HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPLEMENTAL ITEM #1 REVISION TO THE 5-8-18 DRAFT MINUTES ITEM
I
REVISION
Lu,mbard Lurnbard asked staffthe setbacks, prevously discussed, pertaining to
the Tustin City Code. He, asked 'if tce woulletely
block the RV frorn the street.
B,ob,a,k 'The fence does not have to, be as high as the recreational vehicle. The
N
City has histo6cally not interpreted that Code, requirement to mean that,
the fence has to be at least as high as the RV but at least at the
required mi mu of'six(6)feet.
Lumbard Lurnbiard asked if the design review envision a six (6) foot high fence.
He clairified to, his fellow, Commissioners that they were, to address the
aesthetics,and setbacks,,.
Willkom, Per W11,11korn, there, a re two (2), main issues: 1), 'the storage location is
blocking the access to the garage, 2), aesthetics — a fence or gate,
across, the, property line blocking the, view, of'the home, is not consillstent
w"I'th 'the design and style of the home in the, nei, h and it 'is not,,
compatible and appropriate.
Bobak Bobak's, final comment 'was that, Commission was to, consider the
aesthetics e intrusion In the setback, areas. She also stated
that staff' could provide a, Googie Map View of the surrounding
6 1
properties, If the Commission was so, inclined.
M,a son, Mason,"s finail clarification question was that the Commission is deciding
on the intrusion 'Into the set back lif a six (6) foot gate ill's allowled and;! it is
properly placed. She did not see any' reasion to, approve the, vadance
given the, level of detail.
Lu,mb,ard Lurnbard defined the Iftern that the Cornmis,si'on 'is to consider based on
the setbacks, listed on Pages 32-34 of the agenda packet. He also
asked staff to confirm that the appilicant, did not request a variance and!
that thi's was fora DR only'.
Hutter, Per Huffer I in response to Lumbard's questy the, app,lican't did not,
request a, van'ance and that the Commission is,t,o consider the DRonly.
Binsack Per BInsacK as, a point" of clarification, based on what hias been
pted to the Commission,, a variance is, needed' but, one 'was not
requested'. The purpose of' bdngling this itern before, the, Commission
was that
to included findings for, denial of' the, var"tanthe,
Commission%,s consideration
Tho,Mpson 'Thompson voiced his, concern with the site, limitations and
setbacks. It appears the, neighbor, Ms,. Hudler, does nots
have, t'he arne
situation. He referred to the, TCC and that the proposed itern violates
the TCC, Encouraged: the applicant,to look at a differen't configuration.
Minutes—Planning Commission May 8, 210 1 8—Page 51 of B