HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1958MINUTES, REGULAR TUMING CCMISSIOH MEETING
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA
March 20i, 1958 SiW P.M.
ROLL GALL : °Commissioners Present: Longmoor,'Rudd, Hayton, Copelin, Keene,
Clemence and Sturtevant
Commissioners' Absent: Lind and Smith
Minutes of the regular'meeting . on;February 20' 1958, adjounxmsd.Meting :on
February 25, 1958, and the apeeial meeting. on March 4, 1958, were approved as
,recorded on motion of Couimis';ioner Copel:in, seconded by Commissioner Rudd, and
carried.
1. PETH, Fred R. and Harriet N. 5101 W. Seashore Drive .
2. Lot I Block 51 Ocean Front Tract Zone R -2,
3. Posted March. 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. Waiver of side yard setback to permit construction.of a stairway to
second foor.
S Stairway necessary in side yard setback to provide egress and ingress to
upstairs apartment.
6. DISCUSSION: Note findings
7. FINDINGS: The Commission upon their investigation of this property. €rmni;''
this to be a'corner lot on the.ocean front'. The construction
of a stairway within the aide yard setback would not create_
a fire hazard and would not be detrimental to.any persons .
living or working in the neighborhood.
S. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Rudd, Variance #451
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
1.. 00 IT, Glenn P. 1401 W. Balboa Blvd.
Z. Lot 27 Block 14 Tract 234 Bxr3
3. Posted March 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. Waiver of square footage requirements in order to permit a fourth't on,
an R -3 lot.
5. A loss.of our fourth apartment would cost us loss of income in emaeas
$1,000 per year. Do no practical good for any uninterested parties, :etc.
. Page 2
VARIANCES
#452 con't.
6. DISCUSSION:. The applicant addressed the Commission and stated, among
other things, that when he applied for a building permit.for
two additional units on his property in 1956, the building
permit application contained information to the effect that
there existed on the property two apartments. Commissioner
Longmoor asked Mr. Coit if a use permit was secured prior
to.the construction of a fourth unit. The applicant answered
in the negative.
7. FINDINGS; The applicant was advised that this is a violation on a R -3
parcel which the Building Dept. had discovered and that the
Commission could not legalize such a violation. The build-
ing permit application was reviewed and the information
contained therein did not show that two units existed on
the property at the time an application was taken out for
two additional units.
8. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm.. Rudd, Variance #452'
was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
• #453
1. PAUL, Howard M. and other property owners
3500, 3502, 3504, 3596, 3508, 3510 & 3512 Marcus
2. Lots 1 thru 7 Block 335. Lake Tract Zone R -2
3, Posted March 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. An encroachment of 10' into a required front yard setback of 40'.
5.. Applicant states that encroachments are necessary to provide:
1. Increased property values.
2. Ability to improve and modernize homes.
3. To overcome distress cases - lack of bedroom space.
6. DISCUSSION: Note findings
7. FINDINGS: The Commission stated that a policy had been established to
permit front yard encroachments on these properties facing
the channel where all the property owners signed the petition
for an encroachment. There is in this block, seven lots and
all property owners signed.the petition.
. 8. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Hayton, Variance #453
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
Page 3
• VARIANCES
#454
1. ROSS, James E. & Violet 311 Carnation Ave., Corona del Mar
2. Portion of Lot D. Corona del Mar Tract Zone R -3
3. Posted March 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. Additional 15' above permitted 35' height limit and to permit construction
of a detached garage on the front half of lot.
5. Due to the terrain the structure with the exception of the three stories
on Carnation Ave. will be below the street grade although the complete
structure exceeds 50'.
6. DISCUSSION: Mr. Frank L. Parker of the Mortgage Funding Corporation
represented the applicant and stated, among other things,
the following:
1. Improvement of this property will add measurably to
the City tax rolls.
2. Architectural design will be an improvement to the
neighborhood.
3. Two parking spaces are being provided for each unit.
. 4. Originally eleven apartments were planned but to keep
down density, the applicant is proposing only nine.
