2005 - October 3
<::2500. Gr .~.~
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Minutes
Planning Commission
City of Orange
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
INRE:
October 3, 2005
Monday - 7: 1 0 p.m.
Commissioners Bilodeau, Pruett, and Bonina
Commissioners Enderby, and Imboden
Alice Angus, Community Development Director
Leslie Aranda Roseberry, Planning Manager
Brent Mullins, Building Official
Anna Pehoushek, AICP, Principal Plannner
Julia Gonzalez, Associate Planner
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Cyndi Chadwick, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
NEW HEARINGS:
(1) AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES. AN ORDINANCE OF CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION 17.14
OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES STORAGE FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL
SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC BUFFERING CRITERIA. THIS ITEM IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, made a complete reading of the staff report on one of
two Ordinance Amendments to be brought before the Commission related to recreational
vehicle storage.
Ms. Pehoushek made a point of mentioning that given the typical residential lot sizes in
the City, the setback requirements, and the limited number of vacant residential lots
remaining in the City, staff believes that the most likely location for any new storage
facilities accommodated by the proposed Ordinance Amendment would be within the
residentially zoned areas under the Edison easements. She explained that the easement
areas typically range in widths from 300 to 500 feet. She stated that because of the CUP
requirement proposed by the Ordinance Amendment, any application would involve the
Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
noticing of property owners within a 300-foot radius as well as a Public Hearing before
the Planning Commission.
Chair Bonina asked staff if the opportunity to establish storage facilities went beyond just
the Edison easement. He mentioned that he thought this was a broader application.
Ms. Pehoushek replied that was correct, and this could apply to any residentially zoned
property. She made mention of the limited number of vacant properties, the size
limitations, the setbacks, and terrain, that could constrain other properties that could be
used.
Chair Bonina, then asked if it was possible to have a dual use of a piece of property, i.e.,
if the property was currently zoned R3 or had a Conditional Use Permit and there is
enough property available to establish an RV storage area, is there a mechanism for the
property owner to advance an application for dual use or would the property have to be a
separate parcel.
Ms. Pehoushek answered that conceivably it could be a dual-use situation, but approval
would go through the Conditional Use Permit process. An assessment on the property
would have to be completed along with the appropriate consideration of dual use as RV
storage, and also how that might affect the surrounding properties.
Chair Bonina asked if there was any other activity that could occur on the property such
as cleaning or repairing of RVs, and noise issues that would need a CUP for the
establishment for these types of parks.
Ms. Pehoushek answered that activity would be strictly limited to storage.
Chair Bonina asked ifthere were any minimum land size requirements.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that it would be subject to the minimum lot size for that particular
zoning district, anywhere from Rl-6, Rl-7, and Rl-8.
Chair Bonina then asked staff the definition of an RV. Staffs reply was that the
definition of an RV is 36 feet in length and 12 feet in height.
The public hearing was opened.
Alan McQueen. 2922 E. Madison. Orange. He stated that although he was not currently
an RV owner, he was not sure he would ever own one due to the fact that he could not
park an RV in his driveway.
Bill Kierfoot. 1773 Greengrove. He felt that the there should not be a limit of how large
the RV can be in a storage facility. He also did not understand why covered facilities
would be discouraged and stated that a dump station and wash rack would be equally
important especially with the limitations that the City has put on storage and use at
Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
personal residences. He questioned why the 20- foot setback was necessary because there
was a heavily landscaped fence, and then another fence past the 20 feet. He stated the
drainage ditch did not abut the Edison right away. He asked the Commission to consider
rezoning the Edison right away to allow RV storage rather than adding it as a conditional
use in residential zoning.
Chair Bonina asked staff what the thought was behind the side and rear setback of 20 feet
being fully landscaped. He also asked if this was what one would typically see in a self-
storage facility that was adjacent to a residential zone.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that the rationale of the 20-foot setback was the height of potential
vehicles being seen from someone's back yard. She said that staff followed the standards
for outdoor storage and industrial zones abutting residential zoning districts. In regard to
a typical facility, Ms. Pehoushek replied that the setback distance was similar to that
which would be required for a self-storage facility adjacent to a residential zone, but the
landscaping was an additional requirement being proposed in this Ordinance
Amendment.
