Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1981/09/23 AGENDA City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, September 23, 1981 - 5:00 p.m. Conference Room 3 1. Presentation by Hartson'sAmbulance Service 2." Discussion of Imperial Beach court case regarding adult book stores (see attached materials) 3. Discussion of standards for private schools (see attached memo dated December 12, 1979) 4. Discussion of forthcoming ordinance governing the storage and parking of recreational vehicles (see attached regulation) 5. Commission Comments 6. Adjournment August 19, 1981 To: Planning Commission From: D.J. Peterson Subject: Court Case re. adult recreation uses During the Planning Commission's consideration of the zoning text amendment eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit for adult recreation uses, several members of.the Commission expressed some reservation about the need for the revised ordinance. The City Attorney's office felt that the Commission may benefit from a reading of the case. Copies are attached. ~. J~.'Peterson Director of Planning DJP:hm Attachment 134 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH V. PALM AVENUE BOOKS, INC. 115 CaI.App.3d 134: -- CaI.Rptr. -- [Civ. No. 2~490. Fourth Dist.i Div. OnE. Jan. 23, 1981.] CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. ~' ~ PALM AVENUE BOOKS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. SUMMARY A city filed a civil complaint seeking to enjoin as a public nuisance the operation of an adult bookstore which was licensed as a retail busi- ness by the city but which had refused to apply for a conditional use permit as required by a municipal ordinance. The trial court sustained the bookstore's demurrer to the complaint, finding that the require- ments of the conditiona use permit ordinance were unconstitutional. (Superior Court of San Diego County No. 442787, Louis M. Welsh, Judge.) . The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the dtsputed portions of the ordinance, which applied to adult bookstores and adult motion picture theatres, and which therefore involved the regulation of protected First Amendment activities, were subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and held that the standards enumerated in the ordinance to guide the city planning commission in the granting and denial of appli- cations were unconstitutionally vague, uncertain, and overbroad. The court also held that the language of the ordinance conferred an imper- missible quantum of discretion upon the city in ruling upon even those applications which met the specified standards. The court declined to assess the sanctions provided for by Code Civ. Proc., § 907, against the city, even though the court held that the statute applies equally to a municipality as to any other party and even though the court held that the city's appeal was marginally frivolous and had little merit. (Opinion by Kilgarif, J.*, with Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Work, J., concurring.). *Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [Jan. 1'98~1] CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH v. PALM AVENUE BOOKS INC. 135 115 CaI.App.3d 134:-- CaLRptr.-- HEADNOTES Classified to California Digest of Official Reports, 3d Series (.1) Zoning and Planning § 24--Conditional Uses; Permits and Certifi- cates-Constitutionality-Requirement of Permit for Operation of ~ ~,~ Adult Bookstore.--A municipal zoning ordinance requiring a con- adents, ditional use permit for the operation of an adult bookstore was ..... ~,~*,~:-~ subject to strict scrutiny by the court because such ordinance in- .... .~? c~?~-,~ volved the regulation of protected First Amendment activities. ' "~'t ........ ; (2) Constitutional Law § 61--First Amendment and Other Fundamen- :,"~!·~:.~! ~:! i tal Rights of Citizens--Governmental Regulation and Restriction of Fundamental Rights--Necessity for Specificlty.--Statutes which alsance . il busi- -?~--; authorize public officials to license conduct protected by the First -~:'::;,',~ Amendment must set forth definite, objective guidelines for the is- ual use stained ~? suance of such licenses. ieqmr - a~sa~. ;?..:13; (3) Zoning and Planning § 24--Conditional Uses; Permits and Certifi- ~?~.? cates--Constitutionality--Requirement of Permit for Operation of Adult Bookstore.--A municipal zoning ordinance requiring a con- ~:~.;.'