HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Off-StreetParking&Load
CITY C LE R K
File # D[!JJ[5][Q]-~[Q]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 15, 2005
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION:
~
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PUBLIC HEARING: PA 03-028, Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations as it
pertains to recreational vehicle parking. f\/ _
Report Prepared by, Mamie R. Nuccio, Associate Planner ~
1.
Ordinance amending Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code,
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, Ojj~Street Parking and Loadinfi
Refiulations
Planning Commission Resolution Recommending City Council
Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.76, q(f-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations, Section 8.76.060.E, Recreational Vehicle Parking in
Residential Areas and Section 8.76.070.A.14.a, Location of
Required Parking Spaces, Single Family Lot
Plwming Commission Minutes of November 23,2004
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Open Public Hearing.
Receive Staff Presentation.
Rcccive Public Testimony.
Close Public Hearing.
Deliberate.
Waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance (Attachment I)
amending Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code.
The project consists of proposed amendments to Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance as it
pertains to the regulation of off-street, recreational vchicle (RY) parking on residential lots. The proposed
amendments would create greater flexibility with respect to the size of a RV parked in the area between
the driveway and nearest side lot line and establish a Conditional Use Permit process by which residents
can ask for deviations to the size of a RV parked in this area as well as deviations from the permitted
locations for oft~street R V parking.
Off-Street Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations:
A reereational vehicle (RY), as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers,
utility trailers, boats on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab, camping
trailers, or tent trailers, with or without motive power.
--..-----------------------------------_......--------------------...."------------------------------------._....-----------------------------------_._."...-.---~"--------------------
l~
COPIES TO: In House Distribution
ITEM NO. (Õ.2-
ry
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of parking spaces on a residential lot
and allows RY's to be parked in the following areas: I) the driveway (Area Sa); 2) the area between the
driveway and the nearest side lot line (Area 5b); and 3) the side and rear yards (Areas 3a, 3b, 1,2, and 4).
See Figure I.
Figurc 1.
>-
w
w
cc
,-
If)
I
I
..l
_,J
.______L. 1 1
RESIDENCE 41
'3bl
I
I 1
I 1
I --j
Areas 3a, 3b, 1,2 and 4:
Side wId Rear Yards
T
Arca 5a: Driveway
6
Area 5b: Area between
driveway and nearest side
lot line
5c 5Q ¡5b
J
STRFFT
A maximum of onc RV may be parked/stored in the driveway (scc Area 5a, Figure 1) or the area between
the driveway and the nearest side lot line (see Area 5b, Figurc I), provided that it meets the following
requirements:
a. The vehicle does not encroach within one foot of the public right-of-way;
b. The vehicle does not cross from Area 5b into Area 3b;
c. The vehicle is parked on a paved, all-wcather surface;
d. The vehicle is owned and rcgistcred to the oceupants of the premtses upon which it tS
parked/stored; and
e. Thc vehicle is not used for living or sleeping purposes.
In addition, a maximum of two vehicles, including RV's, are allowed to be parked in the side or rear yard~
(see Areas 3a, 3b, 1,2, and 4, Figure 1) ifsereened by a 6-foot high fence.
Previous Ciry Council Hearing.~ and Direction:
At the Oetober 15, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a report
rcgarding off-street parking of RV's in residential areas. Tn January 2003, Staff returned to the City
Council with a general report on RY's. The report discussed the history ofregulating RV's in Dublin; the
eUffent regulations for of1~street parking of RY's; and a partial inventory of existing RV's parked in off-
street loeations. At the conclusion of the January meeting, the City Council directed Staff to return with
examples ofhcights and lengths ofRV's and some potential size limitations for evaluation.
On Junc 17, 2003, Staff returned to the City Council with examples of heights and lengths of RV's with
potential size limitations for evaluation. Staff conducted research on various types of motorhomes and
found that the newer Class A and larger Class C motorhomes are typically over 30 feet in length while
Class B and smaller Class C motorhomes are typically less than 30 feet in length. Staff also eonducted a
review of lot patterns within the ecntral and west areas of the City and found that a vast majority of
single~family garages are setback 20-25 fcet from the front property line with only a few irregular 10ls
having a greater setback distance. As a result, mo~t single-family residential lots could not aceommodate
a RY larger than 19-24 teet in length (after taking into consideration the required I foot setback between
the RV and front property line). Staff eoncluded that Class A and larger Class C motorhomcs are the least
likcly to be accommodated on most single family lots in Area 5b (the area between the driveway and
Page 2 of6
nearest side .Iot line) whcreas Class B and smaller Class C motorhomes are more likely to be
accommodated. At the conclusion of the Junc meeting, the City Council directed Staff to evaluate
modifying the current regulations for RY parking to allow for more flexibility in parking a RY 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 limitation that RV's cannot cross
from Area 5b (the area between thc driveway and nearest side lot line) into Area 3b (thc side yard area).
Currently the RV regulations state that a 6-foot high fence must screen any vehicles parked within Arca
3b.
As part of evaluating the proposed changes to the RV parking regulations, the City Council requested that
the Planning Commission provide input on the proposed changes and any other modifications they felt
were 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 26, 2003 meeting in order to allow the Commissioners the ability to eonduct
some field visits to various neighhorhoods to view RV's parked off~street.
At the conclusion of the August 26,2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously that no changes be made to the Ordinance, with a rcquest to the City Council to direct Staff
to more proaetively enforce the current RY regulations.
