Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 00-01; Carlsbad Boulevard Tamarack Zone Change; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)The City of Carlsbad Planning Department REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ” ’ .- Item No. @ P.C. AGENDA OF: January 3,2001 Application complete date: N A Project Planner: Scott Domiell Project Engineer: N;A SUBJECT: ZC 99-08KCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMAR4CK ZONE CHANGE - A city-initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal Program zoning map designations of three contiguous properties froni Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (C- 1 and C-2. respectijrely) to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and include the Seaside Bistro. No development is proposed with this amendment. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01 based upon the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The City requests approval of a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment that would affect three contiguous beach area properties on Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Redwood Avenue. No development is associated with this request. The three properties have different land uses, zoning designations, and owners. The following table provides the details on the city-initiated amendment and the properties involved. ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Address Property ‘Seaside Bistro Parcel ’ Owner Use ‘Ledgerwood Parcels ’ (2 lots) 3878 Carlsbad Blvd I Mitze H. Restaurant Eubanks with parking lot Trust 3862 Carlsbad Blvd I I CharlesB. Small Ledgerwood House, Trust Vacant I Lot Size (in square feet) 14,000 4,650 (each lot) Existing Zoning t General Plan 8: LCP Designations I Local Coastal Program Proposed Zoning (City 6: LCP) LCP = Local Coastal Program RH = Residential High Density, 15-23 dwelling units per acre C- 1 = Neighborhood Commercial Zone C-2 = General Commercial Zone R-3 = Multiple Family Residential Zone BAOZ= Beach Area Overlay Zone The primary purpose of the City’s request is to bring the properties’ zoning, presently commercial, into compliance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, both of which designate each property as High Density Residential (RH). In 1996, the City Council passed a resolution declaring its intention to rezone the three properties so they would comply with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation of RH, as listed above. A fundamental state planning law requires a property’s zoning designation to be consistent with its General Plan designation. Rezoning of the Seaside Bistro (formerly the Sandbar Restaurant) property will cause the restaurant building and use to become legally nonconforming with city standards. The building will become nonconforming because it does not comply with the development standards (e.g., setbacks) of the proposed R-3 zone. The use will become nonconforming since a restaurant is not permitted in any residential zone. When a building or use is nonconforming, the Planning Commission may or may not, on its initiative, establish a time period by which the building must be removed and the use discontinued. Further discussion on nonconforming aspects will be provided later in the report. Since this is a city-initiated project, staff notified all parties affected or potentially affected by the proposed zone change well in advance of the Planning Commission hearing and in a manner more informative than just a public hearing notice. On June 7, 2000, staff sent a letter (included as Attachment 6) to the affected property owners. Subsequently over the summer, that same letter and its attachments were sent to attorneys representing the operators of the Seaside Bistro and to the prospective purchasers of the Ledgerwood parcels. ,- ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Page 3 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Surrounding the three properties to the north, south (across Tamarack Avenue) and east are a mix of detached homes with yards, multi-story condominiums, and older apartments. Carlsbad Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean are to the west. The General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designation for the subject and surrounding properties and most of the beach area between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Village is RH. And, except for the subject lots, all zoning designations for this area are residential. The nearest commercially designated properties to the subject site are located approximately ’/z mile to the north at Carlsbad Boulevard and Walnut Avenue and to the east at Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street. Please refer to the Location and Surrounding Zoning Map provided as Attachment 5. In the General Plan, Land Use Element Policy C.16 states, “Amend Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (zoning ordinance and map), as necessary to be consistent with the approved land use revisions of the General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.” The proposed zone change fiom commercial to residential would accomplish that. This proposal is also part of a systematic and comprehensive Planning Department program to fix such inconsistencies citywide. Recommended changes to other properties will be scheduled for public hearing over the coming year. To implement the General Plan on the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro properties, staff specifically recommends the R-3, Multiple Family Residential Zone. Since it allows high- density uses, this zone is consistent with the RH, Residential High Density General Plan designation. The R-3 zone is also the majority zoning in the beach area, including the properties east and north of the project. In addition, given that the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are withn the boundaries of the Beach Area Overlay Zone, staff proposes applying the Overlay Zone to each of the properties. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.82.020 requires the Overlay Zone to apply to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries. - Besides the requirement for consistency with the General Plan, past activities on the Seaside Bistro parcel have also led to this zone change proposal. Staff has summarized these activities in this report to provide Wher background on the proposal, a description of the compatibility problems a restauranthar can have in a residential area, and a demonstration of the time, effort, and difficulties in trying to correct the compatibility problems. For clarity’s sake, descriptions and backgrounds on both the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are provided separately below. Ledgenvood Parcels These two, small properties are north of the Seaside Bistro. One of the lots borders the restaurant and is vacant except for the remnants of a garden. The other lot, at the comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Redwood Avenue, features a small, Spanish style house built in the 1930s. “Charles Ledgerwood Seeds” operated from this house for decades until this spring, following Mr. Ledgerwood’s death in December 1999. The seed business has since been sold and in the future will likely operzte outside Carlsbad. Though at least part of the house was used for the seed business, the lot was not developed commercially; customer parking, for example, was located in the street. ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACk ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Pase 4 - Staff believes the Ledgenvood parcels are now in escrow. The prospective purchasers are au.are of the proposed zone change, and have indicated they would like to develop both lots residentially. Seaside Bistro According to City Building Department information, an eatery has been on the Seaside Bistro property since at least 1970. At that time, development on the property included the eatery, likely a hamburger stand, a parking lot, and a detached home. Although not clear as to Lvhich was built first, County Assessor’s information indicates construction of a building occurred on the property in 1946. In 1975, the small home was demolished and the snack bar expanded to become the Captain’s Anchorage, a steak and seafood restaurant. That same year the Captain’s Anchorage also received City approval of a zone change fiom C-1 to C-2 to permit alcohol sales and State Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) approval of a liquor license. It appears the restaurant was renamed the Sandbar in 1986. In 1989, a City business license was issued to Mitze Eubanks and Carlos Almendra, the new owners of the Sandbar Restaurant. In 1995, Ms. Eubanks became sole owner. While retaining ownership of the property, Ms. Eubanks sold the restaurant business, along with the alcoholic beverage license, to Jim and Monika DiMaggio in 1999. Earlier this year, the DiMaggios changed the name of the restaurant to Seaside Bistro. One aspect that has hampered the past and current owners of the restaurant is its lack of adequate on-site parking. Building Department and County Assessor’s data indicate the restaurant has a floor area of approximately 4,000 to 4,400 square feet; according to the Zoning Ordinance, 40 to 48 parking spaces should be provided for this restaurant. The Seaside Bistro has approximately 20 to 25 spaces. A lack of adequate on-site parking has contributed to problems between the neighborhood and the Sandbar because some customers have parked on the nearby streets. In the early 199Os, the City received numerous complaints from residents surrounding the Sandbar about the restaurant’s operations and patrons. Sometime prior to that point, staff believes the business changed from a restaurant with the incidental serving of alcohol to predominantly a bar with live music and dancing. Residents complained about the noise fiom the live music that sometimes lasted until after 1 :00 A.M. and inebriated or boisterous patrons who would leave the bar and yell, fight, litter, deface property, and generally disturb the peace. Adding to the problem was the fact that some Sandbar customers parked on surrounding streets, including Redwood Avenue and Garfield Street, and thus would carry the negative behavior into the adjacent neighborhood. According to the ABC, Carlsbad police at various times between 1994 and 1996 responded to fights both inside and outside the restaurant and arrested several Sandbar patrons for public intoxication and driving under the influence of alcohol. In November 1995, city staff met with the Sandbar Restaurant to seek a voluntary reduction in its business hours as a way to curb or eliminate late night noise and other complaints. Although the Sandbar apparently had already implemented other voluntary measures to mitigate the - complaints about the impacts of its operations, such as hiring additional security and making noise-attenuating building improvements, it would not agree to alter its hours of operations. Despite the measures taken by the Sandbar, problems related to its operations and patrons continued. 3- 3 ZC 99-0WLCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACk ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Page 5 Other methods were considered by the City as a way to regulate excessive noise from the Sandbar and other businesses that serve alcohol and provide entertainment. In 1996, the City Council reviewed an ordinance that would have required such establishments, beginning at 1O:OO P.M., to not exceed a specified exterior noise level deemed compatible with residential uses. At the public hearing, many residents and business owners opposed the proposed ordinance. Ultimately, the Council took no action on this proposal, with some members noting that the proposed ordinance did not fully resolve the issue of compatibility between such an establishment and its nearby residential uses. A shortcoming of the proposed ordinance was that it did not address customer-parlung impacts in surrounding residential neighborhoods, a concern with the Sandbar. However, on May 2 1, 1996 the Council did approve Resolution of Intention (ROI) No. 96- 168, in which the Council declared its intention to: 1. Change the zoning of the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to residential to be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program; and 2. Directed staff to process the intended rezoning for hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of the ROI and its accompanying staff report are included as Attachment 7. Zone Change 99-08 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-01 are proposed to fulfill the Council’s directive. - At the same time the City was receiving and responding to complaints about the Sandbar Restaurant, the ABC was also monitoring the situation. In 1993, it issued a warning letter to the Sandbar regarding noise, loud music, and claims of disturbances from nearby residents. Following additional complaints, a 1995 ABC letter placed the Sandbar on notice that disciplinary action could occur should further complaints be received. More complaints and the Department’s own investigations led to the ABC filing an “Accusation against Respondents” in 1996. In brief, this filing alleged the Sandbar: 1. Kept a “disorderly house;” 2. Permitted the business to operate in a manner that caused a law enforcement problem; 3. Permitted the business to operate in a manner disruptive to the neighborhood; 4. Allowed a public nuisance to exist after written notice from the City of Carlsbad City Attorney to discontinue the same, and; 5. Failed to take reasonable steps to correct objectionable conditions on the premises of the restaurant. Following an administrative hearing on the above allegations, the ABC in 1997 revoked Ms. Eubank’s alcohol license. However, this revocation was stayed for a two-year period upon the Sandbar demonstrating compliance with a number of conditions. If the conditions were successfully followed during the two-year period, the stay would become permanent. These conditions, imposed on the license, prohibited, among other things, live entertainment and alcohol after midnight on Friday and Saturday and entertainment noise audible beyond the Sandbar parking lot. Although the Sandbar appealed this decision, the stayed revocation and the conditions became effective in March 1999. Attachment 8 to this staff report is a copy of the - / t;‘ ZC 99-08kCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACk ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Page 6 - ABC order and list of these conditions. Though Ms. Eubanks’ has sold the alcohol license along with the restaurant business, the conditions are still applicable to its neur owners. Jim and Monika DiMaggio. Since 1997, complaints regarding the Sandbar Restaurant and Seaside Bistro have generally ceased. According to the attorney representing the DiMaggios, the Seaside Bistro is a restaurant, not a nightclub, and consequently does not offer nighttime entertainment nor stay open late at night. Further, the attorney notes that much of the Bistro’s business is walk-in traffic. Ideally, the DiMaggios hope to operate the restaurant for a sufficient number of years to recoup their investment in the business, the lease, improvements they have made, and financing for their planned future purchase of the Bistro property still owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust. IV. ANALYSIS The project requires approval of the following legislative actions: A. Zone Change from C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone, and; B. Local Coastal Program Amendment to implement the zone change in the Local Coastal Program. The following regulations are applicable or relevant to this proposal C. Section 65860 of the State Government Code - Zoning Consistency with the General Plan; D. Section 30108.5 of the State Public Resources Code - Zoning Consistency with the Local Coastal Program; E. Carlsbad General Plan and the General Plan land use designation of Residential High Density (RH) designation; F. Beach Area Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.82 of the Zoning Ordinance); G. Local Coastal Program for the Mello I1 segment; H. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), and; I. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses (Chapter 21.48 of the Zoning Ordinance); Staff developed its recommendation for approval upon determining the proposed zone change and local coastal program amendment was consistent with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below. Furthermore, while the zone change is not subject to the nonconforming buildings and uses section of the Zoning Ordinance, a discussion of this section is included because of its relevance to the use of the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels. - ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Paee - 7 Lepislative Actions A. Zone Change Consistent with the City Council Resolution of Intention No. 96-168, staff proposes to rezone three properties from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) and BAOZ (Beach Area Overlay Zone). The C-2 zone applies to the Seaside Bistro parcel. The C-1 zone applies to the two Ledgerwood parcels. Neither of these existing designations is consistent with the properties’ Residential High Density (RH) General Plan designation. The C-1 zone permits office, retail, and service uses such as restaurants and gas stations. The C-2 zone, a more liberal commercial designation, also allows automobile repair, and with a conditional use permit, bars and car washes. Development of ne\!. commercial uses, or significant expansion of existing ones on the properties, however, would not be possible since such improvements could not be found to be consistent with the properties’ residential General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation. The proposed rezoning of the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels for residential uses will enable a clear determination of the uses that can be built. . Resolution 96- 168 recommends giving consideration to rezoning the properties either R-3 or RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple) as both implement the RH General Plan designation. Staff believes the R-3 zone is more appropriate for the following reasons: . By far, most properties in the beach area between Carlsbad Boulevard, the Village, the railroad, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon are zoned R-3; . All properties fronting Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Walnut Avenue are zoned R-3; . Except for lots facing Garfield Street, all properties in the same block as the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood parcels are zoned R-3. . R-3 and RD-M development standards differ somewhat (e.g., setback requirements, lot size). Most of the lots in the beach area between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Street are similarly sized and configured (long, narrow rectangles approximately 4,500 - 7,500 square feet). Applying the R-3 zone to the subject properties will maintain development consistency. The RD-M zone in the beach area mainly has been applied to condominium developments and larger parcels of land (1/2 acre or more). - . In addition to recommending the R-3 zone, staff has also proposed that each of the three properties be designated with the Beach Area Overlay Zone given that the properties are within its boundaries. As previously mentioned, Zoning Ordinance Section 21 A2.020 requires the Overlay Zone to apply to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries. The purpose and intent of the overlay is to supplement the underlying residential zoning by providing additional regulations to ensure compatible development, adequate parking and public facilities, and to protect the unique mix of residential development and the aesthetic quality of the beach area. f- ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACk ZONE CHANGE January 3,200 1 Page 8 B. Local Coastal Program Amendment Presently, the Local Coastal Program has zoned each of the affected properties as C-2 (General Commercial). The Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) is required to implement the proposed zone change from C-2 to R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The LCPA will result in consistency with the Local Coastal Program land use designation of RH. No comments were received during the required six-week LCPA public notice period. Redatow Compliance C. California Government Code Section 65860 - Zoning Consistency with the General Plan State law requires that a jurisdiction's zoning ordinance be consistent with its general plan. In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to the plan, the law requires the zoning ordinance to be amended accordingly within a reasonable time. This means development standards, land uses, and land use categories in the zoning ordinance must all be consistent with the land use policies and designations specified in the general plan. A primary objective of this rezone proposal is to bring the zoning designations of the affected properties into compliance with the General Plan. D. - California Public Resources Code 30108.5 - Zoning Consistency with the Local Coastal Program The Public Resources Code regarding the California Coastal Act refers to the Local Coastal Program as part of the City's General Plan. The requested rezoning will cause compliance with the General Plan and thus the Local Coastal Program. E. General Plan The existing General Plan designation for all three properties - and most of the beach area - is RH, or Residential High Density. This designation permits a density range of 15 - 23 dwelling units per acre (ddac) with a Growth Management Control Point of 19 ddac. The General Plan Land Use Element describes the RH designation as a "High density residential classification characterized by two and three-story condominium and apartment development . . .I' As evidenced by the different types of residences in the beach area, the proposed R-3 zone implements the RH designation by permitting such multi-family development, as well as single family homes. The General Plan seeks to ensure compatibility between adjacent uses. The proposed amendment will establish zoning, use, and development standards for the subject properties that are consistent with their surroundings. Moreover, from a noise standpoint, as demonstrated by properties would likely benefit from the proposed zone change. past experiences with the Sandbar Restaurant, the residential neighborhood around the subject - -5- 7 ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACI( ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 PaPe 9 /c The proposed zone change is consistent with the following General Plan provisions: Land Use Element - Overall Land Use Pattern - Policy C. 16: Amend Title 2 1 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (zoning ordinance and map), as necessary to be consistent with the approved land use revisions of the General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map. Land Use Element - Residential - Objective B.2: To preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas. Land Use Element - Residential - Policy C.7: Locate higher density residential uses in close proximity to open space, community facilities, and other amenities. Noise Element - Land Use - Objective B.2: to achieve noise impact compatibility between land uses through the land use planning/development review process. F. Beach Area Overlay Zone The Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are within the boundaries of the Beach Area Overlay Zone. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.82.020 requires the Overlay Zone to apply. to any residentially zoned property within its boundaries. Therefore, staff recommends the application of the Overlay Zone along with the proposed R-3 zone. - The application of the Overlay Zone to the subject properties does not affect the types of residential uses that may be permitted by the proposed R-3 zone; however, the Overlay does require a project’s density to be at the lowest end of the density range established by the General Plan designation unless a greater density is determined justifiable by the decision making body. Under the proposed zoning, a single unit could be built on each of the approximately 4,650 square foot Ledgerwood parcels at the lowest end of the RH density range (15 ddac), and two units could be built on each parcel at a density of .18 ddac. The larger, roughly 14,000 square foot Seaside Bistro parcel could potentially accommodate 4-5 units at the low end of the density range and 6 units at just under the Growth Management Control Point of 19 ddac. Determination of precise density yields, however, is impossible without analysis of a proposed project in relation to City development standards such as setback and parking requirements. G. Local Coastal Program The subject properties are within the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). The proposed rezoning is consistent with the LCP. It will not affect or conflict with LCP policies regarding access, recreational opportunities, views, or coastal dependent land uses. The rezoning also does not involve property with sensitive topography or natural resources. Finally, the proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing LCP land use designation of the subject properties and the LCP land use and zoning designations of surrounding properties. H. Growth Management rc The Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro parcels are located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. Review of the 1987 Local Facilities Management 3-8 ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 - Plan (LFMP) for Zone 1 shows the subject properties were designated as coniniercial to determine their existing and future impacts on public facilities. The Plan indicates 5.000 square feet of existing commercial development and the potential for 5,000 square feet more on the subject parcels. The 1994 update of the General Plan analyzed the impacts of the subject properties’ Residential High Density (RH) designation. The proposed rezoning is consistent with that designation. As reflected in the attached environmental analysis, staff does not believe the proposed rezoning to allow residential development will produce any significant impacts that would cause the performance standards of the LFMP for Zone 1 to not be met. Of course, absent an actual development proposal, a completely accurate determination of impacts to public facilities and thus compliance with the LFMP cannot be made. One aspect of growth analyzed by the Local Facilities Management Plan is traffic. In general, residential uses produce less traffic than commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed residential zoning would allow uses that produce less traffic than the current commercial uses on the project site, based on trip generation rates developed by the San Diego Association of Governments. Considering the existing Seaside Bistro use only, staff estimates the restaurant produces approximately 400 to over 700 average daily trips. Staff calculates development of the project site with 10 multi-family dwelling units would produce 80 average daily trips (condominiums) and 60 average daily trips (apartments). Less traffic also contributes to reduced pollution and noise. A more detailed explanation of this traffic analysis may be found in the attached environmental analysis. - I. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses If the proposed rezoning is approved, the Seaside Bistro building and use will become legally nonconforming. The Zoning Ordinance defines nonconforming building and nonconforming use as follows: Nonconforming building (Zoning Ordinance Section 2 1.04.275): A building, or portion thereof, which was lawfully erected or altered and maintained, but which, because of the application of this title to it, no longer conforms to the use, height or area regulations of the zone in which it is located. Nonconforming use (Zoning Ordinance Section 21.04.280): A use which was lawfully established and maintained but which, because of the application of this title to it, no longer conforms to the use regulations of the zone in which it is located. A nonconforming building, or nonconforming portion of the building shall be deemed to constitute a nonconforming use of the land upon which it is located. Chapter 2 1.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates nonconforming uses and buildings, is provided with this staff report as Attachment 9. The Seaside Bistro building will become nonconforming because it will not comply with all of the development standards of the proposed R-3 zone, including setbacks. The use will become nonconforming since a restaurant is not permitted in the R-3 or any residential zone. It is not clear if the home on the northernmost Ledgerwood parcel would be considered a nonconforming building since staff has no plans or - -5 9 ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CH.4NGE January 3,2001 Page 11 c information on the structure. Because of its age (approximately 70 years) it may not meet current setback requirements. Undoubtedly, there are homes throughout the City that do not meet all of today’s standards. Since the seed business no longer operates on the Ledgenvood parcel, we believe the property would not contain a nonconforming use. While recognizing that nonconforming uses and buildings may continue to exist, Chapter 2 1.38 establishes several restrictions on their use and expansion so, ultimately, they are either brought into conformity or eliminated to promote the public health, safety, and welfare and comply with the objectives of the General Plan. A summary of these restrictions follows. 1. While a nonconforming use is on a lot, no other use, even a conforming one, may be established on the lot. 2. If a nonconforming building is removed, future use of the land on which the building was located must be conforming. 3. Another like nonconforming use may replace an existing nonconforming use only if the degree of nonconformity does not increase (e.g., a sit-down restaurant use could be replaced by another sit-down restaurant use, but not by a drive-through restaurant). 4. A nonconforming building or use shall not be altered, improved, intensified or expanded. However, generally acceptable are limited, incidental repairs necessary because of ordinary wear and tear. 5. A nonconforming building destroyed by fire or an act of God to no more than 25% of its replacement value may be restored. 6. The Planning Commission may grant limited expansions of nonconforming uses or buildings only upon approving a conditional use permit, requiring improvements to meet current standards and be designed for easy removal, and by establishing a date for which the nonconforming uses and structures will be removed or brought into conformance. 