the heights and lengths of various classes and models of motorhomes. Small Class A Large Class A Class B Van Camper Small Class C Large Class C Vista (Volkswagen Minnie Winne (Van ~fodel Name Sightseer Ultimate Freedom Volkswagen Camper Van) Chasis) Height 11 '-10" 12'-2" 6'-7" 10'-2" 11'-7" Length 27'-10" 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 recreational 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. At the August 12, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness of modifying the current regulations. The Planning Commission voted to continue the discussion until the AugUSt 26th meeting in order to allow the CommisSioners the ability to conduct some field visits to the various neighborhoods to view recreational vehicles parked off-street (see August 12, 2003, Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 2). At the conclusion of the August 26th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimOusly that no changes be made to the ordinance, with a request to the City Council to direct Staff to more proactively enforce the current recreation vehicle regulations (see August 26, 2003, Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 3). Discretionary Permit Process to Regulate Recreational 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 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. If the City Council determines heights and or lengths should be regulated, an appropriate discretionary permit to grant exceptions to size regulations would be a Conditional Use Permit. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation and maintain the existing off-street parking regulations; 'or provide Staff W/th direction regarding desired modification(s) to the Residential Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations. c~ 0 W ±33~£$ ATTACHMENT I Commission Mitigates CALL 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 rethrned 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 sida 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) A TACHMENT 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 recentiy 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 sta~ed 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 safet~ one-way or the other. ~ qj ~z~? 5,~d ee~ it~,q 132 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. I-Ie 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 Silveira, 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. Silveira stated he has not personally had any problems with vandalism but has heard it is very common with storage lots. Cm. Kin. g 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. Ion 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 meetLng 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 colTm2ent. - 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 the .recreational 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: 1. Cm. Jennings Was in favor of not changing the zoning regulation but increasing enforcement. 2. 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. 3. Cm. King was unsure about amending the regulation, but would also like to remove the dividing line restriction to accommodate a larger RV. 4. Cm. Fasulkey wanted these to be dealt on a case-by-case basis through a CUP process. Cm. King also agreed with this view. 5. Cm. Machtmes' wanted a conformance standard for parking RVs in the driveway and therefore was in favor of not amending the Ordinance. 6. Cm. Jermings 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. .;~ t2 2003 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. Re~/~ ~/~ed, /~ ~g ~ssion Chair~~- P a:atdr g Commissiot Mitmtes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 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; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - August 12, 2003 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - 7.1 PA 03-028 Recreational Vehicles - Continued from August 12, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the Staff Report. Andy Byde explained that theltem ~vas continued from the August 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. He briefly went over the regulations currently governing recreational vehicles and outlined the direction given to Staff from the City Council. He concluded his presentation and asked if the Commission had any questions. There were no questions for Staff. Dan Rodrigues, 6851 Ione Way, stated at the' last meeting he did not have an opiniOn on the dividing line between the front driveway and front side yard set back area. Since that meeting' he has given it some thought and' would like to see the dividing line remain a requirement. If people would like to extend beyond the line, a variance should be requested. Alene Lewand, 7369 Glenoaks Way, stated that she is under the impression that the Commission thinks of RVs as motor homes. An RV is also a boat or jet ski. Cm. Fasulkey stated the code uses the term RV for motor homes but boats and jet skis also constitute an RV. ~ny vehicle that is not an automobile that is used for recreation is considered an RV. 26, Ms. Lewand stated that just because the dividing line is removed doesn't mean that people will go out and buy something larger. Joe Perry, 8232 Wexford Ct.' stated he did not attend the last meeting and is curious why RV's are under review. He asked why the City is paying attention to parking of RV's on a property rather than giving attention to the ones that are parked on the street. Cm. Fasulkey explained that on-street parking of RV's is also being reviewed. Ms. Ram explained that this process began because of the City Council's concerns about RV parking on the street. The removal of on-street RV parking will increase the off-street parking, which is why this subject is under review. Cm. Fasulkey asked Mr. Perry if he had any additional comments. Mr. Perry responded that he prefers parking RV's in the backyard covered with fencing. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any. other comments. Hearing none he asked for the Planning Commission to give Staff direction on the subject. Cm. Jennings stated that enforcement should be increased but the ordinance should remain the same. Cm. King stated he has given it some thought and feels the screening requirement should remain. He also likes the idea of'grand-fathering those that currently own RV's. Cm. Nassar agreed with Cm.'Jennings that he is in favor of not amending the current regulations. He has concerns with the dividing line and people owning more than one RV. If the dividing line is removed, there should be a restriction allowing only one RV. Cm. Machtmes stated he is not in favor of amending the current regulations. He would like to see RV's brought back further from the sidewalk than 1 foot for safety issues. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff if they consulted with Police Services regarding safety. Mr. Byde stated that Attachment 8 of the August 12, 2003, agenda statement included a discussion on health and safety from Police and Fire Departments. They did not specifically articulate how far the ideal setback would be. Police Services indicated that the farther back from the sidewalk a RV is parked is safer for pedestrians and motorist. Cm. Jennings asked if there is an ordinance that restricts the length of a vehicle. Mr. Byde responded no. Cm. Nassar asked about the average size of a motor home. 2003 /I Mr. Byde stated that an average motor home is approximately 30 feet and a boat is approximately 20 feet. Cm. Nassar stated that the rear yard setbacks couldn't accommodate up to 50% of the RV's. The planning Commission took a straw vote and unanimously agreed to leave the ordinance as it is with more active code enforcement. There was discussion to grandfather he existing units that are legally parked RV's according to the existing ordinance and making recommendations to amend the ordinance. Cm. Machtmes stated making changes is inconsistent with the recommendation to leave the existing ordinance in affect. Cm. Nassar asked about the main reason that people do not comply with the current ordinance. Mr. Byde stated the main reason is due to the dividing line between the front driveway area and side yard setback area. There was discussion on the dividing line and, based on the majority, the Planning Commission agreed to not change the dividing line between the driveway and side yard setback area. There was discussion regarding changes to the existing ordinance in relation to the one-foot setback on the driveway, and based on the majority, the Planning Commission agreed to not change the current ordinance. The Planning Commission made the recommendation that no changes be made to the ordinance with more active enforcement. PUBLIC HEARING 8.1 PA 03-035 Duke Garage Conversion Conditional Use Permit - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert a portion of a single-family residential garage for the construction of a bathroom. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Marnie Waffle presented the staff report and explained that the Applicant, Ray Duke, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the partial conversion of garage space for the construction of a bathroom. He is proposing an addition and interior remodel to his single family home that will encroach slightly into the required two-car garage space, as shown on the attached floor plans. Instead of maintaining a 20-foot by 20-foot garage space as required by the Off-Street Parking and Loading Section of the Zoning Ordinance, the new garage space, will only be roughly 20-feet by 14-feet. The ci~[a~.t,.i~y Commi~'sicm existing garage door will remain on the exterior of the residence and the space will be used primarily for storage. The residential addition and interior remodel is proposed in order to accommodate three adults and one child in an existing 3-bedroom, 1-bath home by creating additional living space, a second bathroom, and more storage, Staff concludes that this application meets the minimum findings required to approve the Conditional Use Permit, as stated in the conditionS of approval. Cm. Fasulkey asked if the applicant was present. Ray Duke, 6342 Dover Lane, explained they are upgrading their house. They have a small backyard with a pool and would not be feasible to expand towards the backyard. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Staff or the applicant; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.. On'motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Nassar, by a vo~e of 5-0 the Planning Commission approved REsoLuTION NO. 03 - 43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PA 03-035 - A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PARTIAL coNVERSION OF A GARAGE TO RESIDENTIAL LIVING SPACE FOR PROPERTY 'AT 7432 DOVER LANE (APN 941-0197-045) 8.2 PA 03-021 Ken Harvey/Dublin Honda Automobile/Vehicle Storage Lot (Popelar Property), Conditional.Use Permit - The Applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the parking and storage of vehicles owned by Dublin Honda and other businesses in an existing private'parking lot. