Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-21; Planning Commission; ; GPA 01-04|LCPA 01-07|CUP 02-19|CDP 02-34 - VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE-he City of Carlsbad Planning Departmef A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: January 21, 2004 ItemNo. ® Application complete date: August 20, 2003 Project Planner: Scott Donnell Project Engineer: David Rick SUBJECT: GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 -VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE -Request for approval of (1) amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program to change the current residential land use designation to a commercial designation suitable for a restaurant; (2) a conditional use permit for an existing restaurant at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard; and (3) a coastal development permit to allow proposed outdoor dining at the restaurant. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5549, 5550 and 5551 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 01-04, LCPA 01-07, and CUP 02-19 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5552 RECOMMENDING DENIAL of CDP 02-34 based upon the findings therein. II. PROJECT INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION This project involves the concurrent review of General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments, a conditional use permit, and a coastal development permit. These applications affect the restaurant and property known as "Vigilucci's Seafood and Steakhouse." The restaurant is located at the comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack A venue in the beach area. No significant changes to the business' operations, buildings, or grounds are being proposed as part of this project. Associated with this project are three key issues. A description and summary of each issue follow: A. Land Use -The Vigilucci property has an incompatible C-2 (General Commercial) zoning and RH (High Density Residential) General Plan designation. In 2001, the City Council, based in part on Planning Commission input, directed that the City consider designating the property for commercial uses. Accordingly, staff has responded to the Council's direction and has proposed to fix the inconsistency by changing the General Plan designation to T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) and the zoning to C-T (Tourist Commercial). For reasons explained below, staff proposes only a General Plan amendment at this time. To change the land use designation, staff, and not Mr. Vigilucci, has filed applications to amend both the General Plan and local coastal program. The filing of these applications by staff is consistent with the previously mentioned Council direction. GP A 01-04/LCP A 01-07 /~ 02-19/CDP 02-34 -VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e2 B. Operating Issues -City and neighborhood concerns stemming from the operations of a previous restaurant (the Sandbar) on the Vigilucci property contributed to the signing of an agreement between Mr. Vigilucci and the City. Based on the agreement, Mr. Vigilucci has submitted the conditional use permit that is one of the applications of this project. This permit is important because if approved it will enable the City to regulate a restaurant that is in a residential area. Through the conditional use permit, the applicant proposes minor site and building improvements, including a trash enclosure, a small amount of landscaping, and an awning. Because the awning would extend into the right-of-way, it will require approval of an encroachment agreement by the City Engineering Department. Under the property's current C-2 zoning, a conditional use permit is not required for a restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol. Additionally, a conditional use permit is ordinarily subject to Planning Commission review and approval. However, when the City Council directed in 2001 that the City consider designating the property for commercial purposes, it also directed that the prior owner (Jim DiMaggio) of the restaurant ( at that time the Seaside Bistro), to submit a conditional use permit, to which Mr. DiMaggio agreed. Furthermore, the City Council directed that it would retain authority to review the conditional use permit and all related discretionary actions. Through the current agreement with Mr. Vigilucci, the requirement for Council review and the conditional use permit has been maintained. C. Parking -The restaurant severely lacks adequate on-site parking. Through the conditional use permit, the applicant has proposed a valet parking plan that will provide 28 parking spaces, the most achievable on the small site (as compared to the 21 spaces achievable at most under self-parking). However, the Zoning Ordinance requires 57 parking spaces. Under any General Plan and zoning combination that supports retaining the current structure and use, parking will remain nonconforming. The City must accept this lack of parking, which can be approved through the conditional use permit, or pursue an alternative land use solution. Furthermore, the applicant has requested a coastal development permit to seek approval of proposed outdoor dining. This outdoor dining would be located along the front of the restaurant but in the public right-of-way along Carlsbad Boulevard. Staff does not support the outdoor dining request as it would exacerbate an existing parking problem and may create noise concerns. A long, complicated history surrounds this property and the events leading up to the presently proposed actions. In the following section, staff provides a complete explanation of the relevant history and events. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/. 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S tAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e3 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND Setting The Vigilucci's Seafood & Steakhouse property, located at 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard, is approximately 14,000 square feet, or about 1/3 of an acre. The property features a small parking lot and a 4,816 square foot building. The L-shaped building has no setback along its north (rear) and east (side) property lines. Along its Carlsbad Boulevard frontage, the restaurant has only an approximately six to eighteen inch setback from the property line/public right-of-way. Along this portion of Carlsbad Boulevard, the right-of-way extends about 20-feet back of the street curb. Thus, the planters and concrete patio in front of the restaurant are actually in the right-of-way. The parking lot, accessed from Tamarack Avenue, has 21 striped parking spaces, less than half the number required by the Zoning Ordinance for a restaurant. The property has a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning and a RH (High Density Residential) General Plan designation. The Local Coastal Program zoning and land use designation are also C-2 and RH. Except for Tamarack State Beach to the west, the neighborhood surrounding Vigilucci's is entirely residential and consists of condominiums, older apartments, and single-family detached homes. An application for a single-family home is currently under review for the vacant lot immediately to the north of the restaurant and along Carlsbad Boulevard. The attached location map shows the streets and properties in the neighborhood. The General Plan designation for the entire area, except for the beach, is RH. The neighborhood is also entirely in the Beach Area Overlay Zone and features an underlying zoning of either R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) or RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). The Local Coastal Program zoning and land use designation are the same. The nearest commercial properties to the site are about ½ mile to either the north at Carlsbad Boulevard and Walnut A venue or east at Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street. Early History and Ownership Since at least 1956, the property has been commercially zoned. The 1956 zoning map indicates the property's zoning as C-1, which at that time stood for "service commercial." Further, staff research indicates that in 1970 uses on the property consisted of an eatery, likely a hamburger stand, a parking lot, and a detached home. In 197 5, the small home was demolished and the hamburger stand expanded to becolT!-e the Captain's Anchorage, a steak and seafood restaurant. That same year, the restaurant received (1) city approval of a zone change from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to the current C-2 zone to permit alcohol sales and (2) State Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control (ABC) approval of a liquor license. A restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol is permitted anywhere in the C-2 zone regardless of proximity to a residential area. Several years later, in the mid-1980s, the Captain's Anchorage was renamed the Sandbar. In 1989, the City issued a business license to the new owners of the Sandbar. In 1999, the restaurant business only was sold, along with the alcohol license, and the restaurant name was GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S 'AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e4 changed to the Seaside Bistro. In early 2002, the restaurant business, property and the alcohol license were sold to the current owner. Events Leading to Resolution of Intent to Rezone the Property to Residential In the early 1990s, the City received numerous complaints from residents living near the then Sandbar restaurant about its operations and patrons. Sometime before this period, staff believes the business changed from a restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol to predominantly a bar with live music and dancing. Neighbors complained about noise from the live music 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 business's limited on-site parking, which caused some Sandbar patrons to park on nearby streets and thus carry their negative behavior into the neighborhood. To curb or eliminate late night noise and other complaints, the City met with the Sandbar owner in 1995 to seek a voluntary reduction in its business hours. Although the Sandbar apparently had implemented other voluntary measures in response to the complaints about its operations, such as hiring additional security and making noise-attenuating building improvements, the owner would not agree to alter the Sandbar's business hours. Despite the measure taken by the owner, problems related to its operations and patrons continued. Other city efforts to address complaints included a 1996 draft ordinance that established noise limits for businesses serving alcohol and providing entertainment. However, the City Council took no action on the ordinance, with some Council members noting the ordinance did not fully address the issue of compatibility between such an establishment and its nearby residential uses. Furthermore, the ordinance failed to address customer-parking impacts in surrounding residential neighborhoods, a significant concern with the Sandbar. An action to deal with the problems at the Sandbar came about with the passage of Resolution of Intention (ROI) 96-168 on May 21, 1996. By passing this resolution, the Council declared its intent to change the Sandbar property zone from commercial to residential to be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and directed staff to begin the necessary rezoning process. By rezoning the property to residential, the restaurant use would become nonconforming and subject to abatement within a designated amortization period. ROI 96-168 also identified the Council's objective to similarly rezone the two lots just north of the Sandbar. These lots include the small, vacant property next to the restaurant ( on which an application for a home is now proposed), and the adjacent lot at the comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and Redwood Avenue. At the time, Mr. Charles Ledgerwood operated a small seed business in the small house on the comer property. Both lots had a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zonmg and a residential General Plan and Local Coastal Program land use designation. At the same time the