Mr. Parker presented to the Commission a letter dated March 19,
1958, signed by James E. and Violet C. Ross in which they
requested their application be amended to show an encroach-
ment of six feet into a required.front yard setback of 10'
for the purpose of constructing a two -unit building with
garages as shown on the plot plan.
Mr. Harvey Pease, 314 Carnation Ave., addressed the Commission
and stated that there are some very serious problems in this
area in respect to parking. He further stated that although
this portion of Carnation Ave. is a vacated street, there
are certain easements which have not been clarified.
After considerable discussion with the applicant and
Mr. Pease, the Commission recommended that the application be
set over until the next regular meeting and that in the interim
the following additional information be furnished the Planning
Office.
1. Title report regarding property and all easements on
the vacated portion of Carnation Ave.
• 2. A precise plan showing how the subterranean garage will
accommodate the 18 proposed parking spaces.
7. On motion of Commissioner Sturtevant, seconded by Comm. Clemence and carried,
Variance #454 was set over until the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Page 4
• I VARIANCES
i
1. BABSON, Edward J.
2. Lot 3
3. Posted March 10, 1958
#455
N.W. corner 101 Highway & Morning Canyon Rd
Tract 1237 Zone R -3 -B
Published March 12, 1958
Encroachment of 10' into a required front yard setback of 20' and a
waiver of square footage r quirements in order to construct 15 motel units.
5. Due to physical terrain of property (canyon) it becomes necessary to
encroach in order to permi the construction of 15 units - the minimum
necessary to make it econo ically sound. Same applies for square footage
requirements.
6. DISCUSSION:
�J
Mr., Rod Lipho
the applicant
following: T
which cannot.
fore, it is n
required fron
the construct
to the Kirkwo
to the genera
area. In ref
requires a wa
stated that i
less than 15
, attorney, 2542 Crestview Dr., representing
addressed the Commission and stated the
property to the rear has considerable area
built upon because of the topography. There -
essary to request an encroachment into the
yard setback of 20'. He further stated that
n of a motel on this property would be similar
Motel to the west and would not be detrimental
welare or health of persons residing in this
ence to the request for 15 motels units which
er of square footage requirements, Mr. Liphold'
would not be economically feasible to construct
Mr. Allen Lorenz, 483 Morning Canyon Road, spoke.to the
Commission in protest of this motel and submitted a petition
signed by 21 property owners in the vicinity which stated
the following reasons why the application should be denied:
1. The ar;a of Corona Highlands and Shorecliffs in Corona
del Ma has developed into one of the finest residential
areas n Southern California. io permit a motel to
be ere ted in the midst of this area would constitute
irrepa able damage and injury to the property rights and
values of the residential owners.
2. The
Arti
Ilea
zone
such
Is adjo
righ
>licable City Ordinance, Section 9103.32 of
s IX of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach
7 contemplates granting a use permit in an R -3 -B
>r a motel as a special favor and privilege. We
that it was not the legislative intent that
use permit be granted over the protest of
Cng property owners seeking to protect their
and property values. In this regard, it would
n
U
•
Page 5
VARIANCES
#455 con't
be an extreme derogation of our rights as property
owners to grant the said variances, which variances
have the immediate effect of cutting off practically
all of the therefore beautiful view of the adjoining
land- owner.
3. The public interest of all the people of Newport Beach
dictates that our community be up- graded and bettered
where necessary and at all possible. Titus, as the
public commission entrusted with the public policy in
zoning, use and variance matters, it is the duty of
the Planning Commission to deny the use permit and
variance applications referred to herein.
7. FINDINGS: After reviewing all the evidence on file and the oral arguments
for and against at the meeting, the Commission recommended
that the variance application be denied for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed building on the north side of the prope rty
is too 'high.
2. A noise nuisance would be created.
3. A traffic hazard would result due to the proposed
entrance into the property being only's few.feet away
from the Coast Highway.