Chair Bonina asked Staff to describe what the dense landscaping entailed. He also asked
if staff had considered reducing the 20- foot setback to 10 foot and enhancing the
landscape requirement.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that there would be dense shrubs, and denser canopy trees so that
the line of sight would provide a green view shed toward the storage facility from
residential property. She replied that staff would follow the Commissions direction on
the setback. She also stated she wanted to clarify her response to the size parameters for
RVs. She said the Code did not establish particular dimensions in the definitions of an
RV. She stated that RVs of any size could be parked in these storage facilities.
Commissioner Pruett mentioned the earlier concerns of one of the speakers whether wash
stations and dump facility services could be rendered at a storage site. He stated what's
being proposed does indicate lighting or security provisions and other site improvements
are to be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the site context. He thought it
was important for the public to understand that the Commission is not defining how the
site will look. Every site will have its own unique situation to be considered, and that
includes the vegetation as well. His understanding is that the fence is either at the
property line with vegetation behind it or the fence can be at the setback line, which is 20
feet with the vegetation in front of the fence. He asked staff if his understanding was
correct.
Ms. Pehoushek answered that the solid wall or fence would be beyond the landscaping so
there would be the property line, the landscape setback, then the wall or fence. She also
stated that the intention was for the landscaping to be before the fence in all cases.
Chair Bonina raised the possibility of rezoning the Edison rights-of-way for this type of
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
use. He asked if this was feasible.
Ms. Pehoushek replied that the industrial zones are where storage facilities are most
easily permitted. If the easements were rezoned, the City and residents would be faced
with any other potential industrial use that would be allowed in the industrial zone
adjacent to the residential property, which may present some other land use conflicts.
Chair Bonina asked what the current zoning of the easements was.
Ms. Pehoushek stated it was single-family residential or planned community, with
another segment that goes into the industrial zone.
Commissioner Pruett added the public should understand that the idea of rezoning this
area would take it out of the public hearing process, and it would become a permitted use
as long as they met the requirements set forth for that zone, and then a permit could be
issued. He thought the public would want to be involved in the process, and have the
opportunity to comment on it, and make sure it fit in their neighborhood. He thought the
idea of rezoning this area was not in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Bilodeau inquired about the staff report, page three, Item No.4, that
perhaps this is where landscaping and fencing could be added. He agreed it would be
cumbersome to have a fence, dense landscaping, and then another fence. He, too,
thought it should be on a case-by-case basis because it may not work on all sites. He
stated that allowing R V s to be parked next to residences should be considered on a case-
by-case basis. Also, while the City is targeting the Edison easement areas to be used for
RV storage, he doubted that Edison would want more fencing on their property as they
want uses that are mobile so they can maintain their towers, etc.
Commissioners Bilodeau and Pruett discussed the appropriateness of modifying Item No.
2 that deals with the modifying the fencing on a case-by-case basis, and then asked staff
if Item No.2 could be left as is, and if a modification were to be made, a Variance would
have to be requested.
Ms. Pehoushek stated that it may give potential applicants more of an understanding of
what the City's expectations are, but for the City to establish everything on a case-by-
case basis, applicants may not understand the City's expectations for new storage
facilities.
Commissioner Pruett reiterated Commissioner Bilodeau's comment that Edison would
probably not allow structures to be put in their right-of-way. The issue becomes the use
of the fence line along the residential property line as a security fence, and whether
modifications to the fence might be required to make the storage facility secure. An
applicant could apply for a Variance.
Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Lois Oliver. 1832 N. Lincoln St.. Orange. She asked what the neighbors would think of
the RV storage. She also wondered about the wall, and if the RVs showed over the wall,
would there be a problem, and asked if there would be security. She asked the
Commission to consider the residents who would have to deal with the lighting so close
to their property.
Lois Bark. address on file. She was concerned about the lack of RV spaces as well as the
space SIzes.
Mr. Slater. address on file. He was pleased with the RV plan, and stated the less
restrictions the better within reason. He wanted the covering issue to be considered.
Chair Bonina inquired of staff what the plan was for the spacing requirements, and would
there be some language in the Conditional Use Permit for a proper distance between RVs
as they're stored.
Ms. Pehoushek answered that staff had not specified dimensional requirements for
parking spaces. This would be considered on a case-by-case basis as an applicant came
forward. The site plan would go through the internal City staff review process.
Commissioner Pruett added it would be subject for review at the Public Hearing.
