HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 BACKGROUND TO ORDINANCE NO. 1240~~~~ s
~ ~.
A enda Item
AGENDA REPORT Reviewed:
City Manager
Finance Directo
MEETING DATE: MAY 4, 2010
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: BACKGROUND RELATED TO THREE-FOOT LANDSCAPE
REQUIREMENT -ORDINANCE NO. 1240
SUMMARY:
7
r _~
On March 16, 2010, the City Council directed staff to provide a history of the ordinance
which requires athree-foot landscape buffer between residential properties and to
provide examples of code enforcement cases. This direction originated when several
residents expressed concern about receiving a Notice of Violation (NOV) of the Tustin
City Code. The NOV's were issued for non-compliance with TCC section 9267(a)(3)
which requires athree-foot wide landscape area between the driveway areas and the
adjacent side property lines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impacts.
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved Ordinance No. 1240 (Attachment A)
which provided development standards for driveways of residential properties and
driveways in commercial and industrial districts. As it applies to residential districts, the
ordinance requires parking and driveway areas within the front yard setback to be
separated with a minimum three-foot landscape area between the parking or driveway
area and the adjacent side or rear property line. It also limits the total paved area not to
exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total front yard setback area.
Ordinance No. 1240 applied immediately to all residential lots in the City. However, an
exception was included for residential lots with existing paved areas in excess of the
requirements which were constructed or installed prior to September 6, 2001. These lots
City Council Report
Three-foot Landscape Requirement
Page 2
were given thirty-six (36) months to comply with the requirements of the ordinance. The
exception expired on September 6, 2004. Thereafter, property owners were required to
comply with the ordinance (an example diagram of the required 3-foot landscape area is
shown in Attachment B).
Prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 1240, the City's standards for driveways only
provided the minimum requirement for driveway width and did not regulate the
maximum allowable area for pavement. At that time, the entire front yard area was
allowed to be paved. Ordinance No. 1240 required athree-foot area between adjacent
property lines to be landscaped. It also limited the total paved area not to exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the total front yard setback area.
Ordinance No. 1240 originated from members of the Planning Commission who
requested that standards be drafted to regulate driveway widths for residential and non-
residential properties. The request was made due to a concern that an increasing
number of properties had paved over large areas of the front yard for use as parking
lots. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission and subsequently
adopted Ordinance No. 1240.
DISCUSSION:
Since implementation of Ordinance No. 1240 in 2001, code enforcement officers have
received approximately twenty five complaints involving separate residential properties
in violation of this code section. The majority of these code enforcement cases affect
single family neighborhoods where a driveway has been extended to the property line
on one side.
Examples of recent cases are shown in Attachment C. As shown in slide one and two,
some of these cases dealt with properties where the driveway extended property line to
property line creating a single slab of concrete between the two properties. Other
cases, as shown in slides three through eight, involved driveways which extended to the
property line. To date, twenty of the twenty-five properties were modified to comply with
the code (Reference Attachment C).
On March 16, 2010, several affected property owners appeared before the City Council
on this matter. At that time, the City Council directed staff to defer additional
enforcement until additional information could be provided by staff.
City Council may consider directing staff to resume enforcement of Ordinance No. 1240
or the Council may direct staff to prepare a code amendment based on City Council
direction.
Amy Thomas, AICP Elizabeth A. Binsack
Senior Planner Community Development Director
City Council Report
Three-foot Landscape Requirement
Page 3
Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 1240
B. Diagram of Required Three-Foot Landscape Area
C. Code Enforcement Case Examples
D. Code Enforcement Case Before/After Examples
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. 1240
ORDINANCE NO. 1240
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
la
19
zo
zl
22
23
24
2s
26
27
is
t
29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 00-001, AN
AMENDMENT TO TUSTIN CITY CODE ARTICLE 9
CHAPTER 2 BY ADDING SECTIONS 9221.a.1(j), 9222.a.1(j),
9223.a.1(j), 9224.g.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.2(j), 9225.b.1Q),
9225.b.2(k), 9226.a.1(k), 9226.a.2(k), 9226.b.2(i), 9226.b.3(k),
9226.b.4(i), 9226.b.5(~), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b.12, 9228.b.4(k),
9228.b.5Q), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9, 9232.b(j)(10), 9232.b(k)(8),
9232.c(2)(g), 9233.b(7), 9233(c)(m)(10), 9234.b(h), 9234.d(h),
9234.e(i), 9235.f(9), 9241.c(j), 9242.c(d), 9271.bb, AND
9299.b.(1)(h) RELATED TO DRIVEWAYS STANDARDS,
AND AMENDING SECTION 9297 TO INCLUDE
DEFINITIONS FOR A DRIVEWAY AND PAVED AREA.