. ditional use permit for the operation of an adult bookstore iisputed :-")kg.~ provided standards for the issuance of such a permit which were ~d adult ']~i! unconstitutionally vague, uncertain, and overbroad, and therefore ation of '~!~ constituted an impermissible prior restraint upon activity protected judicial '~'!"~:! by the First Amendment, where such ordinance required that the · ~,~, proposed use must contribute to the ~general Well-being" of the neighborhood or community, and not be "detrimental to the ff appli- ~::~: health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in ad. The ~imper- ':":: the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the :n those ,:.,.. vicinity." lined to :. [See CaI.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law, § 255; Am. Jur.2d, Consti- finst the tutional Law, § 522.] dly to a '-,. ,eld that ' ' (4) Zoning and Planning § 24--Conditional Uses; Permits and Certifi- Opinion ,~: cates--Constitutionality--Requirement of Permit for Operation of :urring.) ·' ~, Adult Bookstore.--A municipal zoning ordinance which required a · !:'..i- conditional use permit for the operation of an adult bookstore, and ·" which specified that the city planning commission ~may' grant · ~,':: such permit upon finding certain conditions to have been met by ~. the proposed operation, conferred upon the city an impermissible quantum of discretion in the granting and denial of such permits. Jan. 1981] [Jan. 1981] . 136 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH V. PALM AVENUE BOOKS, IN(~." CiTY O[ 115 Cal.App.3d 34: CaI.Rptr. -- 115 Cal., (5) Appellate Review § 118--Dismissal--Grounds--Frivolous and which i.' Sham Appeals. The sanctions provided for by Code Civ. Proc., cials, § 907, are justified to discourage frivolous appeals, and a mumci- protccte pality should not be treated differently than any other party who - makes use of the appellate process for frivolous purposes. ' Defer '-2,:' based o suant tc ;:.,vt- defend COUNSEL A zor Jack F. Fitzmaurice and Vivien C Fitzmaurice for Plaintiff and is much Appellant. various Thomas F. Homann for Defendants and Respondents. ';'~ 1975) 5 ~?-;> of any OP~ xloN .: ?'-3 of Supe !:.Z$ in resid. KILGARIF, &*--The City of Imperial Beach (City) filed a civil com- plaint against defendants, Maurice Escott and Palm Avenue Books, Inc. (Escott) to enjoin operation of an adult bookstore as a public nuisance, nances, The bookstore was licensed as a retail business by the City. The City scrutiny contended that the operation of an adult bookstore required a condition- Cal. Rpt al use permit in compliance with sections 19.60.010 and 19.82.050 of the Imperial Beach Municipal Code. City demanded that Escott obtain Secti~ a conditional use permit but defendants refused to submit an applica- .i ~".;,' lmperia tion for a conditional use permit. . ~;; ';'" City's motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary in- F.' scribed junction were denied. Defendant's demurrer to the complaint was :.,-. C-I zor sustained without leave to amend, the court finding the requirements of ': ' Adult n the conditional use permit to be unconstitutional. A judgment of dis- ' :: missal was entered and the City appeals the rulings of the superior ,'. The City contends on appeal (1) the ordinances are a legitimate exer- ., commis cise of their legislative police power, and (2) they must be enforced. ,',':' - Escott raises the substantive issue whether a City may constitutional- ly require a bookstore to obtain a conditional use permit, the issuance of desirab] · *Assigned by thc Chairperson of the Judicial Council. ,. general . [Jan. 1981] [Jan. 198 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH V. PALM AVENUE BOOKS, INC. 137 115 CaI.App.3d 134:-- Cal. Rptr. -- which is in the uncontrolled discretion of the City's administrative offi- cials, before a bookseller can exhibit and sell "adult" materials protected by the federal and state Constitutions. wh~~ D'~fendants argue the appeal is frivolous and the judgment below was based on well-established and controlling law. They seek damages pur- suant to section 907 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being forced to defend this matter. A zoning ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power, and there and ': is much authority for establishment of specific locational regulations for various uses within the designated zone. The courts have approved loca- tional requirements (American Mini Theatres, Inc. v. Gribbs (6th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 1014), "adult theatres not be located within 1,000 feet of any two other 'regulated uses' or within 500 feet of a residential ~:"'~ zone"; Schroeder v. Municipal Court (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 841 [141 :'~'~:: :- Cal. Rptr. 85], "high antennae in residential area"; Matthews v. Board :~!:~72.