Law changes address parking of RVs
Can’t park within 5 feet of property line
Changes to Yuma’s zoning code might affect the way residents park their boats, campers, travel trailers and motorhomes.
Yuma City Council discussed the issue at length during a May 2 work session and then voted 5-0 to adopt text amendments during the May 17 regular meeting.
The amendments call for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for certain uses and provide parking reductions to encourage development.
However, the more controversial changes had to do with the parking of recreational vehicles. The changes “clarify” that only low-profile recreational equipment, vehicles and watercraft — such as boats, jet skis, utility trailers, tent trailers, travel trailers and truck campers — when attached to an operational vehicle, are permitted to park in the frontyard setback of a home but only if they are at least 5 feet away from the front property line and aren’t used for living or sleeping.
Complaints triggered the text amendments, according to Naomi Leeman, senior planner. She noted the city didn’t have anything “strong” in the code that addressed large vehicles blocking visibility in the driveway. This only deals with the front setback, not the side or back setbacks, she added.
During the work session, Deputy Mayor Gary Knight expressed concern with the then-proposed changes. He said cutting off 5 feet from a homeowner’s driveway “doesn’t seem right.”
“You tell me the guy can’t park (a recreational vehicle) in front of his garage if it gets into the 5 feet clear zone and he doesn’t even reach the sidewalk? So now he’s gonna have to go rent a storage when he owns the house?” he asked.
“That’s a perfect solution,” Community Development Director Laurie Lineberry said.
“It’s not a perfect solution. It’s a costly and expensive solution,” Knight said. “He owns the house, he owns the property, he owns the driveway. It’s all his, he paid for it. He bought the boat. He doesn’t want to go buy a storage area.”
“Although it’s your property, zoning covers private property … That’s what we do,” Lineberry said, noting that the city “gets complaints on a regular basis on this issue.”
“I understand that. There’s people who don’t have things like that, don’t want things like that and don’t want anyone else to either,” Knight said. “But I still don’t like it. I still think it encroaches on individual rights.”
Mayor Doug Nicholls, saying he would be throwing on his “engineer hat,” questioned enforcement of the code. “It’s going to be extremely hard to enforce because property lines are all over the place. Generally in the newer subdivisions it’s 2-3 feet behind sidewalks,” he said.
As far as the sight distances,
Nicholls said “it behooves the person entering the traffic to make sure they’re entering safely and you’re taking 5 feet from someone’s property ... I’m not seeing it.”
Lineberry explained that the code needed clarification. “Right now the current code says you can’t park in the front yard. You can only park in the driveway. Every complaint we get and take to the prosecutor can’t be enforced. So we built a stronger case and you decide. Do we want to enforce that in our community and not have people park all of their RVs and extra-curricular activity vehicles in their front yard? Or do we want to have a limitation on that because that will help us with our code enforcement situation, which is challenging at best.”
Although no members of the public spoke during the May 17 meeting, Jeff Kammann submitted a written comment to the city: “Regulating what people do or don’t do in their front yards is beyond the scope of what the city has control over. If people want to park a boat or trailer on their property they should be allowed to do so. This is a stupid idea.”
During a March 13 Planning and Zoning public hearing, Charles Rose said the text amendments would have a negative impact on recreational vehicle subdivisions and suggested that the driveway be excluded from the front-yard setback.
“These are changes that will affect virtually thousands of Yuma residents
that engage in recreational activities that require specialty equipment and the storage thereof,” Fred M. Schultz said in an email to the Yuma Sun. “Thousands of people … will no doubt be caught completely off guard.”
As for parking, the amendment reduces the number of parking spaces required for certain uses — cafes, restaurants, cocktail lounges, bars; hotels and motels; motor vehicle or machinery retail sales; retail stores, shops, convenience food stores; wholesaling and warehousing; and shopping centers - allows reductions based on special circumstances, and changes the definition of a parking lot from four spaces to five spaces.
The goal of the text amendment is to provide adequate parking while “limiting excessive, unnecessary” parking spaces.
“Land within the city is a finite resource that can be put to a more productive use than parking … Fewer parking spaces also allow for a more walkable environment and reduce the impacts of the urban heat island effect,” a staff report stated.
The reductions also serve to encourage development by lowering the cost of development citywide, staff said.
Parking reductions are especially meant to encourage infill development within the city’s redevelopment areas.