Staff returned to the City Council on November 4, 2003, with the requested information and the Plarming
Commission recommendation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council directed Staff to
prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment which modifies the Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations
Section for RV's as follows:
a) Modify the limitation that RV's cannot cross from Area 5b into Area 3b and allow for a maximum
25 foot RY to be parkcd in Area 5b and extend into Area 3b;
h) Allow for RV's that are grcater than 25 feet in length and parked in Area 5b to be reviewed
through the Conditional Use Permit process; and
e) Allow deviations to the permitted locations for off-street parking ofRV's through the Conditional
Use Permit process.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
As required by law, proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance must go before the Planning
Commission for recommendation to the City Council. On November 23, 2004 Staff brought proposed
amendments before the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval. The Planning Commission discussed the matter at length and
clarified that thc maximum size of a RV parked in Area 5b would be determined by the size of the lot
(Attachment 4). Because the typical single family lot in the central and west areas of Dublin has an
average 20 foot setback from the front property line to the face of the garage, this dimension was used to
rcpresent an average lot. For a lot with a 20 foot setback, the proposed anlendment to the Zoning
Ordinance would limit the size of a RV parked in Area 5b to 25 feet. If a lot had a 30 foot setback, the
maximum size ora RV parked in Area 5b would be 29 feet, in accordance with the current RV parking
regulations. The proposed amendment would move the line that separates Areas 5b and 3b (see Figure 1)
to accommodate RV's up to 25 feet in length on single family lots where the front yard setback is 20 feet
or less. The Planning Commission voted 3-0 in favor of recommending City Council approval of the
proposed amendments, with one Commissioner absent and one abstaining.
The Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the proposed amendments included amendments
to two Chapters of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations and
Page 3 of6
Chaptcr 8.100, Conditional Use Permit. After further discussion with the City Attorney following the
Planning Commission meeting it was decided that the proposed amendments to RV parking should be
contained in one location for ease ofreference and clarity. As a result, the proposed amendments before
the City CouneiI are containcd solely in Chapter 8.76, Off Street Parkinfi and Loading Regulations and no
amendments are proposed to Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit. This does not change the substance
of the amendments, just the location where the information is contained.
ANAL YSIS:
Extending the line that separates Areas 5b and 3b (see Figure 2) for lots with a 20-foot or less front yard
setbaek to accommodate RV's up to 25 feet in length would allow tor RV's to be parked in Area 5b
without having to be screened. As part of the proposed amendments, a 6 foot fence would be required to
separate Area 5b from Area 3b when a RY is parked in Area 5b and extends into Area 3b. The fence
would be required to be setback a maximum of 27 feet trom the front property line. The purpose for
requiring a fcnee is to clearly demareate the separation between the front yard and the side yard and
ensure that RV's are parked appropriatcly (i.e. that RY's are not parked in a fashion that results in the RY
"straddling" the line between Areas 5b and 3b). Allowing RY's up to 25 feet in length to be parked in
Area 5b would bring into eonformance a number of existing RY's that are parked in this area and allow
greater flexibility for the parking ofRY's on a residential lot. A resident, whose front yard setback is 20-
feet or less and who owns a RV that is longer than this setback and greater than 25 feet in length, could
apply tor a Conditional Use Permit to allow a longer RY (i.e. a boat and trailer where the trailer is more
than 25 teet in length). Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator be the decision makcr for sueh
Conditional Usc PemÜt requests.
Figure 2.
Existing Regulations
Proposed Regulations: For lots
with a 20-foot or less front yard
setbaek
6-foot screening
fence if R Vis parked
in Area 3b
I'
W
uJ
'"
e-
If)
I --or
I ~
I I
130 I
I I
I I
I I 6
,...L_
Areas 3a, 3b, 1,2, and 4:
Side and Rear Yards
I T
I I
- - - -
I I 2
e- l.5a I
w RESIDENCE
w I
'" I
e-
If) I I
I I 6
, ...L
5c 50
Area 3a, 3b, 1,2, and 4:
Side and Rear Yards
- ---
2
6-1'001 screening
fence if R V parked
in Area 5b or 3b.
Max. setback for
lence 27 teet fi-om
front property line
STREET
Area 5b: Area
between driveway
and nearest side lot
line
I
I -j
5a ISb I
J
Area 5b: Area
between drivcway
and nearest side lot
line
50
T
STREET
The City Council also directed Staff to develop design criteria and findings for the Conditional Use
Permit proeess. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), approving a Conditional Use Permit
requires the following tlndings to be found in the affirmative:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation
and service facilities in the vicinity.
B. It will not adversely affect the heahh or safety of persons residing or working in the
vicinity, or be detrimcntal to the public health, safety and welfare.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
Page 4 01'6
D. There are adequate provision for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use and rclated structures would not be detrimental to
tbe public health, safety and welfare.
E. The subject site is physieally suitable for the type, dcnsity, and intensity of the use and
related structures being proposed.
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or
performancc standards established for the zoning district in which it is located.
G. It is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans.
In addition to the above findings, Staff recommends the following findings be added to Chapter 8.76 in
order to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a RV greater than 25 feet in length when the RV is longcr
than the average 20- foot front yard setback:
a. The rear yard will be screened from view from the public right-of-way.
b. The parking of the RY in the proposed location will have no adverse impacts to adjacent
properties' enjoyment of light and air.
c. The parking of the RV in the proposed location will have no adverse impacts to persons in
vehicles accessing or exiting the subject and adjacent propertics.
For lots with a front yard setback that is greater than 20-feet, the length of a RV that can be parked in
Area 5b is determined by the length of the setback. For example, a lot with a 24-foot front yard setback
could aceommodate a RV up to 23 feet in length and a lot with a 30-foot front yard setback could
accommodate a RY up to 29 feet in length. As part of the proposed amendments, residents who havc lots
with a rront yard setback that is greater than 20-feet could also apply for a Conditional Use Permit to park
a RV of a greater length than what is allowed by the Ordinance in Area 5b. Using the examples
mentioned above, the lot with a 24-foot front yard setback could apply for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow for a RV that is greater than 23-feet in length and the lot with a 30-foot front yard setback could
apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a RV greater than 29-feet in length. The same findings for a
Conditional Use Permit and the additional findings listed above (a., b., and c.) would also apply.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinanee allows the Community Development Director to permit parking of a R V
in an alternate location on a residential lot if thcre is insufficient room in Arca 5b. However, the
Ordinance does not specify the process by which this type of request should be rcviewed nor any criteria
for determining whether the request should be approved or denied. At the City Council's direction, Staff
is proposing an anlendment that would eliminate the Director's authority and allow alternate parking
locations to be reviewed through the Conditional Use Permit process. For consistency, Staff also
recommends that the Zoning Administrator be the deeision maker for such requests. A public hearing
would be held and a public notice would be scnt to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the
subject property.