7. If a building is nonconforming due only to inadequate setbacks or open spaces, it may be increased in size subject to certain setback and floor space enlargement limitations. This is only a summary list; please refer to Attachment 9 for the complete Zoning Ordinance requirements. In addition, please note that a change in ownership does not cause a building or use to lose its legal nonconforming status. According to Section 21.48.070 of Chapter 21.48, the Planning Commission may establish a period of time and conditions for abatement of a non-conforming use or building. This is a discretionary procedure that the Commission would have to initiate. If the Planning Commission were to consider this option, it would need to determine the date the building was established and the period of time before abatement would occur. Section 21.48.060 establishes various abatement periods based on different types of building construction (e.g., wood frame or masonry buildings, offices and warehouses), and states any abatement period would have to be a minimum five years. In addition, the section allows the Planning Commission to establish, if it determines appropriate, a period of time greater than the minimum abatement period to allow for - 40 ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TA.MWCK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 - amortization of significant investments due to structural alterations or enlargements or the installation of major equipment designed into the building. Another option is to take no action on establishing a time period for abatement. Thus, there would be no mandated deadline by whch the nonconforming building or use would have to be removed or brought into compliance. While this may permit a nonconforming use to remain for a longer time than if an abatement period was established, the standard Zoning Ordinance restrictions limiting the use, improvement, and expansion of nonconforming buildings and uses would still apply. Staff has prepared no analysis of the Seaside Bistro building type or any major improvements to the restaurant’s structure or its interior in an effort to recommend an abatement period. Instead, staff advises the Planning Commission not to establish an abatement period. Upon rezoning of the affected properties to residential, the City will always have the option of establishing an abatement period should conditions warrant. Whether associated with the current or another business, such conditions might include customer parking in the surrounding neighborhood, failure to comply with the conditions placed on the alcohol license, incompatible hours or noise, and lack of building or property upkeep. V. ENVIRONMENTAL, REVIEW Staff conducted an environmental analysis of the proposed rezoning and determined the change in land use designation from commercial to residential would not have an adverse impact on the environment. Because the General Plan has designated the properties for high-density residential development, it has already considered impacts associated with the rezoning, to a large extent. In its analysis, staff found that residential uses on the properties would, in general, generate less traffic, air pollution, and noise than would commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed rezoning would allow uses compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. - Staffs environmental analysis also noted that traffic noise from Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard might impact residential development on the subject properties. However, the analysis documents that traffic noise can be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper project design and mitigation, such as placement of garages toward the street, use of specific building materials, and incorporation of certain architectural elements such as patio walls and Plexiglas sound barriers. For further information, please see page 12 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part I1 included with Attachment 1. When and if a project is submitted under the proposed zoning, a full environmental analysis will be performed. The project falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic. An MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project except under certain circumstances. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level - b/ z- ZC 99-08LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE January 3,2001 Page 13 of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not kno~~~ and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore. the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. Since the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Director has issued a negative declaration. No comments were received during the required 30-day public review period of the negative declaration. ATTACHMENTS : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891 (Neg Dec) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4892 (ZC) Planning Commission Resolution No. 4893 (LCPA) Background Data Sheet Location and Surrounding Zoning Map June 7,2000 letter to property owners affected by the zone change May 21, 1996 Agenda Bill and Council Resolution No. 96-168 declaring Council’s intention to rezone the affected properties Copy of AI3C order placing conditions on the alcohol license of Sandbar RestaurantSeaside Bistro Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2 1.48, “Nonconforming Buildings and Uses” SD:cs:mh BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE APPLICANT: CITY OF CARLSBAD REQUEST AND LOCATION: A Zone Change and Local Coastal Promam Amendment to amend the zoning desknation of three properties on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack and Redwood Avenues. No development is proposed. LEGAL, DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 and 2 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County. February 5, 1923; and Parcel 1 of Parcel MaD 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 2 1, 1975 as filepage No. 75-092233 of Official Records. AI": 204-253-13. -14. -20 Acres: '/2 Proposed No. of LotsAJnits: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RH (Residential High Density) Density Allowed: 15-23 dwelling; units/acre (Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac) Density Proposed: N/A Existing Zone: C- 1 (Neighborhood - Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Proposed Zone: R-3 (Multiple Family Residential Zone) Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site c-1 & c-2 RH Restaurant, house North R3, BAO Zone RH Apartments South RD-M, BAO Zone RH Condominiums East R-3, BAO Zone RH House, apartments West OS os Carlsbad State Beach PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSD Water District: CMWD Sewer District: CMWD Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued June 8,2000 I 0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated SITE Attachment 5 - Location and Surrounding Zoning Map CITY ZONING LCP ZONING EXISTING C-1: LEDGERWOOD C-2: LEDGERWOOD ' C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO C-2: SEASIDE BISTRO PROPOSED R-3, BEACH AREA R-3, BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE: ALL PARCELS PARCELS OVERLAY ZONE: ALL CARLSBAD BLVDITAMARACK AVE ZONE CHANGE @ ZC 99-08lLCPA 00-01 (ttachment 6 - June 7, 2000 le. ,r to property owners - City of Carlsbad Existing Zoning Designations Local Coastal June 7,2000 Proposed Zoning Designations Mike H. Eubanks 2061 Oak Glen Drive Vista, CA 92083 Seaside Bistro Parcels Ledgerwood RE: PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SEASIDE BISTRO PROPERTY LocalCoastal City (no change (no change Prop&) Pr0P-W Program Program LocalCoastal City RH RH c-2 c-2 R-3 R-3, BAOZ RH RH c-2 c- 1 R-3 R-3, BAOZ Dear Ms. Eubanks: In May 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-168 (copy attached), declaring its intention to change the zoning designations of three neighboring parcels along Carlsbad Boulevard to conform to the parcels’ General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designations. One of these parcels is the Seaside Bistro (Sandbar) property at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Number 204-253-20). The other two parcels are at 3862 Carlsbad Boulevard (APNs 204-253-13 and 14) and are owned by the Charles Ledgerwood Trust. Since current County Assessor‘s information shows you as owner of the Seaside Bistro property, I want to inform you that the Planning Department has begun the process to propose a rezoning as intended by the Council. The relevant case numbers are Zoning Amendment ZC 99-08 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 00-01. As proposed, the existing zoning designations on both the City Zoning Map and Local Coastal Program Zoning Map would change from either neighborhood or general commercial to multiple-family residential and Beach Area Overlay Zone (see below). In compliance with state planning law, this would cause the zoning to be consistent with both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, both of which designate the parcels as high-density residential. As you may know, the proposed change also would be compatible ,with all surrounding zoning designations. The chart below details the proposed changes: Key RH = Residential High Density, 1523 dwelling units per acre C-1 = Neighborhood Commercial Zone C-2 = General Commercial Zone R-3 = Multiple Family Residential Zone BAOZ= Beach Area Overlay Zone Ib5- 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 @ PROPOSED June 7,2000 THE SEASIDE BISTRO PROPER1 ? Besides the Council resolution, I have enclosed the following items: 1. The description of the General Plan RH land use designation 2. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.16, containing the R-3 Zone standards 3. Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.82, containing the Beach Area Overlay Zone standards 4. The Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II and the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed zone change The Negative Declaration mentioned above is a declaration by the City that the proposed zone change will not have a significant impact on the environment. The potential impacts analyzed and the reasons for the conclusion are contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II. Currently, the Negative Declaration is undergoing public review and comment. Thereafter, staff will schedule the proposed zone change for public hearing review before the Planning Commission and City Council. Finally, some time after Council action, the California Coastal Commission must also consider the rezoning proposal since it is an amendment to the Local Coastal Program Zoning Map change. I expect the entire process may be completed toward the end of the year. Before each public hearing, staff will mail you meeting notices, agendas, and staff reports. If you have any questions about this letter or the proposed zone change, I welcome your call. My phone number is 602-4618. / Scott Donnell Associate Planner SD:cs I ' t n 13 hhh AB# MTG. 5-2 I -9 DEPT. CA Attachment 7 - May -1, 1996 Agenda Bill and Co cil Resolution No. 96-168 CITY OF CARL~BAD - AGENDA BILL mw p DEPT-;-XW- -- INTENTION AMENDING THE ZONING FOR THREE PARCEL RD-M AND/OR R-3, TO CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLA AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LOCATED ALONG Am. @' CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No.')b-lb& expressing an intention to amend the zoning of the three parcels of real property along Carlsbad Boulevard from C-2, general commercial zone, to RD-M or R-3, residential multiple family zone to conform to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program designation for the property. ITEM EXPLANATION: One of the alternatives to the proposed entertainment ordinance the Council wished to discuss was the consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intention to begin the process of rezoning of the properties that are the subject of this agenda bill. At its meeting of April 9, 1996, it directed staff to return with documents enabling the process to begin. At its meeting of May 7, 1996, the Council continued this item to May 21 , 1996, at the request of one of the affected property owners. - The recommended action sets in motion a process which will begin the study of the three affected properties and direct the Planning Director, upon completion of those studies, to return through the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not a rezoning is appropriate. The recommended action in this agenda bill does not make any changes to the underlying zoning at this time. Public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council are required prior to taking any final action on rezoning. Appropriate notice of these hearings will be given to all affected properties and parties as required by law. The current zoning designation of C-2 for the subject property, hereafter listed, is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program which designate the property RH, residential high density (1 5-23 ddac). Parcel No. 204-253-1 3 - Lot Two (2) in Block 'G" of PALISADES in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1747, filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5,1923. The property owner is Charles Ledgerwood. Parcel No. 204-253-14 - Lot one (1) in Block 'G" PALISADES as per Map thereof No. 1747 filed in the Office of the Recorder of said San Diego County, February 5, 1923. The property owner ' is Charles Ledgerwood. Parcels 13 and 14 are used currently as a retail seed store. - Parcel No. 204-253-20 - Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as filepage No. 754902233 of Offcia1 Records. The property owner is Mike Eubanks. The property is used currently as a restaurant and bar. lb7 r Government Code sdon 65860 requires that under the ‘consistency doctrine” IOC; governments must maintain their zoning in a manner consistent with their general plans. Thu: the existing zoning designation for this property should be amended to conform to the Gener; Pian. In addition, the Mello II land Use Plan of the City’s Local Coastal Program is consister with the General Plan (designating the site RH) and the zoning designation for the propert should also be consistent with the LCP. The zoning designations that implement the Rt classifications are RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple Zone) and/or R-3 (Multiple-Famil, Residential Zone). As part of the zone change process, staff will be making a recomrnendatior as to which designation would be the most appropriate. - This resolution directs the Planning Director to conduct all necessary studies, notices, anc reports regarding the recommended zone change, and bring the matter without undue dela) before the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. Upon rezoning, CMC Q 21.48.050 requires that all nonconforming uses and nonconforminG buildings in any R-Zone shall be discontinued within a designated amortization period set forth in the municipal code. It is the responsibility of the Plahning Commission to determine whether, by reason of structural alterations or the installation of major equipment prior to the date of the ordinance, it is deemed necessary to establish a later date-for abatement in order to ensure that the investment represented by such alterations may be amortized. The Planning Director has prepared a summary of the department’s scheme to implement a program to resolve identified inconsistencies in zoning and the General Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit ”A ”. This summary indudes a more detailed discussion ofthe restrictions-imposed on a legal, nonconforming use. .- FISCAL IMPACT: The suggested action will require staff time for processing, and the actual cost of notice and publication. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution No. qk,-kiE: 2. Parcel Location Map. 3. Exhibit “A”. .. . 1 2 3 4 I 9 10 11 RESOLUTION NO. 96-168 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CrrY COUNCIL OF THE ClTy OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DECLARING THE INTENTION TO AMEND THE ZO DESIGNATION FOR 7Hj3EE TO R-H TO CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL LOCAL. 'COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE * PARCELS LO # D ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD PROPERTY. - WHEREAS, three parcels of real property, located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue is currently zon@ C-2, ge@ral commercial, according to the City of Carfsbad zoning map; and WHEREAS, the wrrent6arlsha.d Land Use General Plan and Loa Coa s ta I Program both designate the propeW as RDM, r&sidential multiple family zone; and WHEREAS, Public RegeurceL'Code section 30108.5 refers to the Local Coastal Program as a portion of the City's General Plan and Government Code section 65860 provides that the zoning designation for a property shall be consistent with 1' - General Plan Land Use desigdm, NOW, THEREFORE, BE K RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true end correct. 2. That it is the intention of the Caw Council to amend the zoning designatior for the above referenced property to be consistent with the Local Coastal Program anr General Plan for the property by rezoning the property to RDM or R-3, as appropriate. 3. The City Council directs the Planning Director to duct the necessaq studies, notices, and reports and bring the matter without undue delay before the Plannini Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the Council. ,... 