4. This area is already overcrowded.
According to the Commission this site is not 'comparable to
the Kirkwood Motel.
E. On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Rudd, Variance #455
was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Sturtevant, Keene, Longmoor, Clemence, Rudd and Hayton
NOES: Copelin
ABSENT: Lind and Smith
1. AERONOTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC. and THE IRVINE CO. Corona del Mar
2. 100 acres now under lease and 100 acres under option for lease in Blocks
56 & 57, Irvine Subdivision.
• 3. Posted March 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. An extension of time under Section 9106.41 of the Municipal Code from
,six months to a period of two years, for uses permitted in Use Permit #419
granted to applicants.
• Page 6
VARIANCES
•
#456 con't.
5. Time required to develop plans and specifications for the buildings for
the uses and the planning of the developments for the uses permitted.
6. DISCUSSION: Note findings
7. FINDINGS: This request was submitted by the applicant because the
Municipal Code now permits an application to be valid for a
period of six months only unless used. The proposed uses of
the property as set forth in Use Permit #419 may not be
under development for a period of 18 months to two years.
8. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Clemence, Variance #456
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
#457
1. SCHWAGER, Lester H. 4510 Balboa Blvd.
2. Portion of Lot 8 Block 145 Canal Section Zone R -2
3. Posted March 10, 1958 Published March 12, 1958
4. A 5' encroachment into a required 10' front yard setback.
5. Due to unusual shape of lot, adequate use of property is not permitted.
6. DISCUSSION: Note findings
7. FINDINGS: The Commission upon their investigation of this property
found this to be an unusual lot with frontage on Balboa Blvd.
requiring a setback of 10'. All properties to the East face
the cross streets and require a side yard setback of 3'.
It was determined that the 5' requested setback would not be
detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood and a recommendation of approval
was made.
8. On motion of Commission Copelin, seconded by Comm. Rudd, Variance #457
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
Page 7
• USE PERMITS
#404
1. COIT, Glenn P. 1401 W. Balboa Blvd
2. Lot 27 Block 14 Tract 234 Zone R -3
3. The continued use of four (4) units on our property at above location.
These units are winter and summer rentals - all complete with one (1)
garage par unit.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. .FINDINGS: The Commission recommended denial of this use permit
application based on the findings as set forth in Variance
#452 considered at this meeting.
6. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Commissioner Rudd, Use
Permit 4404 was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
X410
1. BAYSHORE BOAT RENTALS AND IRVINE CO. 100 E. Coast Highway
• 2. Lot 171 Block 54 Irvine Subdivision Zone: Unclassified
3. To erect a building 16' x 20', all steel. This is a steel prefabricated
building which will conform to the City Building Code. This building is
to be used for Outboard Motor Repair. The proposed building is pre-
fabricated by 'Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. FINDINGS: A use permit is required under Section 9103.8 of the Municipal
Code because this property is in an Unclassified District.
The Commission recommended approval of the application,
subject to the condition that the new building conform to all
requirements of the Building Dept.
6. On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Clemence, Use Permit #410
was APPROVED, subject to the above condition, by the following roll call
vote, to wit: ALL AYES
#411
1. COAST HOTELS, INC. 2171 Coast Highway, Corona del Mar
2. Lot 445 Block 94 Irvine Subdivision Zone: Unclassified
3. Applicant desires to obtain a use permit for dancing at the Jamaica Inn.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
Page 8
USE PERMITS
• 91411 cont
5. FINDINGS: Based upon the oral and written evidence presented, the
Commission found and determined that dancing at the Jamaica
Inn will not adversely affect the general welfare or health
of persons.residing or working in the neighborhood.
6. On motion of Commissioner Keene, seconded by Comm. Copelin, Use Permit #411
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
91+12
1. HUNTSMAN, Mrs. Florence 1036 West Balboa Blvd.
2. Lot 10 Block 110 Tract 204 Zone R -3
3. The addition of a bedroom and deck to existing dwelling which is non-
conforming because it exceeds the 35' maximum front yard setback. ,
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. FINDINGS: The Commission recommended approval of this application based
on evidence presented that the entire neighborhood had
encroached to the rear property line and that the new addition
• would not be detrimental to persons residing or working in
the neighborhood.
