HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-02-81TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 2, 1981
The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, November 2, 1981,
at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial
Way, Tustin, California.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sharp at 3:07 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Hoesterey and the invocation
was given by Mr. Saltarelli.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli, Sharp
Absent: None
Also present:
Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director
William Huston, City Manager
James Rourke, City Attorney
Maria Ivory, Recording Secretary
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting held October 21, 1981,,were
approved with the following correction: Page 5, Paragraph 2 should
read "Agency" and not "Council" in all places where appropriate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Ordinance for Introduction
An Ordinance to amend the Planned Development Standards and the
Multiple Family Residential District(s) Standards of the Tustin
Zoning Code.
Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and said the issue was
concerning height limitations of R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. The
proposed Ordinance has been reviewed at the previous meeting under New
Business and modified to ordinance form by the City Attorney. The
primary emphasis has been that appropriate Agency review be
established on all multiple residential projects not just
condominiums.
The Public Hearing portion on Ordinance No. 862 was was opened. There
being no one to speak the hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005." ......... A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING
AGENCY RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 862,
AMENDING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY
DISTRICTS ....... "Moved by Kennedy to adopt Resolution No. 2005. The
motion was seconded by Edgar.
Under discussion Mrs. Kennedy asked if the Planned Development
District (P-D) as mentioned by name in the Ordinance also includes
Planned Community District (P-C). Mr. Brotemarkle replied that it
does not include P-C and only applies to residential districts, and
his directive from the City Council with R-2, R-3, and R-4 was to make
these districts compatible to the P-D district. He pointed out all
uses in the P.C. were subject to use permit review.
There was a discussion regarding heights as measured from curb grades
and Mr. Brotemarkle commented that where there was an undulation or
differential they are measured by taking an average of grade, but in
flat areas it would be measured essentially from top of curb. He
stated this definition of how the height is measured was in the Code.
Mr. Saltarelli said he felt it was premature to vote because they had
not defined the terms in stating what height means. There was no
Planning Agency Minutes
November 2, 1981
Page 2
clear definition of underground parking and therefore to approve the
amendments to height limitations had no meaning without knowing what
height is.
Mrs. Kennedy said she did agree there needed to be a consistent
measure of height, however, she did not want to wait for everything to
be completely perfect because she was afraid of what might get through
in the meantime. City Attorney was asked if there was any legal
recourse if a building were built higher than what was approved. Mr.
Rourke responded that the question was complex but basically if the
City staff issues a building permit and authorizes construction, the
property owner was pretty well privileged to build in conformance with
those permits issued. If there was a problem with staff following the
desires of the Council then that is something which needs to be worked
out in-house. The City's position would be difficult in forcing a
builder to conform to anything other than the permits and plans
approved.
Mr. Saltarelli con~nented that Sections 3 and 4 of the proposed
Ordinance were not appropriate.
Substitute motion by Saltarelli to continue the matter to the December
7, 1981 meeting for further clarification. The motion was seconded by
Kennedy.
Under discussion Mr. Hoesterey said he could not support the
substitute motion because there was an inequity between building
apartments and building condominiums and would like to see the
original motion approved with the understanding that they would start
amending it to satisfy the original intent that an apartment house
does not go up next to an R-1 building so there would at least be a
stop gap in the interim.
The substitute motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Kennedy, Saltarelli and Sharp
NOES: Hoesterey and Edgar
PUBLIC CONCERNS: None
STAFF CONCERNS: None
AGENCY CONCERNS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
At 3:30 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to November 16,
1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Kennedy and carried unanimously.
Recording Secretary
The motion was seconded by
Chairman, James B. Sharp
Chairman Pro Tempore,
Ronald B. Hoesterey