The proposed amendments would not change the requircment that RY's parked in Areas 3a, 3b, 1, 2, and
4 (the Side and Rear Yards) be screened by a 6 foot fence (see Figure 2, Existing Regulations). If a RV
were to be parked in Area 3b and extend forward into Area 5b it would be in violation. The RV would
either need to be pushed back fully into Area 3b and screened by a 6 foot fence or moved entirely forward
into Area 5b and comply with the aforementioned standards for RV's parked in this area.
Environmental Review:
This project has been found to be Exempt rrom the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to Section 15061 (b )(3). It can be seen with certainty that thcre is no possibility that the proposed
amendments may havc an impact on the environment.
Page 5 of6
CONCLUSION:
The proposed amendmcnts are summarized as follows:
a. Allow RV's to cross from Arca 5b into Area 3b without being screened by a 6 foot fence when
the lot has a front yard setback of20,feet or less and the RY does not excecd 25 feet in length;
b. Provide the ability for a resident with a lot that has a 20-foot or less front yard setback to apply
for a Conditional Use Pennit if their RY is longer than 25 feet in length;
c. Provide the ability for a resident with a lot that has a front yard setback greater than 20- feet to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit iftheir RV is longer than Area 5b; and
d. Allow deviations to the permitted locations for off-street parking of RV's through a
Conditional Use Permit.
These amendments would accomplish the City Couneil's goal of allowing greater flexibility in
accommodating RV parking on single family lots. Staff will supplement this report with a PowerPoint
prescntation at the City Council meeting.
'RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council, I) open Public Hearing, 2) reccive Staff presentation; 3) rcccive
Public testimony; 4) close Public Hearing; 5) deliberate; 6) waive reading and introduce Ordinance
(Attachment I) approving amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations.
Page 6 of6
ILbo
ORDINANCE NO. -04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE),
CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS RELATING TO
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING
.. .'n.'"'"'",..
"'"''="~"'=''''' ,,,.,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_.~. ""'.."'.,,, ... .,.".,.".",.,...",.
........,.".,,,.,",",,.,¡,," """.'W,M'^'^'^'''''''^'='^'",.'^'..'^''''''''''=''W,"W^,'''."'^'"'"'"'"'~"'"'"'"'"'""'"'
WHEREAS, thc City of Dublin has determined that in order to more effectively regulate the
parking and/or storage of recreational vehicles on a rcsidcntiallot that Chapter 8.76, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Regulations nceds to be amended; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be rcvicwed for environmental
impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, thc project has been found to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), according to Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) may have a significant
effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly notieed public hearing on this project
on November 23, 2004, and did adopt Resolution 04-69 recommending that the City Council approve
amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, a properly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on February 15,
2005; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submittcd recommending that the City Council approve the
amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8.120.050.B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council
finds that the amendments to the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) are consistent with the
Dublin General Plan and a1l applicable Specific Plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and consider all said
reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe City of Dublin does ordain as fo1lows:
Section 1.
Subdivision EA of Section 8.76.060, Recreational Yehicle Parking in Residential Areas, of the
Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) shall be modified to read as follows:
Alternate Location. In unusual situations where there is insufficient room in Area 5b (the area
between the driveway and the nearest Side Lot Line) to park a RV, the Director ef Cefmrlllllity
Development Zoning Administrator may permit paved parking for that purpose in an altcrnate
location bv means of a Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Chapter 8.100 provided that the
Zoning Administrator makes the fo1lowing findings in addition to those required by Section
8.] 00.060 for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit:
:;2-15-05 ~,ð-
A TT ACH MENT 1
oAï5b1b
(n the parking of the RV in the pr(>posed location will have no adverse impacts to adiaecnt
properties' eniovment oflܡht and air: and
(2) the parking of thc RV in the proposed location will have no adverse impaets to persons
in vehicles accessing or exiting the subiect and adjacent properties.
Section 2.
Subdivision E.7 of Section 8.76.060, Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas, of the
Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is added to read as follows:
Parking in the Area between the Driveway and Nearest Side Lot Line (Area 5b). An RY
parked within the paved area between the drivewav and the nearest Side Lot Line (Arca 5b) mav
encroaeh into thc Side Yard area (Area 3b) without having to be screened provided that tile front
vard setback is 20- feet or less. the overalllenllth of the vehicle does not exeeed 25 feet, and a 6
foot fence setback a maximum of 27 feet from the front property line is provided to scparate Area
5b fÌ'om Area 3b (See Figure 76-0). The Zoning Administrator mav approve a Conditional Use
Permit to allow for an RV I.!reater than 25 feet in length on lots with a front yard setback of20-feet
or less or to allow for an RY longer than Area 5b for lots with a front vard setback of more than
20-fcet (See Figure 76-0), provided that the rear vard will be screened fÌ'om view fÌ'om the public
right ofwav and proyided that the findinl.!s required bv Seetion 8.76.060.E.4 and 8.100.060 can be
made.
Figure 76-0
For Lots with a Front Yard
Setback Less than 20-leet.
For Lots with a Front Yard
Setback More than 20-feet.
"
w
w
'"
e-
'"
R V parked in Area
3b shall be screened
by 6 foot fence.
50
5"
A 6 loot screening fence
separating Area 5 b from
Area 3b is required. The
maximum setback for the
fence shall be 27 feet
from the front property
linc_
e-
W
W
'"
e-
If)
l
2 -, J R V parked in Area
I I 3 b shall be screened
RESIPeNCE 41 by 6 foot fence.
