Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/194111 March 5th THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION met with-the NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL in a joint meeting on Wednesday I evening, March 5th, 1941, 7.30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Chairman Johnson presiding. ROLL CALL_ Commissioners present: Hopkins, Hall, Seager, Johnson,Nelson Commissioners absent: Findlay, Estus, Allen, Patterson. COMMUNICATIONS Secretary Seager read the following communications. 1. Letter sent to Mrs. Della Williams by the Newport Beach City Planning Commission, reading as follows-: Feb. 21, 1941 Mrs. Della 1310 Ocean Corona Del Williams, Blvd., Mar, Calif. My dear Mrs. Williams: It has come to the attention of the Newport Beach City Planning Commission that you presented to the Mayor and City Council of Newport Beach, your resignation as a member of said Commission. It is with much regret that we learned that this resig- nation was accepted and that we are to be deprLved of your person and valued counsel in the future. Words cannot ade- quately express the commendation to which you are entitled for your long and valued demonstration of public spiritedness and interest in civic affairs which are so much a potential influence in the upbuild, maintenance and development of a properly co- ordinated community in which life, happiness and the pursuit.of pleasure is more abundant. Please allow me to assure you that you enjoy to the full- est extent, the confidence and respect of your fellow Commiss- ioners. HWS :AMC Very sincerely yours, HOWARD W. SEAGER, Secretary Commissioner Hopkins moved that the action of the Secretary be approved and the letter be recorded in the minutes of this meeting. Commissioner Nelson seconded. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. 2. A letter written to each Councilman and to the Mayor in which each were invited to attend this joint meeting and to request that they forward to the Secretary, before the meet- , ing, their itemized objections to the proposed Ordinance which was designed to supplant Ordinance 440, 3. A letter sent to the City Council, upon the instructions of this Commission inviting the Council to attend this joint meeting 7 4. An excerpt from the minutes of the meeting of the City Coun- cil, held March 3rd, reading as follows:. C MMUNICATIONS r "The communication from the Secretary of.the Newport Beach City Planning Commission advising of a joint ' meeting of that body with the City Council to be held at 7.30 P.M. on March 5th, 1941 for the purpose of considering the proposed Zoning Ordinance to supplant Ordinance No. 440 was presented and read, and on mo- tion of Councilman Claire, seconded by Councilman Brown and carried unanimously, it was voted that the City Councilmen attend said meeting." 5. A form letter from the Calif. State Planning Board cover- ing "Digest of Bills Related to Planning - Fifty Fourth Sess- ion, California Legislature ". 6. Two Circulars from the National Resources Planning Board, Washington, D.C. One covered, "State Conservation of Resourc- es" and the other, "The Future of State Planning". Com. Hopkins made a motion that the communications read by the Secretary be filed. ,Seconded by Com. Nelson. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. Braden Finch of 344 Hazel Drive, Corona Del Mar, Calif., was presented and stated that he had recently purchased, from . the city, three lots on the Coast Highway; namely, Lots 62, 63 and 64, Block "A ", Tract 623. These lots, he advised, were located between the Tail 0 The Cock and the City limits. He 'plans to erect a studio building to house the manufacturing of his pottery and to be used as a sales room and requested a change in Zoning from R -3 to C -2 Upon Com. Seager's request, Mr. Finch then handed his ap- plication to the Planning Commission in writing. Com. Seager advised the applicant that the Ordinance prescribes in detail how such application shall be made and suggested that Mr. Finch make his application,.meticulously following the instruc- tions set forth in the Ordinance so that it will be absolutely correct. Com. Seager advised the applicant further that the Commission must advertise the matter a week before the hearing. Com. Hopkins moved that the Planning Commission initiate the necessary-procedure for an amendment to Ordinance 440, rezon- ing those lots on the Highway in Corona Del Mar which are not now Zoned C -2, from R -3 to C -2. Com. Patterson seconded. Mo tion carried and so ordered." A recess was declared to await the arrival of the Council mem- bers. After Commissioners Estus, Findlay and Patterson and Councilmen Brown, Reed; Allen, Claire and Mayor Gordon had ar- rived, the meeting was continued.. Chairman Johnson stated that the meeting was called for the . DI 'purpose of finding a remedy-to the existing difficulty over PR the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He further stated that the ZO Secretary, upon instructions from the Planning Commission had asked the Councilmen to kindly send written objections to the Secretary and that none had been received. He finished his E �emarks by saying that the Commission were honestly, earnest- DISCUSSION ON ly and sincerely trying to get the Ordinance whipped into a PROPOSED MY— form that would be agreeable to both bodies. ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Johnson then invited the Council Members to state t CONTINUED. their objections and to make suggestions which might remedy the difficulty. Com. Allen advised that he had heard so much controversy over , the Balboa Island setbacks, that as a member of both boards, " he wanted to be straightened out on that matter. He wanted to know if the proposed Zoning Ordinance would eliminate the trouble experienced in the past of people having to go before the Planning Board requesting variances. He asked, further, if people could be told that they could not ask for a setback. Com. Johnson answered the last question in the negative and added that a great deal of that trouble would be eliminated on Balboa Island in the future. Com. Patterson advised that under the new ordinance it is possible for a 50% variance to be granted in certain cases. The principal trouble, he thought, came in regarding setbacks. The old ordinance advertised the fact that a 50% setback could be applied for. The proposed ordinance shows the setbacks on the map. The Planning Commission looked at every building and front line setback and tried to arrive at a fair setback in every block, keeping in mind that if we did that, it would" make requests for setbacks unnecessary. The new ordinance does not advertise that a 50% setback can be requested. The setbacks will guide the Building Inspector and he can advise that, such a; setback had been established, although the ordi- nance provides for`an application for a variance. Under the old ordinance the Building Inspector could tell applicants that they probably,would be granted a setback since it had been done before. ' Com. Allen asked how much the island was built up. Com. Pat- terson replied that the island was built up 77% or 78 %. Com. Allen remarked that if the island was built up that much, a great many mistakes had-been made and that each individual lot had become a problem. He wanted to know if it was Com. Patterson's opinion whether or not less people will ask for variances and was told by Com. Patterson that there was no question about that. Com. Patterson remarked that as soon as the Secretary read the requests of 0. K. Earl, Jr. and J. Lee Gregg, presented at the last regular meeting, he immediately made a motion that the applications_be granted because under the new ordinance, those setbacks were shown. At the suggestion of Com. Estus, the Councilmen who were _ seated in the room behind the railing, joined the discussion table. Com. Allen brought up the question of the bank property on the bluffs at Corona Del Mar and said he couldn't understand why, if the old ordinance specified a ten foot setback, the bank should complain about a ten foot setback in the new ordi- nance. Com. Claire suggested that the definition of 'street' be looked up in both the old and new ordinances. Com. Hopkins read aloud, the definition of 'street' in the old ordinance, on Page 2, Paragraph 5 ' Com. Patterson then read aloud the definition of 'street' from the new ordinance and said that the words in question were "private thoroughfare ". He said that the description was taken from the Santa Ana ordinance. The question.that a- rises about the bank property is the road at the foot of the bluff which is a private thoroughfare. If this is a DISCI private thoroughfare and shown to be for that purpose, I PROPi would say that it is a private thoroughfare. It can be 20NI1 ' closed. Co Attorney Thompson.atated that a public thoroughfare may . be either public or private and a private thoroughfare is one used privately.and permitting access to that property from that street when a street is shown on the map. He further remarked that the word, 'street' could have been used as well as thoroughfare; that a private thoroughfare Is nothing more or less than a private street. Com. Patterson read the definition of 'through lot' which might be construed as meaning private thoroughfare. He said in his personal opinion, the street below, in that case would be a private thoroughfare because it is set up in the official records.and has a gate. If the old ordinance was carried out, the setback would be more than 10 ft.. The Com - mittee in that - district agreed on a 10 ft. setback.and later there was a clause inserted which provides for.slopes and lots (page 25). On a later draft of the new ordinance, the last line was inserted on this subject. He stated that it was the intention of the Planning Commission when that line was inserted, that it would permit the construction of a building similar to the one that has been erected on the . bank's property. It is Com. Patterson's opinion that the present garage part of.the