Resolution-PC 92-78,~i,~~~r~ rvo. Prs2-~$
A f~E50LUTlOf~ OF "fHE P-NAH~IM CITY PLAfVNING COMMISSIOIV
THAT PETITION FOR CONGITI~JNAL USE PEHM17 N0. 3494 BE GENIEU
WHEREAS, the Anah~eim Ciry Planning Commission did r~r:oiv~ ri verified
Petitian for Condition~l Use Permit for certain real properRy situated in thrj City of
ArahAim, County of Qrange, Stat~a o~~ Califarnia, describad as:
l.OTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AIJD 18 OF TFIACT 2780, IN THE CITY QF ANAHEIM,
COUN7Y OF ORANGE, 3" ATG: OF CAL.IFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECOR~EI) In'
BUOK 89, PAQES 11 ANG 12 OF MISCEL.LANEOUS MAPS, !N THE OFFICF. ~f~
THE COUNTY RECORDE'a O~ SAID QRANGE ~OI;NTY.
TAGETHER WI7H THAT PORTION OF TERI CIRCLE VACATED BY THE CITY C-F
ANAHFIM, BY RESOI.UTION 89R-18, RECORD~D FESRUARY i0, 19s9 AS
INSTRUMEM' N0. 89•072I95 OF OFFICIAL RECORD5.
WI~IERE/~S, tr~e City Planning Commiss(on ciid hold a public ~iearing at the
Civir, Cent~r in the City of .an~,heim on March 23, 199~ ~t 1:30 p.m., not~c~i of said (~ublic
he~ring h~vinp beon duly giv~3n as required by law ar~d in accordance wit~i the provisions
of the Anahe~m Municip~,l Code, Chapter i8.03, ta hear and consider r~vidonae for and
against ;>~id proposed con~jitional use perrnit and to invostigate and rr~ake fii;~dings ~+nd
r4comm~ndations yn conn~ction therewith; and that said public heari~~j was continued to
the May 18, Juno 15, ~~nd June 29, 1992 P~anning Commission mee'.ings; and
WHERE4S, saEd Commission, after dt,+e inspecti~n, investigatian and ~tudy
made by itself anc3 in its behalf, and after due consideration of all ~~vidence ancJ reports
offered at said hearing, does find a~id determine Yne following facts:
1. 'that !he proposed use is pr~poriy one for v~~hich a conditional use
pgrmit is ~uthoriz~J b~~ Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.02.U44.020, 18.32.050.045,
18.32.050.047 t+~id 1Fj.96.020, and State of Cali~ornia Governmr,nt Cade a~ction ~5915
to convert an ex:sting 55-unit apartment complex to a 65-unit, "atfordable", deck-type
condominium co-nplex with waiver of the followin~:
(a) SE~LUN i~~t4 - Mininium bui«i~g2s.~,r~~roa p.~r dwellinq~it.
(?•a 0 sa•ft• requir~:~; 1.?.11 sa.ft. existing?
(b) ~~i~TIONS ~~S.3Z.070.0 0 - Rea~ired elevators.
:~i 18,~6.,~40. (~iQys~tor ~ccess tc~ all dwelling units on all floar
lovels required; S~ proposed to secand st~ry
u~~its)
2. 1'hat the existing apartment density is 100~6 highar than tho maximum
cordominium density permitted by Code.
CFi1534MS.wp -1- PC92-78
3. That the ~xisting {:~roJect I~acks the physfcal suitability and amanities
typically assoolated with ownership dwe~i~ngs.
4. Tha4 the proJect does not incl~~de adequate privato storage areas.
5. Th~t the petitfon9r did not ~rovide adequate justi~catfon 1or waiver of
elevator raquiremer,ts.
6. Th~t approval of the proposal to convert apartments to condominiums
tiaving a density two timos higher th~n per~nitted for condominiums in the RM•240q Zone
would set an undesirable precedent which may encaurage owners of ather hlgh densiiy
aparim~nt comploxes to seek relitaf from long term management obligations and
maintvnance costs by convorting apartments in ordor to sell the units.
7. That the existing apartment project (s developed with substantially lass
rec;rvational/leisure space (317 square feet per dw~lling unit) th~n is required for
Gor~dnminfums dev~leped under tho RM-2400 Zone standards (~50 square foet per unit);
and that submitted pl~ns ~o not show su~cient available space 3o adequately upgr~do th~
existing recreational/leisure ar~eas to the RM-24W condominium standard.