130 I
I I
6 I R V parked in Mea
I 5b may encroach
I into Area 3b with
5c 50 '''~ approval of a
CUP.
STREET
6
STREE 1
R V parked in Area 5b
may encroach into Area
3b so long as the RV
does not exceed 25 Feet
in length. RV may
exceed 25 feet in length
with approval oFa CUP,
Section 3.
Subdivision A.14.a.l of Section 8.76.070, Location of Required Parking Spaces, of the Dublin
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) shall be modificd to read as follows:
Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the SalDe parcel as the residence they
serve, unless providcd as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to a
Conditional Use Permit. The most distant parking space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not
2
3Jb lþ
more than 150 feet from the residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be
located within WI enclosed garage, except that two, full-size, unenclosed parking spaces may be
permitted elsewhere on a lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of converting a
residential garage to living space (Rev. Ord. 4-03). Other than the two requircd garaged parking
spaces, a maximum of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an automobile, car,
truck, or Recreational Vehicle) may be parked in the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high
fence or wall and if at least one side yard is Wlobstructed to a width 01'36 inches: Areas 1,2, 3a, 3b
and 4. Additional parking may occur in area 5a. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section
8.76.060.E.2 and 8.76.060.E.7. No parking shall occur in area 5c except as permitted by Section
8.76.060.E.4. See Figure 76-2. Parking in a driveway shall not compensate for required enclosed
garage parking Wlless two, full-size unenclosed parking spaces arc permitted pursuant to a
Conditional Use Permit for the purposes of converting a residential garage to living space (Rev.
Ord.4-03). No parking shall occur in Area 6.
Seetion 4. Conforminl! Amendments.
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Munieipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) shall be re-numbered and/or re-Iettered as
necessary to accommodate and/or reflect the foregoing amendments.
Section 5. Severabilltv.
The provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if any provision, clausc, sentence, word or part thereof
is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplieable to any person or circumstances, such illegality,
invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions,
clauses, sentences, sections, words or parts thereof of the Ordinance or their applieability to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 6. Effective Date and Postinl! of Ordinance.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final
adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall eause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 39633 of the Govermnent Code of
California."
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DUBLIN on this I" day of March 2005, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3
Lft) I (¡
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 69
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 03-028, AMENDMENTS TO
TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE), CHAPTER 8.76,
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.100,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the comprehensive revision to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning
Ordinance) COrd. 20"97) was adopted by the City Council on September 2,1997; and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Zoning Ordinanee have been adopted since 1997 in order to
effectively regulate development within the City; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8.76, Off-Street parking and Loading Regulations; and, Chapter 8.100,
Conditional Use Permit are being revised to more effectively regulate the establishment of
automobile/vehieJe storage lots; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental
impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), according to Seetion l506l(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the wnendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) may have a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said wnendments to Title 8
of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) on November 23, 2004, for which proper notice was
given in accordance with California State Law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of the amendmc.."t1ts to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning
Ordinance); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its November 23, 2004, meeting did hear and use its
independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set
forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that, the amendments to Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) 8.76, Off-
Street parking and Loading Regulations and Chapter 8.100, Conditional Use Permit do not represent
changes that may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA, Section l506l(b)(3»); the
amendments are consistent with the General Plan and all applicable Specifie Plans; and, recommends that
the City Council amend said chapters of Title 8 of the Dublin Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinanee) as
shown in Attaehment 3 to the November 23,2004, Staff Report for PA 03-028.
ATTACHMENT 2.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23'· day of November 2004.
AYES:
Cm. Fasulkey, King, and Machtrnes
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. Jennings
ABSTAIN: Cm. Nassar
ATTEST:
,1·
;/#
~, ")'"
Planning anager
2
5~10
n
I.P øt> (0
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
Chapter 8.76
D. Disabled Accessible Parking. Parking lots shall include the number of disabled accessible
parking spaces as requircd by Title 24 of thc California Code of Regulations. Such spaces shall
he designed as required by Scction 8.76.070.A.8, Disablcd Acccssible Parking. Disabled
spaces count toward the total number of parking spaces required by Section 8.76.080, Parking
Regulations by Use Typc.
E. Recreational Vehicle parking in residential arcas. One Recreational Vehicle (R V) as
defined in this Title may bc parked on a driveway, or paved area between the driveway and the
nearest Side Lot Line subject to the following requirements:
l. The RV plus any accessories shall not encroach to within one foot of the public
right-of-way.
2. Paving. The area betwccn thc drivcway and the ncarest Side Lot Line used for RV
parking shall be paved with an all-weather surface to the salisfaetion of thc Director of
Community Development.
3. Curh Cut. A curb cut may bc considcrcd by thc Dircctor of Public Works for an RV
parking space permitted pursuant to this Section.
4. Alternate location. In unusual situations where there is insufficient room between the
driveway and the nearest Side Lot Line to park an RV, thc Dircctor of Community
Development may permit paved parking for that purpose in an alternate location.
5. Ownership. An RV parked as required in this Seetion, shall be owned by and
registcred to the occupant of the premises upon which it is parked or storcd.
6. Parking in Side Yard, Street Side Yard, and Rear Yard. A maximum of two
vehicles, including RV's, may be parked at a residence in thc following arcas, if
scrccncd by a 6 foot high fence or wall: in the Side Yard, Street Side Yard, Rear Yard,
or the area bctween the Rear Yard and the rear of the residence.
