Excerpt
from Meeting minutes dated July 19, 2005Ms.
Bortolussi reviewed the section on Recreational Vehicles with a PowerPoint presentation
and provided the Commissioners with 3 different models from Danville, Dublin and
Pleasanton and asked which model the Commissioners wished to move forward with or if it
was the desire of the Commission to see a combination.
Comm. Kerger stated she supported Danville’s Recreational Vehicle
Ordinance with some suggestions. Chair DiGeronimo asked if the Town of Danville had a
temporary period for storage. Ms. Bortolussi replied that the Town of Danville has a
48-hour period. Chair DiGeronimo stated he felt that a 48-hour period was too short. Ms.
Bortolussi commented that the Recreational Vehicle section could require a minor use
permit from the City for a longer period. Chair DiGeronimo recommended the time should be
lengthened to two weeks if one is looking for temporary on-site storage. Ms. Bortolussi
asked for Commissioners comments felt about an extended period of time.
Comm. Patrino commented he supported a specific time frame and had
concerns about the interpretation of "substantially screened" and asked Ms.
Bortolussi who would enforce the "substantially screened" provision of the code.
Ms. Bortolussi replied in the Town of Danville it is determined by staff. Comm. Patrino
further asked if trees could be used as screening. Ms. Bortolussi replied that the
Danville ordinance allowed trees to be used as screening but tarps were not allowed.
Comm. Viers commented that he would prefer the two weeks notice. Comm.
Kerger stated she did not like the two weeks. Comm. Patrino and Rhoton both stated that
they liked one week. The consensus of the Commission was to allow for one week on-site
temporary storage.
Ms. Bortolussi asked for direction as to type of vehicle that should be
included in this section of the code. Ms. Bortolussi asked if the Commissioners felt there
should be exceptions. Comm. Patrino stated he did not support inoperable vehicles in
residential neighborhoods. Chair DiGeronimo asked if there is a code, which defines what
qualifies as a van. Ms. Bortolussi replied no. Comm. Rhoton replied this section should
regulate the size of vehicle by gross vehicle weight. Ms. Bortolussi asked the
Commissioners about screening from a public street. Chair DiGeronimo stated that staff
needs to make the definition more specific. Comm. Kerger stated that trucks and vans
should be eliminated. Ms. Bortolussi stated she would do more research on this topic.
Comm. Viers stated a fence should be more than 6 feet to screen the recreational vehicles,
which can be 15 feet tall. Comm. Patrino stated that it should be reasonably out of view
of the public street. Comm. Rhoton stated the Commissioners should consider increasing the
fence height to screen the vehicles. Comm. Viers stated he recalled that the height of a
fence could be increased through a permit. Comm. Rhoton asked what the Commission‘s
direction had been regarding the overall height of a fence and height of the lattice work
on top of the fence. Mr. Wong replied it was discussed to allow a 1-foot increase with
lattice but the direction was not clear.
Comm. Kerger suggested a stepped fence extension to screen the recreational vehicles.
Comm. Patrino suggested a tapered fence. Chair DiGeronimo stated a one-foot lattice
extension. Comm. Rhoton felt that one-foot of lattice is too short. Comm. Kerger agreed
that 1 foot is too short. Chair DiGeronimo asked Ms. Bortolussi to continue with her
presentation and to return to this item. Ms. Bortolussi discussed the timeframe for
adoption, which would allow the residents time to find an alternative location to store
their Recreation Vehicles, if necessary. Comm. Rhoton asked if Code Enforcement staff
would inform the public that the Ordinance has changed. Ms. Bortolussi replied yes. Chair
DiGeronimo supported a 12 month grace period.