The City Council ofi the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS
A. That an amendment to Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 2 related to
driveways has been prepared to provide standards for driveways and paved
areas on residential, commercial, and industrial properties.
B. That on June 11, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve Code Amendment 00-001 to provide standards for
driveways and paved areas for residential, commercial, and industrial
properties and directed staff to focus enforcement in areas of concern.
C. That on June 18, 2001, a public hearing was continued by the City Council
on said code amendment to allow for City Attorney to identify issues and
impacts related to retroactive enforcement.
D. That on July 16, 2001, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held
on said code amendment by the City Council.
E. That the City's current standards for driveways within residential districts
only provide the minimum requirement for driveway width. As such,
property owners. could pave the entire front yards converting the yards
into parking lots inconsistent with the goal of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing
community for residents and businesses (Goal No. 4).
F. That the City's current standards for driveways within the commercial and
industrial districts only provide the minimum requirements for driveway
width. As such commercial and industrial properties could have driveways
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 2 of 5
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
z~
2s
wider than driveway approaches standards within the public right-of-way
and resulting in safety hazards.
G. The proposed amendment is. regulatory in nature and would provide
consistency for determining the minimum and the maximum driveway
width in residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. The
proposed amendment's limitation on the installation and maintenance of
impervious materials in required front yards would limit the amount of
storm-water run-off attributed to each developed property in the City. The
proposed amendment would also create an aesthetically pleasing
community for residents and businesses by limiting the amount of
hardscaping in the front of properties and requiring all unpaved areas be
improved with landscape materials.
H. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and
policies, particularly:
Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community
for residents and businesses;
Policy 6.2: Encourage and promote high quality design and physical
appearance in all development projects;
Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residentia! character
and small town° quality by encouraging and maintaining
Tustin's low-density residential neighborhoods through
enforcement of existing Land use and property development
standards and the harmonious blending of buildings and
landscape;
Policy 6.6.d: Improve the overall quality of Tustin's multi-family
neighborhoods through improved site, building, and
landscape design; and,
Policy 6.12: Review and revise, as necessary, the City's development
standards to improve the quality of new development in the
City and to protect the public health and safety.
That the code amendment provides an exemption for those properties that
have been improved with paved areas authorized and approved through a
building permit or discretionary entitlement by the City.
A Final Negative Declaration has been adopted for this project in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves amendments to the residential,
commercial, and industrial zoning districts of Tustin City Code as follows:
29
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 3 of 5
Sections 9221.a.1 Q), 9222.a.1(j), 9223.a.1 Q), 9224.8.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.2(j),
9225.b.1(j), 9225.b.2(k), 9226.a.1(k), 9226.a.2(k), 9226.b.2(i), 9226.b.3(k), 9226.b.4(i),
9226.b.5(j), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b.12, 9228.b.4(k), 9228.b.5('j), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9,
9232.b(j)(10), 9232.b(k)(8), 9232.c(2)(g), 9233.b(7), 9233(c)(m)(10), 9234.b(h), 9234.d(h),
9234,e(i), 9235.f(9), 9241.c(j), and 9242.c(d) shall be added to read:
"Driveways: Subject to Subsection 9271(bb)°
to
I1
lz
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
zs
29
Subsection 9271(bb) is added as fol{ows:
a. Driveways for Residential Districts: If the garage or carport is designed for
one or two vehicles, the driveway width within the front yard setback, as
defined in Section 9297 of Tustin City Code, shall be a minimum of twelve
(12) feet and a maximum of twenty-four (24) feet; if the garage or carport
is designed for three or more vehicles, the driveway width within the front
yard setback shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet and a maximum of
thirty (30) feet. Paved areas for accessory residential uses such as the
parking of vehicles or providing pedestrian access to the residence may
be provided within the front yard setback of residentia! districts if the total
paved area does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total front yard
setback, the parking of vehicles does not obstruct ingress and egress to
required parking, and all of the requirements of this Section can be met.