building is two or three feet from the line and this will permit a one story garage up to the line. -This, however, was not written for that par - 'LIcular property and will apply under other properties. Councilman- Claire expressed the opinion that the bank's private way was eliminated as a street in the new ordinance. Attorney Thompson answered by stating that since no private street or thoroughfare is included, the new ordinance elim mates the bank's private way by the definition of a "street" This could be corrected by using the same definition of "street" as used in the old ordinance. Com. Findlay remarked that the matter of setbacks on the island had been giving trouble over a period of ten.years. The Planning Commission went to work as a practical body and measured every house on.the island and averaged a setback. He stated that when he built a house, he first inquired what the setback was and designed his house to fit that setback. The Average person does not want anything special and is willing to conform with our setbacks. Mayor Gordon stated that since the.old ordinance was in effect, the City Council had co- operated with the Planning Commission to the extent of turning down only two matters that had come before the Council. In regard to the new or- dinance when we asked the Planning Commission to look into the matter of these variances on Balboa Island, that was our . main object. These setbacks were what we•were mainly interest- ed in. Listening here tonight, it looks as though the same 'old setbacks will be asked for. Listening to arguments through- out the city regarding it, I cannot see where it will be worth while, excepting if these maps can be aligned with the set- backs in the different districts. I would be willing to have this go on record. Councilman Claire stated that he appreciated all of the work that was done on the proposed Ordinance. He advised that he had noted in the newspaper that the Council had asked the Plan- E thing Commission to -amend the Zoning Ordinance and that he DISCUSSION ON would like to see the records where the Council had asked for PROPOSED NEW anything outside of the Balboa Island matter. On the Sloan ZONING ORDINANCE matter, as I remember.it, Mr. Sloan had a sale for the prop- Continued erty. By the,time his request for amendment got through the City Council and the Planning Commission, he lost the sale. In the meantime, he borrowed $1600.00 to pay the taxes. The , Planning Commission kept referring to the property as a Trail- er Camp. Mr. Sloan wants a C -2 Zoning. He is an old man, 74 years old, and then a year ago, it was changed back to some- thing else. I do not believe that kind of procedure makes for security. If a man buys a piece of property for a purpose, he should be entitled to protection. Com. Patterson advised that the ordinance had been amended for that purpose; there being only two amendments on the old Ordinance 440, that being one of them. Councilman Claire said he knew that Mr. Sloan is afraid he will lose the whole thing. In Councilman Claire's opinion,; outside of the Bay Front,.five foot setbacks are sufficient for any part of the c&ty. He cited his own block as an exam- ple of the setback situation. Councilman Reed stated that he lived in West Newport and . that that section was supposed to be.'on the wrong side of the track' He added he has owned property 20 years here and that only in the last four or five years has there been any improvement there. In regard to Mr. Sloan, Mr. Reed contin- ued that it was a question of deciding between the desires of one man and all of the people who are opposed to him. He stated that most present could tell similar storms of losses, such as Mr. Sloan -tells and that Mr. Sloan purchased the ..prop- . erty on a speculative basis but that it did not turn out well. He probably would have been better off if he had let the prop- ' erty go back to.the City instead of borrowing money to pay the taxes. He ended his remarks by saying that while he disliked to.oppose Mr. Sloan, he could not agree With his views. Com. Estus stated that a great deal of work had been done on the new ordinance and if there were as many as thirty changes to be made to make it passable, they should be adjust- ed so that the Ordinance could be passed. Com. Allen asked Com. Hall to explain the circumstances re- garding his operating his manufacturing plant in that zone. Com. Hall explained that he looked at the property and having to make a change within a short time, decided to buy it if he could get a permit to operate. Through the endorsement of a friend of long standing, he had his application through the City Council in a very short time and was notified within a week that his permit had been granted. Had it gone through the regular channels, it would have taken a- -great deal longer. Councilman Reed advised that we would have been better off if we had been operating under this ordinance 40 years ago and he hoped that the best of it could be saved. Com. Nelson inquired why Com. Hall was