city was receiving and responding to complaints about the Sandbar, the State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) was also monitoring the situation. Eventually, the ABC revoked the Sandbar' s alcohol license in 1997. However, this revocation was stayed for two years upon the restaurant demonstrating compliance with a number of GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S 'AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e5 conditions. These conditions, imposed on the license, prohibited, among other things, live entertainment and alcohol after midnight on the weekends and entertainment noise audible beyond the Sandbar parking lot. The stayed revocation and the conditions became effective in March 1999. Staff believes the conditions may still be applicable to the current owner. Efforts to Implement the Council Resolution of Intention Complaints regarding the Sandbar generally ceased beginning in 1997. In 1999, the Sandbar restaurant business only was purchased from the owner, while she maintained ownership of the property. Renaming the restaurant "Seaside Bistro," the new owner indicated his intent was to operate the business as a restaurant and not a nightclub with late hours and entertainment. In 2000, city staff began its efforts to implement the Council ROI by notifying the Seaside Bistro and Ledgerwood property owners of the proposed city-initiated rezoning. As expressed in two Planning Commission public hearings held on the proposal in January 2001, the owner of the Ledgerwood property, as well as some nearby residents, supported the rezoning of the Ledgerwood parcels from commercial to residential. Regarding the Seaside Bistro property, the Planning Commission, the owner of the restaurant, and several residents all agreed that since the problems which caused the Council to declare its intention to rezone the property no longer existed, keeping the property as commercial was worth considering. There was general agreement that leaving the property as commercial could be desirable, noting its historic use as a restaurant, its unique location in an otherwise all-residential area, and its ability to serve both the neighborhood and beachgoers, (the nearest food service is ½ mile to either the north or east). Furthermore, the Commission, the restaurant owner, and some residents further recognized that to ensure neighborhood compatibility, the City should have some means to control the commercial use of the property. To this end, the restaurant owner noted his willingness to obtain a conditional use permit and relinquish the cabaret license issued for the restaurant. Following its second hearing on the zone change in January 2001, the Planning Commission passed Resolution 4892 (attached). This resolution contains many findings to justify the Commission recommendations on both the Ledgerwood and Seaside Bistro properties. The recommended action from Resolution 4892 follows: That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission recommends the following: I. That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust ... be rezoned from C-1 to R-3, BAOZ [Beach Area Overlay Zone]; and 2. That the City Council not change the zoning on the property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, and, instead, consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use based on the following findings, and accordingly, direct staff to conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate public hearing amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/lr 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 6 At its March 6, 2001, meeting, the City Council heard and considered similar testimony in support of the rezoning of the Ledgerwood property and retaining of a commercial zoning on the Seaside Bistro property. Once again, the Seaside Bistro business owner stated he would agree to obtain a conditional use permit and relinquish the restaurant's cabaret license if the commercial use of the property remained in place. In its Resolution 2001-72 (attached), the Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation. By so doing, it approved the rezone of the Ledgerwood property from commercial to residential. Concerning the Seaside Bistro parcel, the Council gave the following direction: That the City Council is not rezoning the parcel at this time in reliance on the Seaside Bistro's representations that it will relinquish its cabaret license and agree to process a conditional use permit application setting forth the terms and conditions under which commercial use will continue to exist at this site. Therefore, the Planning Director is directed to commence the necessary and appropriate rezoning process forthwith which will require a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits and to return to the City Council through the Planning Commission with its report and recommendations. The Seaside Bistro is directed to apply forthwith for a conditional use permit or other discretionary permits under the proposed zone so that all discretionary actions will be before the Council concurrently. Implementing Council Direction to Consider Keeping the Subject Property as Commercial Following the Council hearing, staff opened applications to amend the property's zoning, and its General Plan and local coastal program designations. Staff also reviewed and discussed permit requirements and building plans with the restaurant owner. In September 2001, he submitted a conditional use permit application to redevelop the property with a two-story building featuring a restaurant and nine hotel units. In December 2001, the application was withdrawn due to the pending sale of the restaurant business and property (the latter still owned by Ms. Eubanks) to their current owner, Roberto Vigilucci. Before the sale of the property, staff had met with Mr. Vigilucci to advise him of the many issues surrounding the restaurant and the expectations regarding its future. Unfortunately, the City Council's decision to not rezone the property and its direction to submit a conditional use permit were made based on the representations and the agreement of the previous restaurant owner, not Mr. Vigilucci. Therefore, Mr. Vigilucci was not obligated to comply with the Council directive or hold up the representations of the Seaside Bistro. Additionally, because of his property's C-2 zoning, the new owner could continue to operate the restaurant without the need for a permit or permission from the City. In early 2002, Mr. Vigilucci applied for a building permit to make minor improvements to the restaurant. The improvements included new windows, building stucco, signs, and landscaping, and floor plan changes. The remodel was generally minor and involved no increase in floor area, parking demand, or occupancy, and did not require any nonconforming aspects of the building or site, such as parking or setbacks, to be addressed. However, recognizing the City's stated expectations and concerns regarding his property, and in exchange for receiving building permits, the new owner signed agreements with the City that stipulated his agreement to: GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e7 o Assume the former Seaside Bistro owner's obligation to obtain a CUP for his restaurant operation and to not have dancing, bands, or loud music; o Recognize outdoor dining and drinking areas are not possible without adequate parking and approval of a CUP; o Propose a solution to the inadequate parking problem that exists on the property through the CUP process; o Acknowledge the City may impose requirements and conditions so that the restaurant operates in a way that is compatible with the homes around it; and o Acknowledge the City may deny his CUP application and rezone his property to residential. The City recorded the agreements with the County Recorder. Only upon final approval of the CUP may the City release the agreements. In late 2002, Mr. Vigilucci completed the remodeling that lead to the agreements and opened his seafood and steakhouse about the same time. As agreed, Mr. Vigilucci has submitted a CUP application. The City determined the application complete in August 2003. Consistent with the City Council's direction as expressed in Resolution 2001-72, staff has grouped the CUP with all other related applications for concurrent review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed within this section of the staff report: A. General Plan; B. Loss of Residential Development Potential (Government Code Section 65863); C. Existing and Recommended Zoning; D. Alternative General Plan and Zoning Considerations; E. Local Coastal Program; F. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Development Standards; G. Parking Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.44); H. Coastal Development Permit regulations and proposed outdoor dining (Zoning Ordinance Chapters 21.201 and 21.44); I. Conditional Use Permit regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.42); J. Encroachment Permit and Minor Site Improvements; K. Nonconforming Buildings and Structures (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.48); and L. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 ). Staff developed its project recommendations by determining whether the project was consistent with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will cover the project's compliance ( or, in the case of the coastal development permit, lack of compliance) with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which they are presented. IV. ANALYSIS A. General Plan While staff can verify and trace the commercial zoning of the property to a 1956 zoning map, determining the history of General Plan designations for the property is less clear. A 1975 staff GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/. 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S tAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 8 report on a zone change for the property from C-1 to C-2 notes the property's General Plan designation was TS, or Travel Service Commercial. The designation appears to have changed in the mid-1980s. A 1986 General Plan map and the 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 indicate the Vigilucci property had its current designation of RH (High Density Residential). The adoption of the current land use map, as part of the comprehensive update of the General Plan in 1994, confirmed this designation. Reasons contributing to the change from TS to RH are not known; possible factors may have been the difficulty in redeveloping the property commercially because of its small size and its residential surroundings. The table below provides a comparison of past and present General Plan and Local Coastal Program designations and zones for the Vigilucci property. 1956 1975 1986 1994 Present Zoning C-1 C-2 C-2 C-2 C-2 General Plan NIA TS RH RH RH Local Coastal Program NIA NIA RH RH RH The current RH General Plan designation does not allow commercial uses. For the City to consider designating the property for commercial uses, staff must propose an appropriate commercial land use designation. Staff believes the T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) is appropriate for the Vigilucci property for the following reasons: o The Vigilucci property location and existing use clearly fit the description of a T-R designated property according to the General Plan Land Use Element's definition of the T-R designation. This [land use] category addresses commercial uses that provide for visitor attractions and commercial uses that serve the travel and recreational needs of tourists, residents, as well as employees of business and industrial centers. Often such sites are located near major transportation corridors or recreational and resort areas such as spas, hotels, beaches or lagoons. Typically, these areas are developed along major roadways and are accessible to interregional traffic. Tourist-oriented uses such as motels and hotels: should be coordinated with compatible accessory uses; should protect the surrounding properties; should ensure safe traffic circulation; and should promote economically viable tourist-oriented areas of the City. o The four other General Plan commercial land use designations are inappropriate for the property. The R (Regional Commercial) and L (Local Shopping Center) designations require a larger area than the approximately one-third acre Vigilucci property. Moreover, as with the O (Office & Related Commercial) designation, they permit uses inappropriate for a mostly residential area and a beach/tourist location. The City has applied the fifth city commercial designation, V (Village), only to the downtown Village. o Designating the property for tourist-commercial uses recognizes a longstanding commercial presence in an otherwise entirely residential neighborhood. This mix of uses is somewhat unique when compared to other Carlsbad residential areas. The GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/! 