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the staff report. Janet Harbin presented the staff report and explained that the applicant is rdquesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate an automobile/vehicle storage lot at 6700 Sierra Lane 'in an existing parking lot. The Conditional Use Permit will allow the storage of vehicles for the Ken Harvey/Dublin Honda auto dealership on a 1-acre site owned by Dee Popelar and located approximately 2 miles east of the Honda auto dealership on Amador Plaza Road. The applicant is requesting that the automobile/vehicle storage lot be available for use by the dealership for the duration of the construction of the expanded Dublin Honda facility, recently approved by the City Council. The facility would be used to store Only Honda vehicles until the proposed expansion of the dealership is completed, providing additional parking for the dealership's inventory of vehicles. As there may be a need in future for other businesses to store vehicles at the site; it is suggested that the conditional use permit allow use of the lot for parking and vehicle storage for an indefinite amount of time. The construction of the expansion planned at the Honda dealership is anticipated to disrupt the dealership site on Amador Plaza Road and displace the existing inventory parking for the duration of the construction period. The applicant has stated that at the present time there is inadequate space on the dealership site to move inventory around and park it during the construction of the expanded facility, and also continue to meet customer demand. The parking area proposed for the automobile/vehicle storage lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for an Automobile/Vehicle Storage Lot. It is improved, fenced and gated, and is suitable for use as a vehicle storage lot. Additionally, the use is compatible with the surrounding uses consisting of business and services with adjacent parking and storage lots. Although Dublin Honda will only use the lot to store vehicles for a limited time, areas for vehicle storage are scarce. Ms. Harbin concluded her presentation and stated that Staff recommends that the conditional use permit allow for the lot to be used indefinitelY for vehicle storage. Cm. Jermings asked if the permit would be in the name of Ken Harvey. Ms. Harbin stated yes but contingent of the property address. Cm. Jermings stated that the staff report states there is a need for storage lots for other businesses as well. What are the' Other businesses? Ms Harbin stated other businesses, like sign companies and real estate businesses, need to store a vehid~ when they are not in use. Cm. Fasulkey asked for the applicant's testimony. Dee Popelar, Applicant stated the area has had a lot of abandoned cars in the past, so his intent is to only allow storage of vehicles. Cm. King asked what the property is currently used for. Mr. Popelar stated it is a vacant site. On motion by Cm. King, seconded by Cm. Machtmes with a 5-0 vote the Plarming Commission unanimously approved RESOLUTION NO. 03- 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 03-021 KEN HARVEY/DUBLIN HONDA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE STORAGE LOT AT 6700 SIERRA LANE (POPELAR PROPERTY) NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjoumed at 8:20 p.m. Pla~g Manager fl.flly,sj,~i~itted, j ~lanning~i%sio~ Cha~r~ 2003 Ms. Lowart pointed out we reviSed all the other policies in October, so ff 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, with 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 LIlBRARY COMMUNITY ROONi (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2003) RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET RECREATIONAL VEHICI.E PARKING REGUlaTIONS ALTERNATIVES 8:t4 p.m. 7.1 (570-20/570-:30) 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 I - maintain existing regulations; Alternative 2 increase setback from right-of-way; Alternative :3 - 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 C©UNCtL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR "'~E~'~`~:~ June i7, 2~03 'PAGE 399 p/FT^CHivlF-.NT ,q Council shoUld determine ff 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. After 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 30 days after adoption. Mayor Lockhart read a statement submitted by Julie Whitney. 'f/fro ye_fy concerned at, out the possibili& of the law changing not allowin$ RV parla'~$ on our own properly. We have an RV 0 newer one) that fits in our driveway. I feel we should have the risht to park any vehicle we want on our ow~ 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 25 years. When they bought a motor home they contacted the City to follow the regulations and paid $500 for a bond. It is I0' 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 ff there are public hearings. Maybe this new GIS system could print out a mailing 1/st 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 Drive, stated he saw his house on one of the pictures displayed. I, 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 COIJNC~L MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING Ju2e i7, 20@3 PAGE 40~, /? 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, Portage Road, stated she moved to Dublin $ years ago and has owned a business here for t $ 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 picturesare all San Ramon Village. There are some bigger RVs up in Silvergate. She has lived here 39 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 aromnd here to store motor homes. Will the City Council send out things so they can find space? Dan Rodrigu.es, lone Way, stated he has been a resident over 35 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 prev/ously 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 VOLUME 22 REG UL, AR rv~EETiNG June ~'~. 