F. Parking within a designated parking space. All vehicles shall be parked within the confines
of parking spaces as striped on thc ground and as shown on an approved Off-Street Parking and
Loading Plan. Rev. Ord. 16-02 (November 2002)
G. Living or sleeping In vehicle parked upon any public right of way. At no time shall a
Motorhome, recreational vehicle, mobile homc or similar vchiclc as determined by the Director
of Community Development, parked upon any public right-of-way in any zoning district bc
occupied for living or sleeping purposcs. Rev. Ord. 16-02 (November 2002)
H. Living or sleeping in vchicle parked Or stored on a lot. At no time shall a motor homc,
recreational vehicle, utility trailer, mountcd or un-mounted camper top, boat or other similar
vehicle as determined by the Director of Community Development parked or storcd on a lot be
occupied for living, sleeping, or any other purposes cxccpt as pennitted by a Temporary Use
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
76-6
September, 1997
Amended July 15, 2003
ATTACHMENT 3
Î~10
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
Chapter 8.76
m. Impacts to sidewalks/paving. Tree species shall be selected which minimize
lifting of sidewalks or pavement. Trees shall be planted within "root barriers"
and provided with proper irrigation to assure deep root systems and a minimum
of lifting of sidewalks and pavement.
n. Driveway buffers. Driveways in multiple residential projects located in the R-
M zoning district shal! be separated from living quarters by a landscaped buffer
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
13. Lighting. Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination
for security and safety. The minimum requirement is I foot candle, maintained across
the surface of the parking area. Lighting standards shall be energy-efficient and in scale
with thc heigbt and use of the structure. Any illumination, including security lighting,
shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.
14. Location of Required Parking Spaces
a. Single family lot.
J. Principal residence. All parking spaces shall be located on the
same parcel as the residence they serve, unless provided as a
Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to
a Conditional Use Pcrmit. Thc most distant parking space in a
Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the
residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter
shall be located within an enclosed garage, except that two, full-
size, unenclosed parking spaces may be peITllitted elsewhere on a
lot pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit for the purposcs of
converting a residential garage to living space Rev. Ord. 4-03
Other than the two required garaged parking spaces, a maximum
of two vehicles (which shall include, but not be limited to, an
automobile, car, truck, or Rccreational Vehicle) may be parked in
the following areas if screened by a 6 foot high fencc or wall and
if at least one side yard is unobstructed to a width of 36 inches:
Areas I, 2, 3a, 3b and 4. Additional parking may occur in area
5a. Parking in area 5b shall be as required by Section
8.76.060.E.2. No parking shall occur in area 5e except as
permitted by Section 8.76.060.EA. See Figure 76-2. Parking in
a driveway shall not eompensate for required enclosed garage
parking unless two, full size unenclosed parking spaces arc
pel111itted pursuant to a Conditional Use Pel111it for the purposes
of converting a residential garage to living space. Rev. Ord. 4-03
No parking shall occur in Area 6.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
76-14
September, 1997
Amended July J 5, 2003
'3"b l ~
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS
Chapter 8.76
Figure 76-2
I. Rcar Yard
2. Area bctween Rear Yard and rear of residence
3_ Side Yard
a. Street Side Yard
b. Side Yard
4. Area between Side Yard and side of residence
5. Front Yard
a. Drivcway
b. Area bctween the driveway and ncarcst Side
Lot Line
c. Area between thc driveway and the most
distant Side Lot Line or Strcet Side Lot Line
6. Area between Front Yard and front of
residence.
Rev. Ord. 28-99 (12121/99)
f-,
W
W
(to
f-
V1
l
, J
41 I
¡3bl
I I
I I
I î
50 15b I
J
T
I
1- -- --
I I.. ___..2__ - ,
I 30 I~ESIDENCE
I I
1'-
I
I 6
r- ...L
l
5c
STREET
2_ Second Unit parking. Parking for a Second Unit shall be
providcd in accordance with this Chapter except as provided in
Section 8.80.040_F.
b. M ultl-family lot. All parking spaces shall be located on tbe same parcel as the
residence they serve, unless provided as a Residential Parking Lot by the Zoning
Administrator pursuant to a Conditional Use PemÜt. The most distant parking
space in a Residential Parking Lot shall be not more than 150 feet from the
residences they serve. Parking spaces required by this Chapter shall be located
within an enclosed garage or covered. Guest parking, which may be uncovered,
shall be providcd as required by this Chapter_ No parking shall occur in the
Street Side Setback or the Front Setback.
c. Non-residential lot. All parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel as
the primary structure or use, unless provided under Section 8.76.050,
Adjustment to the Number of Parking Spaces, or as a Commercial Parking Lot
by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit in the CoO,
CoN, and M-P zones or as allowed in the C-1, C-2, M-l, and M-2 zones
pursuant to Site Development Review. The most distant parking space in a
Commercial Parking Lot or an on-site parking lot shall be not more than 400
feet from the use thcy serve. Parking may occur in the Side Yard, Street Side
Yard, Front Yard, Rear Yard and areas between thc structure and required yards
if bchind perimcter landscaping and scrcening pursuant to Site Development
Review.
City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance
76-15
September,1997
Amended July 15, 2003
t:¡~I~
Planning Commission Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Comnùssion was held on Tuesday, November 23, 2004,
in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Comnùssioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King, and Machhnes; Andy Byde, Acting Planning Manager;
and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary.
Absent: Cm. Jennings
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - November 9, 2004 were approved as submitted.
ORAL COMMUNICATION ~ None
6.1 Public Coøutlents - at this time. members of the audience are permitted to address the
Planning Commission on any item(s) of interest to the public; however, no action Or discussion
shall take place on any item, which is not on the Planning Commission Agenda. The
Commission may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed. or may request Staff
to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Furthermore, a member of the
Planning Commission may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. Any
person may arrange with the Planning Manager (no later than 11:00 AM on the Tuesday
preceding a regular meeting) to have an item of concem placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting.
6.2 Informational Presentation by Alameda County Waste Authority on Green Building
Guidelines for MultHamily Construction.
Katen Kho, Program Manager, Alameda County Waste Management Authority gave a brief overview of
the item presented to the Planning Comnùssion. She explained the new resource that was developed for
their member agencies including Alameda County and the City of Dublin. She handed out the multi
family green building guidelines.
Cm, Fasulkey asked who are the members.
