Loading...
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Smith None None Commissioner Bonina MOTION CARRIED IN RE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None IN RE: ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.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