Chair Bonina then asked about the public comment made regarding the visual from the
residential area. He asked staff to provide a detailed explanation on the setback issue as
well as the landscaping issue again.
Ms. Pehoushek provided the same explanation as previously stated, adding that the wall
could be taller than the 6 foot standard for either security purposes or additional
screenmg.
Chair Bonina asked if this would be an internal wall, and if the landscaping would be
provided for some level of screening.
Ms. Pehoushek stated this would be part of the Site Plan Review and landscape plan
review as to the size of the vegetation, and the species to ensure it was plant material that
would serve the buffering purpose.
Chair Bonina then asked about the lighting.
Ms. Pehoushek said that staff was suggesting that the lighting be reviewed. The concern
is that the light standards could potentially create new light and glare on residences.
Chair Bonina asked staff to comment on the opportunity for a covered facility. He stated
that it was suggested that this was discouraged.
Ms. Pehoushek replied that this was done to limit physical presence of structures on a
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
particular storage property. The storage shed might be quite substantial, and the resident
might be looking from their yard to a large storage shed, and staff felt it was more
appropriate to leave it open. Staff could consider coverage depending on the design and
placement on the lot.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bilodeau asked if the Commission had come to a consensus on the
Variance approach.
Commissioner Pruett replied that he thought the issue would be not to make reference to
it, and let someone seek the Variance. He said that anyone could ask for a Variance if
they can show cause.
Commissioner Bilodeau made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 47-05 recommend to
the City Council approval of the Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility Ordinance
Amendment.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, and Pruett
None
None
Commissioners Enderby, and Imboden
MOTION CARRIED
(2) AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT MODIFYING RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE
AMENDING SECTION 17.14.090 OF THE ORANGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO
RESTRICT THE PARKING OR STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE FRONT LOT LINE OF RESIDENTALLY ZONED
PROPERTY WITH ACCOMODATIONS FOR VISITORS
LOADlNG/UNLOADlNG AND VEHICLES THAT SERVE AS A SOLE MEANS
OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS ITEM IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
CEQA.
Principal Planner, Anna Pehoushek, stated the Ordinance Amendment was prepared at
the request of the City Council following a review of the implementation of Ordinances
7-04, and 10-04, which established new standards for RV storage on residential property,
and new provisions for oversized vehicles respectively. She made a full reading of the
staff report.
Commissioner Pruett asked staff to expand on Item No.4 of the Proposed Changes, i.e.,
Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
the provIslOn for parking within 20 feet of the front property line for up to two
consecutive days when a permit has been obtained from the Police Department for seven
days.
Ms. Pehoushek explained the rationale for that was to imbed the two days of off-street
parking in the front setback area within those seven days so that someone doesn't get a
seven day parking permit, then park in the driveway for two days, then go back to
parking on the street to start the clock again. It's intended to link the two days of off-
street parking to a total of seven days of visitor parking.
Chair Bonina wondered about some of the neighborhoods having less than a 20-foot
house setback in some cases. He asked the reasons behind eliminating the parking in the
20- foot setback.
Community Development Director, Alice Angus, explained that back in 1995 the Council
adopted an Ordinance that required the 20-foot setback. She believes it was a
combination of trying to preserve visual open space within the front yard, and some
safety concerns, but was not sure if it had ever been articulated by the City Council. She
stated about a year ago the new Ordinance did away with that requirement. She further
explained that in their deliberations earlier this summer, Council expressed a desire to go
back to the 20- foot setback from the front property line.
Chair Bonina then asked if an RV parked beyond the setback was required to be fully
screened and asked what the parameters would be.
Ms. Angus replied that yes it would be required to be fully screened. She continued that
the current Ordinance and the proportions that are not being changed, there is mention of
a six foot solid wall beyond the front setback area.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Toni Carlton. address on file. She stated that five calls a month compared to 20 seems
like a good reduction and compliance by the people who own RVs. She was concerned
about the fact that every time City Council changes, will this same Ordinance have to be
reviewed. She stated that no accidents involving an RV parked in the driveway have been
reported by the Police Department. She said she had personally spent at least 20 hours
driving around the City, and found the majority of code violations have nothing to do
with the RV setback, and she testified to this many times. Her opinion was to send this
back to City Council with a "no" to change the Code to reinstate the 20-foot setback.