~ . of Supervisors (1962) 203 Cal. App.2d 800 [21 Cal. Rptr. 914], "church · ~..~r,~ in residential zone." , Inc. ,'.?~_ {1) First Amendment activities necessarily subject licensing ordi- ance. '~: nances, such as the Imperial Beach ordinance in question, to strict Ciyl ~3; scrutiny. (Perrine v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 656 [97 ~tmn-: ~,,: CaI.Rptr. 320, 488 P.2d 648].) 50 of :3 ~<" brain ' Section 19.60.010 A, B, C and 19.82.050 are the portions of the plica-" "~ Imperial Beach Code at issue in this case. ' .(;,::, ·~' :... "19.60.010 Conditional use permit--Required. The following de- -y in- . :. scribed businesses shall only be permitted by conditional use permit in a was . C-I zone: A. Adult bookstores; B. Adult motion picture theaters; C. ~ts of Adult mini-motion picture theaters; t' dis- ~erior · ~: "19.82.050 Issuance criteria. After the public hearing, the planning :: :' 5' commission may,* by resolution, grant a conditional use permit if the commission finds, from the evidence presented in the application or at ,. ;. ~ the hearing, that all of the following facts exist: *(Italics added.) iona ~'~< ~ce of .-.,. "A. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or ~v~ desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the ..<,~,; general well-being of the neighborhood or community; · 1981]., ,~ [Jan. 1981] 138 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH ¥. PALM AVENUE BOOKS, CITY OF IMPERIAL 115 CaI.App.3d 134:-- CaI.Rptr. 115 Cal. App.3d 134; "B. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular or injurious to p~ set up a "subje~ case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons measurement de residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property (1951) 340 U.S. ments in the vicinity; '...~ cuit v. Dallas (1 "C. That the proposed use will comply with the regulations and con:~ The standards of ditions specified in this title for such use and for other uses permitted in ': Interstate held t the same zone; '~ '~ expression is sut (4) The Imp~ "D. That the granting of such conditional use will be in harmony grant the condit with the purpose and intent of this title and the general plan of the city., ~-.~!~ lants torture tt (Ord. 307 (part), 1972: prior code § 937.12.A)." :~ , frequently const This ordinance seeks to regulate the operation of an adult bookstore, ';~';?: not be the slave and to use its ~zoning-~conditional use~rdinance' to do what the law ~&~ which would di< says it cannot do under licensing statutes. (Barry v. City of Oceanside v,i have no proble (1980) 107 Cal. App.3d 257 [165 Cal. Rptr. 697]; Perrine v. Municipal ~ ~ Cal.3d 860 [94 Court, supra, 5 CaL3d 656, 661-663; Burton v. Municipal Court :? Court, supra, 5 (1968) 68 Cal.2d 684 [68 Cal. Rptr. 721, 441 P.2d 281].) .: :~.:. · missive and cor .t.- in the city. Th (2) Statutes which authorize public officials to license conduct pro- '~:6; issue even if ar tected by the First Amendment, such as operation of an adult bookstore, must set forth defimte, object,ye gmdebnes for the ~ssuanc ~;~ The ordinan~ of such licenses. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone, plication for · "!~::~ provisions of .~ Imperial Beaclr In Barry, the city counsel revoked the business license of an adult bookstore on the ground that it was a threat to the public health, wel- '7?': be unconstitut fare and safety, much the same as the ordinance in issue herein. This '¥~ First Amendm court held the ordinance in Barry was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and a prior restraint against activity protected by the First ~:3...1 Defendants ",~ Code of Civil Amendment. The danger of censorship and arbitrary suppression inher- ent in the employment of such imprecise standards is so great that ~:';~- to the reviewi~ proof of !)