Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1937NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COP,MTISSION met in regular session Wednesday May 19, 1937, at 7 :30 P. M. in the Council Chamber at the City Hall. Chairman Parks presiding. 4D PRESENT: Parks, Schnitker, Palmer, Whitson, Thomp- son, F. W. Briggs, L. W. Briggs and In.s,jector Nelson. ABSENT: Lind and Consultant Tilton. MINUTES: The minutes of the Special Meeting of April 24, 1937, were approved as written. A.J.PRICE VARIANCE APPLICATION for yard variance on Lot 13, Block 2, Section 1 of Balboa Island was read and upon motion by Com. Witson, seconded by Com. F. W. Briggs, a hearing v,,as refused as the drawing showed reouired windows less than 3 feet from the side lot line which is contrary to state law; Could not be considered and the check was ordered returned. WHITTE70RE - McNEELY VARIANCE APPLICATION for yard variances on Lot 13 of Tract 742 was read and upon motion b;;, Com. Whitson, seconded by Com. Schnitker and carried, a public hearing was ordered upon the. a_- olication at the next meeting. 1.ACCULLOCH PUBLIC HEARING: The Chairman declared the meeting open and asked if any person o -esent desired to be heard. i1r. L. S. B. RITCHIE, of the firm of Winterer >. Ritchie, Attorneys, Suite 1106 -10 Pacific Southwest Building, 215 W. 6th St., Los Anl-eles, Phone 14u. 7238, representing the petitioner, asked that the "hearing be had without prejudice to a further application or a renewal of this application insofar as the westerly portion of the said lot is concerned, being that portion used for non - conforming uses. 1.4R. ',. W. BLODGETT, speaking in behalf of a number of citizens in the neighborhood, stated those persons whom he represented were not objecting to the front yard variance applied for, but vrere objecting to the non- conforming use referred to by Mr. Ritchie. There being no others present desiring to be heard and no communications on the subject, the hearing was declared closed. MOTION: Com. Palmer moved that a 50% variance, Prom 10 feet to 5 feet, from the front yard reouirement on Lot 15; Block 26, Eastside Addition to the Balboa Tract, which front on "J °Street, be recornmended; seconded by Com. • Whitson and carried. WESTERN CANIIERS, INC. - Mr. Findlay. and 'Mr. Rupp appeared before the Commission with a n elevation drawing and pencil plot plan show- ing certain proposed additional construction of this fish cannery, eaith the statement that additional toilet and dressing room facilities were required by state law, and the enclosing of boilers and retorts now in use but outside the building was desired. ;:'r. Thompson stated it would be necessary for the commission to first approve detailed plans and specifications ant the applicant to obtain a certificate of use and occupation. MOTION: Com. WM tson -moved the commission recommend favorably, subject to approval of detailed plans and specifications by the Building Inspector and the obtaining of a Use and Occupancy Permit. Seconded by Com. Schnitker and carried. • ANDERSON - RORTER REQUEST FOR KIENDMENT OF C -2 DIS- TRICT to permit business of conducting Shooting Galleries. Considerable discussion was had on this matter, particular reference being made to the eight C -2 Districts shown on the districting map and to the large amount of surrounding residential property affected. MOTION: Unon motion by Com. F. W. Briggs, seconded by Com. Palmer and carried, this matter was ordered tabled until the next meeting for the benefit of the Consultant's advice. MR. RITCHIE, representing; the owner of Lot 15, Block 26, Ea.stside Addition to the Balboa Tract, filed a letter requ< sting a "permit authorizing the completion of construction and remodeling of the said nonconforming building, according to the plans above mention- ed, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, • and in accordance with the terms and conditions of said zoning ordinance ". City Attorney Roland Thompson explained that construction was ordered stopped by the building inspector under instructions by him. Mr. Blodgett stated that, in his opinion, a nonconforming use must be continuous, that part of the building was torn down without having applied for a permit to reconstruct a nonconforming use, that demolition (See Sec. • 8) is actual construction which indicated an election by the owner to abandon such portion of the nonconforming use; further, subsequent- ly a permit was taken out for a structure with -- a pitched roof.and a flat roof was built. He contended therefore the only portion of the lot having nonconforming use classifications or privileges is the remaining portion of the old buildings and as that portion remaining has been structurally altered without per - mission he further cla17-1ed the entire non- conforming use has been actually abandoned. That on March 9th the owner took out a permit for a conforming use on the said lot and is therefore bound by her own action to use the lot for conforming uses, as the ordinance provides a lot may not be devoted to both the use provided for in the district and to non - conforming use also, as every lot in an R-1 district shall be devoted to one purpose only. He contended that the commission has no power to receive an application to alter, repair or reconstruct a nonconforming use on this lot as the owner, has by her own acts, elected to abandon the nonconforming use. He protest- ed against the issuance of a use and occupancy permit for other than residential use. Mr. Ritchie considered Mr. Blodgett's state- ments as to the law out of order and ouestioned some of his statements of fact. Offered the opinion that it was the plain duty of the commission to set a date for a hearing on the application in the regular way; recited that the portion of said lot in business use at the time of adoption of Ord. ##440 was therefore net in R -1 and the remainder was; that there was nothing in the said ordinance prohibiting more than one use on a single lot. :fir. Blodgett: Since by her own acts the owner of said lot has abandoned the non ccnforming use, it would be improper for the • commission to cal'_ a hearing on the matter connected with such nonconforming use and the eby risk a waiver. Thompson: The application of the petitioner, as filed by counsel, is out of order in my opinion. The matter should be presented to L the Consultant for advice. The acts of the commission are not conclusive. A hearing might be granted without prejudicing the city's position as the Comnission is acting in an advisory capacity only. Chairman Parks: I am going to do an unprece- dented thing and. rule this application can not be received, as in my opinion it is entirely within the discretion of the commission to refuse a hearing in this matter. Ritchie: I appeal from the ruling of the chair, etc. Thompson: My statement in re. granting a hearing, although the application is not in order, was only for the purpose of affording counsel for the applicant opportunity for study of the ordinance. The applicant has, In my opinion, abandoned the non- conforming use of this property. H er: As a private citizen may I ask the Chairman to quote the Section of the Ordinance under which he refuses to grant a hearing? Thompson:. Mr.. Parks was correct in his previous statement. • MOTION: I move this application be laid on the table for one week in order that the Consultant advice in the matter may be available (Palmer). Seconded by Com. F.W.Brigga and carried, Mr. Kirby spoke on the Whittemore- McNeely variance matter. Mr. Palmer brought up for discussion the possibility of a. ruling or amendment to allow all of the lots inside of and adjacent to. Via Lido, both Nord and Soud,.to be relieved from all side yard requirements on the side of azch lots contiguous with the said Via Lido. Mr. Blodgett filed with the commission a peti- tion bearing about 53 names of property owners, in the neighborhood petitioning the city coum:il and the Planning Commission to take such steps as may to necessary to eliminate the non - conforming buildinE and use thereof . located on Lot 15, Block 26, Eastside Addition to the Balboa Tract. On motion the c5immi ssIon adjourned until Wed- nesday May 26t 1937, 7:�O P.M. in the usual meeting NEWP I MMISSION By B o , ecr a y.