6. On motion of Commissioner Keene, seconded by Comm. Hayton, Use Permit #412
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
91413
1. McGOVERN, Hugh M. and Charles H. 3543 East Coast Highway, CdM
2. Lot 4 Block 2 Tract 323 Zone C -1
3. Posted March 10, 1958
4. The sale of alcoholic beverages.
5. DISCUSSION: Mr. James L. Rubel, Jr., attorney, 425 Fernleaf, CdM,
representing property owners in the vicinity of 3543 East
Coast Highway addressed the Commission and stated the following
in protest of the application for sale of alcoholic beverages.
1. The sale of alcoholic beverages at this address would
require additional police protection.
• 2. Would create depreciation of property values.
3. There now exists a lack of parking spaces and the
owner could not comply with the requirements of the
zoning ordinance for additional parking spaces.
•
•
E
Page 9
USE PERMITS
#413 con't
4. The noise created by such an establishment would result
in a detrimental effect to the general welfare of persons
residing in the area.
The applicant addressed the Commission and stated that a restaurant without
the sale of alcoholic beverages would not be economically feasible.
6. FINDINGS: Based on the oral and written evidence presented at the
hearing, the Commission found and determined that the sale
of alcoholic beverages at this address would create a critical
parking problem and that this would be detrimental to the
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh-
borhood.
Prior to the motion Commissioner Keene requested to be heard
and stated the following: "As the Commission knows, it is
not the Commission's responsibility to moralize on the merits
of liquor or to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages on
any properties in the City zoned for such purpose. The sale
of alcohol is a legal commodity and is entirely under the
jurisdiction of the State. The question of whether there should
be additional taverns is entirely up to the State."
7. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Clemence, Use Permit #413
was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Copelin, Longmoor, Clemence, Rudd and Hayton
NOES: Sturtevant and Keene
ABSENT: Smith and Lind
1. ROSS, James E. & Violet
2. Portion of Lot D
3. Posted March 10, 1958
311 Carnation Ave., CdM
CdM Tract
4. Construction of 9 units on an R -3 lot.
#414
Zone R -3
5. In order that the applicant can submit additional information requested by
the Commission,on motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Clemence
and carried, the hearing on this application was set over until the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Page 10
• USE PERMITS
LJ
•
1. KRAMER, Charles A. and MEYER, Ralph
2. Portions of Lots 3 and 9 Block 22
3. Posted March 10, 1958
#415
1325 and 1323 E. Balboa Blvd.
Balboa Tract Zone R -3
4. The construction and operation of three 4 -unit dwelling structures on
three building sites 45' x 100' with 45' frontage on Balboa Blvd.
Applicant states that he desires to supply a community need for dwelling
units.
5. DISCUSSION: This application was before the Commission at a previous date
and was approved; however, it was revoked under Section 9106.41
of the Municipal Code.
6. FINDINGS: The Commission recommended approval of this renewal application,
subject to the same conditions as specified in Use Permit #238,
approved on June 21, 1956, and Use Permit #212 approved on
January 19, 1956.
7. On motion of Commissioner Rudd, seconded by Comm. Keene, Use Permit #415
was APPROVED, subject to the above conditions, by the following roll call
vote, to wit: ALL AYES
#416
1. HOLBROOK, H. H. 2801 W. Balboa Blvd.
2. Lots 22 and 23 Block 28 Newport Tract Zone R -3 -B
3. The applicant desires to remove existing sheds and build two garages, and
to request permission for the construction of apartments at a later date
on this site which is non - conforming because of commercial use on an R -2
lot.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. FINDINGS: The Commission upon their investigation of this property
found that the existing commercial use is non - conforming and
that the Building Dept. had advised the applicant that the
existing sheds must be removed. Commissioner Copelin advised
the applicant that the Commission could not under any
circumstances approve a non - conforming use and found that
since a duplex had been constructed over two building sites,
a single building site had been created which would prohibit
forever any additional units.
6. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Rudd, Use Permit #416
was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
0
0
Page 11
USE PERMITS
#417
1. DOWNING, Sam H. Two corners - Irvine St. & Cliff Haven (SE)
Irvine St. & Clay (NE)
2. Lots 14 and 22 Cliff Haven Section Tracts 1718 & 1220 Zone R -3
3. The applicant is requesting the construction of 5 dwelling units on each
lot.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. FINDINGS: This is a pattern which has previously been established by
the Commission to permit five dwelling units on these large
corner parcels.
6. On motion of Commissioner Rudd, seconded by Comm. Copelin, Use Permit #417
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
1. BABSON, Edward J.
2. Lot 3
3. Posted March 10, 1958
9418
Northeast corner 101 Highway & Morning Canyon Rd.
Tract 1237
4. The construction of a fifteen (15) unit motel and pool.
Zone R -3 -B
5. DISCUSSION: Note findings
6.. FINDINGS: The Commission recommended denial of this application based
on the same findings as set forth in Variance Application ,#455
considered at this meeting.
7. On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Rudd, Use Permit 9N+18
was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Sturtevant, Keene, Longmoor, Clemence, Rudd, and Hayton
NOES: Copelin
ABSENT: Lind, Smith
•
Page 12
USE PERMITS
41419
1. AERONUTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC. and THE IRVINE CO.
2. 100 acres now under lease and 100 acres under option for lease in
Blocks 56 and 57 Zone: Unclassified
3. Applicant is requesting that the following uses be established in an
unclassified zone:
1. Administrative and professional offices, accessory to uses
permitted in this District.
2. Employee' dining facilities.
3. Research and development laboratories and related experimental
and laboratory test installations and operations.
4. Electrical, electronic and electromechanical products manufacturing.
5. Fabrication of plastic and ceramic products.
• 6. Scientific and mechanical instruments manufacturing.
7. Signs appurtenant to any permitted use located on property of use.
8. Design, development and assembly of advanced prototype weapons,
weapons systems, and related products, and fabrication of parts
and components thereof.
9. Manufacturing of scientific and small mechanical devices (such as
gyros, actuators and auxiliary power units).
10. Precision machine shop.
11. Fabrication of precision tools, dies, jigs and fixtures for use
in business.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
5. FINDINGS: Commissioner Longmoor advised the Commission that the uses
requested in this application were previously approved on a
conditional permit presented to the Orange County Planning
Commission. A use.permit is now required since this area
has been annexed to the City -of Newport Beach and is in an
Unclassified District. Commissioner Longmoor recommended
approval and pointed out that the applicant in his application
• stated that all uses will conform to the requirements of the
M -1 -A Ordinance.
6: On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Clemente; Use Permit 41419
was APPROVED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
Page 13
• RESUBDIVIS,IONS
#63
i. TOLIN, Ralph C.; PARKER, Evans G. and VOGEL, John F.
2403 - 2407 - 2404 -2408 Margaret Drive
2. Portion of.Lot 27 Tract 1880 Zone..R -1
3. Applicant desires to resubdivide this parcel so as to create four R -1
building site -s.
4. After considerable discussion with the applicant, on motion of Commissioner
Sturtevant, seconded by Comm. Rudd and carried, Application #63 was set
over until.the next regular meeting in order that the applicant could
furnish the Commission with a plan for the improvement of Margaret Drive
as requested by the City Engineer.
1. REAMES, Nelson B.
247 and 251 Ocean View
#64
2. Lots 32: and 33 Tract 1133 Zone R -1
3. Applicant desires to resubdivide these two parcels so as to create four
• R-1 building sites.
4. DISCUSSION: Note findings
7. FINDINGS: After considerable discussion with the applicant regarding
the deed restrictions of this property, on motion of
Commissioner.Copelin, seconded by Comm. Rudd and carried,
the hearing on this application was set over until the next
regular meeting in order that the applicant could meet with
Comm. Copelin regarding certain tract restrictions. A
determination will be made by Comm. Copelin whether the
resubdivision request is in order.