Jan Choman. 315 S. Orange St.. OTPA. She was in favor of the Amendment. She stated
that the OTPA was very pleased with the direction of the Amendment. She continued
that OTPA's concern for Old Towne has always been the integrity of the streetscapes,
and believed that this Amendment will enhance the streetscape as well as greatly improve
visibility and safety especially on the narrow streets and driveways. This Amendment
will add greatly to the perceived value and the visual aesthetics of our neighborhood.
Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Jeff Mulford. address on file. He stated he and his wife both support changing the current
RV Code as well as support the positions of Orange City Council members, Dumitru,
Smith, and Cavecche by not allowing RV parking within the first 20 feet of the front
property line. He said of the 48 residents he spoke with, 38 stated they did not want any
RV parking in driveways at all, eight said they were OK with parking in the driveway,
and two had no comment. He continued that 75% were in support of the Code change
that would prohibit the parking ofRVs in the first 20 feet of the front property line.
Bill Kierfoot, 1773 Greengrove. He began by stating that the 1995 Ordinance was the
same as the revised Ordinance, and was unsure of what was being grandfathered. He felt
the revised Ordinance was going back to 1995. He also believes that the change is for
aesthetic purposes, and not for safety purposes based on non- R V s being allowed to park
in a driveway. He stated that this was a private property rights issue. He also said that if
Old Towne has a problem due to the narrow streets, then the Ordinance should apply to
Old Towne only.
Lois Bark. address on file. She commented that although the City adopted an Ordinance
that was a compromise, she believed that this still allowed people their property rights.
She said that people should be allowed to have an emergency facility if needed. She
stated that this proposed Ordinance removed this possibility. Now, she stated this
Ordinance will not give the people an exemption unless "significant improvements were
made to the property in good faith reliance on the RV regulations contained in Ordinance
7-04." She further said it is difficult and expensive to find RV storage. She also asked if
there was an existing Ordinance for a tent trailer in a 40-foot driveway, and if there
would have to be a wall in front of it. She said that the 20-foot setback would be a major
problem. She asked the Commission to deny these changes.
Chair Bonina asked staff about the question posed by Ms. Bark regarding a wall
requirement for a trailer being parked beyond the setback in a 40+ foot driveway.
Staff responded that the language of the Code does not require screening beyond that 20
foot setback.
Herbert Bark. address on file. He stated that when this Ordinance was presented, he
inquired about the setback, and was told that the first 20 feet was considered the front
yard, and past that was the side yard. He commented that the garbage cans were more of
a problem than having to build a wall to cover the RV, and could possibly be a security
Issue.
Lois Oliver. address on file. She stated that she agreed with the previous speakers, and
did not see a reason to change. She said that the current Ordinance was working very
well, and as far as the complaints were concerned, that it was just a few anonymous
people who complained about everything. She commented that if the Council had
considered the testimony of both sides, then they would have voted differently. She said
that infractions of this Ordinance should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Dan Slater. 278 N. Pine St. He thought it was an interesting observation that staff has not
received many complaints about RVs being parked in front yards anymore because
people know there is nothing they can complain about. Yet, at the last City Council
meeting he attended, Council members stated that this was the number one complaint
from citizens. He mentioned that the Council's thinking might be why they would allow
something 12 feet high parked in the driveway which is more of an imposition than the
hedges, open space, front yard fence height limits, etc. that are listed in the Code. He
suggested a limit should be considered of how many RVs over six feet could be parked in
a side or rear setback. He stated that the definition of an RV should be thorough enough,
to say 'an RV is any vehicle used primarily for recreational purposes not for
transportation. '
Dorothv Stewart. address on file. She stated that the Amendments that Council Member
John Dumitru has brought forth with the support from Mayor Pro Tern, Carolyn
Cavecche, and Council Member, Tita Smith are going to enhance the quality oflife in the
neighborhoods of Orange. She said that Orange has small homes on small lots. Add all
the cars in the driveway, on the street, around the homes, and there is congestion. She
quoted Municipal Code 17.14.090, and Municipal Code 17.12.040. She continued that
by eliminating RVs from parking in the front 20 feet of a residential property, open space
is maintained and crowding is reduced. She believes there should be additions to Council
Member Dumitru's Amendments. With regard to loading and unloading in the driveway,
there's an exemption for two consecutive days with no limit on how many times an RV
owner may do this. She thought there should be a restriction on how many times per
month this two-day loading and unloading may be done. She felt the RV owner could
move from the driveway to the street and back again without restriction. The staff report
mentions this problem regarding visitors in Item No.3. She also agreed with Dan Slater
that the side and rear yards should be limited to one RV that is taller than six feet. Lastly,
she believed that the definition of an RV should be expanded.