operating illegally in that zone and was told by Attorney Thompson that Com. Hall had a right to go into the property with his - business because there had been no tenant there between the time the lumber yard left and he took over the premises. However, he explained that if the factory should burn down, it could not be rebuilt. , Attorney Thompson advised that the main.differences in the 0 eces were the maps, the setback lines, three or.four d6Tinir and garage space being necessary for each building which is impractical because of the.size of the lots. Com. Patterson stated that he was responsible for the writ- ing of most of the ordinance outside of the legal part of it« He believes.it is a decided improvement over the old ordi- nance. No ordinance would be satisfactory to everyone. It is especially.an improvement over Ordinance 440 as far as 'setbacks are concerned. He advised that the Planning Commis- sion had put in 7 or 8 months drafting the proposed Qrdinance without salary, and that it was worthy of a great deal of con - - sideration. He cited one of the advantages of the proposed ordinance, i.e., it is.more flexible, the old ordinance having been amended twice. The new ordinance will permit amendments - very easily. The principal cost is in the maps. They will take up.three or four times as much space as the ordinance Itself. Com. Patterson advised that he had received an esti- mate of $600.00 from the local press for 1,000 copies.of the ordinance and for publishing same. The copies were sold be- fore for $1.00 each and if we sold them for that amount, we would be making money. Even if they were sold for 500, we. would be breaking even. Attorney Thompson stated that an expert had drawn up the old ordinance and was paid quite an amount for the job. "He is a good man and I say that this is not a bad ordinance" said Attorney Thompson. He advised that he had been under the impression that the new ordinance could be amended more easily than the old. It was his opinion that there are a few definitions that make.this ordinance a little more flex- ible, a better ordinance and a step forward but that the prin- cipal thing was not the ordinance itself, but the setback lines. These make your new ordinance handier and better from the Planning Commission's standpoint. Attorney Thompson stated that he was partly responsible for the new ordinance; .that he did not give it the time and thought that Com. Patter- son had however. He advised that every time this ordinance was amended, it would cost money and added that it had cost the City of Santa Ana a great deal to amend their ordinance since it had been passed a short time ago. Com. Patterson disagreed with Attorney Thompson on the cost of amending the ordinance. Mr. Sam Meyers was. consulted as to whether it would cost more to print a whole map or a section of a map and Mr. Meyers advised that since they both occupied the same space, the cost would be the same. Com. Claire advised that since the Planning Cormission had spent eight months on the new ordinance and the City Council had only had three weeks between their other duties to consid- er it, he would suggest that each Councilman underline the section he objected to. Com. Brown brought up the subject of rezoning Agate Avenue from C -1 to R -3. He said, having talked to a number of people who owned property there, he learned that three of them, hav- ing paid taxes on the property for a number of years with the idea in mind that someday they might start a business on the sites, objected to it. From a personal standpoint, he added, it would probably hurt his business if the business was zoned out. Eventually that end of the island will build up and possibly more than three or four lots will be necessary for business purposes. In his.opinion, a man's rights are being taken away when he is faced.with business being zoned out on property on which he had paid taxes for years with the idea that it would some day be built on for business. He stated he disagreed with the setbacks on Balboa Island and believed 11 Wd 1 1`Z DISCUSSION.ON.. .. each lot should be treated as an individual case. PROPOSED NEW......... Chairman Johnson advised that he had received a suggestion ZONING ORDINANCE. that the Planning Commission appoint two.parties from the (Continued) - Planning Commission and the Mayor appoint two members of the Council, these four members to act as a Conference Committee , - along with a fifth member to be selected by these four. Com. Estus made a: .motion that this suggestion be followed. Second- ed by Com. Hopkins and motion carried. Secretary. Seager and Com. Hopkins.were app6inted by the Chairman while Mayor Gordon appointed.Councilmen Brown and Reed. These four, in turn, se- lected Com. Patterson to act in an advisory capacity. ADJOURNMENT Com. Estua made a motion for adjournment which was seconded by Com. Patterson. NEXT REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7.30 P.M. MARCH 19th, 1941 Res ectfully subm ed, �L G� 7 v` - HOWARD W. SEAGER, S cretary..