Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-15; Planning Commission; ; CUP 247x1 - MARTINSfAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 15, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CUP 247xl -MAR.TIN -Request for a five year extension of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a residential care facility located on the south side of Palm Avenue between Harding Street and the Interstate 5 Freeway in the R-3 Zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3068 APPROVING a five year extension of CUP 24 7 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On March 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Perm.it allowing a maximum 12 bed residential care facility in the R-3 Zone between I-5 and Harding Street on the south side of Palm Avenue. The Conditional Use Permit was conditioned to expire in five years unless an extension was requested and approved by the Planning Commission. Over the past few months, the Planning Department has created a monitoring program to track projects conditioned with expiration dates. This program has identified a number of expired conditional use perm.its. In order to allow the extension of those conditional uses still in operation or existence, the Planning Department has given property owners 60 days to request extensions of their conditional use permits. After notification by staff, the applicant, on April 17, 1990, submitted a request for extension of the Conditional Use Perm.it. III. ANALYSIS The subject Conditional Use Permit was approved along with a variance allowing reduced parking from 6 to 4 spaces to be located in the front yard setback. An adjacent 15 bed residential care facility, nonconforming due to inadequate parking and also owned by the applicant, was existing at the time CUP 24 7 was approved. Five months after the Conditional Use Permit was approved, the Planning Commission approved a kitchen facility which connected the two facilities, however the Conditional Use Permit was not amended to include the existing 15 bed residential care facility at that time. CUP 247xl -MARTIN AUGUST 15, 1990 PAGE 2 The proposed extension of CUP 24 7 includes only the residential care facility on Palm Avenue approved for a maximum of 12 beds and currently consisting of 10 beds. The residential care facility has continued to operate as conditioned with no complaints recorded by the Planning Department or Code Enforcement. Staff concludes that the use continues to be desirable for the development of the community and is not detrimental to surrounding uses. The site continues to be adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use as well as providing the necessary parking and circulation system to serve the use. Staff is therefore recommending that the Planning Commission extend CUP 24 7 for five years through March 13, 1995. It is also staffs recommendation that any future amendments to CUP 247 include the 15 bed facility as part of this project since the two facilities are now attached and located on one lot. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the environmental impacts of the project have already been considered in the original issuance of a Negative Declaration dated June 11, 1984; and, therefore, a Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance was issued on June 14, 1990. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3068 2. Location Map 3. Disclosure Statement 4. Notice of Prior Compliance 5. Staff Report for CUP 247 dated August 14, 1985, March 13, 1985, and November 14, 1984 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2421 7. Letter dated April 17, 1990. June 19, 1990 AH:km COCATION MAP ~ • • ~ % > "' > ,. :D C ,. C -u, Ill -0 a z z • G) 0 • u, z -4 -4 • -4 PALM AVE AVOCADO SITE MARTIN CUP247x1 ~rlsbad DISCLOSURE STATEMENT \ APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE OISCRETIO~Y ACTION ON THE PAAT OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE. (Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1 . Applicant Ust the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Audrey fl. Martin 2. Owner Ust the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Audrey r1. Mart in 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names ar addresses of all individuaJs owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersh interest in the partnership. N 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names ar addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiar of the trust. (Over) Disclosure Statement Page 2 s. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scar: Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months'? Yes _ No i 11 yes, please indicate person(s) ___________________ _ Person is defined as: 'Any individu8', firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, socia, club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust. receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, crty municipality, district or Other potiticdj subdivism, or any other group c:,r combination acting as a unit.• (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) .. _ I I._, ~ I ' \ t.._ \._ .. .._,.,, I ', Signature of Owner/date Signature of applicant/date AUDREY H. ~.ART IN Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant C City of Carlsbad -:.1fiih,iih•l•l4•iBih,f401 PUBLlC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLlANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: CUP 24 7xl Project Location: 937 Palm Avenue Project Description: Extension of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a residential care facility. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within twenty-one (21) days of date of publication. Dated: June 14, 1990 Case No.: CUP 247xl Applicant: MARTIN Publish Date: June 21, 1990 AH:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 D.l\TE: TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM AUGUST 14, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE CUP-247/V-365 -MARTIN On March 13, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and variance to allow a residential care facility with reduced parking. At the time of approval, the applicant failed to include the addition and construction of a new kitchen facility that would connect the existing residential care facility to the proposed one. Staff, has reviewed the proposed kitchen and has determined that this addition will not create additional impacts to the project already approved by the Planning Commission. No additional beds are being proposed. A copy of the addition has been submitted for your review. EVR:bn 7/24/85 C APPLICATJ0N SUBr~::_,,.., .. 07 T. ,..,:,r·.r:-,.... ~ APRIL 4, J84 c)d STAFF REPORT 0 DATE: March 13, 1985 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: CUP-247/V-365 -MARTIN -Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a residential care facility and a variance to reduce the amount of required parking from six to four spaces and to allow these spaces within the front yard setback on property located on the south side of Palm Avenue between Harding Street and the Interstate 5 Freeway in the R-3 zone. I. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission directed staff to return with documents for APPROVAL of CUP 247 at such time that a variance is processed. The appropriate action would be for the Planning Commission to APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolutions No. 2421 and No. 2422 APPROVING CUP-247 and V-365 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The conditional use permit was discussed by the Planning Commission on November 14, 1984 (see attached staff report for description of project). At that time, staff recommended denial because the applicant could not provide enough adequate parking to accommodate the use. The Planning Commission disagreed with staff and directed staff to return with documents for approval for the conditional use permit and a variance. The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to reduce the required parking from six to four spaces and to allow these spaces within the front yard setback on property located as described above. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any residential care facility that contains more than six beds, have two spaces plus one additional space for every three beds. When the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on November 14, 1984, he proposed 10 beds within the facility. Since then he has converted the garage into a living unit and has increased the number of beds from 10 to 12. A 12-bed facility would require six parking spaces. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Can the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit be made? Specifically: C a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. b) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. c) That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. d) That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. 2) Can the findings required for approval of a variance be made? Specifically: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question; c) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. d) That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. (Ord. 9060 §1802). Discussion At their meeting of November 14, 1984, the Planning Commission made the necessary findings for the approval of a conditional use permit for the proposed use. The Commission felt that this project is necessary and desirable for the development of the community. It will provide a necessary service and housing for senior citizens. -2- C With regard to the variance, the applicant feels that the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The buildings being used for the proposed facility are existing and no new facilities will be required. The street system is adequate to serve the site because all the adjacent public streets are fully improved and the proposed use will generate very little traffic. Finally, all necessary yards, landscaping setback, etc. will be provided and maintained since they already exist on the property. The applicant feels that there are extraordinary circumstances which justify the requested reduction of the required number of parking spaces and parking in the front yard setback. The number of parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance are not necessary because the patients residing there are senior citizens and they will not own automobiles or drive. In addition, an adjacent existing residential care facility has less parking than required by the zoning ordinance and this lack of onsite parking has not created any significant traffic impacts on adjacent streets. The applicant feels that the location of the buildings, which have been there many years, restricts the ability to provide adequate parking areas. This would deny him a property right that other properties in the vicinity have. The Planning Commission has previously found that CUP-247 meets all the required findings for a conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission can make the required findings for a variance they should adopt Resolution Nos. 2421 and 2422 approving CUP-247 and V-365. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration dated, June 16, 1984. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2421 and 2422 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement s. Staff Report dated, November 14, 1984 6. Exhibit "A" dated, January 24, 1985 EVR:ad 2/27/85 -3- DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT November 14, 1984 Planning Commission Land Use Planning Office APPLICPmION SUBMITTAL DATE: APRIL '~'"'''\84 C.Z, ® SUBJECT: CUP-247 -MARTIN -Request for approval of a residential care facility located on the south side of Palm Avenue between Harding Street and the I-5 Freeway. I • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planning Manager and ADOPT Resolution No. 2379 DENYING CUP-247 I II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval for a residential care facility located as described above. A duplex and a separate garage exist on the project site. The properties to the north and west are occupied by single family residences. An existing non-conforming residential care facility also owned by the applicant occupies the property to the south. The I-5 Freeway lies to the east. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues Can the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit be made? Specifically: a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. b) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. c) That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. d) That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. Discussion As proposed, the applicant requests approval of a residential care facility. The applicant proposes to install ten beds within this facility. The Zoning Ordinance requires, that any residential care facility that contains morelthan six beds, have two parking spaces plus one additional space.•for every three beds. As the applicant is proposing ten beds1 six parking spaces would be needed. The applicant can only provide two parking spaces behind the required front yard setback. The other four parking spaces are in the setback and cannot be considered legal spaces. The applicant has stated that the number of spaces required are not necessary because the patients residing there are senior citizens and they do not drive. Staff feels that this number of spaces is required for use by both staff members and visitors to the facility. As mentioned previously, the applicant also owns the existing non-conforming residential care facility adjacent to this proposal. It is also lacking the required parking. Staff originally suggested that the existing and proposed facilities be combined and brought up to code by locating a small parking area behind the existing facility. Staff has suggested several workable alternatives to the applicant's where they could obtain the required parking. These alternatives would require minor alteration to the storage garage and the addition of asphalt surface for the spaces. The applicant has been reluctant to accept any alternatives where physical change or improvements are necessary. As a result of the lack of parking, staff cannot make the third finding that all necessary features are provided to ensure compatibility with existing uses in the neighborhood. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of CUP-247. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2379 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Environmental Document 5. Disclosure Statement 6. Exhibit "A", dated EVR:ad 10/30/84 -2- 729-5417 Business HARDING GUEST HOME 3574 Harding Street Carlsbad, California 92008 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009-4859 Atten: Erin K. Letsch Dear Ms.Letsch, April 17,1990 In reference to your letter dated April 10, I would like to request an extension on my CUP No. 247. I am enclosing a check in the amount of $375 as per our conversation of to-day's date. Sincerely Encl:l 729-8676 Guests