8. That in 1989 Plarmir~g Commission and City Council studied tlie
feasibility of p~rmitting condominiums in the RM-1200 Zono (which permits a d~nsit~r slmilar
to the proposal) as part of thH City's comprehe~sive hous(ng study; but, based on the
study's findings which included a compar~son af permitted Gondaminium densities in
neiphboring ciiies, it was detormined that condominiums should ~,i be permitted at a
density higher than 18 units per acre (36 wiits per acre is proposed) in nrder to onsure
adequat9 open space, recreation~i ~nd other amenities.
9. That the proposod apartmer~t complex conversion wilf adversoly affect
the adjoini~ig land us~s and the growth ar~d development of the area in which it is located.
10. That the size and shapa of the site proposed far the use is not
adequate to allow fufl develnpment af the propo~od uso in a mannnr riot detrimental to the
particular area nor to the peace, h~alth, safety and general wolfiare of the Citizen~ of the
Ciry of Anahc~im because the pro~osed dens'~ty is two tirnes higher than tha rn~ximum
permitted by Code for residential condominiums.
i 1. That the granting oi the Conditianal Use Permit will bo detrimental to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the C~tizens of 4he City of Anaheim,
including ar.y potential buyers af the proposod apartment conversion.
12. That 3he traffic generated by the pruposed use will impose an undue
burde~i upon the straets and hic~hw~+ys designed and improved ta car,y the tra~c in the
area.
13. That no one indic~ted their presence at aaid public he~ring in
~ppositi~n; and that no corraspondence was received in opp~sition t~ the subject patition.
-2- PC92-78
S',AI IF~~R IA NVIRCNMENTAI.S~IJ ~-A ~~ArIFINDINr: Th~tthe Anaheim
City Plannin~ Comrnission has reviewed thv proposal to reclassify subJect properly from
the RM-1200 (Rasidential, Muitiple-Family) Zone to tr~:, RM-2~00 (Hesidential,
Multiple-Family) to conver~ an existing 65•unit apartment ~omplex ta a 65-unit "affordable"
deck-typo condomRnium complex with wAivers of minimum building site area per dwelling
unit ar~d raquired elavators on a rectangularly-shaped narcel of I~nd Gonsisting of
a~proximately 1.8 acres, having a frontag~ of approximately 300 feet on thie north s(ae af
Lincoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, boing lo~stc~d
approxim~tely 30G feet east af the centerline of Bel Air Street and further described as 2861
- 2863 West L.incoln Avonue (Bel Air Manor); and does hereby ap~rove thA Neg~tive
Deciaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the ind~penden: judgement of the lead
agency and that it has considered tha Nogative Decl~ration together with any comments
received during the ,'''ic review process and further findin~ on th~ basis of the initiai study
and a~ny comment~ roceivnd that thore is no substantial ~vidence that the project will have
a significant effect on ihe environment.
NOW, THEqFFORF, D~ IT RESOLVEU that the Anaheim Gity Planning
Commission doos hereby deny subject Petition for Gonditional Use Permit, on the basi,
of the ~forementionod f~~dings.
THE FOREGOI~IG NE50LUTION was adopied at the Planning Cummissian
meeting of June 29,1992. /! GL ?, ~~
t MAN, ANAMEIM CI ~ LA ING CO MISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~~:~~~
SECRET~R~ANANEIM CiTY PIJ\NNING C~MMISSION
STATE OF CAI_IFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGF ) ss.
CI7Y OF ANAMEIM )
I, Margarit~ S~lorio, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission,
~do hereby cortify that the foregoing resolution was passed ~nd adopted ~t a me9ting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on held on June 29, 1992, by the following vote of
tho members th~r~of;
AYES: CC~MMISSIONERS; 60UAg, BRlSTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE,
NOES: COMAI115SIONEqS: hIEL~Y~R, PERAZA, ZEMEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN lN117NESS WHEREOF, ~ have hereunto set my hand this /G~~ day of
, 1gg2.
c
) ~C'o ~ ~
SECFIEf ~ RY, AHEI~A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PGYJ2-78