Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 09-16-1985 . ' ~ • Regular Meeting - September 16, 1985 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 16, 1985, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m, by Cm. Alexander, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. ~,BSENT: Commissioner Barnes * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of September 3, 1985, were approved as amended; (1) Insertion of resolution numbers into minutes. (2) Change word "prints" to "points" on PCM-5-90 last paragraph, third line. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Mr. Tong advised that a short article on zoning had been enclosed in the Commissioner's packets for their review and use. * * * * PCM-5-96 a i PUBLIC HEARING None * * * * NEW BUSINESS Recreational Vehicle Ordinance - Background information Mr. Tong provided a brief chronology of the events leading up to the scheduling of this item before the Planning Commission, The Staff report providing background information indicated the existing ordinance requirements, discussed options and possible modifications which might be available through an ordinance revision process, and provided copies of three other cities' regulations. Mr. Tong discussed the mechanisms that will be involved to review a possible ordinance revision. Cm. Alexander opened the discussion to those present in the audience, (for sake of clarity and brevity; the speakers are identified in the order they spoke and only those major points not discussed by previous speakers are listed). Speaker 1- Mary Tuma (Dublin Green Drive) 1. Questioned why the City sought to control parking of R.V.'s if there is no corresponding control of parking of cars. 2. Questioned the right/appropriateness of City controlling activities on private property. 3. Questioned what prompted discussion of the subject. Speaker 2- Stanley Greenspan (Amarillo Court) 1. If the City's desire is to present obstruction of air and to eliminate fire hazard in side yard, then there should be corresponding control on litter and placement of sheds in side yards. Speaker 4- Cliff Gonsalves (Amarillo Court) 1. Questioned the appropriateness of citing people who've taken steps to upgrade their property to provide for formal R.V. parking. 2. Process of enforcement will force people to move units to other jurisdictions. 3. Questioned whether enforcement will force unit owners to park on steep streets. PCM-5-97 . • ' • • • 4. Indicated that enforcement would force units out into street creating safety hazard and possibly increasing insurance premiums of unit owners. 5. Called for adoption of an ordinance requiring "legitimate" pads for R.V, unit parking. Speaker 5 - ,7ohn Olves (Manzanita Lane) l. Questioned enforcement of an ordinance where squabbles necessitate involvement of City Staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council and the General Public. 2. Indicated opinion that Staff was "overreacting". 3. Indicated desire for new ordinance and moratorium of enforcement of current ordinance. Speaker 6- Robert Stein (Peppertree Road) 1. Indicated only "winners" in this issue will be storage yard owners. Speaker 7- Phillip Sargent (Shadow Drive) 1. Inquired whether C C& R's controlled against R.V, unit parking. 2. Stated current situation still could see R.V, unit owners who rent private storage spaces ticketed when parking at their homes during vacation preparation periods. Speaker 8- Norman Klein (Hansen Drive) 1. Indicated he was cited by City and moved unit to the private storage facility on Portola. 2. Indicated support of City of San Ramon's R.V. ordinance. Speaker 9- Jim Kimzey (7796 Woodren Court) 1. Stated his 14,000 sq, ft, lot still wasn't big enough or appropriately configured to avoid receiving citation from City, even though he'd put in a pad, fence and gate for that purpose. 2. CompTained rental storage spaces are subject to vandals, 3. Stated City was sending message to public they don't want families who camp. PCM-5-98 . ` ` • ~ Speaker 10 - Joan Ferreira (Betlen Drive) l. Asked why ordinances from Walnut Creek, Fremont and Palo Alto were reviewed. (Mr. Tong stated City had those ordinances, and we're working to secure copies of San Ramon, Livermore and Pleasanton). Speaker 11 - Jim Cuellar (Hansen Drive) l. Requested moratorium on enforcement during period of review of the regulations. (Cm. Raley advised Mr. Cuellar to direct that request to the City Council. Speaker 12 - Mr. Cliff Gonsalves (Amarillo Court) 1. Advised Commission that he'd previously requested City Council consider ordinance adopted by the City of San Ramon (72 hours parking in front of home and one-week visitor's permit). Speaker 13 - Mr. Donald Robinson (Amarillo Court) 1. Discussed enforcement process for inoperable car he'd been involved with. 2. Indicated he could understand concerns of property owners who didn't own R.V, units regarding impacts on property values if ordinance was made less restrictive. 