Ms. Kho stated they are a j(Jint powers authority. There are 17 members which include all of the cities in
Alameda C(Junty, the County itself as well as two sanitary districts.
She stated that Green Building are buildings that are mainstream that mcet the functions that they are
designed for. They are durable and maintainable, aesthetically pleasing, cost effective, healthy &
productive, which minimizes natural resource consumption and environmental impacts.
The guidelines were developed by working with 3 pilot developmcnt projects. They are working with
Carmen Avenue project in livermore, Breakers at Bayport Aparhnents in Alameda, and the Dublin
:;:>{urmirlfj CotnmÙ.sWn
rß,~',i llraf ~~fdi'fIH
182
ATTAettMM J.1rr"""...r 2.),21104
ID'b I {t>
Senior Housing Development. They had developed list of potential measure and technical review of
measures. They feel the guidelines have gone through a serious level of review.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that the Dublin Senior Housing is the building being built at the old library site.
Ms. Kho stated the senior housing participated in the project and they worked with them up until a
certain point of the design development process of the project. They have worked with Eden Housing
since then for the Dublin Senior Housing project.
She explained the three pilot projects gave them a range of housing projects. She showed the
commission the full set of guidelines and stated there were copies at the counter.
The objectives help market rate and affordable projects make quick and efficient decisions about
appropriate green measures, teach new construction methods, products, assist in integrating green
building into the design process, anticipate scheduling needs, code considerations and design details,
and identify strategies to manage costs.
She discussed the design assistance provided for affordable housing. They offer assistance at various
levels of the project. They also offer training on using the multifamily green building guidelines, design
assistance and review at various levels of project completion, assistance with selection, specification and
procurement of green building materials.
There are eligibility requirements; projects must be located in Alameda County, at least 10% of the units
must be at 80% of area median income. She concluded her presentation and stated she was availilble for
questions.
Cm. King asked if developers are receptive and comply with the guidelines.
Ms. Kho stated they have spoken to numerous affordable housing developers and they are supportive of
the guidelines because they own and operate their projects. Th.,}' see what the benefits are. For market
rate developers there is a different fationale and may see it as a market advantage.
ern. Nassar asked the comparative costs of standard buildings and gfeen building.
Ms_ Kho stated mat..rials may be more expensive but generally when a developer understands how it
works and incorporates it into their ongoing standard practice; it does not have an added premium.
Cm. Nassar asked comparative costs for items such as carpet, etc.
Ms. Kho stated for things like carpet and paint there is a Green Building preferred alternative that costs
the same as conventional items. Linoleum will cost more, but it lasts three times longef than vinyl.
Cm. Nassar ashd why developers aren't jumping on this.
Ms. Kho stated it is starting to become more popular especially in commercial project. The obstacle is
usually lack of education.
Cm. Fasulkey asked Ms. Kho what is the scope of the design work and how in depth will she work with
a dl?veloper.
i}J(4/tnlt/.JI ComrnÚsitm
W .!H/.I.fa-:r~\1MI.ÙIf/
1113
'NírulJ1fi(,ef .Z), 2(K)4
IlfbllÞ
Ms. Kho stated they have an initial meeting with the project team and they try to asseSS how far they
want to go in terms of incorporating Green Building features. The consultants would review the plans
and come back with a set of recommendations that would work for the project. If there comes a need for
more in depth analysis that can be done by the consultants as well.
Cm. Fasulkey asked what are the City's requirements to send projects towards Green Building.
Mr. Byde stated the City is evaluating of ordinances which codify some of the Green Building
requirements for certain types of structures. The Green Building guidelines are available at the public
counter and Staff does encourage it early on.
Cm. Nassar asked what would be the incentive for the City to encourage Green Building.
Mr. Byde stated there is the recycling ordinan<:e for projects within a certain valuation that are required
to recycle a certain amount of the construction debris. The City looks at discretionary projects, such as
General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments and has required, as a condition of approval some type of
Green Building measures, and at other times it is encouraged to be incorporated.
Cm. King asked Ms. Kho if she gives the same presentation to other Plarming Commissions.
Ms. Kho responded yes.
Cm. King asked if any other cities have adopted anythi11g formal in terms of a policy that Dublin Staff
could look at.
Ms. Kho stated that City of Emeryville at the permit process require that a worksheet that is filled out to
show which multi family measures are being included in the projert. That is something Dublin could
consider.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
~yBLlC HEARINGS
8.1 P A 03-028 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8.76, Parking Regulations and Chapter
8.100 Conditional Use Permit relating to the on-site parking of Recreational Vehicles.
Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Mr. Byde advised the Plarming Commission of the backgro1.Uld of the project and stated a recreational
vehicle, as defined by the ZO!ÙI1g Ordinance, includes motor homes, travel trailers, utility trailers, boats
on trailers, horse trailers, campers where the living area overhangs the cab and camping trailers, or tent
trailers, with or without motive power.
The Dublin Zoning Ordinance regulates the location of required parking spaces on a residential lot and
allows recreational vehicles to be parked in the following areas: (1) the driveway (8ray area shown on
Attachment 1); (2) the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (yellow area shown on
Attachment 1); and (3) the side yard, and the rear yard. A maximum of one recreational vehicle may be
parked/ stored in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line (the gray
or yellow area shown on Attachment 1), provided that: (1) the vehicle does not e¡¡croach within one foot
of the publk right-of-way; (2) does not cross from the driveway and the nearest side lot line into the side
yard area (the area shown as blue 01'1 Attachment 1); (3) is parked on a paved, all-weather surface; (4) is
owned and registered to the occupants of the premises upon whieh it is parked/ stored; and (5) is not
q.{¡):nni"iJ {.'ommÚ:tion 184 N1J't:em6er 23! 2004
1{Wfufar qlt'ttia,~
1'2t> I ~
used for living or ~leeping purposes. A maximum of two recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked
in the required side or rear yards (the blue area shown on Attachment 1) if screened by a 6~foot high
fence.