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S tAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 9 application of T-R to the Vigilucci property is consistent with Overall Land Use Objective B.1, which states, "To create a distinctive sense of place and identity for each community and neighborhood of the City through the development and arrangement of various land use components." B. Loss of Residential Development Potential (Government Code Section 65863) Conversion of the property from its high density residential designation to commercial will mean a loss of potential multi-family housing units, including apartments and condominiums, should the property ever redevelop. The current RH designation permits 15-23 units/acre and a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 19 units/acre. If the property were vacant, it could possibly accommodate six units at the GMCP. State Government Code Section 65863 prohibits a city from reducing densities on properties unless the City makes a finding that the reduction would not prevent the jurisdiction from meeting its share of the regional housing need. Another Government Code provision, Section 65584, states a city must provide adequate sites and densities to accommodate its "share" of residential growth projected for a region. The GMCP, as applied to the Vigilucci property and other residentially designated sites in Carlsbad, was used for calculating the City's compliance with its regional share objective under Government Code Section 65584. Even if the City approves the T-R designation, which does not allow residential uses, the potential for six homes under the RH designation will not be eliminated but instead will be added to the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. This is consistent with Program 3.8 of the City's. Housing Element, which provides that all of the dwelling units that were anticipated toward achieving the City's share of the regional housing need and that are not utilized by developers in approved projects can be deposited in the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. In turn, these excess dwelling units are available for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity and there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need. These facts are the basis of the finding required by Government Code Section 65863, as set out in the proposed resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment. C. Existing and Recommended Zoning State law mandates consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and requires jurisdictions to make any needed amendments within a reasonable time. The property's current C-2 (General Commercial) zoning does not implement its RH General Plan designation. Because C-2 allows more than just visitor-serving uses, it would also not implement the proposed T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) General Plan designation. While staff is aware that a Zoning Ordinance Amendment is necessary, it has not proposed one at this time. This is because of the ongoing General Plan/Zoning Consistency program. This multi-year city work program identifies and corrects inconsistencies between the text and maps of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. One component of the program is an overhaul of the City's C-T, or Commercial Tourist zone. C-T is the zone that implements the T-R designation GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 10 proposed for the Vigilucci property. Commercial Policy C.12 of the General Plan Land Use Element states the City shall revise the C-T zone so it more accurately reflects the intent of the T-R designation. Staff will bring revisions to the C-T zone and the T-R designation, which will include text and map changes, to public hearing early in 2004. Proposed changes to the C-T zone include the requirement of a conditional use permit for uses such as a restaurant, where next to residential zones, and the ability to apply the zone to small properties. Currently, the C-T zone does not enable the city to apply the C-T zone to areas less than three acres (The Vigilucci property is 1/3 of an acre.). In light of both the C-T area limitations and the City's ongoing efforts to revise the zone, staff recommends delaying the rezone consideration of the Vigilucci property until and as part of the T-R/C-T amendment project rather than ahead of it. Establishing the proposed General Plan designation of T-R for the property now will establish the City's objective for the rezoning to occur. Until approval of the proposed C-T revisions, the City will not have a zoning requirement for a conditional use permit, the key land use control planned to enable the City to regulate Vigilucci's Seafood and Steakhouse or another restaurant on the property. In the interim, the requirement for a conditional use pennit comes from the recorded agreements signed by Mr. Vigilucci and the City in 2002. Among other things, these agreements required Mr. Vigilucci to submit the conditional use permit that is the subject of this staff report. D. Alternative General Plan and Zoning Considerations While the staff proposal is to assign the T-R General Plan designation, and ultimately, the C-T zone to the Vigilucci property, other combinations can be considered. These combinations include the following: RHIR-3: In lieu of changing the General Plan designation from commercial to residential, the existing zoning could be changed from C-2 to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential). The R-3 zone is clearly consistent with the property's existing RH General Plan designation, and the RH/R-3 combination matches that of many properties in the beach area. However, this combination would not allow commercial uses, which goes against the City Council direction to consider keeping the Vigilucci property available for commercial use. Furthermore, if the property were rezoned to residential, the restaurant would become a nonconforming use, subject to abatement and eventual removal. For further information on the nonconforming use aspect, please see the discussion on Nonconforming Buildings and Uses below. RHIR-T or R-P: The RH designation potentially could also be combined with either the R-T (Residential Tourist) or R-P (Residential Professional) zones. The R-P zone permits residential and office uses. The R-T zone allows homes and, by conditional use permit, hotels and motels, bed and breakfast uses, and recreation facilities. However, neither zone is primarily a commercial zone and neither the R-T nor R-P would allow the current restaurant use; staff believes the application of these zones would be contrary to the City Council's direction to consider keeping the Vigilucci property available for commercial use. T-RIC-1: Another consideration is to change the General Plan designation of the property to T- R, as staff recommends, and to amend the property's zoning to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). •-• GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/c!TI> 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 11 At first glance, this seems to be a very appropriate combination for the subject property. Among other things, the C-1 zone already requires a conditional use permit for a restaurant with incidental serving of alcohol. Furthermore, the C-1 zone requires the City to ensure such a use has adequate parking, does not cause traffic congestion, and is compatible with its surrounding neighborhood. However, staff does not recommend the application of the C-1 zone to the Vigilucci property for the following reasons: o The lack of adequate parking available to serve the restaurant, as discussed in greater detail below, prevents the restaurant form complying with C-1 zone standards; and o The C-1 zone allows uses, such as general office and neighborhood convenience that are not compatible with a visitor-serving land use designation such as the proposed T- R. Accordingly, staff does not believe the C-1 zone implements T-R. Furthermore, and for similar reasons, it is unlikely that the Coastal Commission would support a T- R/C-1 combination because of the property's beach location and the non-tourist related uses C-1 permits. T-RIC-2: Maintaining the property's existing C-2 (General Commercial) zone is not a recommended option. Similar to C-1, the C-2 permits uses that do not implement the T-R designation. Furthermore, the C-2 zone permits by right uses that are inappropriate for a property so close to residential uses, such as auto repair and commercial printing and restaurants with incidental serving of alcohol. 0/0: Another consideration is an O (Office) General Plan designation and zoning for the property. Although a restaurant is a conditionally permitted use in the O zone, the zone is primarily intended for exclusive office use. Office uses may produce fewer compatibility issues with nearby residences than commercial uses. However, the property is isolated in terms of proximity to other office areas or supporting commercial services, and neither the O General Plan designation nor the O zone are suited to serve a residential neighborhood and a beach/tourist area. A different General Plan designation than T-R: As previously discussed, none of the other existing commercial General Plan designations (L, R, or V) is appropriate for the property. E. Local Coastal Program The Vigilucci property is in the Mello II segment of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP land use designation for the property is RH. To maintain consistency with the General Plan as proposed for amendment, staff also proposes to change the Local Coastal Program designation to T-R. In its adoption of the Coastal Act in 1976, the state legislature declared that one of the basic goals of the coastal zone was to maximize public access and recreational opportunities along the coast. To this end, it adopted Public Resources Code Section 30222, which states: The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S 'AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 12 have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. Policy 6-8 of the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program defines "visitor serving uses" as including " ... hotels and motels, recreational facilities, restaurants and bars, [and] amusement parks ... " Furthermore, at the time of its adoption in 1982, another Mello II policy called for the establishment of 40 acres of additional visitor-serving uses, specifically hotel and restaurant uses. While the restaurant on the Vigilucci property was already operating in 1982, this policy helps underscore the importance of uses that serve tourists in the coastal zone. Because the T-R designation's focus is on meeting the needs of the traveling public, staff believes it is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. Moreover, unlike the City's other commercial General Plan designations, the T-R land use category is not a suitable designation for offices, general retailers and other such uses that would be inappropriate on a property next to the beach. LCP policies regarding public access, visual resources, habitat, and agriculture are not at issue with the proposed change in land use designation from RH to T-R. The designation change in and of itself has no bearing on these policies and the Vigilucci property location is not in a location that affects beach access or views. On the positive side, the proposed designation will help maintain the public's ability to access the Vigilucci property that under the existing RH designation might not be possible in the future. F. Compliance with Development Standards As the following list shows, the restaurant building and use are either conforming or nonconforming with the requirements of the property's current C-2 zoning and with parking standards. o Use: The restaurant use conforms to the list of allowed uses in the C-2 zone. o Setbacks: o Front: The restaurant has a 53-foot front setback as measured from Tamarack Avenue. The C-2 zone does not establish a front setback requirement, unless one is established by a precise plan. (Though the property has a Carlsbad Boulevard address, its front property line, by Zoning Ordinance definition, is measured from Tamarack Avenue.) o Rear: The restaurant has a 0-foot rear setback as measured from the north property line. A rear setback in the C-2 zone is only required when the rear property line borders a residentially zoned lot. Since the adjoining lot to the north is residentially zoned, a rear setback of 10 feet is required. Before the Council rezoned the adjoining lot from C-1 to R-3 in 2001 (see the discussion on the Ledgerwood parcels in the Project Background section above), the restaurant complied with the C-2 setback requirement. o Interior side: The building has a 0-foot setback from the east property line. The C-2 zone establishes no side setback. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/! 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S ,AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 13 o Street side: The building has only an approximately six to eighteen inch side setback from the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way. The C-2 zone establishes no street side setback. o Lot Coverage: The 4,816 square foot building covers about 34 percent of the approximately 1/3 acre lot. The C-2 zone does not establish a maximum percentage by which a building may cover a lot. o Height: At 17-feet and one story, the height of the existing restaurant is well under the 35-foot high, three story limit of the C-2 zone. o Parking: The 21 on-site parking spaces are inadequate to meet the needs of the restaurant, which based on its square footage, requires 57 parking spaces. Due to the variables among the different zones in the City, it is difficult to summarize how the existing building would comply with the standards of zones other than C-2. However, regardless of the zoning, it is likely that the building's height, lot coverage and front setback would be considered conforming and the building's rear setback and in some cases, interior side setback, since both abut residential property, would be considered nonconforming. While the project cannot be compared to the standards of the revised C-T zone because the zone is still being drafted, the restaurant would comply with all of the above development standards of the existing C-T zone, except for rear and interior side setbacks and parking. Moreover, since parking standards apply to all zones, the restaurant's existing parking would also be considered nonconforming regardless of the zone pursuant to Chapter 21.44 of the Zoning Ordinance. If a rezone to residential were contemplated, the ~xisting building would be nonconforming with residential zone requirements for interior side, street side, and rear setbacks. The restaurant use would also not comply with the uses permitted in a residential zone. If a developer proposed to convert the building to residential use, such a proposal would require discretionary permits and would have to comply with all zone requirements, necessitating the demolition of a portion or all of the building. G. Parking Regulations The availability of parking in and around the property has been a concern for years. The existing 4,816 square foot restaurant requires 57 parking spaces by Code. On-site, however, only 21 parking spaces at most exist, a deficiency of 36 spaces. Additionally, some aspects of the parking lot are not compliant with city standards. Many of the spaces, for example, are a few feet short of the 20-foot depth required for a standard stall, and the aisle width for about half the existing spaces is only 21-feet. Standards require an aisle width of 24-feet. It is important to realize, however, that under the current zoning, a restaurant is a permitted use. Therefore, absent proposing changes that would increase parking demand, the current owner may occupy the restaurant building with the parking "as-is." However, in the agreements the applicant and the City signed, the applicant has agreed to address the parking problem as part of the conditional use permit process. While the existing parking is inadequate for the current restaurant, it might be sufficient for another commercial use, at least in terms of quantity of spaces. As shown below, a comparison of Zoning Ordinance parking standards for different commercial uses reveals that other commercial uses could occupy the building and comply with the number of parking spaces GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/! 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S ,AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 14 required by city standards. Please note the "parking required" column is determined based on a 4,816 square foot building, which is the size of the existing restaurant. Use Parking Standard Parking Required Forty spaces, plus Restaurant one space/50 square 57 spaces feet ( sf) in excess of 4,000 sf. Professional Offices One space/250 sf 20 spaces Individual retail uses One space/300 sf 16 spaces Under the proposed T-R designation, most offices and many retail uses would not be considered acceptable unless they expressly served the travel and recreation needs of the public. Throughout the review of the project, providing adequate parking on-site has been an objective of both the applicant and staff. Both are aware that the shortage may force some restaurant patrons to park in surrounding streets, which can create conflicts with residents, and in the summer, beachgoers. Furthermore, adequate parking in the past might have lessened problems associated with the Sandbar as more of its patrons could have parked on-site rather than in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and staff have explored several parking alternatives. These included restriping, utilizing off-site parking, and valet parking. Because of the small lot size, restriping of the lot proved no measurable gain, and there are no adjacent or nearby properties on which off-site customer parking may be located. If available, constructing a parking lot on the vacant lot north of the restaurant would add no more than ten spaces, and, unless a portion of the restaurant were demolished, would have no direct access to the restaurant parking lot. And, while demolishing part of the restaurant would free up space and lessen parking demand at the same time, the applicant is not proposing this action. The Tamarack Beach public parking lot across Carlsbad Boulevard is owned by the state. Annually, the City pays money to the state to keep this lot open free to the public. Staff advised the applicant that the City would not participate in pursuit of using the public Tamarack lot for commercial purposes. Other public parking in the area, besides on surrounding residential streets, includes a stretch of parallel parking on Carlsbad Boulevard, north of the restaurant. This stretch of parking, which is not owned by the state, is located some distance from the restaurant and on the opposite side of Carlsbad Boulevard. A parking improvement proposed by the applicant and supported by staff is valet parking. Though in operation for approximately one year at the restaurant, the City has never formally approved this parking arrangement. The advantages of valet parking include the ability to (1) control access in and out of the parking lot, and (2) park more cars than achievable by customers who self-park. Managed parking by a valet is important because of the small size of the parking lot. If the lot were not controlled, the applicant and staff believe self-parking at busy times could be chaotic with cars being forced to use Tamarack A venue to maneuver if no space could be GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S ,AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 15 found. On the other hand, under a valet arrangement, a valet can inform people that the lot is full before they enter the lot. While valet parking is an improvement, it is not a total solution. At best, about 28 cars can be valet-parked on the site. (Please see the proposed valet parking plan in the attached exhibit C-2.) This is still almost 30 spaces short of the 57 parking spaces city standards require. Because of the small lot size and the need to maintain a turnaround and emergency vehicle access on the property, the maximum number of spaces achievable is far short of the statutory requirement. Limiting the number of valet spaces and maintaining access is critical not only for emergency vehicles but for traffic safety and effectiveness as well. On ten different occasions in the spring and summer of 2003, staff has observed the va~et parking operations at the restaurant. At these times, staff believes the applicant-imposed limit on the numbers of cars that a valet could park in the lot was 35 to 50. During the daytime and some nighttime observations, no parking issues or traffic problems were observed as the lot was no more than half full. However, on two Friday evenings in March and August, very full lots created significant traffic problems. Most notably, cars waited in the streets, sometimes blocking through traffic, before entering the parking lot. Further, the cramped parking lot forced valets to use Tamarack A venue for maneuvering area as valets would sometimes back into the street or use it to make three-point turns. Additionally, the crowded conditions caused restaurant customers to leave or enter their cars in the street or at the driveway rather than in the parking lot. Besides causing queuing of vehicles in the street, they also may prevent a person with disabilities from being able to conveniently access the restaurant. Nevertheless, staff believes the presently proposed valet parking plan is the best way to effectively provide the maximum number of spaces possible. However, it will not eliminate parking in the surrounding neighborhood nor parking conflicts on Tamarack A venue. If the property is designated for commercial uses, parking impacts to the neighborhood will remain. These impacts may produce citizen complaints; in 2003, staff received complaints from at least three individuals about traffic problems due to congestion on Tamarack A venue caused by vehicles entering (or attempting to enter) and exiting the restaurant parking lot and about restaurant customers parking in the streets surrounding Vigilucci's. During off-peak periods, such as the afternoon when parking demand is low, valet parking is not necessary. During these periods, the applicant would like the option of not using the valet parking service and instead allow customers to park their own vehicles. Under a self-parking plan, customers would use one of the 19 parking spaces shown on Exhibit "A", "Existing Site Plan." Although 21 parking spaces are available on the site at present, construction of the proposed trash enclosure will require removal of two parking spaces nearest the northeast comer of the building; one of these spaces is difficult to access because of existing building improvements. Staff believes self-parking during off-peak periods is acceptable, and recommends a condition that allows it as long as the continuous parking demand for the restaurant does not exceed 19 spaces, or the capacity of the parking lot under self-parking. During all other times, another condition requires operation of the valet parking plan. Because the existing restaurant lacks adequate parking, other commercial uses that occupy the building will likely continue the _parking problem, unless one or a combination. of the following occurs: (1) convenient off-site parking is found nearby, (2) a significant portion of the building GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/£ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S !FOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pae 16 is