For lots at the end of cul-de-sacs with a lot frontage of less than forty (40)
feet, the parking and driveway areas within the front yard setback shall not
exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total front yard setback. Total
width may be divided for properties with two (2) driveways. Parking and
driveway areas within the front yard setback shall be separated with a
minimum of a three (3) foot landscape area. between the parking or
driveway area and the adjacent side or rear properly line.
b. .Driveways for Commercial and Industrial Districts: One~nray driveways
within the front yard area, as defined in Section 9297 of the Tustin City
Code, would have a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet and a maximum
width of twenty (20) feet. Two-way driveways within the front yard would
have a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet and a maximum width of
thirty-five (35) feet.
c. Paved areas may be improved with impervious materials including, but
not limited to, concrete, bricks, slate or stone tiles, decorative stamped
concrete, or any other permanent hardscape. No decomposed granite,
gravel, or other loose materials shat! be allowed. Unimproved and/or
unpaved portions of the front yard setback area in residential districts or
front yards in commercial or industrial districts shall be improved and
maintained with appropriate landscaping in a healthy and vigorous
condition.
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 4 of 5
d. The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all lots in the City, except
that for lots with paved areas in excess of the requirements specified in
this Subsection constructed or installed prior to September 6, 2001, such
excess paved areas shall be discontinued, removed, or altered to conform
to the provisions of this Subsection within thirty-six (36) months after the
latter of the following dates: (1) the effective date of this Subsection
(September 6, 2001); or (2) the date of notice of abatement issued by the
Director of Community Development or the Director's designee.
Section 9297 is amended to include definitions for the following:
to
I1
lz
13
14
is
l6
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
zs
"Driveway" means a paved area of a lot located between the public right-
of-way and the. garage, carport, or required parking space designed and
intended as an access way between a private or public road and the
garage, carport, or required parking space.
"Paved Area" means an area of any required yard which is constructed
with impervious materials which either results in an increase in the amount
of storm water run-off into public storm drainage facilities or hinders
natural percolation of storm water on the subject property.
Subsection 9299.b.(1)(h) is added to read:
"An increase of not more than ten (10) percent in the maximum permitted
driveways within the front yard setback for residential districts or the front
yard for commercial and industrial districts.'
Section 3. SEVERABILITY
All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the
purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular
facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts,
all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shalt continue to be fully effective.
P~SSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting
o~ the 6~' day of August, 2001.
T I L WORLEY
n _ ayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 5 of 5
I
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
4 CITY OF TUSTIN )
s CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1240
6 I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
7 California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above foregoing Ordinance No. 1240 was duly and
8 regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16~' day of
9 July, 2001, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting
of the City Council held on the 6th day of August, 2001 by the following vote:
to
11 COUNCILPERSONS AYES: Thomas, Bone, Doyle
12 COUNCILPERSONS NOES: None
COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: None
13 COU CILPERSONS ABSENT: Worley, Kawashima
14 /
amela Stoker, City Clerk
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24 '~'
25
26
27
28
29
ATTACHMENT B
Diagram of
Required Three-Foot Landscape Area
~;f;i 1
_ _. .. ~~
i ~
+f r
'~ ~ A
J
~Q®y~
T ~
I
1t{~!
`Jt} . "~
i ~ 'I ~J~
£k t .y~}i
~t't J~Yl.yl
~ u
~~ i <
v~~~i ~ .
i ~
~j e(~~ ~.
t ~ i~ of}jFl ~~' '~
\~~
r~ ~
i ~~ ~~
I k j j„.,
kl, ~ ~x ~.
