HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 3-foot Landscape WorkshopReport to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
REQUEST:
SUMMARY:
JANUARY 11, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION
ITEM #4
TUSTI N
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
THREE-FOOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT WORKSHOP
On March 16, 2010, the City Council directed staff to provide a history of the ordinance
(Ordinance No. 1240) which requires a three-foot landscape buffer between residential
properties and to provide examples of code enforcement cases. Council direction originated
after 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 a three-foot wide landscape area between the driveway areas and the adjacent
side property lines. Enforcement of 9267(a)(3) has occurred since Council adoption of the
requirement in 2001.
On May 4, 2010, the City Council considered a staff report on the history of Ordinance No. 1240
(Attachment A). At that time, the Council considered the report and heard public input from
several residents who spoke in opposition to the requirements of Ordinance No. 1240 and then
asked staff to defer enforcement on those residents currently subject to the complaint unless in
egregious violation of the ordinance. Staff was directed to present the issue to the Planning
Commission for consideration of the matter and to provide options for Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission consider the matter and provide a recommendation to City
Council.
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved Ordinance No. 1240 (Attachment A) which
provided development standards and paving limitations for driveways of residential properties and
driveways in commercial and industrial districts. In residential districts, the ordinance requires
parking and driveway areas within the front yard setback to be separated with a minimum three-
Planning Commission Report
Three-foot Landscape
January 11, 2011
Page 2
foot landscape area adjacent to the 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 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 which is codified in the
Tustin City Code section 9267(a)(3).
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. Council members supporting Ordinance No. 1240 expressed a desire to prevent
property owners from paving property line to property line between parcels. The ordinance
required a three-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 applied immediately to all residential lots in the City. However, an exception
was included for residential lots with existing paved areas that were already in excess of the
requirements. These lots were given thirty-six (36) months to comply with the requirements of the
ordinance (until September 6, 2004). Thereafter, all property owners were required to comply with
the ordinance (an example diagram of the required 3 -foot landscape area is shown in Attachment
B). Typically, this requirement was imposed or enforced when a property owner requested permits
for a driveway apron extension or when the City received a code enforcement complaint.
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 B. 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, Code
Enforcement has brought twenty of the twenty five cases into compliance with the code
(Reference Attachment C).
On March 16, 2010, several affected property owners appeared before the City Council after
receiving a code enforcement Notice of Violation (NOV) on this matter. At that time, the City
Council directed staff to defer additional enforcement until additional information could be
provided by staff. On May 4, 2010, the Council considered the staff report and public input. Staff
Planning Commission Report
Three-foot Landscape
January 11, 2011
Page 3
was then directed to defer enforcement actions and to present the item to the Planning
Commission for options for the Council's consideration at a later date.
Following the City Council meeting, City staff began a complete survey of the City to determine
the number of residential properties that are currently not in compliance with the three-foot
landscape requirements as set forth in Ordinance No. 1240. Overall, approximately thirty two
(32%) of all properties located on public streets within the City limits have driveways or paving
that are not in compliance with the three-foot landscape setback code requirement. A few of
these properties may exceed fifty percent (50%) of the front yard setback, though it was not
calculated at the time the survey was conducted. During the survey assessment, it was noted,
that many properties within the City had site constrictions which appeared to create irregular
property conditions. These irregular property configurations included cul-de-sacs; driveways and
garages located on the side of property; narrow property widths; and driveway access serving
more than one property.
The City Council has requested Planning Commission consideration of options on this matter.
City staff has identified three options for Planning Commission consideration which could
address resident concerns regarding a pre-existing condition. The following options are for
Planning Commission consideration:
Option 1
Direct staff to continue enforcement of the existing provisions as currently set forth in TCC
9267(a)(3).
The Planning Commission may find that Ordinance No. 1240 should be retained and enforced
in its current form. This option would keep the current provisions and code enforcement action
would apply to any outstanding code cases. If the City Council concurs, new cases may be
opened and abatement action pursued if investigation requests or additional complaints are
received for specific properties.
Option 2
The Planning Commission may recommend a code amendment be prepared to include a
provision that all residential properties established prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1240
(2001) are exempt from the three-foot wide landscape area requirement; thereby creating a
nonconforming status. All properties legally established prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 1240
(2001) and prior to the date of adoption of an amended ordinance, may remain. If supported by
the City Council, all properties improved since the adoption of Ordinance No. 1240 (2001) would
be subject to enforcement of the three-foot wide landscape area requirement through a new
"sunset clause".
Planning Commission Report
Three-foot Landscape
January 11, 2011
Page 4
Option 3
Direct staff to provide a Code Amendment to repeal and revise section 9267(a)(3) of the Tustin
City Code.
This option would eliminate the three-foot wide landscape area requirement while continuing to
enforce the paving area limitation so as not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total front yard
setback area. This would provide flexibility to property owners as to where the paving areas
could be established within the front yard setback area while maintaining sufficient permeable
landscape areas in the front yard of residences. In effect, paving would be permitted to abut a
neighboring property within this area; however, the overall effect of retaining a majority of
landscaping within the front yard area would be maintained.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning Commission should consider the matter and provide a recommendation to the
City Council.
Amy Thomas, AICP Elizabeth A. Binsack
Senior Planner Community Development Director
Attachments: A. Ordinance No. 1240
B. Diagram of Required Three -Foot Landscape Area
C. Code Enforcement Case Before/After Examples
ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. 1240
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ORDINANCE NO. 1240
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.10), 9222.a.10),
9223.a.10), 9224.g.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.20), 9225.b.10),
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.50), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b,12, 9228.b.4(k),
9228.b.50), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9, 9232.b0)(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.c0), 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 of 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 G'uy'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
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
n
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
2e
29
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 2 of 5
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 al development projects;
Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residential 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.
I. 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.
J. 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:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 3 of 5
Sections 9221.a.10), 9222.a.10), 9223.a.10), 9224.g.9, 9225.a.1(h), 9225.a.20),
9225.b.10), 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.50), 9226.b.6(i), 9227.b.12, 9228.b.4(k), 92281.50), 9228.c.8, 9231.b.9,
923210)(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.c0), and 9242.c(d) shall be added to read:
"Driveways: Subject to Subsection 9271 (bb)'
Subsection 9271 (bb) is added as follows:
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) feel; 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 residential districts if the total
paved area does not exceed fdty (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 property line.
b. Driveways for Commercial and Industrial Districts: One-way 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 shall 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.
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
n
28
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:
"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 shall continue to be fully effective.
4SSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting
on the 6'" day of August, 200E
T I L WORLEY r
ayor
City Clerk
b OMM- :
Ordinance No. 1240
Page 5 of 5
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE )
4 CITY OF TUSTIN )
5 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:
10
11 COUNCILPERSONS AYES: Thomas, Bone, Doyle
12 COUNCILPERSONS NOES: None
COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: None
13 COUACIILnP/E�RSjON,SABSENT: Worley, Kawashima
14
Stoker, City Clerk
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ATTACHMENT B
Diagram of
Required Three -Foot Landscape Area
1q`
r_
Property Line
Sidewalk
ATTACHMENT C
Code Enforcement Cases Examples
Slide 2:
Driveway extended to
property line
kA
.1
I$
-f
is -
ii
VAM
11W111111 III VIII
Driveway extended to
property line
11/13/2009
.ik7
-
OW,
Slide 8:
Driveway extended to
property line
WWI
Z%k
Before
After
M92M O 1�2ffl
MW
After
MUM o0
go
D
m