~[ii~ [ COSTS on appel voiding of such regulations is required evea in the absence of actual discrimination. (Burton v. Municipal Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d. ~!,~ (5)A peru 684.) '~ :v, vent unneces: (3) The Imperial Beach Code section 19.82.050 uses the criteria '~i~? appeals havin condemned as unconstitutional in Barry and Burton. Section A requires i:~.:-. 1 justified ~whe that the proposed use contribute to the general well-being of the neigh- ~/?,'-~ [ 2d 376, 377 borhood or community. Section B requires that said use, under the circumstances of the particular case, not be detrimental to the health, Y%~l 1022 [145 C~ safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, ~5-1 610, 614 [11 [Jan. 1981] r?~I [Jan. 1981] S, INC. ' CiTY OF IMPERIAL BEACH V. PALM AVENUE BooKs, INC. 139 · "* 115 Cal.App.3d 134: -- Cal. Rptr. -- -t~cular' - -~ ~<.,'.~'~'or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. These sections ~ersons-!;~.'~c',q: set up a "subjective" standard incapable of the precise ~objective' ' · -.~::;~-<. measurement demanded by Barry, Burton, and Kunz v. New York -,',.,~57: (1951) 340 U.S. 290 [95 L.Ed. 280, 71 S.Ct. 312], and fnterstate Cir- ~,.,.::;:,,:~<. cult v. Dallas (1968) 390 U.S. 676 [20 L.Ed.2d 225, 88 S.Ct. 1298]. ~d conz ):<;~-~ - The standards of this ordinance are vague, uncertain and overly broad. itted in .'~::; ~ Interstate held the vice of vagueness is particularly pronounced where :.~";, ?:~.~76, expression is subjected to licensing. :-~:::' ~: (4) The Imperial Beach ordinance provides that the City "may" ~rmony ::-:'/:7 grant the conditional use permit if certain findings are made. Appel- he city. .~}:-4' lants torture the interpretation of the word ~may.' Black's Law -,: Dictionary gives broad leeway in such interpretation: ~[C]ourts not in- ~. , ~ frequently construe 'may' as 'shall' or 'must' to the end that justice may )kstor , -~:: not be the slave of grammar." Without any provision in the ordinance the law ::;.:~; which would dictate that the use of the word "may" is mandatory, we eanside " have no problem in following Dillon v. Municipal Court (1971) 4 ~nicipal ~,~ Cal.3d 860 [94 Cal. Rptr. 777, 484 p.2d 945] and Perrine v. Municipal Court · ~;.~. Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 656, 662, which finds the use of ~may' as per- · :'.:-? missive and condemned as vesting an exorbitant quantum of discretion .... 5'::, in the city. There is no guarantee that a conditional use permit will ~ct pro- ~:.>~ issue even if an application met all the conditions of the sections. ~ adult ~ ssuance .~;~.- The ordinance as written confers unlimited authority to deny any ap- ~. .~,. ,~f~.:~ ptication for an adult bookstore license. No other reading of the ~.5 '~ provisions of the ordinance is intellectually supportable. We bold .n adult : ' Imperial Beach ordinance, sections 19.60.010 A, B, C, and 19.82.050 to th, wel- ~':: be unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and a prior restraint against in. This '~' First Amendment protected activity. he First ' . Defendants urge that sanctions be imposed against the City under n inher- Code of Civil Procedure section 907, which provides ~'when it appears :at that to the reviewing court that the appeal is frivolous .... it may add to the proof of ~' costs on appeal such damages as may be just." . Cal.2d '.55 (5) A penalty is justitied to discourage frivolous appeals and to pre- :..' vent unnecessary appellate costs to a litigant and to save time for criteria . ' appeals having merit or, where the law is unsettled. Penalties have been requires ~.~ justified ~when the law is clear~ (Towle v. Lewis (1969) 274 Cal. App. e neigh- . ~ 2d 376, 377 [79 Cal. Rptr. 124]); "when there is 'no merit' in an ider the )~; appeal" (In re Marriage of Schwander (1978) 79 CaI.App. 3d 1013, · health, :(~i! 1022 [145 CaI.Rptr. 325]); and Parker v. Parker (1974) 43 CaI.App.3d vicinity. 'yri~~ I 610, 614 [117 Cal. Rptr. 707]. 140 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH v. PALM AVENUE BOOKS, INC. ;¥, 115 CaI.App.3e 115 CaI.App.3d 134;-- Cal. Rptr. A municipality should not be treated differently than any other party ..