Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/19413 February 19, 1941 THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION met in regular ' session, Wednesday, Feb. 19th, 1941, 7.30 P.M. in the. Council Chambers, City Hall; Chairman Johnson presiding. Meeting called to order by the Chairman. Commissioners present: Allen, Patterson, Nelson,. Seager, Johnson,Hopkins,Estus, Hall Commissioners absent: Findlay. Chairman called for.consideration of the minutes of the meeting held January 15th, 1941. Com. Nelson moved that the minutes be approved as written. Seconded by Com.Allen. Motion carried. Application of O.K. Earl, Jr, read by the.Secretary. Mr. 0 Earl requested: 1. a setback of 50% (51) front yard setback 2. 2 50% (121) side line variance for the southwest corner of the garage for Lot 23, Block 4, Section 5, Balboa Island. The Secretary advised that plans had been.posted, hearing advertised and notice sent to 18 surrounding property owners, notifying them of the date of hearing. Com.Patterson moved the adopt- ' ion of Resolution #181 recommending that a 50% reduction In front yard requirements and a 50% side line variance be granted to O.K. Earl, Jr. on Lot 23, Blk 4, Sec. 5, Balboa Island and that the same be transmitted to the City Council by the Secretary as the recommendation of this commission and a copy filed as part of the record. Seconded by Com. Allen. Roll Call: Ayes: Johnson, Seager, Patterson,Allen, .. Estus,Nelson,Hall,Hopkins. Noes: None Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. Secretary read the application of J. Lee Gregg for a 50% J. EE GREG4 (51) front yard setback on Lot 24, Blk 4, Sec. 5, Balboa Island., He also advised that plans had been posted and no- tices sent to surrounding property owners advising date of hearing, Com.Patterson moved the adoption of Resolution #182 recommending a 50% reduction in front yard setback be granted Mr. J. Lee Gregg on Lot 24, Blk 4, Sec. 5, Balboa Island and that the same be transmitted to the City Council by the Secretary advising that it was recommended by the Planning Commission and that a copy be filed as part of the record. Seconded by Com. Estus. Roll Call: Ayes: Seager, . Patterson, Allen, Estus, Nelson, Hall, Hopkins. Noes: Johnson. - Com. Seager advised that having been instructed to use his AS T SEC'Y own discretion in the selection of Mrs. Stanley's success V NCY or as Asst. Secretary of the Planning Commission, he would FI LED make a motion to employ Alice M. Curley to fill the vacan- cy. Seconded by Com. Allen. Motion carried. Chairman advised that after the Council Meeting which re- DISCUSSION REGARD- sulted in the City Council throwing back into the lap of ING REJECTION OF the Planning Commission,,the proposed Zoning Ordinance de= PROPOSED NEW ZON- signed to supplant Ord. 440, without comment or criticism, ING ORDINANCE he had talked to the Mayor and Councilman Brown and that they, in turn.-talked to Com. Allen. A joint meeting of , the Planning Commission and City Council was suggested and the Planning Commission invited to. set a date for such a meeting. Com. Hopkins voiced the.opinion that the suggestion was a ,very.good one. Com. Patterson stated that the Councilmen ;should be asked to state their individual objections in writ - ing. He further stated that the Ordinance could have been passed and amended very simply and that it was to the inter- est of the city to have done so. Com. Allen advised that to his knowledge the.main items to which Councilman objected ,were:. 1. Sloan 3. Corona Del.Ifiar 2. Agate 4. Three Story Dwellings 5. Provision for auto parking and garages Com. Patterson stated that there seems to be some thought in the minds of the Council of too much control from the Planning Commission since Councilmen were elected for a four year term while the Planning Commissioners were appointed for a term of seven years. .Com. Seager said that this was in error since Planning Commissioners were also appointed for a four year term. After a lengthy discussion on the subject, participated in by all Commissioners, Com. Seager gave a short resume of the circumstances leading up to the Council's rejection of the; proposed ordinance. He said that.the Planning Commission had worked on the proposed ordinance over it period of seven.... or eight months, having gone to work on it after repeated requests from the City Council to revise Ord. 440. He further stated that, in his opinion, we had produced the best ordi- nance that could be produced. Com. Seager said that while the ordinance was not perfect, since no ordinance could be perfect, it is modern, streamlined.and fits the townie con- ditions much better than Ord. 440 does. He added that he believed the Ordinance.deserved more consideration than it had received.in simply being rejected without request for revision or criticism of any kind. It could have been re- ferred back to the Commission with suggested changes but as it stands now, hearings will have to be held again.. Com. Estus made a motion that the Secretary be instructed to write the City Council collectively and individually advising that the Planning Commission would like to have written sug- gestions for changes on the proposed ordinance, either col- lectively or individually, and that the Planning Commission and City Council then get together to try to iron out the corrections that are necessary to make the ordinance passa- ble by the City Council and that these changes be discussed at a joint meeting. Com. Patterson seconded. Motion carried, Com. Estus made a motion that we adjourn to March 5th,.1941 7.30 P.M. when a joint meeting will be held with the City 'Council in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Newport Beach, California. Res ectfully submitted, HOWARD W.'3EAG R c ,t 1 y. 5