Resolution-PC 92-77yESOLUTJQN NO. PC92-77
A RESOLU710N OF THE ANAFiEIM CIl r PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT P~TITIUN FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-13 B~ DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did recaivo a verified
p~tition for Reclassificat'sct,n for certain reai properry situated in the C'rry af Anaheim, Caunty
of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 APJD 16 OF TFiACT 2789, iN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAI.IFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 89, PAGES i i ANp 12 OF MISCEUANEOUS MAPS, IN 1'HE OF~I~E OF
THE COUNTY RECORD~R OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
TOGETHER WITH THAT F'OR710N OF TCRI CIRCLE VACATED BY 7FiE CITY OF
ANAHEIM~ BY RESOLUTION 89R-18, RECOI~DED FEBFiUARY lU, 1~89 AS
INSTRUMEN7 N0. 83-072795 OF QFFICIAL RE(:OR!~S.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissiun clid hold a publ~~ hearing at the
Civic ~enter in the City of Anaheim on ~March 23, 1992 at 1:30 p.m., nct~~e of said public
hearing having been duly piven as required by law and in Accordance with the provisions
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chaptor 1A.03, to hear and cansid~r evidenco for and
against said pro~oaed reclassification and to investigate and mako findings and
recommendatians in cnnnection therewith; and that said public hoaring was continudd to
the May 18, June 15, a~d June 29, 1992 Plann(ng Commission meetin~s; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself end in its behalf, and aft~r due considoratiori af all evidence and rdports
otiereci at said hearing, does tind and determino the following facts:
1. That the p~titioner proposes reclassification of subJect property from
the RM-1200 (Rosidential, M~ItiplE-Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Rasidential,
Multiple-Family) for the purp~se of convertin~ an existiny apartment complex to
condaminiums with wafvers of rninimum buflding site area per dwelling unit and required
elevators.
2. 'f!^at the Anaheim General F~I~n designatA~ subject praperty for
Medium Densityi Residential land uses.
3. That the propased roclassification of subject properry is not necessary
nor desirable ior the orderly and proper Jevelopment of the community.
4. That the proposed reGassificat9on of subject property for the purpose
of converting existing apartments to condominiums~ with a density almost two times hi~her
than perm(tted by the proposed RM-2400 Zoning does not properly relate to the zonas and
thair permitted uses locaily establish9~ in ~lose proxim'~y to subject property an~i to tho
zones ancl their permitted uses genera!~y established throughou~ the community.
CR1533MS.wp .1. PC92-77
5. That appr~val of the proposed recia3~ificati~n for the so~a purpose af
p~rmitting processing of a coriditional use permit to convert apartments to condo~niniums
having a density two tirries higher than permitted in the RM-2400 Zane wouid set an
unclesirable precedent which may fmcourage owners of nther high density apartment
complexos to seek relief from long ti3rm management obligations ~nd maintenance costs
by conv~rting apartments in order tc> sell the units.
6. That in 1889 I'lanning Commission and City Council studied tho
Yeasibility of perrrritting condominiums in the RM-1200 Zone (whi~h permits a density similar
to the proposed conversion) as part of the City's comprehensive housing stuciy; but,
based on the study's findings whic~! included a comparison of perm(tted condorrinium
densitios in neighboring cities, it was determined that ~ondominiums shouid rQt be
permitted at a density higher than 18 units per acre (36 units p~r acre ls praposed) in order
to ensure adequate open space, recreational ~nd ather amenities.
7. That no one indicated their presonco at said pubiic naering in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition ta subject petition.
GALIFQRNI ,[~/~90NMENTAL.O ALI ACT FINDING: That the Anahoim
Ciry Planning Commission has reviewed the pr~posal to reclassify subJect property from
the RM-1200 (Rasidential, Muitipie-Family) Zone ta the RM-2400 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) to convert an existin~ 65-unit apartm~nt complex to a 65-unit "a~fordable"
deck-type condominium complex with waivers of minimum building site art per dwelling
unit and requirsd elevators on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land can~isting of
approximateiy 1.8 Acros, having a frontage of approximately 300 fe~t on the north side af
Uncoln Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 210 feet, being locr~ted
approximateiy 300 feet east of the centerl(ne of Bol Air Street and further described as 2861
. 2863 West Lincoln Avenu~a (Bel Air Manor); and does hereby approve the Negative
Declaratfon upon finding that the deciaration re~i~ects th~ independent Judgement of the lead
agency end that it has considered the Negative Doclaration together with any commonts
received during the public review proc~ss and further finding an the basis of the initial study
and any corr~ments received that there is no substantial evidence that the proJect wili havo
a sEgnificant affect on the anvironment.
N~W, THERE~~RE, BC IT RESOLV~D that the Anah~im City Planning
Commission does horeby deny Petition for Reclassificat(on on 4t~e baais nf the
aforementioned fndings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLU'PION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting af June 29, 1992.
: -
%~' ., l~ ~ ~-~ "' z,
CH AN, ANAHEI, CI F'LAN ING COMMI.~iSIC)N
ATTEST:
C ,~ , ~;~..
~ ,2 i
SEC~iETAR~ , a, ~ HEIM CITY PIANNING COMMIS~ION
.2. PC32-77
STATE O~' C~-LIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAFiEIM )
;i
I, Margarita S~lorio, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Cnmmi~sion, :
do hereby certify that the foregoing resoU~tion was oassed and adapted at a mor~ting of :
the Anaheim Ciry plann(ng Commission held an June 29, 9992, by the following vote of ~
the members thereaf:
AYES: COMMIS~IONERS: BOUAS, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: H~LLYER, PERAZ4, ZElWEL.
ABSENT: CC~MMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNCSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~v",_ day of
/ ~ , 1982.
`?y_ ~~Uu.~ ~~~.~~__
SECRETAR , A HEIti1 CITY PIANNING COMMISSIUN
.,3. PC92-71