~. who makes use of the appellate process for frivolous purposes. (Peopl~ v. Hawley (1932) 119 Cai. App. 548, 551-552 [6 P.2d 976].) ' '~ [civ. No. 57571 The City in this appeal is trying to circumvent a clear line of consis- tent, unquestioned and unambiguous decisions from this court (Barry v. ' HARRY W, City of Oceanside, supra, 107 Cal. App. 3d 257), the California Supreme TOM HERb Court and the United States Supreme Court. The issue on this appeal is not novel. Appellant has ignored the cases directly on point and present- ed arguments flying contra to clear holdings in Burton v. Municipal ~ SUrMMARV Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d 684; Perrine v. Municipal Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 656; Barry v. City of Oceanside, supra; and People v. Glaze ~i~,~ Two form, (1980) 27 Cal.3d 841 [166 Cal.rptr. 859, 614 P.2d 291]. This is an against the abortive attempt by the City to control an adult bookstore, about them judgment on Judgment on dismissal against the City was entered on January 25, ':}) their inabilit 1980. The City gave notice of appeal 6n January 29, 1980. Barry v. ', ~. the basis thz City of Oceanside, supra, 107 Cal. App.3d 257, one of the prime cases ;¢ were unable controlling this appeal, was published in June 1980, nearly 60 days be- standard. (S fore the City filed their opening brief. Barry dealt with the same '~ Arden T. Je~ subject matter and involved a municipality within the San Diego Coun- ty, the county in which appellant City is located. ,: The Court :~' the result an, Burton and Perrine, supra, were argued and cited in each of the su- al fact and perior court hearings. There is little merit in the City's position the matter of la Young, Schroeder, Matthews cases, supra, should be controlling. Auto ~. held that th~ Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 [20 dants offerec Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937], mandate the superior court and this . since plaintit court follow established "rules of superior jurisdiction." We have found ' of the eviden that Burton, Perrine, 'Dillon and Barry, supra, constitute 'rules of supe- ~: tiffs with re rior jurisdiction" which we must follow. · '. Court also i~: union meeti~ Although the appeal is marginally frivolous and has little merit, we lished with assess no sanctions. . ,!. statements a Court held Judgment affirmed. '~7~ labor law d, B~/own (Gerald) P. J., and Work, J., concurred. Court proper ice, since n( raised any t of mind in P. J., with [Jan. 1981]' [Jan. 1981] December 12, 1979 - To: D.J. Peterson, Director of Planning From: Daniel M. Pass, AICP Senior Planner Steve Griffin, AIC? Assistant Planner Subject: Private School Site Planning Standards A. BACKGROUND 1. Pursuant to your instructions of November 15, 1979, the Advance Planning Division has prepared the private nursery school and private elementary school standards which are embodied in the "Design Standards" section of this report. The Division, during the course of this preparation utilized the standards and criteria suggested by several authoritative works of city planners, townscape planners, landscape architects, and professional recreators. The attached bibliography credits these sources. 2. Special mention must be made of the services rendered by Rober~ W. Sennett, the City Landscape Architect, whom provided much information and guidance. Mr. Sennett, over a period of twelve years, participated in the olanning and replanning of more than 200 school camDuses. B. Design Standards for the Site Planning of Private Nursery and Elementary Schools (Kindergarten through the 6th Grade) 1. Nursery Schools a. Students per acre (maximum) 60 b. Students per classroom (maximum) 15 c. Building floor area (minimum)/classroom 1,000 sq. ft. d. Play area/150 students 1.85 ac. e. Basic Allocation of play areas (1) Turf 75% (2) Hardscape, courts, walks 15% (3) Untreated areas (sand, dirt, equipment) 10% f. Area of 1SO-student nursery school 2.5 ac. g. Off-street parking 1.0 space/2 classrooms Notes The above site-olanning standards for nursery schools were developed, to a very limited extent, from information secured from several sources. The Advance Planning Division found verX little authority on the subject, and therefore was required to develop in-office criteria. The suggested 2.5 acre site for a lO-classroom school would acconTnodate the class- room building, play area, landscape areas, and off-street parkin~ area. Page 2 2. Elementary Schools (K thru 6)" a. Students per acre (maximum) 45 b. Students per classroom (maximum) x 30 c. Building floor area (minimum)/classroom 1,000 sq. ft. d. Play area/150 students 2.75 acres e. Basic Allocation of play areas (1) Turf 50% (2) Hardscape, courts, walks 