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 Cl)uncil with a general report on recreational vehicles. The report discussed the
history of regulating recreational vehicles within Dublin; the current regulations for off-street parking as
they relate to recreational 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 ¡¡nd some potential size limitations for
evalu"tion.
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" recreational vehicle On a single family lot and to evaluate the
resulting impacts from modifying the regulations.
Specifically, the City Council dirc'Cted Staff to evaluate modifying the requirement that recreational
vchides cannot cross from the nearest side lot line area into the side yard area (from the yellow into the
blue arC<! as shown on Attachment). Currently the recreational vehicle regulations state that a 6-foot
high fence must screen any vehicles parked within the side yard.
As part of evaluating the contempl"ted change to the recreational vehicle parking regulations, the City
Council requested the Planning Commission provide input on the contemplated changes and any other
modifications it felt were appropriate.
Staff returned to the City Council on November 4,2003, with the requested information and the
Planning Commission rec"mmendation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council directed
Staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance amendment which modifies the Off.Street Parking and Loading
Regul"tions Section for recreation"l vehicles as follows: (1) modify the "blue/yellow" line as shown on
Attachment 1 to extend a minimum of 26 feet from the eùge of the front property line; and (2) allow
deviations to the permitted locations for off-street parking of recreational vehicle, through a Conditional
Use Permit.
Additionally, the City Council directed Staff to develop a Conditional Use Permit process which also
induded desib'O crileria anù findings. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.100), approving a
Conditional Use Permit requires the following findings to be found in the affirmative:
A. The proposed use and related structures is compatible with other land uses, transportation and
service facilities in the vicinity.
B. It will not adver~ely affect the hea1th or safety of persons re~idìng or working in the vicinity, or
~ detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
C. It will not be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood.
D. There are adequatc provision for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services
to ensure that the proposed use and related structures would not ~ detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
E. The subject site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use and related
structures being proposed.
¡pf')'/I nÙJfJ (."ðm7ttÙ'siOfl
(~ 'flu~rl.'l,fl!clj¡ H
185
'NtwI!m6er 23.2004
\¿ùQllo
F. It will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses, development regulations, or performance
standards established for the zoning district in which it is located.
G. It is consistent wit the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans.
In addition to the above findings, Staff recommends additional findings to be added to the required
findings within the Conditional Use Permit section (Chapter 8.100) to approve a deviation to the p"rking
regulations of a recreational vehick Specifically, Staff reconunends the following findings be made in
the affirmative in order to approve a modification to permitted parking areaS of Recreational Vehicles:
· The rear yard will be screened from views from the public right-of-w"y;
· No adverse impacts to adjacent properties enjoyment of light and "ir will result from the p"rked
Recreation Vehicle;
· No adverse impacts to vehicular visibility to adjacent properties and the ability for vehicles to
back out on to the road way safely, will be maintained; and
· No other suitable locations are available on the subject property.
In "ddition to these changes, Staff is also r('commending that the Community Development Director to
grant alternate parking locations within the green area as shown on Attachment 1. As part of this
amendment, Staff recommends that this section be changed to ('liminat" the Director's authority and
allow ¡¡ltemate parking locations to be authorized by the Conditional Use Permit process for the purpose
of consistency_
Staff reconunends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution reçommending the City Council
Amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding Off-Street Parking of Recreation Vehicle Regul"tions.
Cm. Nassar asked where would a resident park their RV if the "yellow" area was not available.
Mr. Hyde responded they could park in the side yard if appropriate.
Cm. Nassar asked the percentage of residents with RV's in Dublin.
Mr. Byde stated the City has not done that type of research.
Cm. F<>sulkey read [or the record the letter received from Heather and Milton Torres:
Tlzank you for laking tile time today to expll1in tl!C proposed clUlnge in Ilæ cihfs zoning ordilll1nce. If you cCIIJld
pass on (fUr comments we would appreciate it.
We lille in Olle of tile older area~ Qf Dublin. In our neighbQrllOod, many lIomeowners/ike ourselves 11/IlIe chosen
to buy an older home wit/I a yard and fix it up instel1d of buying 'I town 110111£ witlwut 11 yard. Almost even}
IWTlle flUlt lzas ~old an our ~treet in the 4 years we IlIllle liœd here IlI1s been fixed up and brought positive
changes to the looks of our neighborhood.
Hon>e¡",r, wlæn you drive through our neighborhood tlu:re aTe a mlmber of R v's pl1rlæd in front ()flzouses and
many uf tl1£m ,10 not look very nice. We were dismayed 10 l!Car flUlI 111£ cih} [()uncil is con5idering making il
easier to ¡mrk 'Ill R V in frQnt of a house. We feel that if the current standl1rds aTe relaxed desirable potenlial
IlOme buyers may clwose to lifle in a neigh/Joring cihj wlære Ilæ ..tallllards are l¡jglær. If thi~ happens properh}
¡'IIllles ¡¡oì1l be efficted I1nd will not rise and mmj even go down since R V's are an eyesore. We fUllhis w()uld
negate many of tlæ posilh>e clUlnges in Dublin which may acc()unt for the recent increase in properly mlue.
It seems tIS tlwug/r the city is InJing to improve its reputl1tion and II1f see 11 lot ()fposilive cIUlnged occurring in
Dublin. Since we hill'" Iw() young children, 1I>e are especially pleased with tile new or updated parks and the
ipf.~rll iIIJJ COrTllllÙs;cm
r"R.ßt.JJÛ4t" .·:\1~~ .Ùff.l
186
7{tw('m6er 23, lO/}-I
tf'{)'þ
new lihmry, HOU>eI'<'r, II'<' strongly feel t/mt Ill/owing IIInl'l' lenient stlllll;Ú¡rds JOr tl,e parking of R v's is Ilstep
in the 11'Y(J/lg <lirection wlren neiglth'Jring cities (Dam'il/e) ¡WI<' just 1/wroed in the opposite direction mj making
lIiCir regulatiOlls stricter. In Da'll'ille, R V's need tn he hidden fmm siglll.
