The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 5 G.P. AMEND. 84-2 07-16-84DATE: July 10, 1984 FROH: SU~JrCT: HONORABLE ~RYOR AND CITY COUNCIL COI~UNITY DEYELOPHENT DEPANTRENT GENERAL PLAN AHENDHENT 84-2 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: RATT NISSON 14462 RED HZLL AVENUE - NORTHEAST CORNER OF ~ALNUT AVENUE AND RED HILL AVENUE SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) DISTRICT AHENDING THE LAND USE ELEHENT OF THE TUSTIN N~EA GENERAL PLAN FROM A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DESIGNATION TO CO~ERCIAL. BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 4.2 acre site located on the corner of Walnut Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. It presently has one single-family home which is surrounded by fruit trees. This property has a land use designation of Professional Office (PR) and a zoning designation of Suburban Residential District {R-4). According to State Planning Law, the authorized General Plan Land Use designation and the City's zoning ordinance must be in conformance. This would require a zone change to the Professional Office (PR) zone designation. Instead, the applicant requested a land use designation change to Commercial to allow for greater flexibility, and Multi-family adjacent to existing residential areas. Surrounding property owners were against the Multi-family designation, and the applicant amended his request to a Commercial designation-only. At their June 25, 1984 meeting, the Planning Commlssioo adopted Resolution No. 2156, recommending to the City Council that they adopt General Plan Amendment 84-2, designating the 4.2 acre site as Commercial. All Planning Commission staff reports and the adopted resolution are enclosed. A petition to the Planning Commission from surrounding property owners has been enclosed, and basically requests that the subject site be given a Single Family land use designation and R-1 zone designation. RECOMIqE#DED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and approve General Plan Amendment 84-2, by the adoption of Resolution No. 84-55. Associate Planner EK:do attachment: Resolution 2156 Petition -- June 2Sth Planning Commission Report May 29th Planning Commission Report Draft Resolution No. 84-55 Community Development Department RESOLUTION NO. 84-55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 9.1 22 23 24 9.5 26 9.7 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 14462 RED HILL AVENUE AND SHOWN AS EXHIBIT "A" ENCLOSED The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ae 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. Be That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on July 16, 1984, on the application of Matt Ntsson, to reclassify 14462 Red Hill Avenue to Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A" enclosed. Ce That a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the requested change and is hereby adopted. De 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. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 84-2 to the city Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2156. II. The City Council hereby adopts General Plan Amendment 84-2, amending the Land Use Element to reclassify 14462 Red Hill Avenue to Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 16th day of July, 1984. ATTEST: URSULA E. KENNEDY, Mayor MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 ~7 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2156 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 14462 RED HILL AVENUE AND SHOWN AS EXHIBIT "A" ENCLOSED The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission 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 663S6 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing was duly called noticed, and .held on May 29, 1984, on the application of Matt Ntsson, to reclassify 14462 Red Hill Avenue to Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A" enclosed. C. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the requested change, and the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council. 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 Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 84-2, amending the Land Use Element to reclassify 14462 Red Hill Avenue to Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 2gth day of May, 1984. James B. Sharp, Chairman Janet Hester Recording Secretary .... i_ A PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 epon , Planning Commission June 25, 1984 SUBJECT: Continued Consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 84-2 APPLICANT: Matt Nfsson LOCATION: 14462 Red Hill Avenue - Northeast Corner of Walnut Avenue and Red Hill Avenue ZONING: REQUEST: Suburban Residential (R-4) District Amending the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from Professional Office to either all Commercial or a combination of Commercial and Multiple-Family Background A Land Use Element change from Professional Office to Commercial and Multiple-Family was considered by the Planning Commission at public hearings held on May 29 and June 11, 1984. The-staff reports for these hearings are enclosed. At the June 11, 1984 meeting the applicant requested that the Multiple-Family designation be removed from consideration, and requested that the entire site be given consideration as a Commercial designation. The amended request required a readvertisement prior to a public hearing by the Planning Commission. Discussion As stated earlier, the current land use designation for the property is Professional Office {PR) and the zoning for the .property is Suburban Residential {R-4). According to State Planning Law, both the land use designation and zoning must be in conformance. The applicant is requesting a change from the current Professional Office designation to a Commercial designation. The PR land use allows only professional office uses, while the Commercial designation would allow both retail business uses and/or professional offices. Essentially, the Commercial designation allows the applicant greater flexibility for land use development. Corn munity Development Deparlment Continued Public Hearing No. 1 June 25, 1984 Page 2 If the property remains wi th a Professional designation, the zoning must be changed to Professional Office (PR), while