30% (3) Untreated areas (sand, dirt, equipment) 20% f. Area of the Site of a 150-student elementary school 3.4 acres g. Off-street parking (minimum) 1.0 space/classroom + 3 spaces Notes In California, a standard site for a two-unit, 500-student elementary school is ten acres. It is predicated upon the formula of "five acres per elementary school, plus one acre per each one-hundred students." The California density standard is supported by the authors of authoritative American urban planning texts, including Chapin, Eisner, Koppelmann, and Nez. Prior to 1959, the Ministry of Education of Great Britain mandated the California density standard. Its subsequent reduction has been almost universally attacked by British town and country planners, and by the leading British planning theorist, Lewis Keeble. The California standard primarily governs public schools, but there is no sound argument against its application to private elementary schools. The recreational and educational space needs of children remain constant, notwithstanding the owner- ship of the elementary school. Despite this constancy, the Planning Department has found that most private schools are situated on small sites, and do not meet the standards proposed in this paper.* C. CONCLUSION The proposed site planning standards are designed to provide the Planning Commission, Cit7 Council, City staff and developers guidelines for the siting and establishment of private nursery and elementary schools in Chula Vista. These standards, under certain circumstances, could be varied, and therefore should not be regarded as firm regulations. ~ Site Evaluation of Four Private Schools ReQuired Site Area/ Elementary School Area of Site No. of Students Draft Standards Pilgrim Lutheran 0.7 Ac. 112 2.5 Ac. St. Plus X 3.2 Ac. 255 5.7 Ac. St. Rose of Lima 2.3 Ac. 226 5.0 Ac. S. D. Hebrew Day School 1.9 Ac. 202 5.0 Ac. Bibliography Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr., Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana, 1963. University of Illinois Press. District Standards, A Guide for School Construction. San Oiego: 1976. San Oiego Unified School District. De Chiara and Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria. New York: 1969. Van Nostranu Reinhold Company. Englehardt, N., Complete Guide for Planninq New Schools. Inglewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1970. Parker Publishing Company, Inc. Gallion and Eisner, The Urban Pattern, City Planninq and Desiqn, 3rd Ed., New York: 1975. D. Van Hostranm Company. Keeble, Lewis, Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning, 4th Edition. London: 1972. The Estates Gazette Limited McLean, Mary, Editor, Local Planning Administration. Chicago: 1959. ICMA. · .-'- DRAFT EXHIBIT A Proposed addendum of Section 19.62.200 to Chapter 19.62 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING 19.62.200 Outdoor parking and storage of boats and recreation vehicles on residential sites in all zones The following regulations shall govern the outdoor parking and storage of boats, boats mounted on trailers, campers, campers mounted on trucks, motor homes, vacation %railers, and similar recreation vehicles in all residential areas. A. Boa~s, boats mounted on trailers, or campers not mounted on trucks shall not be parked or stored to the front of residential buildings, or within the required side yards on residential lots. B. Motor homes, campers mounted on trucks, vacation trailers, or similar recreation vehicles shall not be parked or stored to the front of residential buildings or within the required side yards of residential lots, except where such parking or storage is permitted under subsection C of this section. C. Motor homes, campers mounted on trucks, vacation trailers, or similar recreation vehicles which do not exceed 21 feet in over all length may be parked or stored on private driveways or expanded driveways, provided that the expanded driveways are situated within the "Authorized Vehicle Storage Areas" depicted on Figure 1 of this section, and paved to city standards. D. Boats, boats mounted on trailers, campers, campers mounted on trucks, motor homes, vacation trailers or similar recreation vehicles may be parked or stored within the required rear yards of residential lots, or along the sides of residential buildings, provided that such parking or storage does not encroach upon required side yards.