~ ! Ak',
4~,
a ~ ,Y
I, y
~~,4
1„~
i'; y~y,.
i'A6~
i
ATTACHMENT C
Code Enforcement Cases Examples
!,
wry,.
R 3
~~.
~~;
? ~i Ae
u^~~ .
-,.9'.'r
} y,
~'
~~~
1
Jf
~ ~a'f
f '~..1.~:'tl
r
O~
"rr^.
_a
0 0
l=J U
0
^~^n
~V
,` . ~
.. ~ ~ hr
& ~ Q
c C" r r~-
(~ •
1
j"
s i4
~ t
~~~ ,rr ..i <.
~ M.F«
d /`i:
1 r ~ ' -
1~
M { ~. L Taff It
vn a
~4~.
O
y
~
T
r'
~
J
~
`
z
I
`i
,
~
rt
r
A
+
1 ~
W
~j
''~
,
= ~~ O
~~
~//
._ V~
~ /
~
A
1
~ ~
n _t.,,
u ; ~~-
u
:~
:~ ~ `~'~;
`v
~.tE'-L:
.I
^00n
~V
~/O\O~~
~V
/LJV
~/
\O~\~
V` V
'I °t':
' ~
~'.
t_~',5,~~ .~ ;
~.
.tip
~,.~ -~ ~
.~ ~~
t'
~~
~~L
~',~
~~
~'.r
w'
6' di!ali
`Y ~
I
I~
`'
0 0
i'~
- P
(°
..
.. d
1'
P
D
. 4~
P
.~
T
.•-
:.
~_
;..
~~
+Y
#
'
~!:.
~+
~
A
W
^'
W
X
~
W ,~
`
.. ~ ^
~
~
~~
.= ~~ O
V, ~ ^^
inf.
V ,7
~-
~. •"
~$.
.~-:
_
~ e
I ~' y ''
~! v ~
!~_ ~ ~-
~~ `~ ;
` a
0 0
t
"1`t
:
~
a~
`~
,
~
~
~ `
r
i. ~
...0. Y..r ] tl~.
., {
,
~J
/\ II .
I
(
\
V
I
pm
/
~ V
\
I
w
YJ.
S~ f '~ ®
"A /
~~
J\~
~
J
V ~ V
. P
r ~ _
__ ...- _> rte- '
~'
`~ I
,~
~i
~I
~' ~
i; ~YY
~...c !
..
~
isil=
~~.~._
~~i~, ~ w`
Y
i~~~~ -
i~ai_,
-- ,"".~
~~
~ t~- ~ '~'~~
t
~~ y
~"~
Q~
.
ryq
.~
Y ~'~" tY1 'i~pp Y ~,
~ - ~`~~~
F ~ > tU ui
.
~~ i ~- Y/ V/ ~Y/
~~ ___
_~
~
~ ~_
~
O
:--:.:... i1 .:~i ri ~~ -
~~ ~~~ . ..
.• ^
t fir.. -.x~: -
! il: .t -- ~~!
.. ~~~
-~ ~,
! ~'
.~~
~'
~.
~~
r~
~; ~,~~
a
:.4 ~p i
00
00
Q~
U
O
d
c~
d
P
P
~.
;r:,. -
~,
~g,
~._~,
'L
d
`
':; C
`~i.' G1
W
.. 3 ,~,
ti
a~
a~
' ~
~
•
-
L o
L
~.
~. ~''~
t
,./
air
~: -
++
P
0 0
P
D
C~
D
Q
._
t,
ATTACHMENT D
Code Enforcement Cases
Before/After Examples
^1
a ~~ ~.
d
1 ~ 1~
~ £.4
;i
i
N
C' ` T ~
< q
6~ ~
t A
w
~ N
ao
P
O
O
Cam]
0
C~
a
~~,
~r>
`~ ,y.
~~ ~,,x,~
<v~: ~
~~
O
ii
;.
~~
r '- ~~
~~
;_ ~~
ii
~~
~~
--
'~
.~
C
G
~ 1~
yp
P
1
~ ,~
a i .~ yy
j \
Y N
-a ~
~, ~;.,
.. ,,~ ~,
~~
~` ~ ~,",
s'