The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 00-09; Le Passage Restaurant Expansion; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW RECEIVED m 1ZOOO CITY OF CARLSBAD HOUSING & REOEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT May 17, 2000 TO: Lori Rosenstein - Redevelopment Department FROM: David Rick - Public Works, Development Services Division COMPLETENESS REVIEW PROJECT ID: RP 00-09/CDP 00-25 Le Passage Restaurant The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project for application completeness and has determined that the application and plans submitted for this project are complete and suitable for continued review. Engineering staff does have a few issues but because they are minor you may save the trouble of sending the corrected plans to me and check them yourself. 1. Correct the scale from %" to 1/8" scale 2. The applicant should be aware that additional fees will be charged for traffic impacts and possibly sewer if additional seats are added. The applicant may call me if more details are needed. We do not have any conditions to add to the project. If you or the applicant has any questions regarding the above, please either see or call me at 602- 2781. David Rick Assistant Engineer H:\LIBRARY\ENG\WPDATA\MISC\COMPREV REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: May 11, 2000 Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water District Engineering Department - B. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant Police Department School District Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP 00-09/CDP00-25 Please review the attached plans and corresponding applications for Administrative Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit and forward your comments on the completeness of the application and/or project conditions to my office by May 31, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No.: Applicant: Le Passage Restaurant Expansion, 2961 State Street RP 00-09/CDP00-25 Vladimir Dedic, business owner Brief Description of Proposal: The applicant is requesting an administrative redevelopment permit to expand an existing restaurant (previously known as Cafe Di Maria's). The use of the adjacent storage building for the restaurant expansion raises building code issues. That is, is the existing storage building legally existing and will the proposed use comply with current building codes? The proposed use also raises the question of how the parking requirement will be satisfied. Applicant is proposing to remove the existing outdoor dining area (approved under RP93-02) and install two parking spaces to satisfy the expansion. Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein Comments: (Please inform the Housing & Redevelopment in writing if there are no comments or conditions from your department. Comments and conditions sent via e-mail are greatly appreciated!) City of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department May 15, 2000 VLADIMIR DEDIC 340 WLJ^NUTAVE#H CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Re: "Le Passage" Restaurant - 2961 State Street Dear Mr. Dedic: I have enclosed a receipt showing payment of $260.00 for the Administrative Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications submitted for Le Passage Restaurant. The application numbers for the project are RPOO- 09 and CDPOO-25. City staff is currently reviewing the applications and in the next few weeks we will notify you in writing of any additional information needed to complete the application, issues of concern, or staffs determination on your proposal. In an effort to help expedite the review of your project the Building Department has completed their initial review and has expressed some building related issues as they relate to the project. I have attached a copy of the memo from the Building Department. It appears some of the issues raised will have a financial impact on the project and may further impact required parking. Please review this memo and direct any questions regarding its content to Pat Kelley in the Building Department at 602-2716. Your prompt attention to this matter will ensure continued expeditious processing of your application. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact my office at 760-434-2813. Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Enclosure C: Pat Kelley (w/out attachments) 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (760) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (760) 720-2037 @ RECEIVED To: Management Analyst Housingj^n6 Redfevelopment j^/^y 1 5 2000 From: Principal Building I nspector/,..^,.^ CITY OF CARLSBAD r^^<^7^ HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT Date: 5/15/2000 DEPARTMENT Re: RP 00-09 There are a number of issues for the applicants to consider in beginning this project. In my opinion, the project is technically feasible, but the costs could be prohibitive. Without attempting to do a comprehensive building code plan review, I will summarize the major issues that need to be considered priorto the application for a building pennit. The restaurant occupant load is expanding to approximately 44 if loose tables and chairs become the seating style. This appears to be an increase of approximately 18 occupants. Sewer EDU's are applicable to the additional seating. The Engineering staff should precisely calculate fees for this additional sewer capacity. (At 7 seats per EDU, which is the cun-ent conversion rate, this fee would be approximately $5000). Incidental Outdoor Dining that is no longer used does not obviate this fee. There may be additional impact fees for the conversion of storage space to restaurant space. This potential fee liability can be estimated by the Engineering Department upon the request ofthe applicant. Expanding seating in the restaurant will trigger the requirement for providing separate men's and lady's restrooms. Cun-ent adopted Building Code requires separate, disabled accessible facilities for each gender. Commercial, accessible restrooms are expensive to build use relatively large floor spaces. This additional floor space will further complicate any pari<ing requirements. Kitchen equipment plans need the concun'ent approval of the County Health Department and the Building Department. The Fire Department also reviews the fire extinguishing system for the new exhaust hood. The kitchen equipment must fully comply with all cun-ent regulations and codes if it is intended they will use the existing equipment. Any roof- mounted equipment (and there will certainly be some) must be screened per Policy 80-6 (attached). The kitchen waste systems will need to be provided with a grease interceptor sized in accordance with the cun-ent Unifonn Plumbing Code requirements. The existing masonry storage building and the store itself will need to have a structural analysis of the demolition for adding openings. The stmcture is quite old, and no assumptions can be made about the storefront load capacity without a detailed analysis. Cun-ent Building Code allows modifications to existing building if the modification does not make conditions any weaker. This must be demonstrated with calculations done by a licensed professional. In summary, it appears that the masonry storage building is legal, but there are prohibitive cost issues for the applicant to consider embari<ing on this expansion. The applicant may call me directly or possibly meet if need be to discuss any issues. MAY 17, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund RPOO-09 and CDPOO-25 (Le Passage Restaurant) The attached letter is a request for refund submitted by Vladimir Dedic for property located at 2961 State Street (APN 20203-293-05). Mr. Dedic is requesting the withdrawal of his application and a refund in the amount of $260.