The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-05-07; City Council; 13645; Zone Code Changes On Carlsbad Blvd-- CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# ‘3; of5 CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AMENDING THE ZONING FOR THREE PARCEL MTG. 5/7/96 LOCATED ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD FROM RD-M, TO CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND DEPT. CA COASTAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council concurs, your action is to adopt Resolution No. (X-168, 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. 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 (15-23 du/ac). Parcel No. 204-253-13 - 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-I 4 - 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 file/Page No. 75-0902233 of Official Records. The property owner is Mitze Eubanks. The property is used currently as a restaurant and bar. Government Code section 65860 requires that under the “consistency doctrine” local governments must maintain their zoning in a manner consistent with their general plans. Thus, the existing zoning designation for this property should be amended to conform to the General Plan. In addition, the Mello II land Use Plan of the City’s Local Coastal Program is consistent with the General Plan (designating the site RH) and the zoning designation for the property should also be consistent with the LCP. The zoning designations that implement the RH classifications are RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple Zone) and/or R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential Zone). As part of the zone change process, staff will be making a recommendation as to which designation would be the most appropriate. - -- This resolution directs the Planning Director to conduct all necessary studies, notices, and reports regarding the recommended zone change, and bring the matter without undue delay 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 Planning 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 sheet describing the implementation process to resolve identified inconsistencies in zoning and the General Plan, specifically including the affected properties, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A ‘. This summary also includes a more detailed discussion of the 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. 9 lo -16 8 2. Parcel Location Map. 3. Exhibit “A”. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-168 UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIFORNIA DECLARING THE INTENTION ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THREE ED ALONG CARLSBAD BOULEVARD 0 R-H TO CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE parcels of real property, located at the northeast corner ck Avenue is currently zoned C-2, general Coastal Plan as a porti 65860 provides that the zo General Plan Land Use designation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Carlsbad, California, as follows: a property shall be consistent with the LVED by the City Council of the City of 1. That the above recitations are t 2. That it is the intention of the Council to amend the zoning designation for the above referenced property to b istent with the Local Coastal Plan and General Plan for the property by rezoning the 3. The City Council directs the conduct the necessary studies, notices, and reports and undue delay ‘\ before the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City day of 1996, by the following vote, to wit: \ CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENKFXANZ, City Clerk CITY OF OCEANSID PROJECT NAME CARLSBAD BdILEVARD EXHIBIT 2 >‘“I I CVArn, i . . + As part of thr*c” ?nt General Plan update, SW>I properties were identified where the zoning and the General Plan designation are inconsistent (e.g. Zoning is commercial, General Plan designation is residential) + The properties on which the Sandbar and the adjoining seed business are 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 Legal, Non-Conforming Uses + As a Legal, Non-Conforming Use: 1) No new, additional uses can be established on the property until the non- conforming use is removed 2) No expansions, alterations or repair of the non-conforming use can occur unless: a) it is destroyed by a fire or an act of God to an extent not more than 25% of the replacement value W incidental reconstruction, repair or rebuilding not to exceed 10% of the building replacement value Cl 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 3) If the non-conforming use vacates or closes for more than six months, it loses it’s legal non-conforming status 4) 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 city; it is not automatic. + ’ ‘. As part of the ?cent General Plan update, s’eral properties were identified where the zoning and the General Plan designation are inconsistent (e.g. Zoning is commercial, General Plan designation is residential) -. , + The properties on which the Sandbar and the adjoining seed business are 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 Leaal, Non-Conforminq Uses I + As a Legal, Non-Conforming Use: 1) No new, additional uses can be established on the property until the non- conforming use is removed 2) No expansions, alterations or repair of the nonconforming use can occf unless: a) it is destroyed by a fire or an act of God to an extent not more than 25% of the replacement value b) incidental reconstruction, repair or rebuilding not to exceed 10% of the building replacement value Cl 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 3) If the non-conforming use vacates or closes for more than six months, it loses it’s legal non-conforming status 4 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 city; it is not automatic. .- . s - . MFIY-06-1996 15:18 THOMfX LFlW FIRM .- 310 988 1535 P.01 . PLLEf.l L. +ilQmns -- - POBERT L +lMPSON PF COUNSEL C-Y -.: I THOMAS LAW FIRM ; ‘. ATTORNEYS AT LAW J’IBO nrLl?nl AIRPORT w-v’, SUITE I*rJ LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90306-24Ei0 TLLCPHONE ae~-oo55 CA<:SIMICE DBfi.1515 May 6, 1996 -TRANSMITTAL FA SHEET To : CITY CLERK FAX NO. : (6191434-1987 . . FRQM : ALLEN L. THOMAS RE : REZONING OF PORTION OF CARLSBAD BLVD. COMMENTS : \. *’ 1 WE ARE SENDING 2 PAGES (INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET). fF YOU ARE MISSING ANY PAGES OR ARE HAVING TROUBLE RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (310) 988-0055, THANK YOU. MQY-06-1996 15:18 THOMFlS Lf7W FIRM 310 988 1535 P.02 -- * TJ-IOMAS LAW FIRM . - ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALLLN L. THOMAS 3750 KILROv *l-PORT WAY. *.ulSE 115 ROSIZUT L. GIMP5ON LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90808-~460 or COUHGPC May 6, 1996 AREA CODE 310 Ir-LEPHONC III-QOS!? PPIC;GlMILE Pa*-IG35 Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Via Facslmfle E U.S. Mall RR: REZONING OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MITZIE RUBANKS Dear Mr. Ball: I received your undated letter written to Robert L. Simpson at-this office in Saturday's mail and given my lack of being in the office over the weekend, I did not have notice of the City.Cauncil meeting on May 7, 1996, until today, May 6, 1996. I would also note that the date on the envelope indicates that the letter was apparently mailed on May 2, 1996. Be that as it may, I do not consider a one day notice to be adequate, providing appropriate due process, or fair given the magnitude of what the City of Carlsbad is proposing and how it will significantly affect my client. I would further note that you did not have the courtesy to include enclosures of the "agenda bill" nor the proposed ordinance with your letter. I had to have my client go to City Hall and obtain copies of those documents. Because the short notice does not provide Ms. Eubanks and her counsel sufficient time to prepare for the meeting, and previous commitments by me that would prevent me from appearing both tomorrow and on May 14, 1996, I am kindly requesting that you continue consideration of the resolution until the May 21, 1996 meeting. Quite frankly, I would consider a lack of such a continuance to be a sign of bad faith by the city particularly because Ms. Eubanks has owned and operated the Sandbar Restaurant and Ear for many years and the sudden interest in the city to "re-zone" the area is most unusual particularly in light of the,city's recent approval of a building permit allowing Ms. Eubanks to significantly remodel the interior of the establishment. I would appreciate a prompt response to the above. ALT:jm cc: Hon. Claude A. Lewis Ray Patchett City Clerk Mitzie Eubanks Allen L. Thomas TOTFlL P.02 - 3~I 361 3v 34 31;L.d -3s/ 3si 3 77 - -. c s- /& / A ,~~~ ,: - -