Mr. Steve Smith. 1220 Oakmont. Orange. He stated he was preparing to purchase an RV,
and had looked for an RV storage facility but could not find one. Of the five he called,
the facility either did not have any vacancies, was a County facility, or he was placed on
a waiting list. He also checked mobile home parks, but there was no room there either.
He mentioned the need for RV storage facilities.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pruett referenced the question raised about the concern of grandfathering
using the 1995 RV Ordinance as basically the 20-foot setback
Staff replied that the grandfathering would apply to the conditions that were established
in compliance with the 1995 Ordinance prior to the change in the Code. She further
stated if RV owners took steps to comply with the 1995 Ordinance after it was adopted,
then whatever actions were taken to comply with the 1995 Ordinance, those conditions
would be grandfathered.
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Chair Bonina asked if staff could further explain.
Ms. Angus explained this was taken directly from what City Council proposed. She also
mentioned that it was confusing to understand, but to keep in mind in 1995 you could not
park within the first 20 feet of your property, but you could park behind that 20 foot line
and weren't limited to one vehicle in what would still be your front yard. It was unusual
for this to actually happen. Previously, with the 2004 Ordinance, (and yes, this was less
restrictive and did allow parking within the front setback) this had some grandfathering
language in it also preserving the 1995 provisions to allow more than one vehicle. She
stated the Commission could make a different recommendation in terms of
grandfathering if they owned the same residence and continually had a recreation vehicle.
The other part of the grandfathering had to do with vehicles parked in compliance with
the 2004 Ordinance that allowed parking in the front portion of the 20-foot area. What
Council had recommended in order to be subject to grandfathering for a vehicle parked in
compliance with the 2004 Ordinance that there would have to be substantial improvement
to the property. We're just bringing forward to you what City Council had
recommended, and it's up to you to deliberate that this evening.
Commissioner Pruett asked if it would be more appropriate to say rather than
grandfathering the vehicles that are compliant with 1995 Recreational Vehicle Ordinance
based on what Ms. Angus indicated, if it's those that were grandfathered pursuant to that
Ordinance.
Ms. Angus mentioned from a legal perspective, this would probably happen. She stated
they had been through this before, and this is why some of the grandfathering provisions
that you see on the books today are in place because if they had expended some money to
come into compliance with an Ordinance at a given point in time, they've established
some right to that grandfathering. She further stated that this may be de facto in place,
and then deferred to Mr. Sheatz.
Mr. Sheatz replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Pruett, then asked about the issue of grandfathering. He wanted to know
what was being grandfathered. He stated there is grandfathering of the conditions as
indicated here which means an individual may have a recreational vehicle of a reasonable
size, and they upsize their vehicle, and still be in compliance. His view is instead of
grandfathering the conditions, that the vehicle is grandfathered. If someone wants to seek
modification to that grandfathering by purchasing or upgrading their vehicle, then they
would have to seek approval for that. If it is an upsize, then they are no longer in
compliance.
Ms. Angus replied that in terms of what was before the Commission, there was no
differentiation, so it would allow up sizing consistent with what the Council had adopted
in 2004 in the grandfathering clause. She continued that the Commission could certainly
comment or change those grandfathering provisions, but part of what staff has heard
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
before as the Ordinance was established in 2003-2004, is that people's needs change,
family sizes change, and often they're looking to upsize. Newer vehicles tend to be
larger, and there was public sentiment to change out to a larger vehicle.
Mr. Sheatz commented that there were situations that someone would be able to upgrade
the vehicle and still store it in compliance with the 1995 Ordinance. If they were
grandfathering the specific recreational vehicle itself, then they would have taken away
the ability by focusing on the vehicle, the fact that they could upgrade and still store it
with the 1995 Ordinance.
Commissioner Pruett responded that the issue he was looking at is the use. The use is for
the size vehicle they are using now. He stated there's an envelope with that use that's
been grandfathered. When one begins to push that envelope, then they're no longer in
compliance. He used the example of having a property that's grandfathered because the
Code has changed, and its use is permitted because it's grandfathered. But, if that use is
modified, then it's no longer grandfathered, and has to seek appropriate approvals.