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of Administrative Redevelopment Permit No. RPOO-09. Please note that there is no additional charge for the concurrent processing of a Coastal Development Permit. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fee. I am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. Additionally, please let me know if you will be entering this information into Permits Plus or if I should. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst Lori Rooensteia - DiMana's Site Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Debbie Fountain Lori Rosenstein 12/3/99 1:08PM DiMaria's Site Hi Lori. Just so I don't forget. I wanted to let you know that I spoke to the gentleman who is purchasing the DiMaria's business on State Street about his question regarding the relocation ofthe kitchen to the storage area. He said he had to have an answer on Friday. So, I gave him one. Not the one he wanted, of course. I pulled the redevelopment permit file for DiMaria's restaurant It indicates that the interior restaurant was 595 sq.ft and the patio was 400 sf The storage area in question is shown as "common building storage". So, I told him that he would not be able to expand restaurant operations into the storage building without approval of a redevelopment permit and resolution of parking. I told him he could operate as it is now and then process the redevelopment permit to expand. But, he said he can't operate the restaurant as it is. He wasn't a very happy camper. So, I guess we will just wait and see what happens next He said the business is in escrow and expected to close in 2 weeks. Hope I didn't say anything different than you told him! I Lon Rosenstein - 296isHteSt Update Page 1 From: Pat Kelley To: Lori Rosenstein Date: 5/22/00 8:07AM Subject: 2961 State St Update Lori - Vlada called me Friday to further discuss his desired tenant improvement plans at the above address. I heard some real inconsistencies from him, and I wanted to keep you updated on what we conversed about. He has also been "shopping" for better answers w/ Mike Peterson if you know what I mean. Vlada started out saying he was going to use the restaurant "exactly like it is". I said he was allowed to do so. Vlada wanted to know about processing times for installing a grease hood. Last week he told me that the existing grease hood was going to serve his needs. I told him to allow 2 weeks and Building Fire and Health had to approve the hood plans. Then he wanted to know if the plan he had drawn to install the hood in the storage building would suffice. I advised him that maybe some of the details would transfer but a new floor plan would have to be drawn to show where it's going to be installed. He actually wanted to belabor and argue that requirement - that the plans should show where the hood is to be placed. Then he added that he wants to demolish the existing bathroom and "make it easier for clients to get to the restroom outside....". I advised him that a tenant improvement permit is required for floor plan revisions, and that T-I plans are routed to Redev for review. He would trigger an Admin RP if he increased the seating area outside the old kitchen He wanted to argue about that also. I advised him I could not support wrecking out a bathroom without replacing it when the City Building Code requires 2 restrooms for restaurants. I also told him to allow more than two weeks for processing T-I's. Among Vladas' reasons for being allowed to demo a restroom is that "the walls were made of cardboard" (doubtful) and the restrooms "are illegal". He said they were built w/o permits. In fact, our files show that there were two restrooms constructed at 2961 State - one in 1967 and one in 1977. It is no coincidence there currently are 2 restrooms on site. He was very argumentive, so I told him I didn't want to continue to argue with him about this - it wasn't going anywhere. Lastly, I received a call late in the day fro an ex City employee - Pat Entezari.; Pat worked for Engineering for many years before retiring last year. He asked the same things for "his friend" Vlada. He got the same answers. That's all for now - (speculating) Vlada has probably already demolished the restroom - there's some old framing outside the tenant space. I'll keep an eye on the place. When he calls I hear many inconsistencies and some outright inaccuracies. He is always argumentive and wants to play "what if all the time. Now it appears he's going to do some staff shopping for better answers to his self-induced dilemma. We'll see how it plays out Pat CC: Mike Peterson REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW AND COMMENT REOUEST Date: May 11, 2000 V Planning Department - G. WAYNE Water District Engineering Department - B. WOJCIK Landscape Plancheck Consultant Police Department School District Building Department - P. KELLEY North County Transit District City Attorney Fire Department - M. SMITH To Departments: Subject: RP 00-09/CDP00-25 Please review the attached plans and corresponding applications for Administrative Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Pennit and forward your comments on the completeness of the application and/or project conditions to my office by May 31, 2000. Thank you for your assistance. Project Title: Permit No. Applicant: Le Passage Restaurant Exp RP 00-09/(IDP00-25 Vlad smess own Brief Description of Proposal The applicant permit to expand an existing \pstaurant (pre the adjacent storage building for the restaur is, is the existing storage buUding legally eMstin current building codes? The proposed use als^ requirement will be satisfied. Applicant is prop area (approved under RP93-02) and install two p Assigned staff member: Lori Rosenstein Comments: (Please inform the Housing & Redevelopment in writing iftl^re are_ng comments or conditions from your department. Comments and conditions sent via e-mail are greatly appreciated!) RPOO ~OCj-~ 4 CDPOO-2S OA /ijJ ol^.A^ ^ UJe^cf/iescUJS^/'?-, 2ooo. 'X'n^ o^Sc MAY 17, 2000 TO: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: Management Analyst, Redevelopment Department Request for Refund RPOO-09 and CDPOO-25 (Le Passage Restaurant) The attached letter is a request for refund submitted by Vladimir Dedic for property located at 2961 State Street (APN 20203-293-05). Mr. Dedic is requesting the withdrawal of his application and a refund in the amount of $260.00 for fees paid in association with the processing of Administrative Redevelopment Permit No. RPOO-09. Please note that there is no additional charge for the concurrent processing of a Coastal Development Permit. The Housing and Redevelopment Director has authorized a full refund of the application fee. I am therefore requesting your assistance in processing the refund request. Additionally, please let me know if you will be entering this information into Permits Plus or if I should. If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at x2813. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. LORI H. ROSENSTEIN Management Analyst