2003 - August 4
APPROVED
MINUTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
August 4, 2003
Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF
PRESENT:
INRE:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
Commissioner Bonina
Jim Reichert, Acting Planning Manager/Secretary
Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney
Roger Hohnbaum, Assistant City Engineer
Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary
PRESENTATION:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adopt PC
Resolution No. 27-03 expressing appreciation to Ken Romero and commending him for eight
years of service on the Planning Commission.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None
IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
MAY 19, 2003; JUNE 2, 2003; JUNE 16,2003; AND JULY 21, 2003.
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Brandman to approve the
Consent Calendar which included the minutes from the May 19, 2003, June 2, 2003; June 16,
2003; and July 21,2003 meetings. It is to be noted that Chair Pruett was absent from the May 19,
2003 meeting and Commissioner Smith was absent from the July 21, 2003 meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
INRE:
INRE:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
CONTINUED HEARINGS: None
NEW HEARINGS: None
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
August 4, 2003
IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
2. REVIEW OF THE CURRENT RECREATIONAL VEmCLE CODES AND
POSSIBLE REVISIONS
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff regarding which options to develop into a draft ordinance.
Brent Mullins, Chief Building Official for the City of Orange, introduced the item. He discussed
how historically the City of Orange did not enforce recreational vehicle laws until 1983. At that
time, recreational vehicles were allowed to be parked on a paved surface leading to an enclosed
parking structure. Then in 1995, the City chose to rewrite the zoning ordinance which prohibited
the parking of recreational vehicles within the front yard setback (20'). In 2002 there was an
influx of code enforcement complaints regarding RVs. Council has given direction to review the
existing recreational vehicle laws.
Mr. Mullins stated that the items needing to be addressed included the multiple location of laws
governing recreational vehicles within the Orange Municipal Code, on-street parking and whether
recreational vehicles will be allowed to park within the first 20' front yard setback. Two groups
in attendance tonight were "Keep Orange Clean" and "It's Our City Too".
Mr. Mullins explained the four options as outlined in the staff report. Option 1 would not allow
the parking of a recreational vehicle within the front yard 20' setback, Option 2 would allow it
with no conditions, and Options 3 & 4 would restrict parking based on the size and type of
vehicle.
Currently, vehicles that are parked in the rear yard behind a 6' fence, are allowed. Mr. Mullins
explained how on a comer house, the recreational vehicle can be placed against the sidewalk that
runs along the public street as long as it is screened behind a six foot fence. Noise issues can be
addressed by current codes. He also pointed out that currently any fence within the front yard
setback is restricted to 42" in height.
Chair Pruett suggested that staff may want to look at the fencing in the Ridgeline area and
determine whether it is practical.
Mr. Mullins discussed whether recreational vehicles should be used for living quarters. He felt if
there was a state of emergency this type of use would be allowed. There is one RV park located
in the City of Orange called Orangeland.
Mr. Mullins indicated that the issue of hookups has not been addressed in the codes or any safety
issues that might be associated with it. He asked the Planning Commission if they were
interested in requiring the recreational vehicles to be covered. Currently the definition of a
recreational vehicle is lumped into only one category. Also access by additional curb cuts is
currently not allowed. Other issues discussed included whether the current law allowing 72 hour
street parking is still appropriate, how many vehicles should be allowed on a property and should
vehicles such as tent trailers or jet skis be allowed to use the required covered parking.
Commissioner Brandman felt it would be helpful to make a distinction between recreational
vehicles and smaller recreational devices and where these can be stored.
Commissioner Smith was concerned with the storage of recreational vehicles in the garage and
how the displaced car might then be parked on the public street.
2
Planning Connnission Minutes
APPROVED
August 4, 2003
Chair Pruett explained if a RV was allowed in the front 20' setback, then cars would also be
allowed in that same setback.
Commissioner Smith received confirmation that there is a current code addressing the storage of
utility trailers and commercial vehicles in residential zones.