2003 ?AGE 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 American dream and ff you take that Way, some people will be very unhappy w/th 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. Sbranfi 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 45' 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 yeilow/blue issue. CIiT¥ COUNCIL M~NUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June :I"7, 2(~03 PAGE 402 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 look~ like 25' 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 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. Elim/nate yellow/blue - if it fits. If you allow 1' setback, you have to set some kind of limit on size. Cm. Sbranti talked about $0' 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 CLIP. Yin. McCormick stated she felt 30' 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 cities can enforce. Ms. Ram stated they probably go onto next door property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR 1¥~5E ETiNG june 17, PAGE Fhil Brinlee, Tamarack Drive, stated he doesn't have an RV but if you set a limit, 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, f/re 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, Gatindo 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 we11 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 are 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 25 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 w/il 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 Ix)ckhart asked if ~hey can make this more lenient and have a place where people can park. CITY CO'UNC]L MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June !7, 20¢3 PA~-'~ 4."84 Cm. Sbranti added Staff should look at a potential process for CUP- under what guidelines could someone apply for CUP - if 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 if we do look at height and size limitations, look at what a CUP process would be in order to get a CUP. The City Council stated they were not ready to recommend changes to the 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 if 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 O,VERSIZED VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES 9:28 p.m. 7.2 (570-20) Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report, which was additionally prepared Lieutenant Glenn Moon, Dublin Police Services, and Marnie Waffle, Assistant Planner. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 22 REGULAR MEETING June 1.7, 2003 PAGE 405 Safety Analysis of Recreation Vehicle Parking Obstructing Egress: , According to the Building and Safety Division, the Uniform Building Cbde requires a minimum 3' clearance around all bedroom windows to ensure safe egress in an emergency. The code also requires that there be a direct unobstructed path from a bedroom window to the public right of way. This path should be a minimum, unobstructed 3' in width. In central and west Dublin, the majority of recreational vehicles parked and/or stored on a residential lot are either in, the driveway, the area next to the driveway, or the side yard adjacent to the garage. The Building and Safety Division and Fire Prevention Division indicated that these are safest locations for a recreational vehicle to be parked and/or stored because it would be less likely to block a bedroom window or obstruct the path of egress (an exception would be in the case of a residential garage conversion). Obstructing Access: A recreational vehicle parked in the side yard of a residential dwelling could potentially block access to the rear yard for emergency response personnel. According to the Building and Safety Division, Fire Prevention Division, and Police Services, if a resident plans to park and/or store a recreational vehicle in their side yard they need to ensure that the opposite side yard is gated and that a minimum 3' unobstructed path is maintained at all times. ObstrUi:ting Site Distance: The current off-street residential recreatiOnal vehicle parking regulations allow for the parking of a recreational vehicle in the driveway and in the area next to the driveway, if on an approved surface, ~o long as the vehicle maintains a 1 'setback from the back of sidewalk. This regulation poses a life/safety issue with the potential to obstruct the vi sibility of motorists and pedestrians, depending on the height and width of the vehicle. Police Services indicated that the farther back from the sidewalk a recreational vehicle is parked and/or stored the safer it would be for motorists and pedestrians. The zoning ordinance limits the height of fences, walls, and hedges in the front yard of a residence to 4' in order to preserve site distance for motorists and pedestrians. Allowing a 10'-12' in height recreational vehicle to be stored in the front yard compromises the safety of motorists and pedestrians by obstructing site distance. Causing a Fire to Spread: According to the Building and Safety Division and Fire Prevention Division, if a r~creational vehicle is being stored on residential property, the farther the vehicle is from the home the safer the home will be if the vehicle was to be the source of a fire. If the recreational vehicle is being parked and/or stored directly adjacent to the residence, it is better to have it closer to the garage than any other portion of the home. The reason for this is that all residences are required to have fire rated walls between the garage and the Attachment 5 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.