Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 4 G.P. AMEND 84-3D 07-16-84Inter-Corn FRQH: SIJ~JECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL COI~IUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTtlENT CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN Nq£NDI~NT 84-3d APPLICANT: REQUEST: lqANNY AFTERGUT ON BEHALF OF GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES AIqEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROI! SINGLE-FAfIILY RESIDENTIAL TO 8ULT[-FAIqILY RESIDENTIAL. DISCUSSION: The City Council at its last meeting on July 2, 1984 continued consideration of the subject General Plan Amendment and requested staff to investigate regulations assuring that the subject property would, be developed into a seni.or citizen board and care home. The Council was concerned that amending the property's General Plan land use designation from single-family to multi-family residential without restricting the type of housing product could result in apartments, condominiums or townhomes being constructed should the senior citizen project fail to materialize. Staff believes that the merits of a General Plan Amendment land use change should solely be considered upon the appropriateness of multiple family units versus a singular family unit on the property and not a future development plan. Since it is possible the senior citizen home might never be constructed, the Council must be fully satisfied that any type of multi-family residential unit would be appropriate for this property. However, there appears only to be two methods in which the property might be restricted to seniors, those being:. 1) A record development agreement; and 2) A record deed restriction~ Since it is questionable either could be enforced against future land owners, staff would prefer these two alternatives not be considered. The greatest protection still remains with ultimate zoning and use permits which would be necessary for this property. Should this General Plan Amendment be approved, a zone change to the PD {planned development) zone district would require all future land uses to be subject to Use Permit approval. Therefore, should a future City Council deem apartments, condominiums or townhomes to not be appropriate for this site, upon specific findings, use permits for such projects could be denied. Therefore, in Staff's opinion should this General Plan Amendment proceed, the PD zone should be utilized rather than the R-3 multiple family residential zone. GPA84-3d page two RECO~ENDAT~ON: Pleasure of the City Council. DOleD D. LAMM, v Dt rector of Community Development DDL:do Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9,4 9.5 9.6 9.7 28 RESOLUTION NO. 84-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE'ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE-FAMILY RELATIVE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1262 BRYAN AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the state of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. B. That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of the state of California, a public hearing was duly advertised and held on June 11, 1984 on the application of the property owner initiated by Goldrtch, Kest and Associates to consider General Plan Amendment No. 84-3d to reclassify the property to Residential Multiple-Family use. C. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is hereby approved. D. That the change in classification would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners. II. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 84-3d amending the Land Use Element to reclassify the property at 1262 Bryan Avenue from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of , 1984. ATTEST: Ursula E. Kennedy, Mayor Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 30N¥'1