Public comments were as follows:
In support of the current ordinance:
Dan Slater, 278 N. Pine Street
Mel Vernon, 2301 E. Hoover Avenue
Dorthy Stewart, 1126 N. Grand Street
Jeff Mulford, 2321 N. Clinton Street
Jim Owens, 163 S. Cypress Street
Their comments included wanting to keep the neighborhoods aesthetically pleasing, how the
large recreational vehicles have a large impact on their neighbors, people should buy property
where RV storage is allowed, they shouldn't block the neighbors view, small recreational
vehicles should be allowed in driveways and garages, street parking is an issue and should be
addressed, the existing laws need to be enforced and enforced proactively, concerned with
streetscape aesthetics, safety and property values in the neighborhoods which are negatively
impacted when recreational vehicles are stored on front yards and driveways, Santa Ana does a
great job of enforcing the smaller trailers on a proactive basis, could pose a safety issue when
backing out on the street, saleability of property is in question, not only is there an increase in RV
parking but also cars on jacks and junk in driveways has gotten out of hand, codes need to be
enforced, a pick and choose approach will lead to enforcement problems and weaken current
codes, manpower needs must be addressed in conjunction with the enforcement of the existing
codes, place the codes in one section of the Orange Municipal Code for easier reference, inform
City Council to add four code enforcement personnel and to be proactive.
In sup~>ort of allowing RV storage in front yard setback:
Dawn Downey, 3132 N. Westhaven Street
Mil Thornton, 1243 E. Trenton Avenue
Shawn Murray, 4140 Santa Cecilia Street
Lois Oliver, 1832 N. Lincoln Street
Their comments included the fact that RV storage is expensive, unable to find a reference in the
code regarding motor vehicles and setback requirements are only for permanent structures,
offensive RV owners need to be educated, how will a generic code be able to take care of every
situation, trees, shrubs and block walls all block the view, it's not right that people from other
neighborhoods come in and take pictures, it does not decrease the property value since prices over
the past seven years have doubled in the City of Orange, it's more desirable to park in the
driveway as opposed to on the street, it's impossible to park in the setback, "if the RV fits -let it
sit" .
End of public comment.
Mr. Mullins explained that code section 17.14.090 talks about storage/parking in the front yard.
In Section F storage is prohibited within the front yard setback area and parking of vehicles other
3
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
August 4, 2003
than recreational vehicles within the front yard is permitted only on a paved driveway leading to a
garage or carport. Section G states that recreational vehicles may be parked or stored in any yard
area except within any required front yard setback area. Parking is allowed on the driveway but
not in the setback area.
Commissioner Brandman's issues and recommendations for staff were:
. how is it that such obvious infractions have been going on.
. did Council ask for a moratorium (Mr. Mullins indicated there was no formal moratorium
issued by Council; however, due to the amount of public input they were receiving they
gave direction to stop enforcement other than immediate life safety issues).
. there has to be a way to reclaim some of the aesthetic value of the streets and still allow
citizens ability to park RVs.
. would like staff to look at covers and landscape screening versus tarps which could
possibly be mandatory.
. look at stand alone canopies in areas other than front yard setbacks.
. a cover for the recreational vehicle could be a way to go.
. look at visitor parking in the driveway but not in the street.
. would like a decision on what is a RV, how big is a RV and can three jet skis/dirt bikes
on a trailer just stay there for everyone to see or should they be covered. If a large trailer
is a RV, should it be covered.
. what are other cities doing.
Chair Pruett's issues and recommendations for staff were:
. making modifications to the front yard setback creates a lot of problems which also
affects other parts of the code.
. the 20' setback should stay intact.
. maintain the 3' egress from any emergency window because it is an important fire safety
issue if it blocks a window.
. maintain 3' from property line with opportunities for a variance.
. concerned with a blanket grandfather clause.
. some people have a motor home and jet skis so to indicate you are restricted to one type
of recreational vehicle to store on your property might not be appropriate because they
may have the space to store two. Maybe it could be limited to one in Class 1 and one in
Class Two or some mixture of vehicles. If someone has an unusual situation, then they
could apply for a variance.
