The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-03-13; Planning Commission; ; CUP 247|V 365 - MARTINSTAFF REPORT DATE : March 13, 1985 TO: Planning Cornmission 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. I1 . 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 parkinq 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. I11 . ANALY SI S Planning Issues 1) Can the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit be made? Specifically: 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. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 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. 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: 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; 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; 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. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. ((3rd. 9060 S1802). 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- 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 5. Staff Report dated, November 14, 1984 6. Exhibit "A" dated, January 24, 1985 EVR: ad 2/27/85 -3- - - LOCATION MAF E E PALM AVE SITE pr CUP247 m - MARTIN V-365 CASE M: -247/V-365 REQuEsr AND IXCWICN: Conditional use permit for a residential care facility and a variance to reduce the required parking fran 6 to 4 spaces and to allow these spaces within the front yard setback LEG?& DESCRIPTIaJ: The northeasterly 93.59 feet of Int G and that portion of Lots 7 & 8 in Block B of Resubdivision of Alles Avocado Acres according to map 2027 filed May 27, 1927 APN: 209-192-01 Acres -172 Propsed No. of Lotsflnits N/A and use Designation M Density Allowed 4-10 Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-3 hraposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning am3 Land use: Site R-3 North R-3 South R-3 East Freeway West l+3 Land use Duplex SFR Residential care facility - Freeway R-3 PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CarlsW Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EW's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated April 4, 1984 - Nqative Declaration, issued - E.I.R. Certified, dated June 16, 1984 Other, .. .. .. .. APPLICANT : al, parknership,cjoint venture2cprprhtion: syndication) .. AGENT: .L r .. ... . ' . -. . ..> .. . .... . .. .. .. .. Telephone Number . . .d - venture, corporation, syndication) 3sw Bilsiness Address A &c? qJ!od&d; ha. 9~00 8/ '7~9- Cii> Telephone Sumber '7 / 7A9-b Telephone Nuzher I Eome Address ,3isiness .Address .. . .. -. (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/we dec1zzs ur.der Penalty Of perjury that the Infom.ation contained in this dis- closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be' relied upon as being true and correct until anended. .. Agent, Cmer, Partner .. DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNING OFFICE PEECXTECT ADDRESS/IDCATION: 937 Palm Avenue. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 (619) 438-5591 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: professional care facility. The conversion of an existing duplex into a The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project plrsuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant inpact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Land Use Plannirq Office. As a result of said A cmpy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Land Use Planning Office, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Camnents frm the public are invited. Please submit amwnts in writing to the Land Use Planning Office within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: June 11, 1984 CASE No: cuP.247 APPLICANT: Martin PUBLISH WTE: June 16, 1984 Land Use Planning Manager ND-4 5/8 1 APPLICF,ION SUBMITTAL DATE: APRIL 1984 *& STAFF REPORT DATE : November 14, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land .Use Planning Off ice 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 1-5 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 11. 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 1-5 Freeway lies to the east. 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues Can the findings required for approval of a conditional use permit be made? Specifically: 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. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 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. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. f . 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 more than six beds, have two parking spaces plus one additional space for every three beds. As the applicant is proposing ten beds, 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-