1 1 .... --. c r 1 r c 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 I 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 on the 2 1 st day of MAY 1996 by the following vote, towit AYES: Council Members Lewis,' Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila A NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Counci ATEST: ALETHA L. RAUTE 2 I' LOCATION MAP SI As part of the rc dnt General Plan update, sek 11 properties were identified where the zoning and the General Plan designation are inconsistent (e.9. Zoning is commercial, General Plan designation is residential) The properties on which the Sandbar and the adjoining seed business a& located are one of these (there are 4 other properties with similar situations) One of the implementation programs of the General Plan is to resolve these identified inconsistencies (Program C. 16, Page 28) Regardless of the present controversy regarding the Sandbar, the property would have been considered for rezoning as part of the General Plan implementation program If rezoned from commercial to residential, the Sandbar and the Seed business would become Leoal. Nan-Conforminq Uses As a Legal, Non-Conforming Use: No new, additional uses can be established on the property until the non- conforming use is removed No expansions, alterations or repair of the non-conforming use can occr unless: a) b) c) it is destroyed by a fire or an act of God to an extent not more than 25% of the replacement value incidental reconstruction, repair or rebuilding not to exceed 10% of the building replacement value A conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission allowing up to maximum of 50% of the replacement value. In granting this conditional use permit, an abatement date must be established for the use If the non-conforming use vacates or closes for more than six months, it loses it's legal nonconforming status The Planning Commission may establish a period of time and conditions for abatement of a non-conforming use. This is a discretionary procedure under Chapter 21 -48 for consideration of removal of non-conforming uses and buildings, and would have to be initiated by the cityr it is not automatic. chy+c~x)c r.u --.- .- ‘4 ~m#ldn, Cad- and httc Bum 9603f655 pw 11 47-227354 Attachment 8 - ABC order with conditions on alcohol license / *. Buildings and Uses” Chapter 21.48 NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND Attachment 9 - Zoning Ordinance Chapter on “Nonconforminr c nonconforming, the degree of nonconformit= may not subsequently be increased by chanig, to a less restricted use. (ad. 9060 9 1701) Sections: 21.48.010 21.48.020 21.48.030 21.48.040 21 4.050 21 ~8.060 21.48.070 21.48.080 21.48.090 2 1 .48. IO0 USES Limitation on other uses. Removal of nonconforming buildings or change in status of nonconforming use. Application of chapter. Nonconforming land use when no structure involved. Nonconforming use of a conforming building. Removal of nonconforming buildings. Commission to determine conditions of abatement. Alteration, repair or expansion of nonconforming uses. Alteration of building when nonconforming by reason of inadequate yards. Public utility exemptions. 21.48.010 Limitation on other uses. While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no additional use may be established thereon, even though such use would be a conforming use. (Ord. 9060 9 1700) 2148.020 Removal of nonconforming buiidings or change in status of nonconforming use. 1 If any nonconforming building is removed, every future use ofthe land on which the building is located shall conform to the provisions of this title. If a nonconforming use vacates and is suc- ceeded by another and more restrictive use, it is evidence that the heavier nonconforming use was ended and thereupon immediately loses any vested right as such. If the substitute use is itself 21.48.030 Application of chapter. The provisions of thu chapter shall apply to buildings, lands and uses which hereafter become nonconforming due to any reclassifica- tion of zones under this title. (Ord. 9060 5 1702) 21.48.040 Nonconforming land use when no smcture involved. In any zone the nonconforming use of land wherein no structure is involved shall be abated within one year from the date the ordinance codified in this title becomes applicable, and any hture use of such land shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance. If the nonconform- ing use of land existing at the time this ordinance takes effect is thereafier discontinued for six months or more, any future use of such land shall conform to the provisions of this title. (Ord. 9060 0 1703) 21.48.050 Nonconforming use of a conforming building. (a) IN R ZONES. All nonconforming uses of a conforming building in any of the R zones shall be discontinued within three years from the date of formal notice to the owner from the planning commission, or not later than five years from the date the piovisions of this ordinance becomes applicable to it. (b) IN C ZONES. Every nonconforming use of a conforming building in a C zone which use is first permitted in a less restrictive zone shall be completely removed before the expiration of a ten-year period measured from the date the ordi- nance codified in this title becomes applicable to it. (c) IN M ZONES. The nonconforming use of a conforming building which is devoted to any residential purpose, hospital (except emergency hospitals), hotel, institution or home for the treatment of convalescent persons, alcoholics. - 73 1 21.48.050 the wounded or mentally infirm. lodginghouses. schools. trailers used for human habitation. or trailer parks. shall be completely removed before the expiration of a ten-year period measured from the date the ordinance codified in this title becomes applicable to it. (Ord. 9060 9 1704) (0 Warehouses. lofts. stores. garages - (D) Industrial - Thinyfive years: (b) IN C ZONES. (1) Residential structures in a "C" zone exist- ing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be considered as nonconforming Fony-five years. 21.38.060 Removal of nonconforming buildings. (a) IN R ZONES. Every nonconforming building in any of the R zones. except residential buildings. churches and schools. which noncon- forming building was designed-or intended for a use not permitted in the R zone in which it is located. shall be completely removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zone in which it is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the planning commission. which time is measured from the date of construction. In no case shall this period of time be less than five years from the date of notification by the planning commission. As used in this section the designations "Type I Building". "Type 2 Building", "Type 3 Build- ing". "Type 4 Building" and "Type 5 Building". are employed as defined in the existing building ordinance: ( I) If property is occupied by structures of a type for which the existing building ordinance does not require a building permit - One year: (2) Type 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com- bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years: (3) Type 2 or Type 3 buildings (heavy timber construction and ordinary masonry): (A) Apanments. offices. hotels or residences having stores or offices below and apartments or offices above - Thirty-five years. (B) Warehouses. stores. garages. lofts - Thir- tyfive years. (C) Factories and industrial - Forty-five years: (4) Type 1 Buildings (fire resistant): (A 1 Offices and hotels - Fony-five years. (B) Theatres - Fifty years. A uses and as such. shall be subject to those prow- sions of this ordinance which provide that a non- conforming building removed or destroyed may not be replaced by other than a conforming building. Structural alterations or enlargements may be made: provided. that the degree of non- conformity may not be increased by changing to a less restricted residential use or by reducing yard widths less than the prescribed minimum required in R-3 zone: (2) Every nonconforming building in a C zone which is designed for a use first permitted in an M zone shall be completely removed or altered to conform to those uses permitted in the C zone in which such building is located within the herein specified times. upon notice from the planning commission. which times are measured from the date of construction except that in no case shall this period of time be less than five years from date of such notice by the planning commission. As used in this section. the designa- tions "Type 1 Building". "Type 2 Building". "Type 3 Building". "Type 4 Building" and "Type 5 Building" are employed as defined in the exist- ing building ordinance: (A) Where property is unimproved except for structures of a type for which the existing build- ing ordinance does not require a building permit -One year. . (B) Type 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com- bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years. (C) Type 2 or Type 3 buildings (heavy timtx, construction and ordinary masonv): (i) Apanments. offices. hotels or residences having stores or offices below and apanments or offices above - Thiny-five years (ii) Warehouses. stores. garages. lofts - Thiny-five years . 732 riii) Factories and industrial - Forty-five (D) Type 1 buildings (fire resistant): (i) Offices and hotels - Fony-five years (ii) Theatres - Fifty years (iii) Warehouses. lofts. stores, garages - (iv) Industrial - Thirry-five yean. (c) IN "M" ZONES. (1) Residential structures in an "M" zone existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be considered as non- conforming uses and assuch, shall be subject to those provisions of this ordinance which provide that a nonconforming building removed or destroyed may not be replaced by other than a conforming building. Structural alterations or enlargements may be made: provided. that the degree of nonconformity may not be increased by changing to a less restricted residential use or by reducing yard widths less than the prescribed minimum required in R-3 zone. (2) Every nonconforming building in the ",M" zone which is used for. or devoted to. any hospital (except emergency hospitals). hotel. institution or home for the treatment of con- valescent persons. alcoholics. the wounded or mentally infirm. lodginghouses. schools. trailers used for human habitation. or trailer parks. and which nonconforming building was designed or intended for a use not permitted in the "M" zone in which it is located. shall be completely removed or altered to structurally conform to the uses permitted in the zone in which it is located within the herein specified times upon notice from the planning commission. which times are measured from the date of construction. except that in no case shall this period of time be less than five years from the date of such notice. As used in this section the designations "Type 1 building". "Type 2 building". "Type 3 building". "Type 4 building". and "Type 5 building" are employed as defined in the existing building ordinance: years Fony-five yean (A) Where propeny is unimproved except fc - nructures of a p-pe for which the existing buila- ing ordinance does not require a buil&ng pennlt - One year. (B) Type 4 or Type 5 buildings (light com- bustible frame and wood frame) - Forty years. (C) Type 2 or Type 3 buildings (heaw timber construnion and ordinary masonry): (i) Apartments. ofices. horels or residences having stores or ofices below and apartments or offices above - Thipfive years (ii) Warehouses. stores, garages. lofts - Thiny-five years. (iii) Factories and industrial - Forty-five yean. (D) Type 1 buildings (fire resistant): (i) Offices and hotels - Fony-five years (ii) Theatres - Fifty years (iii) Warehouses. lofts. stores. garages - (iv) Industrial - Thiny-five years. (Ord. Forty-five years 9088 $9 1.2: Ord. 9060 6 1705) 21.48.070 Commission to determine - conditions of abatement. When any nonconforming condition exists in any zone. other than the nonconforming use of land when no structure is involved. it shall be the responsibility of the planning commission. on its own initiative. to fix a date upon which the non- conforming building was established. It shall also be the responsibility of the planning commission to determine whether. by reason of structural alterations or enlargements. or the installation of major equipment designed into the building prior to the date the ordinance codified in this title becomes applicable thereto. it is deemed necessary to establish a later date for abatement than that prescribed herein for the building itself in order to assure that the investment repre- sented by such structural alterations. enlarge- ments or equipment installations may be amortized. In performing this function the com- mission shall consider all peninent data in con- - nection therewith to provide the opponunity for 733 77 21.48.070 - the owner of record. or lessee if there be such. to present such evidence as they may possess and which properly relate to such case. When the date of abatement has been determined. the commis- sion by resolution. shall establish such date and shall set forth such facts as bear upon the case upon which the determination of such date of abatement is based. and shall formally notify the owner of such nonconforming properry of the acrion of the commission by mailing 10 such owner a copy of the formally-adopted resolution not later than ten days following the date ofsub- ject action by the planning commission. (Ord. 9060 9 1706) 21.48.080 (2) That such reconstruction. repair or rebuilding complies with the provisions of Title 18 of this code; (3) Such repairs. reconstruction or rebuilding shall not extend the time of abatement esra& lished by this chapter. (d) A nonconforming use or building may be altered, improved, reconstructed. restored. repaired or extended as may be permitted by the planning commission upon granting of the con- ditional use permit processed according to the procedures established in Chapter 21.50 of ths code. Before a conditional use permit may be granted all provisions of Chapter 21.50 shall be met and it shall be shown that: ( 1) The aggregate value ofthe proposed altera- tion. improvement. reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the total replacement at the time the conditional use permit is applied for as deter- mined by the building and planning director of all improvements on the site unless the building or structure is changed to a conforming use. Such aggregate value may be increased up to fifty per- cent of total replacement for those uses which provide a pubbic service traditionally provided by the city: (2) The proposed alteration. improvement. reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension is of a .type of structure that is specifically designed to be easily removed: (3) The proposed alteration. improvement. reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension meets all construction setback. coverage. plan- ning and all other applicable requirements ofthis code. In approving such conditional use permit, the planning commission shall establish a date by which all nonconforming structures and uses shall be made conforming or removed from the site. In no event shall the date for such removal or compliance extend beyond the date set according to the provisions of this title for abatement of the existing nonconforming use. Extensions of said date for abatement shall be permitted only upon Alteration, repair or expansion of nonconforming uses. (a) Except as provided in this section. a non- conforming use or building shall not be altered. improved. reconstructed. restored. repaired, intensified. expanded or extended. (b) A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of not more than twenty-five percent of its replacement value as determined by the building and planning director at the time of its destrucrion by fire. explosion. or other casualty or act of God. or public enemy. may be restored and the occupancy or use of such building, or pan thereof. which exists at the time of such partial destruction may continue subject to all other provisions of this chapter. Such restoration shall not extend the time of abatement as estab- lished by this chapter. (c) Incidental reconstruction. repair or rebuilding of a nonconforming building ren- dered necessary by ordinary wear and tear and which does not increase the degree of nonconfor- mity of a nonconforming building, nor increase the degree or size of a nonconforming use may be made. provided that: ( 1 1 The aggregate value of such repairs or alterations shall not exceed ten percent of the building’s replacement value at the time the building permit is applied for as determined by the building and planning director: -.