demolished and not replaced, or (3) a use with a smaller parking demand than a restaurant occupies the building. For Vigilucci's and perhaps other businesses that may locate on the property in the future, a parking impact is the tradeoff for keeping this site commercially designated. H. Coastal Development Permit Regulations and Proposed Outdoor Dining The applicant has submitted a coastal development permit for approval of a proposed outdoor dining area along the west side of his restaurant, facing Carlsbad Boulevard and the beach. The outdoor dining area would be located on an existing patio, separated from the street and sidewalk by an existing landscape strip. Since the Carlsbad Boulevard right-of-way extends nearly to the front of the building, the outdoor dining would be located in the public right-of-way. If the outdoor dining used all of the patio area north of the restaurant's front double-door entry facing the street, it would occupy about 650 square feet. Although no physical improvements or changes are proposed to accommodate the outdoor dining, a coastal development permit is required because the outdoor dining is considered a development in the coastal zone since it represents a potential intensification of an existing use. In a letter, the applicant states the purpose of the outdoor dining is not to increase the amount of dining for the restaurant. Instead, Vigilucci proposes that when the weather permits, tables and chairs from inside the restaurant will be moved outside. The applicant also indicates that no additional seating will be provided indoors to replace that moved outside. Since it is simply a relocation of existing seating, the applicant suggests no additional parking demand will result. For the following reasons, however, staff recommends denial of the outdoor dining request because it would (1) constitute an intensification of the existing restaurant and, in turn, a nonconforming use, and (2) trigger the need for more parking: o The Zoning Ordinance counts a restaurant's entire floor area, including its hallways, kitchen, dining, and waiting areas, in determining parking requirements; o Inside space not occupied by seating may still be used as an area for customers to wait or walk through; o An outdoor dining area represents an expansion of the restaurant's floor or serving area and therefore counts toward determining parking demand; o Ensuring the indoor space remains unused while outdoor dining occurs would be difficult for the City to monitor and enforce; o The parking shortage at the restaurant is severe. At 650 square feet, the outdoor dining creates a demand for 13 additional parking spaces. Under the valet parking scheme, the restaurant is 29 spaces short of what it needs to provide. With outdoor dining, it is 42 spaces short; o The restaurant is in the Beach Area where parking is already at a premium; o Zoning Ordinance Section 21.48.080 prohibits the expansion, extension, or intensification of a nonconforming use or building. Since Vigilucci's does not meet city setback and parking requirements, it is considered nonconforming; and GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/1:r 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 17 o Outdoor dining noise may disturb nearby residents. In particular, noise may bother the occupants of any future home built or;i. the vacant property just to the north of the restaurant. Further, the outdoor dining could not be approved under the incidental outdoor dining area (IODA) standards because (1) it is in the right-of-way and (2) adequate on-site parking cannot be provided. I. Conditional Use Permit Regulations Because of concerns about parking and other aspects of a business operating in a residential area, a stipulation of the agreement entered into by the applicant and the City required him to apply for a conditional use permit. As specified in Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.030, the permit enables the City to regulate not only the use itself but also aspects of its operations, such as business hours, noise, odor, and parking -all in an effort to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City may also place limits on the time the conditional use permit is valid and require annual reviews. Furthermore, if upon a review the City finds a conditional use is not complying with conditions or is negatively affecting its surroundings, it can revoke the permit. Through a conditional use permit, the City also has flexibility in determining the requirements for off-street parking. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.070 states: The requirements for provisions of off-street parking applicable to the particular use shall prevail, unless in the findings and conditions recited in the resolution dealing with each such matter, specific exemptions are made with respect thereto. The same flexibility is also enabled by the conditional use permit for front and side setbacks, building height, and lot area requirements; none of these, however, are an issue for the building under its current C-2 zoning. Considering the proximity of the restaurant to homes and its lack of adequate parking, a conditional use permit is appropriate for Vigilucci's. In granting a conditional use permit for the restaurant as recommended, four findings must be made. The findings and reasons to support them follow: Finding 1: That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, including, if applicable, the certified local coastal program, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Retaining the commercial use of the property and establishing a conditional use permit for the existing restaurant are actions: (1) supported by the public as evidenced in the public hearings for the applications which proposed the rezoning of the property to residential (ZC 99-08/LCPA 00-01), and (2) found worthy of consideration by the Planning Commission (as expressed in Resolution 4892) and City Council (as expressed in Resolution 2001-72). GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/li, 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 18 Furthermore, as demonstrated earlier in this report, the existing use would be consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, under the proposed amendments. To ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, staff recommends conditions of approval to include the following: a. Restrictions on operating hours to not close past midnight (the current closing time on weekends). b. Restriction on entertainment noise so at anytime it is not audible beyond the boundaries of the restaurant property. c. Prohibition on dancing and dance bands. d. No outdoor dining. e. Compliance with the approved valet parking plan and self-parking plans. f. Annual review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Director and ability by the City to revoke the permit at any time if warranted and after a public hearing. g. Continual upkeep of the building and grounds. h. Installation of a trash enclosure and landscape screening as proposed. 1. Operation of the restaurant substantially consistent with the definition of a ''bona fide public eating establishment" which Zoning Ordinance Section 21.04.056 defines as follows: "Bona fide public eating establishment" means any establishment at which the primary business is the preparation, service and retail sale of meals comprising a varied selection of foods and nonalcoholic beverages prepared, served and consumed on the premises. To be classified as a bona fide public eating establishment, an establishment, which engages in the sale of beer, wine or distilled spirits for consumption on the premises shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be designed and operated in such a way that the sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to the primary restaurant operation; (2) On any day the restaurant is open to the public for business and engaged in the incidental sale of alcoholic beverages, restaurant services shall be available to the public for the evening meal for a period of not less than five hours, or for not less than four hours, if the morning or noon meal is also served to the public for a period of not less than two hours; (3) Restaurant service shall include, but not be limited to, an offering of a varied menu of foods or not less than five main courses with appropriate nonalcoholic beverages, desserts, salads and other attendant dishes; ( 4) The sale of any food prepared for consumption off the premises shall be occasional only and clearly incidental and subordinate to the on-premises restaurant operation; GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e 19 (5) No more than twenty-five percent of the interior area of the restaurant shall be designed, arranged or devoted to a use commonly associated with a bar or other establishment primarily engaged in the on-premises sale of alcoholic beverages. The interior area shall include only those portions of the establishment devoted to regular use by the public; (6) A minimum of twenty percent of the gross floor area of the establishment shall be used solely for food storage, preparation, maintenance and storage of eating utensils, dishes and glassware and shall include refrigeration, cooking, warming and dishwashing equipment, and any other equipment necessary for a fully equipped restaurant kitchen; (7) During the above specified minimum hours for restaurant services, there shall be not less than one employee per two hundred and fifty square feet of floor area devoted to food service use. Said employee or employees shall be on the job during the specified minimum hours for the restaurant service as described in subsection (2) of this section. The City Council may waive the above requirements relating to hours, menus, alcoholic beverage area, kitchen area, employees and equipment if they find a proposed restaurant will provide equivalencies, meets the other requirements of this section and will, in fact, be operated as a bona fide restaurant. Uses not specifically named in this section but which are of substantially the same general type and character and are within the intent and purpose of this section may be permitted; provided, however, that the burden of proving the same shall rest with the person seeking to establish that use. The conditional use permit and recommended conditions will ensure the restaurant is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Commercial Policy Cl 0, which states "encourage commercial recreation or tourist destination facilities, as long as they protect the residential character of the community ... " Finding 2: That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. Vigilucci's Seafood and Steakhouse is an existing, not an intended, use, and the site on which it is located is fully developed. The site cannot accommodate the parking required by the existing use, and the existing parking does not meet all required dimensional standards. However, the site has lacked adequate, conforming parking for many years and the current restaurant operation is similar to past restaurant operations on the site. No opportunities exist to expand the parking lot either on-site, unless a portion of the building is demolished, or off-site as all adjacent properties are developed or proposed for residential development. Screening of the parking lot from surrounding uses and streets is adequately achieved by the existing building and existing and proposed landscaping. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/IP 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S IAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e20 In recognition of the lack of parking, restaurant customers over the years have parked and will likely continue to park in the surrounding neighborhood. The restaurant also serves residents in the surrounding neighborhood and beachgoers, some of who walk instead of drive to the restaurant. To improve the parking situation, the applicant has proposed to implement a valet parking plan to maximize the available on-site parking spaces and provide necessary on-site vehicle maneuvering room and emergency vehicle access. Despite the improvements achieved through the valet parking plan, the number of on-site parking will remain inadequate to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff believes that even with the parking inadequacy, the restaurant is a use that, with the control enabled by this conditional use permit, can work adequately to satisfy the City and the restaurant's neighbors. This position is supported by the public testimony and discussion that influenced the City Council to pursue designating the property for commercial use as contained in Resolution 2001-72. In addition, conditions of this conditional use permit require compliance with the approved valet parking plan and prohibit outdoor dining, which would create additional parking demand. Accordingly, based on Zoning Ordinance Section 21.42.070, which allows flexibility in applying parking standards through the conditional use permit process and related findings and conditions, and because the CUP can be revoked if the lack of parking becomes unacceptable, the City can make this finding. Finding 3: That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. The rear yard setback of the restaurant complied with zoning standards before the 2001 rezoning from commercial to residential of the property adjacent to the north. The restaurant complies with all other setback requirements. Further, the few minor improvements proposed as part of the permit, a trash enclosure and small strip of landscape screening, adjust the existing use to its surroundings along with recommended conditions of approval. Finding 4: That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The use is existing, not proposed. As such, it will generate no new traffic. Based on recent traffic surveys, the levels of service on Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard and at the intersection of both streets are acceptable and meet city requirements. In addition, the average daily traffic on both streets is well below each street's design capacity. Furthermore, the proposed valet parking plan incorporates an on-site vehicle maneuvering area, which should improve the ability of cars entering and leaving the restaurant parking lot and lessen traffic conflicts and congestion on Tamarack A venue. GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S 'AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e21 J. Encroachment Agreement and Minor Site Improvements As part of the conditional use permit request, the applicant has proposed to perform some minor site and building improvements. One of the planned improvements would be to install an awning along the west and south-facing sides of his building. Both the existing site plan and elevation exhibits depict the proposed awning. Because the awning will extend over the right-of- way along the building's west side, an encroachment agreement, approved by the City Engineering Department, will be required. An encroachment agreement is also necessary for some previously completed landscape work in the right-of-way along Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. Additionally, the applicant proposes to install a trash enclosure in the far northeast comer of the parking lot, near the back of the building and where the current trash bin is kept. Presently, the trash bin is not screened. The new masonry enclosure with a solid gate will improve the appearance of the site. It will also not eliminate opportunities for on-site parking since it is proposed where a parked car would interfere with the necessary vehicle turnaround area. Finally, at the southeast comer of the site, a small landscape strip and additional landscaping are proposed to primarily improve screening of the restaurant's parking lot from Tamarack Avenue. K. Nonconforming Buildings and Structures As previously discussed, the restaurant building and use are either conforming or nonconforming with the requirements of the property's current C-2 zoning and with other Zoning Ordinance standards. The restaurant use conforms to the list of allowed uses in the C-2 zone, but does not meet the zone's rear setback requirement. Additionally, on-site parking for the restaurant does not comply with Zoning Ordinance quantity and some dimensional standards. Should the City approve the General Plan Amendment from RH to T-R and ultimately a new commercial zone for the property, the restaurant may remain nonconforming in terms of setbacks and will remain nonconforming in terms of parking. If the conditional use permit is approved, the restaurant use likely will be conforming to the recommended new zoning for the property, which is C-T. Zoning Ordinance Section 21.48.080 (Nonconforming Buildings and Structures) states that, under limited exceptions, " ... a nonconforming use or building shall not be altered, improved, reconstructed, restored, repaired, intensified, expanded or extended." One exception allows the incidental repair of nonconforming building made necessary by ordinary wear and tear. Another exception ( as stated in Section 21.48. 090) allows expansions of up to 40% of the existing floor area if the building is nonconforming only in terms of setbacks. This exclusion would not apply to Vigilucci's, however, because of the noncompliant on-site parking. Furthermore, staff recommends disapproval of the outdoor dining proposal since it represents an intensification of a nonconforming building and structure. Should Carlsbad not approve the General Plan Amendment from RH to T-R and instead decide to rezone the property to residential (probably R-3) to match its existing RH land use designation, the restaurant use would also be considered nonconforming with the future residential zone. Section 21.48.060 states that commercial buildings located in a residential zone GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/~ 02-19/CDP 02-34-VIGILUCCI'S 'AFOOD & STEAKHOUSE January 21, 2004 Pa e22 are to be removed or altered to conform to zoning standards within a period established by the Planning Commission. This period could last for several years to allow for amortization of the existing restaurant improvements. L. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1) The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1. To determine its existing and future impacts on public facilities, the 1987 Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 designated the property as commercial. On both the subject and adjacent properties to the north (with the latter being the previous Ledgerwood properties zoned C-1), the Plan indicated 5,000 square feet of existing commercial development and the potential for 5,000 square feet more. Since 1987, the restaurant building has remained virtually unchanged. Further, due to the small size of the Vigilucci property and the redesignation of the former Ledgerwood properties from commercial to residential, the potential for additional commercial area is unlikely. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance. As discussed earlier in the section regarding loss of residential development potential, the change in General Plan designation from RH (High Density Residential) to T-R (Travel-Recreation Commercial), if approved, will contribute six dwelling units to the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Applicable CEQA provisions include Guidelines Section 15301, which exempts projects proposing no or only minor modifications, and Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts projects where there is certainty of no significant project impacts. With denial of the proposed outdoor dining as recommended, the project does not represent any change in the operations or intensification of the existing restaurant use or site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5549 (GPA) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5550 (LCPA) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5551 (CUP) 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5552 (CDP) 5. Location Map 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Disclosure Statements 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4892 9. City Council Resolution 2001-72 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Full Size Exhibits "A" -"G" dated January 21, 2004 SD:bd:mh SITE - CURRENT LAND USE: RH PROPOSED LAND USE: T-R VIGILUCCl'S SEAFOOD & STEAKHOUSE GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 -BACKGROUND DATA SHEET - CASE NO: GPA 01-04/LCPA 01-07/CUP 02-19/CDP 02-34 CASE NAME: Vigilucci's Seafood & Steakhouse APPLICANT: =R=ob-=-e=rt=o~V..:....:,:ig=il=u'-=-cc=i _____________________ _ REQUEST AND LOCATION: Approval of: (1) General Plan and Local Coastal Program amendments to provide a suitable land use designation for an existing restaurant; (2) a Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant, and (3) a Coastal Development Permit to allow outdoor dining. Restaurant location is 3878 Carlsbad Boulevard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel map No. 3713, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 21, 1975 as File No. 75-092233 of Official Records. APN: 204-253-20 Acres: 1/3 acre (approx) Proposed No. of Lots/Units: =--N"--'/A~------- GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Existing Land Use Designation: RH Density Allowed: 15-24 units/acre Existing Zone: -=C-'-2"'-------- Proposed Land Use Designation: ~T~-R~----- Density Proposed: =--N""'/ A'-"----------- Proposed Zone: =--N"""'/ A'-"------------ Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use: Zoning General Plan Current Land Use Site C-2 RH Restaurant North R-3,BAOZ RH Vacant South RD-M RH Condominiums East R-3 RH Apartments West OS OS Beach PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N"-"'-'/ Ac..::.._-....:e=x=is=ti=n-0-g--=u=se"-------------- □ □ [gJ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued. _____________________ _ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated'----------------- Other, GPA 01-04 & LCPA 01-07: Exempt from CEOA pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). CUP 02-19 and CDP 02-34: Categorically Exempt from CEOA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) e· \___, -City of Carlsbad IAFih,i•el·l·l4·Eiii,el4hl DISCLOSURE STATEMENT· Applicant's stat~ment or disclosme of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any a pointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project.cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Penon is defined as ''Any individual, fum. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, c01poration, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit" Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. · 1. 2. APPUCANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cor_poration or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ·of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE TIIAN 10% OF 1HE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (NI A) IN 1HE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Roberto Vigilucci Title Owner Address 3878 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008 OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Corp/Part._N_I_A _______ _ Title NIA Address NIA ._..;._ __________ _ Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the natlll'e of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF 1HE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN 1HE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly- owned comoration. include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Roberto Vigilucci Title Owner Address 3878 Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92008 Corp/Part __ ...;.NI_A ________ _ Title NIA Address,___;N..;:.l.;..;.A _________ _ 1635 Faraday Avem.~e •Carlsbad.CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600. • FAX (760) 602-8559 * --3. NON-PROFIT Ok...sANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2). above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust.________ Non Profit/Trust. _________ _ Title. ___________ _ Title _____________ _ Address __________ _ Address. ____________ _ 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business ~sacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes ~ ~o If yes, please indicate person(s):. ____________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. ove information is true and correct 1--\D-r->c Roberto Vigilucci Roberto Vigilucci Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:AOMIN\COUNTER\OISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4892 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL: (1) CHANGE THE ZONING FROM C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND BAOZ (BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE) ON THE TWO LOTS OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGER WOOD TRUST, AND; (2) NOT CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST AT THIS TIME AND INSTEAD CONSIDER ALLOWING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN AS A CONFORMING USE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS APPROPRIATE LAND USE AMENDMENTS AND CONDUCT NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE THREE LOTS AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE CASE NO: ZC 99-08 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application to change the zoning of property owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust and property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, "Owners", described as Lots 1 and 2 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City 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. (property owned by Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust) Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page No. 75-092233 of Official Records. (property owned by Mitze H. Eubanks Trust) ("the Properties"); and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Zone Change as shown on the draft ordinance Exhibit "X" attached hereto and made a part hereof, dated January 17, 2001, and on file in the Planning Department, CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD/TAMARACK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- ZONE CHANGE, ZC 99-08, as provided by Chapter 21.52 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of January, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, which was subsequently continued to the 17th day of January, 2001, to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to a Zone Change; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1. 2. A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS the following: That both lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust bordered by Redwood Avenue on the north and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west be rezoned from C-1 to R- 3, BAOZ based on the following findings; That the City Council not change the zoning on the property owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust, and, instead, consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use based on the following findings, and, accordingly, direct staff to conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate public hearing amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance. Findings: 1. 2. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan Residential Density Land Use Desigi:iation applied to the subject properties and is compatible with adjacent land uses. That the Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C- 2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan and will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in that the Zone Change brings the properties' zoning designation into compliance with the General Plan and fulfills a General Plan policy calling for PC RESO NO. 4892 -2- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. --- inconsistent zoning designations to be brought into c~nformance with the General Plan. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan and will also provide consistency with the Local Coastal Program as mandated by California State law for properties in the Coastal Zone in that the Zone Change brings the properties' zoning designation into conformance with the Local Coastal Program land use map and the proposed Local Coastal Program zone change (LCPA 00-01). That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, is consistent with the public convenience, necessity and general welfare, and is consistent with sound planning principles in that it would implement the subject properties' General Plan designation, would be compatible with surrounding zoning designations, and would permit land uses the same as those in the surrounding area. That the proposed Zone Change for the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust properties from C-1 and C-2 to R-3 and Beach Overlay Zone is consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan, which will be applied to the properties as part of the proposed zone change, in that it provides the City with discretionary review to ensure development standards are properly applied and beach area concerns, such as neighborhood compatibility and parking, are adequately addressed. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could provide an orderly balance of both public and private land uses within convenient and compatible locations and ensure that such uses serve to protect and enhance the character and image of the City. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could create a distinctive sense of place and identity for the surrounding community and neighborhood of the City through the preservation of existing varied land uses. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it could provide for the social and economic needs of the community. 9. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate PC RESO NO. 4892 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan is consistent with sound planning principles in that the property has historically been used as a commercial property and a bona fide eating establishment and thus could be found to be consistent with the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare. 10. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that it would allow continuance of such likewise historical use and thereby preserve the community identity, character and convenience that the use provides to the public and surrounding neighborhood. 11. That for the Mitze Eubanks Trust property, allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use has the potential, subject to necessary and appropriate environmental and public hearing review, to be consistent with the goals and policies of the various elements of the General Plan in that the application of appropriate zoning, use, and development standards will ensure the continued compatibility of commercial uses with the surrounding neighborhood by addressing such concerns as traffic flow, parking, noise and architectural compatibility. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of January 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Heineman, L'Heureux, and Trigas Commissioner Nielsen JE N. SEGALL, hairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: w~ Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4892 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ORDINANCE NO. -Exhibit "X" January 17, 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 21.05.030 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO GRANT A ZONE CHANGE, ZC 99-08, FROM C-1 AND C-2 TO R-3 AND BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE ON TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD AND SOUTH OF REDWOOD A VENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEY ARD/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE CASE NO.: ZC 99-0SILCPA 00-01 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Section 21.05.030 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, being the zoning map, is amended as shown on the maps marked Exhibit "ZC 99-08" and "LCPA 00-01" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II: That the findings of the Planning Commission as set forth -in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4891, 4892, and 4893 constitute the findings of the City Council. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within fifteen days after its adoption. Ill Ill Ill Ill Ill • Ill Ill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the ___ day of ____ , 2001, and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the _____ day of ____ _, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ATTEST: , ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- -- PROPERTY ZONE CHANGE ZC: 99-08 draft [81 final 0 Project Name: Carlsbad Blvd/Tamarack Zone ChanQe I Related Case File No(s): LCPA 00-01 Legal Description(s}: A.: Lot 2 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City 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. B.: Lot 1 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City 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. C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page No. 75-092233 of Official Records. Zone Chanqe Aoorovals Prooertv: From: To: Council Anoroval Date: A. 204-253-13 C-1 R-3, BAOZ* Ordinance No: 8. 204-253-14 C-1 R-3, BAOZ Effective Date: C. 204-253-20 C-2 No chanae Signature: D. *Beach Area Overlay Zone REVISED -- LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LCPA: 00-01 draft [8J final D Proiect Name: Carlsbad Blvd/Tamarack Zone Chanoe Related Case File No(s): ZC 99-08 Property/Legal Description(s ): A.: Lot 2 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City 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. B.: Lot 1 in Block 'G' of Palisades in the City 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. C.: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 3713, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on April 21, 1975 as file/Page No. 75-092233 of Official Records. LCPA Mao Desianation Chanae Aoorovals Prooertv From: To: Council Aooroval Date: A. 204-253-13 C-2 R-3, BAOZ* B. 204-253-14 C-2 R-3, BAOZ Effective Date: c. 204-253-20 C-2 No change Signature: *Be 1ch Area Overlay 2 one REVISED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attachment 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, TO (1) APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, ZONE CHANGE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REZONE TWO LOTS OWNED BY THE CHARLES B. LEDGERWOOD TRUST; AND, (2) MAKE NO CHANGE AT THIS TIME TO THE ZONING ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST; AND (3) DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS THE NECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND ZONING ORDINANCE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS TO ENABLE CONSIDERATION OF ALLOWING COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN AS A CONFORMING USE ON THE LOT OWNED BY THE MITZE H. EUBANKS TRUST. THE THREE PROPERTIES AFFECTED ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN TAMARACK AVENUE AND REDWOOD AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BL/TAMARACK ZONE CHANGE CASE NO.: ZC 99-08 AND LCPA 00-01 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on January 3, 2001, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, which was subsequently continued to January 17, 2001, to consider a proposed Negative Declaration, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to rezone the two lots owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and General Commercial (C-2) to Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) and Beach Area Overlay Zone (BAOZ) and rezone the one lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust from C-2 to R-3 and BAOZ; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893 recommending to the City Council that (1) the Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment be approved to change the zoning as proposed on the properties owned by the Charles B. Ledgerwood Trust, and (2) that the Council make no change at this time to the existing commercial zoning on the lot owned by the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust and instead consider allowing commercial to remain as a conforming use, and, accordingly direct staff to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conduct the necessary environmental review and process appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Ordinance at public hearings; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 6th day of March 2001, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to ZC 99-08 and LCPA 00-01; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Addendum was prepared for the project and it was determined that a Negative Declaration could be issued for the project, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for: (1) The approval of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, Zone Change 99-08, and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-01, and; (2) The retaining of the existing zone on the Mitze H. Eubanks Trust and further study and consideration of an appropriate commercial designation for the property is approved and that the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4891, 4892, and 4893, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings of the City Council. 