#65
1. GARRICK, Charles S. 3401 Ocean Blvd.
2. 27' of Lot 15 and Lot 16 Tract 1026 Zone R -1
3. Applicant desires to resubdivide this parcel so as to create two R -1
building sites.
4. DISCUSSION: Speaking in protest of the resubdivision of this parcel was
Mr. T. A. Atkinson who resides on Ocean Blvd. and Mr. Frasier
who has a residence on Breakers Drive. They stated that a
resubdivision application for the division-of this parcel was
previously denied by the Commission and should be denied at
this time, based on the same findings as before.
Page 14
• RESUBDIVISIONS
#65 con't
5. FINDINGS: Based upon the evidence on file and the oral arguments
presented at this hearing, the Commission recommended
denial of this application and stated that the same findings
exist at this time as stated in the decision of the
Commission on July 25, 1955, which are as follows:
1. The construction of two buildings upon 1'k lots
will be injurious to the property and improvements
of property owners in the vicinity.
2. Serious traffic problems and increased parking
problems will result from allowing more family units
in the area.
3. Would be detrimental to property owners.
6. On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Clemence, Resub-
division #65 was DENIED by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
AMENDMENTS
• #46
Second hearing on Resolution of Intention #619 and Amendment 146 to amend
Sections 9250.4, 9251.4 and 9253.52 of Article IX� of the Municipal Code.
On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Hayton, it was moved
that Sections 9250.4 and 9251.4 of Article IX'k be approved as rewritten to
include the words, "or lease" and that this amendment be forwarded to the
City Council with a recommendation for adoption. Said motion was carried
by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Copelin and carried,
the Commission moved that the proposed amendment of Section 9253.52 of
Article IX'k be carried over until the next regular meeting.
#47
1. KARSTENS, Robert H. and certain property owners Corona del Mar
2. Lots 1 thru 18 Blocks 131 and 132 Resubdivision of CdM Zone R -2
3. Posted February 7, 1958 Published February 10, 1958 Second Hearing
• 4. The petitioner desires to amend Section 9103.2 of Ordinance #635 so as
to cause this property to fall within R -3 District.
5. To increase residential potential in the area; a need readily indicated
by proposed rapid developments both industrially and otherwise in this
immediate area in the foreseeable future.
0
•
Page 15
AMENDMENTS
#47 cont'
6. DISCUSSION: Persons protesting the rezoning of Blocks 131 and 132 at
the hearing on February 20, 1958, by the Commission were
again present and gave the same objections which are as
follows:
1. This area is very congested now and will add to
existing traffic problems.
2. Lots are too small for multiple developments.
3. This is a follow up to the granting of the Robert's
variance which in their opinion set a precedent.
In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Dana Smith, attorney representing one of
the property owners, stated that a large percentage of these lots if zoned
R -3 could not meet certain requirements of the zoning ordinance; namely,
square footage or garage space requirements.
7. FINDINGS: The findings which are attached to the application are
hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof as
though set forth in full.
8. On motion of Commissioner Copelin, it was moved the Commission recommend
to the City Council the DENIAL of Amendment #47, seconded by Comm. Hayton
and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: ALL AYES
#48
1. BRADLEY CO., The
2. Tract 1396 Zone: Unclassified
3. Posted February 10, 1958 Published February 10, 1958 Second Hearing
4. The petitioner desires to amend Section 9103.8 of Ordinance #635 so as
to cause this property to .fall within a R -1 and R -4 District.
5. Petitioner declares that property is to be for single family and
multiple residential uses.
6. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Sturtevant who is the owner of this property
to be rezoned requested that the Commission hold the applic-
ation over for a third hearing at the next regular meeting
of the Commission.
7. On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Clemence and carried
is Amendment 448 was set over for a third hearing at the next regular
meeting of the Commission.