--,-- _c .- 7 734 ,. . 1- c 21.18.080 approval of amendment of the conditional use permit and. then. only upon showing of good cause. A conditional use permit or amendment shall be effective only upon execution by the applicant of written acceptance of the condi- tional use permit. or amendment. Such accept- ance shall include an agreement by the applicant to remove all nonconforming uses and buildings or structures. or make them conforming, on or before the date for removal established by the conditional use permit or amendment in exchange for permission to alter, improve. reconstruct, restore. repair or extend. The land use planning manager shall cause such conditional use permit, complete with abatement date. or any amendment to the condi- tional use permit. extending an abatement date. to be recorded at the office of the county recorder within five days after the issuance of the permit or amendment. Any alteration. improvement. reconstruction. restoration. repair or extension undenaken pursuant to the conditional use per- mit shall be commenced within three months after the issuance of the permit unless an exten- sion is granted by the planning commission. (e) No nonconforming building, stmcture. or use shall be changed to any other nonconforming use. building or structure. (Ord. 1261 0 50. 1983: Ord. 1256 $ 7 (pan), 1982: Ord. 9538 $ 2. 1979: Ord. 9060 $ 1707) 21.48.090 Alteration of building when nonconforming by reason of inadequate yards. Where a building or buildings. and customary accessory buildings are nonconforming only by reason of substandard yards or open spaces. the provisions of this title prohibiting structural - alterations or enlargements shall not apply: prc vided. that any structural alterations or enlarge- ments of an existing building shall conform to the following: (I) That such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or extended to the same degree of nonconformity as may exist but in no event shall such addition or enlargement encroach closer than three fett to any side yard lot line.-ten feet to any front line or five feet to any rear lot line: (2) That any such enlargement shall not increase the floor space more than forty percent of that existing prior to such enlargement. (Ord. 9060 9 1708) 21.48.100 Public utility exemptions. The Foregoing provisions of this chapter con- cerning the required removal of nonconforming buildings and uses and the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed. shall not apply to public utility buildings and structures when such buildings and structures pertain directly to the rendering of the service or distribution such as power generating piants and electrical distribution substations: water wells and pumps: gas storage. metering and valve con- trol stations. Nor shall anything in this anicle be construed or applied so as to prevent the expan- sion, modernization or replacement ofsuch pub- lic utility buildings. structures. equipment and features as are used directly for the delivery of. or distribution of. the service: provided the provi- sions of this section shall not exempt from the provisions covering nonconformity of such buildings. stmctures. or uses as do not immedi- ately relate to the direct service by consumen, such as warehouses. storage yards and the like. (Ord. 9060 5 1709) - 735 PLAN N I NG COM M ISS 10 N January 3,2001 Page QHIBIT 6 13. ZC 99-081LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARDflAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - A city- initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal Pronram zoninn maD designations of .,. three contiguous properties fir Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (e-1 and C-2 respectively) to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and includes the Seaside Bistro. No development is proposed with this amendment. Project Planner, Scott Donnell presented the staff report as follows: This is a request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to re-zone from commercial to residential. The re-zoning is consistent with General Plan and the Local Coastal Program designations. It affects the Seaside Bistro and the Ledgerwood parcels. The Seaside Bistro is a single parcel, approximately 14,000 square feet, at the corner of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. Just to the north of the Seaside Bistro parcel are two parcels owned by the Charles Ledgerwood Trust, at the corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Redwood Avenue. This is a City initiated amendment and there is no development proposed or other physical changes proposed to the existing uses on the properties. These lots are similar (rectangular) to the other lots in the area and are approximately 4,600 square feet in size. Adjacent to the Ledgerwood property are some large, single-family homes and behind the Seaside Bistro is an apartment building. The Seaside Bistro has a long history. The property began as a snack shop, was eventually expanded to become the Captain’s Anchorage, purchased by Mike Eubanks in 1986 and the name was changed to the Sandbar Restaurant. In 1999, Ms. Eubanks sold the business, but not the property, to the current owners, Jim and Monica DiMaggio. In the year 2000, the DiMaggio’s changed the name of the restaurant to the Seaside Bistro. The Seaside Bistro has both Local Coastal and City Zoning designations of C-2 for General Commercial. On the other hand, the Ledgerwood parcels have designations of C-1 and C-2. Nevertheless, the existing zonings are commercial and the proposal is to change all of those zonings to Multiple-family- Residential or R-3 and also Beach Area Overlay. All of the properties in the beach area have this Beach Area Overlay zoning designation. The proposed zoning will provide consistency with State Planning law. There is a fundamental planning law that requires all California jurisdictions to have zoning that is consistent with the General Plan. The re-zoning will also achieve neighborhood zoning in terms of compatibility with the surrounding zoning as well as the surrounding land uses. Currently, development on the property is stymied; you have a General Plan that calls for residential and the zoning, on the other hand, that calls for commercial. The Seaside Bistro, for example, cannot expand. Any expansion could not be found to be conforming with the General Plan. The proposed re-zoning also enables implementation of the General Plan Policy that says that the city is to correct any inconsistency between the zoning and the General Plan. Finally, it also implements the City Council Resolution of Intention that the City Council passed back in 1996. This resolution declared the Council’s intention to change the zoning of the Seaside Bistro and the Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to residential, primarily to be consistent with the General Plan. The resolution also directed Staff to begin processing that re-zoning. Reasons for the passage of the Resolution of Intention to fix the zoning and consistency and also to address the problems occurring at the Sandbar, now the Seaside Bistro. Sometime in the late 1980’s or early 199Os, the Sandbar Restaurant changed from a primary use of a restaurant to a bar use with live music. The problems that the city, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (ABC), and the neighbors experienced occurred primarily in the early to mid 1990’s. Some of the problems were loud music, activity beyond midnight and past 1 :00 a.m. and 2:OO am., fighting both inside and outside the restaurant, public drunkenness, and vandalism. One of the problem the Seaside Bistro and the prior restaurant had and still has, is a lack of adequate parking. They are approximately twenty to twenty-five spaces short. That contributed to the problem of the Sandbar patrons parking in the surrounding neighborhood on Redwood Avenue and Garfield Street. That was a problem, mainly because the problems associated with fighting and public drunkenness were carried forward into the residential neighborhoods. They weren’t concentrated on the premises of the Sandbar. Of course these problems contributed to neighborhood complaints and there were also several arrests by Carlsbad Police. In response, the Sandbar hired extra security and they also made improvements to the building to try to attenuate some of the noise. The city sought a voluntary reduction in the Sandbar’s business hours. The Sandbar did not reduce its hours and the city also considered passing an entertainment ordinance that would restrict noise after 1O:OO pm., but there was no action taken on that ordinance. Parking studies were also considered and the final optim, the Resolution of Intention, was what was actually done. While the city PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,2001 Page 30 Corrected - and the Sandbar were considering these responses, the ABC was also looking at the situation. They received a number of complaints and in the early 1990’s the ABC sent letters to the Sandbar saying that it had received complaints and if the problems weren’t satisfactorily addressed, it might have to take disciplinary action. In 1996, the ABC actually filed an Accusation Against Respondents in which the ABC alleged several problems such as; 1. The Sandbar kept a disorderly house; 2. The restaurant wasn’t responding to the problems that it was causing; 3. That it was creating a Police enforcement problem; and 4. That it was basically not being a good neighbor. Finally the ABC took the action after holding a local hearing here in the Council Chambers to revoke the Sandbar’s alcohol license. Along with that revocation there was a requirement that said that revocation could be stayed, subject to some conditions. One of the conditions was that if the Sandbar could demonstrate, over a two year period, that they could comply with the conditions, the revocation would be stayed permanently. The ABC action was appealed by the Sandbar and became effective in March, 1999. Some of the conditions placed on the alcohol license were; no live entertainment or alcohol sales beyond midnight; no audible entertainment at any time beyond the Sandbar premises; no use of the outside trash dumpster after 9:00 pm.; and finally, if live entertainment was provided, that the Sandbar provide patrolling security, both on the premises and in the surrounding neighborhood. Since 1997, complaints against the sandbar have generally ceased. In 1999, the Sandbar and it‘s alcohol license with the conditions, were sold, and in the year 2000, the Sandbar was re-named The Seaside Bistro. The current owners of the Seaside Bistro indicate that it is a restaurant use and is no longer a nightclub with live entertainment. If the parcels are re-zoned, high density residential development will be permitted. The Beach Area Overlay Zone and also the recommended additional zoning restricts building heights and densities and the re-zoning will enable uniform zoning use and development standards to be in place throughout the neighborhood. Most of the adjacent properties have the R-3 designation as well as the RH General Plan designation. What is being done now is clearly consistent with the surroundings. If the properties were to develop, residentially, under the proposed zoning, it is possible that each Ledgerwood parcel could build one to two units each. The Seaside Bistro parcel, since it is larger, could have up to four to six units. With residential development there is generally less pollution, less traffic, and less noise. Standard traffic formulas indicate that traffic generated by a restaurant use is significantly higher Seaside Bistro would become legally non-conforming. Commercial uses, such as a restaurant, are not permitted in a residential zone. Staff does not think re-zoning will effect the Ledgerwood parcel because the seed business that was formerly housed on the property was sold and relocated outside of Carlsbad. For the Seaside Bistro, because it would become a non-conforming use, it could not improve, expand, or intensify. An addition could not be added on that would intensify or expand the restaurant. If the restaurant were to be destroyed, a new non-conforming use could not take its place. However, if the restaurant were sold, the restaurant could remain and would still be considered legally non-conforming. In addition, repairs can be made to repair ordinary wear and tear to the restaurant building. Because it is a non-conforming use, the city has the option to abate, or order a time when the use is to be terminated. That decision to abate is entirely up to the Planning Commission on its own initiative. To determine an abatement schedule some things would have to be determined about the building, such as the date it was established, the type of building it was, and what significant improvements have been made to the building. If a decision is made on abatement, the code requires a minimum five year abatement period. Staffs recommendation on abatement is that no abatement period be established. Without an abatement, restrictions will still remain on the use, expansion, and improvement of the property. As always, the city maintains the option to abate if it determines that abatement is necessary. Finally, with the environmental review, Staff found that there are no environmental impacts associated with the re-zoning. When development occurs on the properties, the environmental review for the type of development proposed will be performed at that time. than generated by a residential use. The facts of the re-zoning are; if the re-zoning goes through, the - Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is his understanding that even if there was no expansion restriction, the Bistro would not have the room to expand, especially since they are currently under-parked. He further commented that all the Commission is doing is allowing the city to abate the restaurant, if the Commission so chooses. Mr. Donnell replied that he is correct. - Commissioner Baker asked if there is a way to leave the restaurant zoned as Neighborhood Commercial. PLAN N I NG COM M ISS I ON January 3,2001 Page 31 c Mr. Donne11 explained that the restaurant is currently zoned General Commercial. He added that the city has both State law and General Plan policy that requires the city to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Ms. Mobaldi interjected and stated that there is a way and that way is to change the General Plan Designation in order to be consistent. Commissioner Baker asked how the General Plan is changed. Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is changed with a General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Baker asked if that is a long and involved process. Ms. Mobaldi replied that it would begin with the Planning Commission and move on to the City Council. If a General Plan Amendment was affected, Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the two properties would be dealt with separately. Ms. Mobaldi replied that, theoretically, they could be dealt with separately. One could be left commercial and the General Plan Designation could be changed for one and not en the other. As part of this process, the Commission could take an action on this resolution. Assuming that the resolution were denied, the Commission could request that a resolution for a General Plan Amendment be prepared, take whatever action you wish, and then send that recommendation forward to the City Council. Responding to Ms. Mobaldi’s last response, Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the Ledgerwood property is changed to residential and the restaurant is left as commercial, would the Ledgerwood property then be able to be developed. Ms. Mobaldi replied that if the Commission can make the appropriate findings either property can be re- zoned to be consistent with the General Plan or vice versa. The two properties can be considered individually because the histories are different and the uses are very different. Commissioner Compas asked if “spot” zoning is completely out of the question. Ms. Mobaldi replied that “spot” zoning is illegal but “spot” zoning is a legal term of art. Just because there is a unique designation for a property doesn’t necessarily mean it is spot zoning, particularly if there is justification for whatever the zoning and General Plan is for that specific property, such as historical use, etc. Chairperson Segall asked if it was the Council’s intention, in 1996, to change the zoning or make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Mobaldi replied that it is her understanding that the primary concern was to make it consistent because the California government code requires that they be consistent as well our General Plan. Also, the other issue was the problem activity going on at the Sandbar and the compatibility with the neighborhood. Chairperson Segall stated that problem activity doesn’t appear to be an issue at this time and it seems that the issues before the Commission are the General Plan and zoning. Commissioner Nielsen asked if it is possible for the Commission, in this action, to prohibit abatement on that property. Ms. Mobaldi replied that abatement is discretionary and that the code allows the Planning Department to set a time for abatement but it is not mandatory. January 3,2001 Page 32 PLANNING COMMISSION - Commissioner Nielsen also asked that even if the Commission voted in favor of the zone change, could the city still abate the restaurant at some time in the future. Ms. Mobaldi replied that if it is a non-conforming use, yes. Chairperson Segal pointed out that if that were to happen, and the restaurant continued to be a non- conforming use, financing issues and other matters could be severely impacted. Ms. Mobaldi replied that she would have to assume that that is true. Chairperson Segall opened Public Testimony and admonished those wishing to testify to be as brief as possible in deference to the lateness of the hour. Janet Robinson, Attorney for the restaurant operator, 772 Corinia Court, Encinitas, stated as follows: everything has changed since this re-zoning was initiated some four years ago and that re-zoning this site, in her opinion, would not be a good planning decision. The DiMaggios have thoroughly cleaned and upgraded the interior of the restaurant, redecorated, halted the evening entertainment, limited the evening hours, and generally did everything that could possibly be done in an effort to become a good neighbor. They have a twelve year lease on the property and they hope to operate the restaurant long enough to finance the purchase of the property. It is true that a re-zone of this property would create a cloud that would make it almost impossible for them to get financing for the purchase of the property. The long range plan for this restaurant is to eventually rebuild it, add parking (perhaps underground), and possibly add a few rooms to create a European style inn. The result would be a beautiful inn with a restaurant that is open to the public. This restaurant creates a lot of community cohesiveness in that there is pedestrian access to services and a twenty-four hour life that discourages crime and encourages a feeling of neighborhood. The problems of the past have now been solved and should not cause the Commission to take the extreme measure of re-zoning this property. If there is a problem with the use, that should be addressed by the Commission might wish to impose, whether it is an overlay or something else. He is also willing to give up his cabaret license, entirely, and would like to work with the city, ensuring that his business will never be a problem to anyone, ever again. The Seaside Bistro upholds so many of the city’s and Coastal Commission’s policies that promote public use of the coastline. Re-zoning the property to R-3 simply adds the last brick in a private wall of residential uses that reserves the relaxed enjoyment of the ocean view for a handful of property owner that can afford to live on the waterfront. With the restaurant in this place, the public, as well as the neighborhood residents, can enjoy the restaurant and its view. Regarding an abatement period, should the Commission approve the zone change, an indefinite abatement period would be a definite problem for the owner. Mr. DiMaggio does want to finance the purchase of the property and being in a Limbo (of sorts), would create huge problems. Regarding the environmental analysis of the re- zone, there are concerns about the growth inducing effect of the re-zone triggering at least a potentially cumulative significant environmental impact. The re-zone may create a significant aesthetic impact and its proposal could have a significant adverse recreational impact for the same reasons. In conclusion, please send this back to the City Council for their reconsideration based on very changed circumstances. If that is done, it may well be that they will take another look at this and change their minds. There is no currently existing problem(s) at the restaurant that would be resolved with this re-zone. Please give the DiMaggios an opportunity to retain their business and work with the city to provide a great amenity for the City of Carlsbad. A General Plan Amendment would solve this problem and a Beach Overlay Zone could also help control uses. Any other overlays or conditions, that the Commission may deem applicable, will be welcomed. nuisance abatement and code enforcement. Mr. DiMaggio is willing to live with any kind of condition that - James DiMaggio, Restaurant Owner, 29042 Vista Valley Drive, Vista, stated that the restaurant, as it stands today, is a “used car” and there is only so much that can be done with it under current code conditions. He added that he would eventually like to put a first rate establishment on that site; perhaps not as big but something that conforms with the neighborhood, the city codes, etc. -_ Kevin McCann, 2755 Jefferson St. Suite 21 1, Carlsbad, Attorney representing the land owner, Mitze Eubanks, expressed concern for an item in the staff report that suggests an error of fact. He stated that fact 83 PLAN N IN G CO M M ISS I ON January 3,2001 Page 33 rc .- is that this was a snack-bar, turned restaurant (for a short time), turned bar and it understates the history of this business as a component of this community. Also, this is a fifty year, plus, business and there are many people who have resided here long enough to remember the way it was and has been over the years. Mr. McCann further stated that to identify this business as merely a snack-bar, turned restaurant, turned bar, is unfair and that there are many places that make Carlsbad a special place to live, and this restaurant is one of them. He agreed with Ms. Robinson, in that to re-zone the Bistro property is not a good use of a community resource. He pointed out that much has been said about the necessity to change the use of this property to conform with the General Plan and that he has to disagree with that idea. He stated that he does not agree with the concept that things must be changed, retroactively, because there has been a General Plan Amendment. Mr. McCann further stated that to take away a valuable opportunity, on such a questionable basis, simply does not make good common sense. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. McCann who owns the cabaret license. Mr. McCann replied that the cabaret license has been sold to James DiMaggio. By consensus, the Commission once again agreed to extend the Meeting to 1 1 :00 p.m. Margaret Bonus, 231 Olive Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that she has been a resident of Carlsbad since 1965 and expressed her wish to go on record with the following statement: “I request a denial, or continuance, or a zone-change to multiple-family residential condos, high density, in the area. There is no benefit, unless they are single-family and one story, so the people up the hill . . . The original meeting for the Beach Overlay group was held at my home and the original plan was to have the homes on the lower lots, one- story homes so the people, up the hill, would not lose their views. That hasn’t happened. Views and air space need to be protected. The intent of the Beach Overlay has been abused and since the inception of the plan there has been more traffic, less parking, and lower quality of life. Safety hazards to the cars and pedestrians have increased, and with the higher density, some setbacks are encroaching on Carlsbad Boulevard’s sidewalks. As the condos and other multiples increase, west of the railroad tracks in the Overlay Zone, so does the voltage and power lines that line Garfield Avenue, from Chinquapin Avenue to Pine Avenue. The utilities should be put underground to protect the health and safety of the residents as well as the tourists.” Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Bonus what all this has to do with the question of re-zoning and she replied that it has to do with adding more people to the neighborhood by building larger places on smaller lots. Ms. Bonus continued: “This area is more of a tourist area; there are already several condos and we don’t need any more there. Quality of life should be considered with regard to the increased use of water and electricity. I am in favor of the restaurant.” Chairperson Segall stated that letters regarding this item have been received from Seth Sharon, Mr. Winter, and Mrs. Stewart, copies of which are on file in the Planning Department. Joyce James, 3931 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, stated that she would like to retain and continue with a neighborhood commercial zone and believes that such zoning helps to retain the village character and that the family atmosphere is needed now, more than ever. She further stated that she wants the restaurant to continue. Ms. James added that the site of the Bistro has not only been a site for Sunday afternoon Dixieland concerts but has hosted charitable fund raisers, book signings for children’s books, and other neighborhood style activities. Ms. James concluded by requesting that the Commission please keep the restaurant. Seth Sharon, 130 Tamarack Avenue, #4, Carlsbad, Manager of the apartment building directly adjacent to the Seaside Bistro property, stated that his experience (he is the person perhaps most impacted by the Bistro since his apartment windows face the restaurant) with the Bistro has been extremely pleasant and there have been absolutely no problems. He further stated that he fully supports a zone-change for the PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,2001 Page 34 - Ledgerwood property but also supports the retention of the commercial zone for the Bistro. Mr. Sharon strongly urged the Commission to reject this resolution. Robert Mantz, 125 Chesterfield, Cardiff by the Sea, requested the Commission oppose the resolution for a zone-change and keep the property as commercial. He pointed out that he is a commercial property owner and, in his experience, it is entirely possible to take an older property and change it to a mixed use development. Mr. Mantz indicated that the Bistro property, as testified by some of the surrounding residents, is best kept in its current zone. In this case it appears that the Bistro should remain as a restaurant and the City of Carlsbad should be able to find a way to balance its use and to avoid proscribing law to the development of land and, in his opinion, is not the way a property should evolve. Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Mantz what his interest is in the issue. Mr. Mantz replied that his property is very similar to the one at issue, and that he is considering entering into an agreement with the DiMaggios regarding the development of the property. Diane Lantz, 144 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that since the DiMaggios have taken over the restaurant, they have operated the business as good neighbors and that keeping the restaurant zoned as commercial and changing the zoning to residential for the Ledgerwood property makes perfect sense. She expressed her only concern that although the DiMaggios have good intentions (and so far they have exhibited those good intentions), would it be possible to do something that would ensure that the restaurant will never revert back to what it was when it was the Sandbar. Bennie Rodriguez, 1000 Chinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he is a Marine, currently stationed at Camp Pendleton and that he has found a second home at the Seaside Bistro. He continued by saying that each time he returns from a deployment, he is welcomed back to the Bistro as an old friend by management, the employees, and even the customers. Commission to deny this resolution. Corrected Mr. Rodriguez further stated that he would hate to see all that go away and asked the - Ms. Mobaldi stated that if the zoning were to remain in some form of commercial, it is her opinion that they can look into mechanisms for requiring a CUP. In addition, she stated that she believes that the DiMaggios have indicated a willingness to obtain a CUP, which runs with the land so that if the business is sold at any time in the future, the conditions of the CUP would apply to the new owner. The nature of those conditions would remain to be seen. Conditions would be based on whatever is appropriate at the time. Also, the DiMaggios have mentioned giving up the cabaret license, which would give some assurances. Commissioner Trigas referred to a comment by Mr. McCann in which he stated that the government code does not require the retroactive changing of a use to conform with the General Plan. Ms. Mobaldi responded by stating that she does not agree with Mr. McCann in that statement. Further, the government code does require consistency. However, there can be a legal, non-conforming use which doesn’t necessarily mean that because the zoning or the General Plan has changed, that tkykeme -the business is instantly or automatically forced out of business. She pointed out that, as Mr. Donnell explained, that business can continue but cannot expand or intensify, etc. Commissioner Baker commented that she would like to see the Seaside Bistro remain a commercial property and suggested that the Commission find a way to make that happen. Commissioner Nielsen stated that he believes that his fellow Commissioners would agree with him that the Bistro should be stayed and not change the zoning. Chairperson Segall asked for a consensus of the Commission regarding a continuance of this item. PLANNING COMMISSION January 3,2001 Page 35 Ms. Mobaldi advised the Commission to make a motion on the resolution as proposed and if it is not approved, to direct the City Attorney’s Office to come back with a new resolution reflecting the intentions of the Commission. Commissioner Compas, believing this resolution to have two parts, stated that he will support the re-zoning of the Ledgerwood property, to residential, but will not support the re-zoning of the Seaside Bistro property. Chairperson Segall asked the Commissioners if anyone has any objection to the zone-change for the Ledgerwood property. The unanimous response was negative. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893, recommending approval of ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01, based upon the findings contained therein. Commissioner Baker expressed concern for the neighbors who are/or may be concemed about any future change of ownership of the Bistro and stated that she wishes to make sure that the Commission is able to adequately address those concerns. VOTE: 0-7-0 AYES: None NOES: ABSTAIN: None Segall, Trigas, Nielsen, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas By consensus, the Commission directed Staff to return to the Commission, at the next Regular Meeting, with a resolution to re-zone the Ledgerwood Property to residential and to leave the Seaside Bistro property with the commercial designation, without a cabaret license, and require a Conditional Use Permit or some type of controls which will run with the land. ,,-- PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 DRAFT page 3 1. ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01 - CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE - A city- initiated amendment to change the City and Local Coastal Program zonina maD desianations of - -. three contiguous properties for Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial (6-1 and C-2 respectively) to Multiple-family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone. The affected properties are at 3862 and 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard and includes the Seaside Bistro. No development is proposed with this amendment. Chairperson Segall opened the Public Hearing. Chairperson Segall advised the applicant that there were only six Commissioners present and asked of the applicant wished to proceed with the hearing or wished to have the item continued to the next meeting, when it is likely that all seven Commissioners will be present. Representing the City of Carlsbad (the applicant), Assistant Planning Director, Gary Wayne replied that the City wished to proceed with the hearing at this time. Mr. Wayne introduced the item and pointed out that there is a letter regarding the subject properties, from Mrs. Eldean Ledgerwood-Bratton, and AI and Pam Corbin, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Project Planner, Scott Donnell presented the staff report as follows: This is a City initiated zoning amendment, both to the Zone Change and the Local Coastal Program. It comes, primarily from a 1996 City Council Resolution of Intent. In that resolution, Council stated its intention to re-zone three properties in the beach area, from Commercial to Residential. Also in that resolution, they directed Staff to begin the process and which was first presented to the Planning Commission on January 3, 2001 and continued to this meeting. The parcels affected are the Ledgerwood properties (on the north) and the Seaside Bistro properties (on the south). The Seaside Bistro was formerly called the Sandbar. As previously stated, this was presented to the Commission on January 3,2001 and the initial recommendation from Staff was to re- zone all three properties from Commercial to Residential. All of the properties, adjacent to the subject parcels shown on the exhibit, are zoned residential. The Seaside Bistro property is owned by the Mitze Eubanks Trust. However, Jim and Monika DiMaggio are the owners and current proprietors of the restaurant. Although Staff initially recommended the zone be changed to Residential, following the Public Hearing (at which there was much testimony) on January 3,2001, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that only the Ledgerwood parcels be re-zoned from Commercial to Residential (R-3). With regard to the Seaside Bistro parcel, the Cornmission recommended that the City keep the commercial zoning but that the City consider some kind of appropriate designation such as the C-1 zone (Neighborhood Commercial), that would have some type of land use controls whereby the City could regulate such things as hours, noise, etc., to try to make sure that whatever commercial use (be it a restaurant or another type of business) would be compatible with the neighborhood. Finally, the Planning Commission directed Staff to return with a resolution incorporating the above recommendations. Staff has prepared an analysis of the January 3, 2001 action; The first thing to be looked at is “what an appropriate designation might be.” Presently the City is undergoing a commercial study, which would include changes to the overall General Plan Policies and Land Use Designations regarding commercial uses. Among the recommendations are that the “C” (General Commercial) and “N” (Neighborhood Commercial) General Plan Designations be eliminated. In addition the study underway, there are some problems with the current zoning designations that could be applied to the Seaside Bistro property. C-1 may well be an appropriate zoning for this restaurant property. However, a C-1 zoning calls for a restaurant with alcohol sales, have a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP is certainly the kind of control the City is interested in seeing in order to assure that the uses are compatible. The property is currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) which does not require a CUP for a restaurant serving alcohol. Another zone that might be applied to the property is the C-T zone (Commercial/Tourist). However, the C-T zone requires a 3 acre minimum to any lot that it is applied to. When you consider what the current zonings allow and don’t allow, the study that is underway with the General Plan, there are some further actions and further analysis that needs to take place before Staff can recommend an appropriate designation. In addition, there may be some potential Coastal Commission issues. If the Planning Commission and the City Council see fit to designate the Seaside Bistro property as Commercial, the Coastal Commission will probably be interested in some kind of Tourist Serving zone and 87 PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 Page 4 the C-1 zone may not be appropriate as it allows uses such as “office”, which the Coastal Commission does not consider a tourist-serving use. In addition to that, if the Seaside Bistro parcel is designated for commercial development, there are some limitations. Looking at the restaurant that is currently there and based on its square footage, it is approximately twenty to twenty-five parking spaces short. The restaurant parking requirement in the zoning ordinances is based on the building’s square footage, not on the seating area. Another potential limitation is the set-back. At this time the building has a zero (0) set-back on the common property line with the Ledgerwood parcels and also on the property line that is common with the adjacent apartment building to the east. While it is not clear what zoning could be applied, the set-backs are clear. Under the current C-1 zone, there is a requirement for a ten foot set-back between a commercial structure and a property line that borders residential. (Note: the recommendation is to re-zone the Ledgerwood parcels to Residential (R-3) and as such, would make the Seaside Bistro non-conforming. With the lot size and limitation of 14,000 square feet, with the parking shortage and set-backs, there are limitations as to what can be done with the property. For the Seaside Bistro to add parking, it would be necessary to demolish a portion of the building. Under its present configuration, there is no way that enough parking spaces could be added. The lot size is also restricted because it has two street frontages; Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue. A potential possibility is that if the two Ledgerwood properties (those fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard, immediately north of the Seaside Bistro) were to remain commercial, a parking lot could be built on the Ledgerwood parcels. However, as indicated in the letter previously mentioned, the buyers of the Ledgerwood parcels are very much in favor of zoning the Ledgerwood parcels to R-3, and that they intend to build single-family homes as opposed to allowing any kind of parking lot expansion. Also, the other adjacent properties are strictly residential and fully developed and there is no land available that the Seaside Bistro could expand upon. There are land use controls that would probably be required to be placed on any use on the Seaside Bistro parcel, to ensure that it would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As was previously discussed at the last Planning Commission Meeting, a Conditional Use Permit is likely because it enables the City to regulate things such as hours, noise, architecture, etc., all in an effort to ensure compatibility. With all that said, Staff recognizes that the Planning Commission realizes that this property may be a great site for a commercial development with appropriate Land Use controls. Based on that recommendation, Staff has fashioned a resolution that contains a number of findings, all of which say that the Seaside Bistro property has the potential to be a good commercial site. Staff recognizes that the property has been used, historically, as a commercial property and also with a restaurant use. Staffs recommendation therefore is, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the re-zoning of the Ledgerwood parcels from Commercial to Residential and, at this time, there be no change to the current zoning of the Seaside Bistro Parcel. It is further recommended that the Commission recommend to the City Council, that the Council consider allowing Commercial to remain as a conforming use and accordingly direct Staff to conduct some further analysis, prepare appropriate Land Use Amendments to the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and hold public hearings on same. If the Planning Commission and the City Council agree that the Seaside Bistro property should remain Commercial, then this process will be started all over again. Staff will come back with a Staff Report for the General Plan Amendment, etc., there will be Public Hearings, and the neighbors within a six hundred foot radius of the Seaside Bistro parcel will be notified. Chairperson Segall asked if Staff has considered keeping the Ledgerwood property as Commercial, Mr. Donnell replied that Staff has not made an analysis regarding the retention of the Ledgerwood property as Commercial. Chairperson Segall asked if that is something that might be considered if the entire parcel is examined. He stated that it appeared that the Commission, at the last meeting, might be interested in keeping the Commercial integrity of at least part of that property. However, he continued, he is not sure that the Commission has really looked at what is the best use for all of the land. Chairperson Segdl also asked what process would have to occur if the Commission wanted the entire parcel evaluated from a Commercial standpoint and not from a Residential standpoint. Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that the Commission would have to amend the resolution that Staff is putting before the Commission because it is Staffs intention to follow the recommendation of the Commission, at the last meeting, to change the Ledgerwood parcels to Residential. However, if the Commission wishes to re-consider their recommendation, Staff will take forward whatever the re- i;‘ t PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 Page 5 - consideration is. What Staff has done in preparing this Staff report and resolution for the Commission’s consideration, is to bring up some of the issues that arise from the Commission’s recommendations to the City Council. Essentially, it is evidence that should go into the record and be part of the Commission’s consideration. Mr. Wayne further stated that Staff has no plans to evaluating the Ledgerwood parcel as anything other than Residential. Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Donnell to respond to some of the statements in the previously mentioned letter. Mr. Donnell responded by stating the following: The re-zoning application has been underway since the Summer of 2000. When he was told that the Corbin’s were the prospective buyers, he contacted them to discuss the application. Since then, he has been in contact with Mr. Corbin, on a number of occasions. In addition, the Staff reports as well as the Public Hearing notices, have been mailed to the Corbin’s, so they are aware of what is going on. He doesn’t believe there has been any time when Mr. Corbin has been informed that the City is definitely going to change the zoning to Residential, no questions asked. Commissioner Compas asked if any part of the Seaside Bistro in encroaching on the Ledgerwood property. Mr. Donnell replied that Staff has been unable to verify whether or not there is an encroachment and that he has spoken to the Chief Building Inspector regarding the issue. The Building Inspector’s response was that, as far as the City knows, there has not been a study done to determine any encroachment. Commissioner Baker asked if the property has been surveyed by the Corbin’s, to determine where the lot lines are. Mr. Donnell replied that he is unsure as to whether there has been a survey. Commissioner Baker stated that it would probably be prudent to have a survey and Mr. Donnell agreed. - Commissioner Baker asked what will happen if the Commission determines that they want the Seaside Bistro property to remain as commercial. Mr. Donnell replied that it would have to be determined what the Commercial zone would be. However, he added, with the Commercial Study underway, it would be difficult to pick a zone and a General Plan Designation since everything is quite up in the air. For clarification, Commissioner Baker stated that even if it is the intention of the Commission to keep the Seaside Bistro property as Commercial, there is no way the Commission could make that determination at this meeting, since it is not possible to pick a zone designation for the property at this time. Mr. Donnell agreed with the Commissioner’s statement. Commissioner Baker asked what kind of time frame there would be if the Commission agrees with the resolution. Mr. Donnell replied that it could be only a few months or it could take several months. Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Donnell is there is also a “noticing” issue involved. Mr, Donnell replied that what the neighbors received, initially, was a notice that all of the properties would be re-zoned from Commercial to Residential, so, if the Commission’s action is to keep part of it Commercial, it might warrant a re-notice that, in turn, might bring out people who otherwise might not respond. Commissioner Baker stated that this is the same issue and no promises have been made to the Corbin’s that this was going to be re-zoned to Residential and not promises have been made to the surrounding neighbors that any change is going to be made. - PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 Page 6 c Mr. Donnell responded that except that in the case of this recommendation to the City Council, to only consider (as opposed to taking action) going from one to the other. Mr. Wayne interjected and stated that it would create a technical problem, in that the Commission would effectively denying a portion of the zone change request. Technically, per the city code, if the Commission denies the change, the only way that the Council would hear the issue, would be on appeal. In fact, it was the Council that passed a Resolution of Intent to change the zone, not to change the General Plan. It would, effectively, short circuit this whole issue coming before the Council. Commission Baker asked if the Commission’s decision would be final if they reached a decision at this meeting. Mr. Wayne replied that if the Commission were to deny it, it would be final. He added that if the Commission denies a zone change, the issue ends with the Commission. Regarding set-backs for commercial properties abutting residential properties, Commissioner Trigas asked how the issue would be dealt with if the Ledgenvood property were to be zoned Residential while the Seaside Bistro property remained Commercial. Mr. Donnell replied that he is not sure how that would be handled. He added that he has spoken with the applicant’s attorney and that they had some comments to make on the subject. However, he continued, Staff considers that a large issue. Commissioner Trigas asked if Staff is sure of the legalities or the process if that happened. Mr. Donnell replied that if the Seaside Bistro property were to be designated Commercial, the issue would have to be resolved because the property is non-conforming in terms of its parking requirements, as it is today. Commissioner Trigas asked if the Commission can do that. Mr. Donnell replied that if a requirement for a CUP were attached to that restaurant, one of the findings would be compliance with the zoning ordinance and that could not be made because they are already short on the parking requirement. Some kind of adjustment would have to be made. Commissioner Trigas asked if it wouldn’t be prudent to have the answers to the questions brought forth at this meeting, before the Commission makes any decisions. Mr. Donnell replied that from a feasibility standpoint, yes. Mr. Wayne interjected and suggested that the Commission is not hearing anything regarding a CUP and that they should consider that there are provisions in the state law that provide for parking variances. He added