. concept of vehicles being on a pad in the backyard/side yard is appropriate.
. requiring a 10' setback for side yard access deals with this issue but if there is a gate and
it's on the property line and the gate swings out to block the sidewalk, is that appropriate
and what are the safety issues.
. comfortable with the generators being regulated by the noise ordinance. If an applicant
does come in asking for a variance to park the vehicle on the property line, then maybe
there is a condition that the generators/air conditioners cannot be run due to the proximity
to the neighbor.
. the code for height of front yard fencing and screening is currently 42" and it should be
left at that.
. using a recreational vehicle as living quarters in emergency situations is appropriate but
no one should be living in them on a daily basis. The term "emergency" needs to be
defined.
4
Planning Connnission Minutes
APPROVED
August 4, 2003
. doesn't find visitors spending a short period of time in the driveway offensive. If it's
licensed to the homeowner, it shouldn't be stored in the driveway because it's being
stored.
. hook-ups in an emergency situation should be allowed.
. the only hook-up that should be allowed is for electricity but sewer hook-ups should be
prohibited.
. covers are sometimes more of a nuisance because they get tattered and worn. They
should be in good condition.
. tents would be appropriate for back or side yard and needs to be fire retardant.
. curb cuts and aprons needs further discussion. Concerned that to allow a curb cut might
imply a granted use.
. 24-hours is all that is needed to store a vehicle in the public right away.
. should be able to limit vehicles according to categories.
. covered parking in the garage is not worth policing.
Commissioner Smith's issues and recommendations for staff were:
. agrees with keeping the 20' setback intact and opposes a front porch being placed in that
setback area as well as cementing front yards because it damages the streetscape.
. once the streetscape is interrupted, it takes away the neighborhood element.
. concerned with the visual impact to the neighbors and visual impairment and it becomes
a safety issue.
. any vehicle or structure blocking the public right-of-way or the driveway should be a
violation because it impedes the flow of public traffic.
. any visual impairment is a safety risk and should be a violation.
. this problem has become a nuisance to many people in the City. It is not an attack on RV
owners.
. using the vehicles as living quarters should be addressed as far as noise is concerned.
. the number of recreational vehicles that are stored in the open should be monitored and
the number limited.
. look at the size of the lot and come up with a volume of the vehicles stored on a lot and
determine what is a fair percentage. It's reasonable that there is a certain size lot that is
considered too small for storage, particularly in Old Towne.
. agrees that more code enforcement officers are needed.
. would like to know where people can park recreational vehicles and what is the cost of
storage.
. take a look at grandfathering the vehicles currently stored in driveways and then start
from scratch.
. poured cement concrete slaps and curb blocks are intrusive to neighbors.
. page 2 of the staff report regarding noise needs to be looked at.
. used as living quarters on page 3 isn't addressed in current code.
. everything on Page 6 of the staff report needs to be addressed.
. R V s should not be allowed to be parked on the streets and 72 hours is too long.
. the property line setback should be 5', which is the same as a building, and not 3' .
. concerned with 24-hour parking in that the width of the street should be taken into
consideration, especially in Old Towne.
. there are some good ideas from other cities such as guest parking permits and limiting
parking to 72 hours each month. Also the 5' setback is cited in several cities and issuing
permits for out-of-town visitors to park in front of a host residence.
5
Planning Commission Minutes
APPROVED
August 4, 2003
· curb cuts interrupt the streetscape and takes away parking.
Commissioner Brandman asked Mr. Hohnbaum a question regarding curb cuts and is a permit
required. Mr. Hohnbaum explained that a 25' curb cut is standard in a residential driveway. If
someone wishes to change that, a permit is required. If trying to put a curb cut adjacent to an
existing curb cut, the curb cuts are required to be at least 20' of full height curb between them on
a driveway frontage and a minimum of 2' from the property line is required.
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Brandman and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adjourn to the next
regular Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 18,2003 at 6:30 p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioners Brandman, Pruett, Smith
None
None
Commissioner Bonina
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm.
6