. Page 16
FINAL MAP #1645
Presented to the Commission by the Director of Public Works, J. B. Webb,
was the Final Map of Tract #1645. This tract consisting of 85 residential
lots will be an addition to the Harbor Highlands area.
On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Rudd and carried, the
Final Map of Tract #1645 was approved, subject to the following conditions.:
1. That all conditions as outlined in letter dated March 20, 1958,
signed by J. B. Webb, Public Works Director, be complied with.
2. That all conditions stipulated at the time of the approval of the
Tentative Map, considered by the Planning Commission on January 16,
1958, be complied with.
The-Commission received from the City Engineer a letter dated March 20, 1958,
signed by Austin Sturtevant and Walter B. Mellott which sets forth the following:
"We agree to install a bridge to .extend Mariners Drive across the Orange
County Flood Control Channel at such time as Dover Drive is extended and
improved from 17th Street to Irvine Avenue westerly of said channel and /or
Mariners Drive is extended and improved to Irvine Avenue."
• The Commission accepted this communication and on motion of Commissioner
Copelin, seconded by Comm. Hayton and carried, said letter was filed and
made part.of the records regarding Tract #1645.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
1. Presented to the Commission was a letter dated March 6, 1958, signed by
Mr. Harry Kelso and'others regarding Variance #440 which was approved by
the Commission on February 20, 1958. Said letter requests that Variance
#440 be amended by deleting the 4' encroachment into a 4' required .side
yard at the NWly side of subject property.
On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Hayton and carried,
the Commission moved that Variance #'440 be reconsidered.
On motion of Commissioner Copelin, seconded by Comm. Hayton and carried,
Variance #440 approved by the Commission on February 20, 1958, was amended
to delete the 4' encroachment on the NW1y side of subject property.
2. Read to the Commission was a memorandum dated March 13, 1958, signed by
the City Manager regarding a precise plan to the Street and Highway Plan
of the Master Plan for the handling of traffic at the intersection of
17th Street and Dover Drive.
,After a discussion with the City Manager, Chairman Longmoor appointed
. City Engineer Webb who will appoint others to serve on a committee with
him regarding the recommendation of the City Manager. It was suggested
by Commissioner Longmoor that an effort be made by this Committee to
secure from the Irvine Co. a master plan of their streets And highways.
0 Page 17
3. Referred to the Commission was a memorandum dated March 10, 1958, signed
by the City Attorney regarding a proposal to change the name of Bonita
Lane in Tract 3004 to Dorothy Lane.
On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Copelin and carried,
the Commission found no objections to the street name change.
4. Received by the Commission was a request from the Planning Commission,
City of Costa Mesa, regarding certain property, described as a portion
of Lot No. 227 in the Newport Heights Tract, which has been requested
by the owner to be annexed to Costa Mesa.
On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Comm. Rudd and carried,
the Commission found no objections to this parcel of land being annexed
to the City of Costa Mesa.
5. The City Attorney presented to the Commission a memorandum dated
March 13, 1958, having reference to Ordinance #842 pertaining to penny
arcades. The City Attorney advised that it was the wish of the City
Council to ascertain from the Commission whether they had any suggestions
or recommendations to make prior to the adoption of said ordinance.
• A long discussion was held with the City Attorney and the City Manager
regarding this proposed ordinance and the Commission pointed out that
circuses, carnivals, fun zones, private recreation centers and similar
establishments must obtain a use permit from the Planning Commission be-
fore they can begin operation. The penny arcades and similar businesses
now operating in the Balboa area are legal non - conforming uses because
they-existed prior to the date Section 9105.1 of the Municipal Code
became law.
0
On motion of Commissioner Rudd, seconded by Comm. Hayton and carried,
the Commission found and determined that Ordinance #842 regarding penny
arcades was satisfactory so long as it did not constitute legislation
on zoning.
On motion of Commissioner Hayton, seconded by Commissioner Copelin and
carried, the meeting was adjourned.
Ray Y. Copelin
Secretary