Mr. Sheatz stated what the focus was when it was looked at was one could push that
envelope all the way up to the Ordinance. In other words, you could push it up to what
the parameters were in 1995.
Chair Bonina asked ifMr. Sheatz knew what the size of the paranleters were.
Mr. Sheatz stated that the parameters were 11 feet in height and 36 feet in length.
Chair Bonina asked Ms. Angus as this applies to the 2004 Ordinance, it's suggested if the
resident has made some physical improvements, could there be some reimbursement for
what was grandfathered in 2004.
Ms. Angus indicated that if the Ordinance before the Commission is adopted, then from
this point people could not park within the front setback. The grandfathering would
apply to someone who had complied with the 2004 Ordinance which did allow them to
park on their driveway perpendicular to the roadway as well as provisions. In terms of
substantial improvement, and in terms of a legal question, if they had to move a fence,
widen a driveway, and could show they did that in order to comply to be able to park
within that front setback area, based upon the documentation and a legal determination
about whether that was a substantial improvement, then they would be grandfathered in
under the Ordinance Amendment that's before the Commission.
Chair Bonina commented that an interesting concept that was mentioned by one of the
speakers was that people spend dollars for those modifications, but also spend a great
deal of money in the purchase of the vehicle based on the opportunity to have it stored.
He wondered if expanding this concept to also include the grandfathering of an RV if one
could prove that the RV was purchased within this timeframe, with the intent of parking
it within the 20-foot setback.
Page 11
-
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
Ms. Angus stated that this wasn't discussed at the Council level, but in terms of staff
looking at it with the City Attorney, they did look at what type of grandfathering
provisions made sense and would be legally required, and that's where they came up with
substantial improvement. She stated the Commission had some ability to grandfather
beyond that if the Commission feels this is appropriate. But, to be safe from a legal
standpoint, we felt those that had made substantial improvements should be offered the
grandfathering.
Chair Bonina asked if part of this grandfathering concept in 2004 considered if the
resident actually purchased the RV within this period of time.
Mr. Sheatz replied that their approach was more along the lines of actual use. As far as
the issue of grandfathering, they looked at how people were modifying the property for
that use, not necessarily the purchase of the vehicle. If there was a situation where the
Ordinance had changed from the 1995 Ordinance to the 2004 Ordinance and someone
found they could purchase a vehicle and store it in the setback area based on that
Ordinance that was in effect, they would still be able to be grandfathered in under the
2004 Ordinance. As far as looking at the grandfathering issues, they were focused on
use. They weren't focused on someone purchasing an upgrade.
Chair Bonina stated there was a comment made regarding the possible lack of
coordination between the Police Department and Code Enforcement. He asked someone
from each Department to come forward and comment on this.
Mr. Brent Mullins, Code Enforcement replied that when they receive a complaint, it was
screened, and a determination is made whether it is private or public property issue. If it
is a public property issue, it is referred to the Police Department for action. The area that
becomes questionable is when a RV is parked in a driveway and is crossing a public
sidewalk. He stated that the coordination between the two Departments is very good.
Chair Bonina asked if the Ordinance passes, if he saw the coordination changing or
adjusting or will it remain the same.
Mr. Mullins stated that they would receive a lot more private property issues to respond
to than before.
Commissioner Bilodeau stated he was not in support of the Ordinance presented by City
Council that will amend the current Ordinance in the Zoning Code. First, he stated it
would infringe upon people's property rights. When he looks at the Zoning Code, the
Code is for the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, and prosperity or general
welfare. He continued that he had not heard any testimony that parking an RV in your
driveway would lead to any kind of health, safety or welfare issue. He stated it appears
to be an aesthetic issue. This is not something he takes lightly. He commented that he
had yet to hear anything that convinced him that parking an RV in your driveway would
diminish the value of one's home. He stated it was reasonable for the RV to be registered
with the DMV. He thought the structure of grandfathering RVs was quite cumbersome,
Page 12
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
and could make a Code Enforcement nightmare. He believes it is reasonable that people
should park their RVs perpendicular to the property line, and in certain ways forcing
people to shoe-horn their RV between their home and a fence might endanger public
safety. He believes the surveys completed by staff and presented in the staff report show
that there are no places to store RVs. He continued that there are several hundred people
who will be forced to find storage because their current parking situation will be
criminalized, and does not believe this is fair. He stated that Item No.2 on tonight's
agenda would encourage the development of more RV parking which is a positive thing
and will perhaps alleviate some of the RV parking in the City. He stated there might be
other ways to deal with this. One extreme idea he had was if someone is inclined to pass
an Ordinance like this, perhaps the City should provide them with a sample easement or
CC&R they could record on their own home and give up their property right, and
encourage their neighbors to do the same in perpetuity. Lastly, he states it is unclear to
him why the Council in 2004 rolled back the 1995 Ordinance so folks that purchased
RVs from March 2004 to present will not be grandfathered in because they didn't own
the RV in 1995 and they'll be forced out to somewhere we don't know because there are
no available storage facilities.