that if findings can be made to allow such a variance from a parking standard, then that is a possibility that might help solve this situation. He also stated that there may be other solutions that the property owner or the lessee has thought of and would like to discuss. Commissioner Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to comment on the setbacks. Mr. Wayne replied that if the use is made legal, then the structure becomes non-conforming. He added that Carlsbad has a number of non-conforming buildings in the city. Being designated as a non-conforming building merely sets limitation on the amount of expansion that can happen. The hope is that the non- conforming structures can be brought into conformance, over time. Commissioner Trigas asked what recourse the residents, adjacent to the Commercial use, have. PLAN N I NG CO MM ISS I ON January 17,2001 Page 7 - Mr. Wayne replied that with respect to residents next to a commercial use in this case, would not impact it and it would still be subject to the same set-back requirements of the underlying zone. Residential could be built per the set-back requirements of the R-3 zone which is what Staff is recommending on the Ledgerwood property. Additionally, the Bistro would have zero set-back, non-conforming. The Ledgerwood property could be built but they would have to live with the non-conforming commercial structure, for a time, on the Seaside Bistro property. Chairperson Segall asked what the process is if it becomes non-conforming and is there a period of time when the City or the Commission can go in and give them a specific time limit in which to bring their structure into conformance. He added that this was an issue at the last meeting. Mr. Wayne responded by say that this is a different type of a non-conforming and what would happen before, is that the Commission would be making this a non-conforming use as well. Therefore, there would be a non-conforming structure with a non-conforming use, within the non-conforming structure. Now there would be a conforming use within a non-conforming structure. Assistant City Attorney, Jane Mobaldi interjected and stated that the code does allow for amortizing non- conforming structures, over a period of time, based on the type of construction, the investment, etc., so the Planning Commission could, theoretically, could do that if the structure became non-conforming. They would then set a time that the structure could remain in existence. Eventually the building would have to be brought into conformance. Chairperson Segall then stated the same process would be used for this as is used in a non-conforming process. Mr. Wayne stated that it would be further addressed in the CUP process. Commissioner Heineman asked that if the Commission should leave the Seaside Bistro property as Commercial, would there still need to be a parking variance. - Mr. Wayne responded that the owner of the Seaside Bistro probably has some solutions to the parking problem, in mind. However, one method left to the Commission is a parking variance if the findings can be made. Commissioner Heineman asked that if a parking variance should be granted, wouldn’t that result in pushing the parking problem right back into the residential area where there have already been problems. Mr. Wayne responded that perhaps there could be a problem, but suggested that the Commission should hear from the applicant before drawing any conclusions. Commissioner Baker, referring to the issue of the ability of the Bistro owners to get financing for any improvements or expansion, asked if a designation of a non-conforming building will potentially have an impact on those efforts. Ms. Mobaldi stated that the code does not allow the expansion of a non-conforming building and therefore would not be an issue. Using the example of remodeling, Commission Baker asked if that would have an impact on their ability to get financing. Mr. Wayne responded that the code allows for a very limited amount of expansion, approximately 40%, providing the non-conformity is not increased. He added that that would not be a problem here because they don’t have the parking necessary to expand. - Commissioner Baker asked if, like other businesses in the Redevelopment Area, can’t the Bistro owners provide parking elsewhere to meet their parking requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 Page 8 c Mr. Wayne replied that the Redevelopment Area has a Parking District and there are no other Parking Districts within the City, and he does not envision another such district being established. Commissioner Baker asked if it is possible for the Bistro to lease parking in the beach parking lot across the street. Mr. Wayne replied that the referenced lot is a state parking lot and although the City pays the state for the use of the lot in order to keep it as free parking, it would become a very complicated issue if they attempted to get permission for the Bistro to use it. Chairperson Segall opened Public Testimony. Eldean Bratton, 2105 Linda Ln., Carlsbad, stated that she is the daughter of the late Charles Ledgerwood, and is the Trustee for the Charles Ledgerwood Trust. Ms. Bratton stated that in May, 2000, she received a letter from the City of Carlsbad informing her that the two lots fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard would be changed from Commercial to Residential (R-3) zoning. It was at that time that Ms. Bratton decided to sell the entire parcel to AI and Pam Corbin, after they assured her that her mentally disabled sister could remain in the family home that is currently on the property, for at least two or more years. She pointed out that Mr. Ledgerwood had approved the sale of the lots to the Corbin’s, a few years ago, and it was (and remains so) their intention to build homes on the property. Since the Corbin’s and Ms. Bratton have been in escrow, Ms. Bratton stated the Corbin’s have had plans drawn for homes on each of the four lots. Ms. Bratton continued by pointing out that if the City rules to keep the front two lots in a Commercial Zone, the Corbin’s will not be allowed to build two of the four homes. Regarding a statement in the previously mentioned letter, which referred to only having 24 hours notice of the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Bratton stated that she had received a telephone call from Project Planner Scott Donnell, the day before this meeting, at which time he asked what she thought about having her property remain Commercial. Her response, she continued, was to ask if houses could still be built and that he had told her “no”. Ms. Bratton further stated that she immediately called Mr. Corbin to the telephone to talk with Mr. Donnell. Ms. Bratton stated that after that telephone conversation, Mr. Corbin explained it all to her. She went on to explain that they were very surprised at this turn of events and very concerned because they are already in escrow and a great deal of money has already been spent on plans, etc. With regard to the two front lots remaining commercial and becoming a parking lot, Ms. Bratton pointed out that not only would that be a blight on prime frontage but it would result in even more traffic and noise. Commissioner Compas asked Ms. Bratton why she did not attend the meeting on January 3,2001 Ms. Bratton replied that she was in attendance but because it sounded like everything was going along quite smoothly, she didn’t see any point in offering any testimony. Chairperson Segall, referred once again to the letter, and asked Ms. Bratton if she has a concern about leaving the Seaside Bistro property zoned as Commercial. Ms. Bratton replied that she has no quarrel with that and that for as long as she can remember, that site has always had some type of restaurant on it and that from a historical standpoint, it is important to keep the Bistro. Commissioner Baker asked Ms. Bratton if she has been aware that it will be the Commission that will decide this issue or was she under the impression that this was something that had already been decided and that it could not be changed. Ms. Bratton replied that when her father spoke to the City Council and the Mayor, in 1996, they were told that the City has a General Plan and the City must go by the General Plan. Therefore, the zoning must be changed and if it wasn’t changed in 1996, it would definitely be changed at some later date. She added that it has always been her impression that the zone change was etched in stone. PLAN N IN G COM M ISS ION January 17,2001 Page 9 - Commissioner L’Heureux stated that she had driven by the subject properties and noticed that there is grading being done on the east end of the property, and asked Ms. Bratton if that is a part of the lots fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. Ms. Bratton replied that that it is the back part of the parcel which is already zoned Residential. Bill Lantz, 144 Redwood Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he has no problem with the Bistro remaining as Commercial except that he would like to see a C-I designation there, governed by a CUP and not allow the business to hold a cabaret license. He further stated that because the old Sandbar had a cabaret license, there were numerous problems associated with that business. Mr. Lank stated that he lives across the street from the Ledgerwood parcel and that there are a lot of problems with parking. Mr. Lantz asked that if the City Council actually started the whole process to mandate that that property be changed to R-3, excluding the Bistro, why would there even be a question as to whether the Ledgerwood property should become an R-3 zone. However, he continued, things are much better than they were when the Sandbar was still there, when there were drunks, and beer bottles, and unacceptable behaviors exhibited on a nightly basis. He went on to say that the Bistro doesn’t foster any of those problems and they rather like having it nearby. He urged the Commission to approve the change of the Ledgerwood property to R-3, and leave the Seaside Bistro in a commercial designation but to ask for a suspension or cancellation of the current cabaret license. Mr. Lank also stated that they are not just a beach neighborhood, they are permanent residents who have invested a great deal of money and time in their homes and they want to make it look nice. He added that to put a parking lot on the front of the Ledgetwood parcel would be detrimental to the residential area and defeat their purpose in trying to make it into a truly residential area. Janet Robinson, 772 Corinia Court, Encinitas, Attorney for Jim and Monika DiMaggio, stated the following: She is aware that Mr. DiMaggio has spoken with Mr. Corbin, a number of times, and that all parties have seemed quite comfortable with what has been proposed, in as far as the Seaside Bistro remaining Commercial and the Ledgerwood property changing to R-3. So, when they received the previously mentioned letter, at this meeting, they were very surprised. However, she feels sure that they can meet and solve most, if not all, of Mr. & Mrs. Corbin’s concerns. The applicant is intending to work very closely with the City and with the neighbors to make sure that everyone’s concerns and needs are met. Ultimately, as was mentioned at the last meeting, the DiMaggio’s would like to rebuild the Bistro and create either a smaller restaurant or a small restaurant in combination with a few rooms resembling a small European Inn. In addition, the long term goal is to resolve all the parking and set-back problems. When they do re-build, they want to do something very attractive and that fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. At that time, most (if not all) the parking problems will be solved. The portion of the restaurant that is on or near the common property line with the Ledgerwood property, is not really necessary to the business and will be taken down. By doing so, they will reduce the square footage of the building thereby reducing the parking requirement and satisfy the set-back requirements. If they were to take away that portion of the building they would lose the restrooms and subsequently be forced to remodel. It would be very good if they could do that all at once. Finally, if it is feasible, they may be able to go to underground parking. In any case, they want to make the restaurant smaller, and with some creative designing, maybe they can put the rooms on the Ledgetwood side of the building so that it will be quieter on that side of the property. Perhaps a parking variance might be needed if they can’t come up with quite the number of spaces required, but the DiMaggio’s can probably get very close to the requirement. This is, historically, a restaurant site and because so many have and still enjoy it, it should remain and to that end, the DiMaggio’s have every intention of working with the neighborhood in an effort to come up with some creative solutions. The DiMaggio’s do not have a problem with the possibility of a CUP and they understand that they have to live with the neighborhood and that it may well be appropriate for the City to regulate the hours of operation as well as other facets of the operation. They are happy to work with the City through the process to get whatever appropriate General Plan designation, whether its C-1 or some other zone designation. - Commissioner Compas asked if his assumption is correct in that the applicant supports the Planning Commission Resolutions that are before the Commission at this time. Ms. Robinson replied that he is correct. PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2001 Page 10 Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Robinson if they are aware that this could go through the process and still be changed. - Ms. Robinson replied that they are quite relieved that the Commission is considering taking another look at the property and recommending that it remain Commercial. She also stated that she hopes the City Council will agree with the Commission. She also stated that they realize that there are some technical issues still to be addressed and also that they will be a non-conforming building for a period of time. All of this is acceptable as long as the DiMaggio’s can still operate the restaurant for the time they need in order to purchase the property. They also need the time to come up with a new building design and go through the process of rebuilding and remodeling, which will create an even more appropriate use for the site and the neighborhood. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Segall closed Public Testimony. Commissioner Heineman asked which of the commercial designations require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Donnell replied that it is a C-1 zone. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Compas stated his support for this recommendation. He further stated that this is a historical restaurant and should be remain in the neighborhood. Commissioner L’Heureux also stated support for the recommendation. Commissioner Heineman also stated his support for the recommendation and added that it is a rather sterile ocean front in that area and he feels it delightful that there is something there instead of houses and condos, and something that seems to serve the neighborhood well. Commissioner Baker concurred with the previous comments and voiced her support. - Commissioner Trigas stated her support for the recommendation. Chairperson Segall also concurred with the support of the other Commissioners, in terms of the General Use designations making this a commercial site for the good of the community. He thanked Staff for giving the Commission the tools (six excellent points) they needed to make the proper findings and preserve the integrity of what is now at the beach. Motion by Commissioner Trigas, and duly seconded, adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4891, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration and Addendum and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4892 and 4893, recommending approval of ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01, based upon the findings contained therein. ACTION: VOTE: 6-0-0 AYES: NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Nielsen Segall, Trigas, Baker, Heineman, L’Heureux, Compas