We dn ,wt underS/llnd why more IImneowners do not clwD'" to stnre lI¡eir R V ata different IocaliDn and nnly
park it itl front of their house fur ¡¡limited time. Our CDnæm is tlml if Ihe current regulation is relaxed more
people will chnose to park an R V in t¡reir drivewll!J or side Yllrd Ilnd bring down property v¡¡lues.
Anyway, plellSt: P¡¡SS our CDmments 01110 the city co¡mcil.
TIlIlnk you,
He¡¡tlrer and Milton Torres
Kathy Carlson, 8601 Edenberry Plaçe said that there would be a lot more people here if it was not the
Tuesday before thanksgiving. She stated that she thought this was a settled deal until they got the notice
for this meeting. She asked if there was more length in the "yellow" section could they park a larger
v"hicle.
Cm. Fasulkey stated that number 25 feet is a general concept. If there is sufficient width in the side yard
and the homeowner is willing to move the fence back to accommodate a larger motor home the City will
allow it.
Mr. Bydc stated that this is geared towards a home with a millimum of a 20 foot front yard setback. If
you had a home with a 30 foot front yard setback, you could park a 29 foot RV.
Ms. Carlson stated a lot of people were worried that 25 feet was going to be the maximum length but if
the home has a 35 foot front yard setback, a 30 foot motor home would be okay.
Mr. Byde stated that is correct.
Ms. Carlson asked if this was going to City Council.
Mr. Byde stated yes_ He advised the residents to leave their names and addresses so they could reçeive a
public hearing notkc for the City Council meeting.
Cm. Fasulkey stated at some point the City needs to think about residents like the Torres who are
opposed to relaxing the current RV Ordinançe.
Ms. Carlson suggested the City should add the anti-ugly ordinanœ to motor homes as well.
Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff what is the name of the ordinançe.
Mr. Byde stated the City has a property maintenance ordinance.
Crn.. Nassar asked Ms. Carlson how far she would be willing to park her RV if there were storage lots
available.
Ms. Carlson stated in Dublin or Pleasanton.
Alene Lewand, 7369 Glenoaks Way echoed what Kathy Carlson said. She said she has spent over $3000
in concrete to comply and park her motor home. whkh the City approved. If it could be moved baçk
f...ther, that would be okay.
(P(I1/mÙ'H CommwÙJ1/
(j{~iJI.cfilt'~~ !cr.it'Jf
IX7
'}("",,,,6er 21. lOa.,
15tJb
Cm, Fasulkey dosed the public hearinp;_
Cm, Machtmes stated he is stuck on the" suitable" location idea. He asked what is the City's philosophy
regarding recreational vehicles parking. He stated that if we use ambiguous standards like "suitable"
the City needs to give some kind of guidance to the hearing officer whether the preference is to have RVs
hidden from view when possiblc or we generally are OK with having RVs in sight.
Mr. Byde said the way it is currently structured is it goes to the Zoning Administrator for review. If
appealed it would come before the Planning Cummission.
Cm_ Machtmes asked what is considered a suitable area. Does the City have a preference to shield them.
Mr. Byde said currently this represents the guidanœ. There is nO policy guidance regarding whether
RV's should or should not be parked on site. The findings are structured and based on common sense
and what are the impacts to the adjacent neighbors. The findings for a use permit are always geared
towards what will be the impacts to the adjacent neighbors,
Cm. King asked if 25 feet is the limit for the length of the vehide.
Mr. Byde said if the setback is 20 feet then 25 feet is the limit for the length of the vehkle.
Cm. King asked what was the necessity for the change.
Mr. Byde staled that the way many lots are configured, there is a 20 fout setback. Many RV's are longcr
than 19 feet in length and it will acconunodate what is already there.
Cm. Nassar asked why the City doesn't require that the RV be parked in the "blue" zone behind a fence.
Mr_ Byde stated that was the original Ordinance requircments l>ut waS nev<,r enforced. The Zoning
Ordinance articulates what the community values are. Traditionally this City has allowed a mOre
laissez-faire approach with the parking uf RV's.
Cm. Fasulkey gave an overview of the facts to the Planning Conunission_
Cm_ Nassar made a motion that the current regulations be enforced and for RV's to be only allowed to
park in the "blue" scction and not the yellow. The motion failed for lack of 2nd.
Cm. Machtmes stated he would prefer that RV's be parked in the "blue" area. He does not have an issue
with extending the imaginary line allowing bigger motor homes to be parked in front when they can't be
parked on the side. He does have an issue with it being parked in the front when it could be parkcd in
the side_
The Planning Commission discussed in great detail the issues related to parking recreational velúcles on
the propcrty and the definition of the word "suitable," contained within the recommended Conditional
Use Permit findings language. Several members of the COITUT\issiun did not want it interpreted to mean
that a location in the "blue" area that was big enough to hold an RV, but that the homeowner did not
want to usc for that purpose for $ome reason, was not "suitable", therefore allowing the homeowner to
park the RV in front of the house. The word "suitable" was deleted and replaced with "dimensionally
appropriate."
rPfJ.1twing ('om~Ù$Ùrn
:J\"ìJfI.foT ~lfgct.itliJ
188
Wi:Yf.!tm6er 13, ]004
I~Vb
On motion by Cm_ Machtmes, seconded by Cm. King, with Cm. Jennings absent and Cm. Nassar
abstaining, the Planrring Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 69
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING cn'Y COUNCIL APPROVAL OF P A 03-028
AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 8 OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE),
CHAPTER 8.76, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS; AND, CHAPTER 8.100,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff IlÚormationaI Only Reports)
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
ArrEST:
,
p~r~a~ger
i[>(,u,"Øt¡¡~
'RJ{JIIfø ,-"iI
1!J<)
NIMIII5Ir n Z{)()4