a Commercial designation would require a change to a Commercial zone and staff would recommend Commercial General (CG). A land use intensity chart comparing the two zones shows that the intensity in which the land could be developed for either zone'is basically the same. Each has a thirty-five-foot (35') height restriction, and setbacks are basically the same, although the CG zone is slightly more restrictive in the side and rear setbacks. The removal of Multiple-Family residential zoning {R-4) would result in a lost opportunity for affordable housing. The 2.4 acre site that was proposed as housing would have supported approximately thirty-five {35) dwelling units. The loss of units, though, will not conflict with policies or programs in the City's Housing Element. Recom.endatton Should the Commission ~ish to designate the subject property in its entirety for commercial uses, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 2156, attached to this transmittal. Associate Planner EMK:jh Attachments: Report to the Planning Commission May 2g, 1984 Report to the Planning Commission June 11, 1984 Land Use Intensity Chart Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2[56 ~ Community Development Deparlment J I,LI I,LI I, LI RePort to the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARING May 29, 1984 SUBJECT: APPLICA#T: LOCATIOll: General Plan Amendment No. 84-2 Matt N1sson 14462 Red Htll Avenue, northeast corner of Walnut Avenue and Red Ntll Avenue PLAN: ZO#I~: REQUEST: prufesstonal Office Land Uses Suburban Residential (R-4) District Amendtng :he Land Use Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan from Professional Office to Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential Background '. The subject property is a 4.2 acre site located on the corner of Walnut Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. It presently has one single-family home which is surrounded by fruit trees. The subject parcel has virtually no right-of-way improvements, curbs, gutters or sidewalks. This property has a land use designation of Professional (PR) and a zoning' designation of Suburban Residential Olstrtct (R-4). According to State Planning Law, the authorized General Plan Land use designation and the City's zoning ordinance must be tn confoemenc~. The applicant ts requesting that the land use be amended for the subject property and that applicable zoning be adopted for the land use designation. Discussion The State of California dictates that a city can amend its General Plan a total of four times each year, and when it deems the change to be in the public interest. This statement has been interpreted to mean that the amendments should benefit the community rather than a property owner who is proposing the change. The subject site has a land use designation of Professional (PR) meaning that only a use of professional offices can be built on the site. It has had this designation since the present land use element was adopted in April of 1973, The current zoning on the site is Suburban Residential District (R-4), which allows for a variety of residential land uses, from farming of agricultural Community Development Department' General Plan Amendment No. 84-2 May 29, [984 Page 2 This district allows a density of up Obviously, the property's zoning is crops to multiple-familY apartment units. to one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet. not consistent with the General Plan. This error apparently occured several years ago and remained undiscovered until recently. The applicant is proposing a change to a commercial designation along the Red Hill Avenue frontege and a multiple-family designation along the Walnut Avenue frontage. The commercial area encon~asses approximately 1.4 acres after all dedications, and the. multiple-familY is approximately Z.4 acres after dedications. Surrounding land uses in the area include: a single-family, one-story subdivision to the east and north of the site; Tustin Meadows subdivision to the south; a neighborhood shopping center to the southeast; and apartments to the west. In deter~rintng the applicability of the proposed land use designations, criteria such as community benefit, existing land uses, and the range of conceivable land uses for the site were considerations. A change from professional office designation to commercial along the Red Hill Avenue frontage would allow a greater range of possible land uses. Coramrcial allows for all commercial retail activities and offices, while Professional allows only office developments. While the retail potential has not been deternflned, the Commencial designation would still provide more flexibility than a professional designation. A change to Multiple-family residential for the remaining property, reflecting . it's current zoning, would provide the community a potential housing opportunity. However, staff recommends that several criteria be used when a development project or zone change is proposed. Any proposed density for the site should not exceed the density of the current R-4 district, one unit per 3,000 square feet, or [4.5 units per acre. Serious consideration must be given to building setbacks for two-story structures near the single-family subdivision. The entire subdivision is one-story, and staff feels any proposed project should take this into consideration. Rm:om~nda~lon Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 2156, recommending to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 84-Z be adopted. [dward Knl ght Associate Planner £MK:jh Attachments: Land Use Intensity Co~artson General plan Amendment Map Area Map Resolution No. 2[56 Community Development Department Land Use Intens~t~Y Comparison Land Use Designation Proposed Zoning DevelOpment Standards Mtntnum Sq. Height Setbacks 1. front 2. side 3. rear PR Commercial 7,200 3,000 35' 35' 20' 5' 5° one-stor~ . 15' (if 10' two-story adjacent to R-l) The above comparison shows that the Commercial General (CG) zone (which is the applicable zone for a Commercial land use designation) is either as restrictive, or more, as the Professional zone (PR) that would be adopted for Professional land use designation. C:ommunirY Development Department : I R3 )&! R 3 ! loo I C1 , 10'000 t :' R2 ,~ R 3 MHP 1600 ~ R3 4O00 I R3 · ,, R1 R4 R4 PO 6000 R3 2350 · q'llH