3. That the City Council is not rezoning the parcel at this time in reliance on the Seaside Bistro's representations that it will relinquish its cabaret license and agree to process a Conditional Use Permit application setting forth the terms and conditions under which commercial use will continue to exist at this site. Therefore, the Planning Director is directed to commence the necessary and appropriate rezoning process forthwith which will require a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permits and to return to the City Council through the Planning Commission with its report and recommendations. The Seaside Bistro is directed to apply forthwith for a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permits under the proposed zone so that all discretionary actions will be before the Council concurrently. 4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review," shall apply: "The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -- extended to not latter than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008." PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 6th day of March 2001, by the following vote, to wit: C ATTEST: (SEAL) AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. -3- EXIST.NWlTMEHTBWWINGS EJ/JST. 11/XJSf EX. DIRT L 6 PALISADES, BLOC!< G MAP NO. 1747 MASONftY WALL. ,, p$,rj. [ 1!)(18TlNG•i&-O"HIGH EX DIRT £_'/,, i\J-.1 ""'~"""~~~~~~EX~~~IC~K~R~ET~Al~W~NG~~~lL"$!!;J!N~J4~~~JiW~~q1~J~~~r;:::-------------- □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□CJOOqD□□ EXIST. 15' HIGH BUSHES ~9 Ir r l_\j ___ ~ (.'.) CllY Of CARLS8AO ST#IO,l.ROS '\.._...,E)'IST PAVEMENT·'\.. '• I J. •-•--------... --+--------------------~ I i CARLSBAD BLVD. ---·-·---___ l_ --------·---·---------------------------- T I 10 STALL& AT 0'-0' TIPICAl. ~ to'-0' I, 't ,, . A •• . 4 E.>15T GAS, ll'J'./ O[P 1fi4-5 EXIST RR 'f!f'S .--, QI ___ , ______________ • _ Et/ST 5111?. MA/fl PER 164-5 _ .-- rnsr WTR MAW P[R 164-5 I I i I \ I I -----t!\,NOT<-NO OUILOIN<" WITHIN 1001 I Ii . .. I I I I I I : I t I I 1 I I C.L n.IS1 JC' OW) l I --;------7 ! I I --~---_Ju_~J ' I I L. I let w I ·~ ::) i:: ~ I :cl ~ I "· c I ~ I ~ "11 i !I ~1 ~I ~I I t I ➔ I I -.... __ i---_, ____ _ I I PROJECT DATA FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT """" ft088'1' VIGILUCCI :l&6 9UNSCT ORIVC CNC1NrTAS,CAl:l.OM PRo.iect' AOOll!:&!I 1 3178CAAL.8~ 8LVO, CARL88"°i CA 11008 "'"' 104-16)-10 L.eOAL O?&CIUPTION PARCCL \ PAACCL MAP NO, 371) IHTC>.CrteAGl!:1 APPIIOX. 0~1 ACRI!:& !!Xl!ITING %0NIHG C--2, 8t!Hl:ltAL. COIAl?RCIA!.. &JILOINGARCA1 M~N WJL01NG 4,401 81" COVl!II~ P-'TIO AA~ 318 81" OUT&JPC COOi.CR HSI" TOTAL <fi81881" SIT?: O?eN 8PACe ... erre Ill.DO COV?IV,.G!!, )8)1 &CWCRD19TIUCT, CITYOl'CAR1.&8AO wAnR Ol&TftlCT • CAALS&At> MUNICIPAL WATU DISnICT SCHOOL OISTitlCTr CAl\l..58AO UN!l"l!!D &CHOOL OI&TfUCT 81.00 OCCUPANCY GllOOP A, ON!SION 3 IRC9TAU""1m &LOO CON&TII.UCTIOI¼: TYPC 'l·N INOIHViT~) R!!QUIRCD PARKlNO 40 STAU.8 • V80 0\/fR ,1-,000 SP' ~ && &TAl.LB !!XlSTI»G PAl\l::ING; 11 8TALUI !!XISTINGAl>T! 481 AOT SHEET INDEX r-1 mi.e &He~ ANO exismo sm: Pl.AN Al t:XIBTING l"LOOR Pi.AH ANO elCISTING ROOI" PL.AN A1 CXISTIN8 8UILOING CL!!VATIONS elO&TINO 8UII.OINO eu:vATION& C·I ~&TINSStT?/DWNAG!!PlAN C·1 e>l:ISTING VALeT PAlll::lNG Pi.AN \..-1 el<ISTINGPUHT!NGPLAN PROJECT DIRECTORY ~ PAATNC!t& Pl.ANNING &. CNGINee!UNG HU Hl8!!1n' 9T1 ST!!. 112 &AN OJCGO, CA 01~1 I .f.NP$G.f.Pl' ,UltHJJ?Cl • ~ MSOC:IAiTCS .f\61 ADAMS Ave. SAN OICGO, CA 9211G VICINITY MAP ' l"h.~,.------1 ---·------------· -----(,')-----·'------1----- 1 I ~-•~ ~ --li __L_ " ·-"'" ~-"" Vll)IU,lCCl'll --.... ~ ------NORTH ~ ~ --~ ._ __________________________________________________ EX_1s_n_N_a_s_rr_E_P_LAN ____ ~_-..,,~~:Cl:.J':"'~•-~,...=--··_L ___________ ~•T~-•~·......c'~"~"™c.Ji T-1 ,,.... EXISTING FLOOR PLAN ""' SICYL.IGHT, TTP ~-7· ,, I I .. , I ' I L I ,I..'.-~, ,, I ,I -~ ~'1'-tPROOI"( I ., I I• ,:l' EXISTING ROOF PLAN GENERAL NOTES t. IU.lUMUM OCCUPANGr1 ~I TOTAL 6CATING 1. O&C OCctlS'>.NCT CLA.S6TI"lCAT10N: ~ ~ O&C COKSTftUCTION TYPC: VN INON-RARDJ 4, ~LDlml l'"LOOR A!U:A ti STORY] • Af'PIIOX. 4141& SQ. l"T, R~.N.~ N0'1'H EXISTING FLOOR PLAN / EXISTING ROOF PLAN ~~ el 1b1 Iii 5<..., "9NOTCO a) i:,..-. CX,JC ;1-~ ,lob VlOU.ucer& :, _, !l A1 ill l_ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ __.a;._ __ __. PROPfll.TY UNI: :--1 -~·~~♦':.:.AR/>PCT ___ 1 ____ ~==========a,o=,=s, "-'•! ~~i'~---:t'et:•12i.a• I .• h J0_L0!. ~vc__ _ I ~ ATOJ>0!.~---~+16'-61 ,.IN.l"L WEST ELEVATION Vigifucci'" Soo!ood l S1u~I\Qu10 KEY NOTES (I} l!X!ftTINO &>.er.LIT SIGN ~2.• l! S.41 Pl:R SlGN PCRMtT NO PS 02~7e / \\. ! i \ Ci) CXISTING INTtGIW. COLOR l!XTtRIOR Cl!MCNT P\..ASTell; l"INISH !STUCCO) ll) PROPOSl:0 1,11:TAL l"AAMCO l"ADRIC COVfRCO AWNING, l"AeRlC COMPUCS Wmi CAUi', STATe l"l!U: MAIISHALL TeST taO\ nn.e I&, RfG, ♦1"~6!.01 NOTC. PII.OPoseo AWNll<IG Rl!PLACl!S PltCCXISTING AWNING R~oveo FOR ~UtLD!NG IMPROVCMCITTS, G) l:XISTING SUOIHG WINOOWS WITH WOOD TIUM (D CXISTINO WALL SCONCC LIGHT l"IXTURC @ 1:ltlSTING Het<CUUTe GLASS l!tn'RAHCC DOORS WITH l"lXCO GI.ASS 6101:LlTl!S (i) CXISTING ACCOIIOION ~ l"JtCNCH D00/UI WITH WOOO TIUM. @ l!XISTJNa l"IXeO GLASS WINDOW @ CXISTIHG G"5 Sl!l't.VICI! 6. lill!TeR @ CXlSTlNO ASPHALT SHINGL.e: ROOI" (ID l!XISTING PA.INTl!O WOOD eQUIPMCNT CNCLOSURC {fil CXl&TlNG COHCeALCD ROOI" MOUNTeD Ml!CAANICAL CQUJPM?NT (ID CXISTINO PAINT?O WOOD SIDING/ Tltlt.l @ CXTSTING PALM nec @ 1:XISTIHG\.ITlL.lT'fPOLI: (ii} CXlSTING Vl:ITT' TO QIILLl:D ~eveMGC COOLl:ft CQUl~T """'"''' @ CXISTIHG MeTAL WLING @ C)(\STING CONCRCT?! ACCC66l~LC RAMP AND LANDING (!) CXlSTING VAU!T 11:C'I' LOCI!: ~OX @I 1:XISTtNG e!II.LAflOS ffi} 1:XIST"IOO CLl:CTIUCAL &IJ~PANl:L @CXl6TINGI.IAll..~X @ CXISTINGAIR CONOITlONING IJNIT ~ CX19TING el.CCTRICAL CLOSCT @ CXlSTING PROPANC STO/lA.GC SH?LVl:S AMO CAGC @ SHADING INDICATI!& PORTION 01" CXISTING SlltUCT\mC ADJACl:NT TO CX16TING RCTAlNING WALL PROPCRTI' LINC ~~b~~~d,{4=~=\,.~=,=,i!. --1----TOP o;L~;;:+ __ ~ ___ ~O!_RIDGC~_ I CL♦~ ---~*::::.~ I ~ '-.-.. -,.-,,..-,......, lu So<NC AS NOTCD o,°'°""' 0\,..0:: :;I,,,_ t .lob. VIQtulCCJ'& EAST ELEVATION "' •.. ._ _______________________________________________________ EX_IS_TI_N_G_E_LEV_~_n_o_N_s ____ ~_.,_:_"_~_' .. _,.,._-Ji A2 PltOPl!.IITTLIHC-l ~ ~~.~COPIN& __ ~ __________ s,=;=e===a;=a;a=,=;a=!=';==;=;=,;a=,=,a=;=F,!' -H_l'.~;:.·-----~ ---------- r ~--: ll" ' ' ' ' ' , ' .. .. .. ' SOUTH ELEVATION / SECTION PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION (i) t:Xl&TIN8 ~KLlT SIGN 41' K 14'1' Pl:R SIGN ~llMtT NO, PS 02•?6 u) 1:XI&TIN8 ltfTl:G!W.. COLOII l!XTl:IUOR CCMl!Hi PLASTl:R l"INISH ISTUCCOl (!} PROPOSl:D MeTAL l"RAMl!D l"A&RlC COVClll:D AWNING, l"AIIIIIC COMPl.le& WITH CAUi", &TATe r"IRI: MARSHAU. TeST t,301, Trrt.e 19, II~. fl'3&a 01 HOTC PkOP0$?0 AWNIHQ Rtl'lAC~ PRtCXlSTINfJ AWNING lll!MOVl:D l'OR &l!LDIHO IMPROVCM!:NT& G) l!XISTING SUDIKG WlNOOWS WlTH WOOD 111:!M @ tXl&TING WALL SCONCC L1GliT l"lXTIJRI: (!) CXIIITJNG Ml:TAL IIAILINO @ t:XJSTJNG CONCIU!TI: ACCt!SSllllt: RA.MP ANO LANDING @ l:XISTltmlloLLA!WS ffi 1:XlSTING OPl:.NlNG ANO SCCURm' a.A.RS @) 1:Xl&TING ASPHALT IIHINOLC RODI" (ill 1!XlSTIN8 PAllITW WOOD tOUIPMl:NT t:NCL.OSURt @ CXlSTJNG CONC~O 11:00!" MOUNTeO MCCHANICAL. ~Ml:NT @) CXIISTING PAlNTl:O WOOD SIOIHCU TftlM @t:X!STINGS:a'LIGHTS {fil l!XISTING t:LCCTIIICAL CLOSl!T @ l!XISTING PROPANC STORAGI: &Ht:LVl:6 ANO CAtU: @ !!Xl8TING R!!TA!NtNG WALL PROPl:IITY UNt @ !!XISTING !"LAT ROOI" @ ~TIHG V!!NT TO Q\ILL!!O ~MRAO!! COOU!R ~UIPN!!NT @) 81iAOING INOICAT!!& PORTION 01" &IJLDmG IN &eCTIOtl, see PARTIAL SOUTH fLeVATION l"OR l"OR!!GROUNO PORTION 01" CXISTING eull.DIKG NOT SHOWN (ID cx1s.nt10 PALM TRee I ~::::o ~1;: :~o&:JRe PCR °'TAIL EB &• CMU WALU CITTIUOll. l'LASTI:11 OVC/1 MASON!IT WALL& TO MATCH !!XISTING IW!LOINGl"INZSH,TYP, t f'iz:=z:z:z:z:::z::ti l 'tll,;;::--------::,,;,t---'< ,,,. TRASH ENCLOSURE ~-~-~~~ !--ruse l"JH.G~ ~:~i:i&t&i1,,;~'.:Y{~'.lit0;~t:=;::;:,,i~!t1 .. <0-0.::: ... .. ' ! "'::: Cl;., CO < :ei: Iii s.-A&NOTeP 0, -Cll,Ji: ~ ,__ t .bo VIGtL.UCCl'a :e- EXISTING ELEVATIONS "'...--,, ~ A3 L---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-"_"'_'_,.._._,_,. __ il! ___ _ ~I ~1 ~ ----· --~--·-· --- ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (,, ( j •. EXUl --·-J\ _ ; --·-~ ------,-'DJSr.~Sll~KR/64•5 .i. / a ' .. f.!J!..!J ~ .... ---- I I ~ ... ai..l I I i I ' ' .L!!iill-1 ' I .£2t I ' I CL~0'0W'I ___ I . I I ' ' £.Ll:F- w :::, z w > <( X. 0 <( Q:'. <( 2 <( f- I I ' . --·---. -···-_l __ _ I ' --1-.. l i i CARLSBAD BL VD L ___ j______________________ __________________________ fYJST S1IR. MM!_~~•.:!..----·-•-·--·-·-·-·('"\--.--. 4 ~ ! ~ l, ~ iJ"r ----------------e--------------------------------'(»sT ll-1R.JIMIPlR.~'6,-.t,$t_ ___________ ..,,,_, ___ -j-~ I ~1 I ~I l __ _ c,:so,;SPOTD.£YAl:O,IS•"' =~l1AJ)INCI.N( ., DIS111117$WTMtllll()l.tltmo.£ -•-•+--0--•-•-•- CXJSTtl',;WAl!'JIII-W • ••• •• •--•-- DIISIJICSlll'll/MAti••""''''""' _____ _ DISJH;'$10RII ~tt' S111WM£ :r.=::===O==---= DIS~MDU.IDW'" @-,,... r--""' O:SJN;;PJ.',£1/(J(f .e..-(.'...UJ D/1$tllC(.t/J,()ff}IJ j,~ ---1----.1 RfW RfW EXIST CTJRB &:-GV O,ST PA'1£UENT CARLSBAD BL VD. STREET SECTION NOSCAU RfW RfW TAMARACK ST. STREET SECTION 'ARTNERS P/(11111/tigtmd Erigfnunng WBB H,bert srree,. s~,,e 212 Sa>!Dlegr,,C4.9l/Jl Pli.(1JS8)695-.3J44 Fax (B58)~9S-JJ11 NOSCA!£ i •< u I ~ h---,-.,..,--1 tu-.,AINOTetl co-cx,.rr. :.!-t: Mi YtOlLUCCl'l!l "--------------------------------------------------------------~ C-1 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_Jil!~-"--~ T I I I I I I I I I I I I I "'¾J I ------------ { , ) <!) -------1 ------------"l § --------------- t1$Mn.'IIIIIMII• •. ====== asllllll--~ .. ====== DIS-c.UtAmMt. ®- asN$WIT....,.,, ,, •••• ~ ~KPO,Qa. ,:J!,11 ,-,.aMIU01' • lJl,IA IVODtMJDIJ••• JS! ~-~~.•1 f EXISTING PI,ANI MATERIALS· lllllE: I. A(3)'Jlime..inchl.ycto{orpnlcm>lkbwlllbcprovidcdloallnoo-rurfplantiogarea. 2 Th:sltc{i$)1m~mtb•~belowJroUOOlUIO!l1Ulcfmialloo~tbatWIII bsvcnm.$huto!f~mlbas11.~tn=SUfQbeclc11<!w~~Cf. 6'to IO'BTJ{ 6'DTJl GhmtBmJoCI'anidbe ll'IO 9'blgh {9tnmb) Uly-of-tb&-N/la l'xl'tol8"'xlr 21 ~ 4',;4' Oanl<:n>a 2'x2' 1>4yt,!y i"xl't42'x2' Hlhl.«:113 2'xl'to3'xS' 22 ~ 8'x8' OwarflfavmlyBllnboo l'l<l' J'x'4'toS'xS' S RcdNo:wZealm:iTif.x l'x2 PlulodcDfrot,, 2'x2' Roee l8"xt8" HARE· ASSOCIATES LA1'ost'APCARCllrtl!C1\!Rl! - -, ~. .. <0- l:]i; == i:::: ~ :J • c, ti •···-,: ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~ I I I t,' '' ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( { ( { t ( ( ( ( ( ( ( PAUSADES, BLOCK G MAP NO. 1747 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 19 20 fl 2 { " ) 1:.,::1 L~~ I .£.JJW.1 I I l .D~i I I I I I DIJS1JW SANT.IJ?Y SfllV1 I IIJN/a! , -•-•--0--•-•- 0,ST)(() ~7Df l,/Ah •••••--•-- OISmCIIA/Dft,l/mlt Dm'NCS/1/!£TWl1 £»StmltFt£0Jllfl• =TH;l'~\OfNT Dffll,t;t1WJDIT • OOrN;llllCIV,LK • ==-'=-=--== =--~~-= 12 -6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. ·- 0 'ci -. . -. g:: ! ' .. I:; ~;2 H 11 ------~------i~~a ~ ! i ----1 ~ !i S2 if I CARLSBAD BLVD. 1 ___ _L__ ____________________________________________ Em, S)IR.jlAIYPER/6#-5 ---------------7-~---L- -----------------f----------------------·--------Jf»ST l!mllMl_!!!!_IU-S ,°'l/ I . !i---.. !---1~0, Iii -"''"' 'f:1 A:J'__AKIN_ERS I O') "'""" ex. .u: ~\ , 1 ~~~~~~En~eritig ;i! ~ 'r.::' 9988HlbmStrett.Suftt212 0 5 10 2D JO ~ - --------------------------------------------------~l ____________ l___ f:',~1!!,ff'!.,f;J' 1 ~1"1-~r-i I "-.'""'"'" _____ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::~~:::~~==~~=~=~~===================~=:.::. ___ ~,=~~·"='=·/=6'~5-=3/=/7------~"""""::'~'°"':_ ___ J i 9-g_