3. Asked how an effective voice to City Council could be made. 4. Indicated public safety was also a legitimate concerns relating R.V. unit parking. (Mr. Tong interjected that the City Council action initiated the Zoning Ordinance Amendment review process and was done in conjunction with direction not to put enforcement moratorium into effect). Speaker 14 - Larry Baron (Hansen Drive) l. Indicated need to separate R.V, unit parking issue from concerns of front yards in "deplorable" condition. 2. Questioned why "West of San Ramon Road" residents were being "picked on". (Mr. Tong advised enforcement was being made City-wide on a complaint basis). 3 Stated that in his neighborhood R,V, unit owners did not create a hazard. 4. Stated that striving to assure public safety many clash with appropriateness of imposing controls on private property. 5. Expressed desire to have all R.V, unit owners involved in the ordinance revision discussions. PCM-5-99 • • Speaker 15 - Loraine Fojtik (Circle Way) l. Questioned 72 hour standard and resultant "jockeying" of R.V, units around street. 2. Stated parking in a storage yard is not a viable option due to costs and threat of vandalism. Speaker 16 - Mr William Spuit (Ladero Court) l. Questioned 72 hour standard and resultant "jockeying" of R.V, units around street, 2. Stated he purposely bought a lot with a wide side yard. Speaker 17 - Mr, Prize l. Stated parking a boat was not materially different than parking of a car. 2. Stated forcing a boat into the street creates a safety hazard (propeller blade). Speaker 18 - Mr. Dan Sidbury (Padre Way) 1. Stated that even those who don't own R.V. units see this type of ordinance as an infringement on property rights. 2. Stated parking in a storage yard is not a viable option. Speaker 19 - Elliott Healey (Betlen Drive) 1. Stated City leaders needed foresight, not bureaucracy. 2. Called for City to provide a secure R.V. unit parking facility in Dublin. 3, Complained about enforcement process (i.e, acting on complaint basis only). A five minute adjournment was called for by Chairman Alexander. An unidentified speaker suggested the definition of R.V, units be expanded to include vans and wagons; Mr. Gonsalves complained apparently about the inconsistances in the citation time allowances for corrective measure (10 - 15 - 30 days). Speaker 20 - Yvonne McFadden (Peppertree) 1. Suggested a revised ordinance look at allowing R.V. unit parking in front yard, including driveway, and in side yard setbacks. PCM-5-100 . , • . ~ 2. Suggested ordinance provide for specific minimal safety considerations (e.g, level pads or secured pads, fenced as feasible). 3. Ca11ed for case-by-case review of aesthetics. Speaker 21 - Lee Fletcher (Tyne Court) 1. Stated the ordinance control on R.V. units seemed punitive as R.V, units often are much more attractive then many commercial vehicles which are allowed to park in residential areas. The Commissioners provided Staff with the following listings of information they wished to have provided for the next Planning Commission meeting on this subject: 1. Cm. Raley A. Indication of how much R.V. unit storage was available in Dublin (giving total space count and spaces vacant and available). B. Indication of how much R.V, unit storage was available within a reasonable distance (giving total space count and spaces vacant and available). C. Background information on insurance premiums/coverage for R.V. unit parking where located; 1) on the street, 2) in the front/sideyarcls, and 3) in the rear yard. D. Costs of R.V, unit storage in private commercial yards. E. Information on problems of R.V, units parked in front yard with extension over property line into the public right-of-way. F. Determination an question of whether parking in the driveway is allowed by current ordinance. G. Discussion on feasibility of having one set of regulations for "self-contained" units and one standard for "non self-contained" units. 2. Cm. Petty A. Clarification of regulations (State/City) regarding 72-hour on-street parking. B. Provision of other City's regulations (preferably by separate, early mailout). PCM-5-101 , • ~ 3. Cm. Alexander A. Provision of San Leandro's ordinance among sample ordinances provided for review. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS None OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised the Commission that the City Council would consider the Camp Parks area annexation at their next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS Cm. Raley questioned the City's policy on installation of sidewalks in new projects. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, l ~ 4 , ~ lanni Commis ion Chairman Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director * * * * PCM-5-102