Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-04; City Council; 9099-1; Apostolic Assembly Church. ,. 0.I , . L CIT-“OF CARLSBAD - AGEND -‘BILL AB# Sbq%l TITLE: RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL AND DEPT. HD. MTG. W/c82 DENYING CUP 87-2 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE APOSTOLIC CITY A DEPT. ASSEMBLY CHURCH. s CITY MG . RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the Council concurs, your action is to approve Resolution No. 91&t? I granting the appeal and overturning the decision of the Planning Commission approving conditional use permit 87-2. ITEM EXPLANATION I At your meeting of July 21, 1987, the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents approving the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission's decision to approve conditional use permit 87-2. The City Council should satisfy itself that the findings of the attached resolution accurately reflect your intentions in this matter, that they state facts found by you to be true, and that they adequately explain your decision to deny CUP 87-2. EXHIBIT 1. Resolution No. 9187 granting the appeal and overturning the decihion of the Planning Commission to grant conditional use permit 87-2. , . .n II 1 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE BUILT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1198 PINE AVENUE. APPLICANT: APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY CASE NO: CUP 87-2 9 10 11 WHEREAS, a verified application for a conditional use permit to build a church (CUP 87-2) on property located at 1198 81! Pine Avenue and more described as: The southerly one-half of Lot 5 of subdivision of Tract 114 and a portion of 120 of Carlsbad Lands in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Map No. 1744 filed January 3, 1923. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of June, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 17, 1987, approve the request for a conditional use permit: and 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was timely 20 appealed by aggrieved persons pursuant to law: and 21 WHEREAS, on July 21, 1987, the City Council of the City 22 of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by 23 law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after 24 consideration of all the evidence, testimony and argument of 25 those persons present and desiring to be heard the City Council 26 27 28 determined to grant the appeal: and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that this project will not cause any significant environmental impacts, . : i L 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 L > .d 3 i 5 5 7 3 3 > b ! 5 L i i r 1 t I and, therefore, issued a Negat i ve Declaration, dated May 29, 1987 which was approved by the Planning Commission on June 17, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B. That based on the evidence presented at the pub1 hearing, the City Council grants the appeal and overturns the decision of the Planning Commission granting conditional use ic permit CUP 87-2). Section 21.42.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code provides that a Conditional Use Permit may be granted only if certain facts are found to exist. Those facts do not exist so the Condit .onal Use Permit cannot be approved. This conclusion is based on the following: 1. That the requested use is not desirable for the development of the community, it is not essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is detrimental to existinq uses or to uses specifically permitted in the RDM-Q zone. The site is adjacent to a heavily used park, a girls club is located nearby in the same block as the park and another church is located a short distance away. While the General Plan contemplates churches in residential zones it does not provide for this kind of concentration of non-residential uses which is in conflict with the maintenance of the residential character of a neighborhood. The residents of this area are already bearing their share of the burdens from these types of community facilities. Sundays are a peak use time of the park, parking is not available on street and noise is high. The additional noise generated by the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the surrounding, primarily residential neighborhood. This noise would be generated primarily when the church is in session and the neighbors are at home in their residence. The church has an existing location where they can remain while finding other sites that can accommodate a new church without hurting existing residential uses. 2. The site for the intended use is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use because the twenty- seven parking spaces to be provided onsite are insufficient considering the maximum usage allowed of the church building, including, its classrooms and meeting rooms. Parking standards 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 gs 01 8 4 13 g-g;2 14 wa $:$ 'tqz; 15 l->W &; 16 55 20-2 a c $ 17 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - for churches assume the availability of onstreet park inp s ince most church activities occur on weekends or eveninqs when existing parking is not beinq impacted by other uses. In this case weekends are the heaviest use period for Holiday Park and onstreet parking is not available. The amount of buildinq proposed for the site is too dense and does not allow for adequate onsite parkinq. 3. The site is too small for the amount of building proposed so. the setback walls, fences and landscaping necessary to adequately buffer the church from the adjacent residences cannot be provided. 4. The street system servinq the proposed use is narrow and inadequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the church. The additional trips generated on days of assembly cannot be handled on the residential streets because the proposed use would cause traffic congestion and parking problems with the nearby adjacent Holiday Park especially on Sundays when both uses would be at their maximum. c. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Fllunicipal Code entitled "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply and the following required notice is hereby given: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008." . . . 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ill 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4 th day of August I 1987 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson NOES: Council Member Lewis ABSENT: None ,I I I /!d / ,/” /// _.’ -‘, /’ ‘/ /&,t; /‘/ :‘,.‘; .t CLAUl%"'A. LEWIS, %iyW ATTEST: LltmAd 6&i?@& ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle 4.