Commissioner Pruett stated that this was a tough issue. When this issue was before the
Commission previously, he had some serious concerns about parking vehicles within the
front 20-foot setback. He commented there were a number of residences in Orange,
which have CC&Rs, and the issue ofRVs being parked with the front setback is within
those Covenants and Restrictions. He did not agree that this is a property rights issue.
He referenced an e-mail from someone who was opposed to the Ordinance, and in
forwarding the Code to him, they pointed out the basis for supporting the 20-foot setback.
Basically, he said when the Code is written; there are findings that the City makes to
support the need for the Code and protecting the public's health, safety and welfare. He
read what the Code stated. He stated in the newer neighborhoods in Orange, there are
CC&Rs, which are enforced by those neighborhoods so that those issues normally don't
make it to the City in terms of complaints. Those neighborhoods that do not have
CC&Rs rely upon Ordinances to look at those issues. He believes there are grounds to
maintain the 20-foot setback for the storage of recreational vehicles in the front setback.
His thought is that if the 20-foot setback is disregarded, then you're going against the
findings that were made to establish the 20-foot setback. If you go against the findings of
the 20-foot setback, then it will have to be looked at from the standpoint of are there other
features that can occur within the 20-foot setback that should be allowed that are
currently not allowed. He does not believe that this is in the best interest of public's
health, safety and welfare. So, he is supportive of the 20-foot setback being maintained
and recreational vehicles being excluded from that area. He commented that since the
Commission is divided on this issue, it may have to be continued, and staff will have to
take back some issues and clean them up.
Chair Bonina commented that as both Commissioners stated, this is a difficult and
volatile issue within the City. He stated that the explanation provided by Commissioner
Pruett regarding the setbacks is clearly articulated in the document he referred to. But, he
wanted it understood this was in regard to building setbacks and everything that was
Page 13
Planning Commission Minutes
October 3, 2005
involved with a permanent building. He said that some people considered an RV as a
permanent structure. He continued that he is not endorsing this thinking. He did agree
with Commissioner Pruett that it would be prudent to continue this item until there is a
full Commission. He mentioned that there were two Commissioners not present tonight,
but they would view the video within the next four weeks, and be prepared to discuss the
issue, and at that juncture they could advance a motion to move forward one way or
another. He also stated that in the event that this item is favorable to the full
Commission, that they consider some ramp-up time for folks to take advantage of off-site
parking once it's developed through the previously proposed Ordinance Amendment on
the Agenda. He wanted staff to look at some language to consider this. He also wanted
as a point of discussion under the grandfather concept, the actual cost of the RV
considered. He wants to discuss further to see if this makes sense to incorporate that as a
grandfathering criteria. This would be for the purchase of an RV within that period of
time between 2004 and when this Ordinance Amendment gets adopted.
Mr. Sheatz questioned if Chair Bonina was talking about a threshold cost to be
grandfathered, i.e., RVs that cost X dollars would be grandfathered in.
Chair Bonina replied that no, there is no cost. Whatever fits within the RV criteria in
terms of size and dimension. Unless it is found to be more prudent to consider a cost. In
his mind, it would be a simple acquisition of an RV within this timeframe, and
incorporate it as a criteria.
Commissioner Pruett stated he would like the grandfathering issue to be discussed among
staff and clarify the definition of what is being grandfathered. He would like to know if
it's the condition or the RV itself will be grandfathered. Also, he would like them to
review the provision for visitor parking. He stated it was confusing.
Chair Bonina moved to continue this item to Nov 7th meeting.
Commissioner Pruett seconded the motion.
YES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Bilodeau, Bonina, and Pruett
None
None
Commissioners Enderby, Imboden
MOTION CARRIED
Page 14