HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1937THE NE^PiPCRT BEACH CITY PLAM3ING COM!.ISSION met in Special
Session "Pednesday, Vey 26,1937 at 7:30 PM in the Council
Chamber at the City Hall; Chairman Parks presiding.
ROLL CALL: Present - Parks, Lind, Whitson, Schnitker, F.W.
Briggs, L.T.Briggs, City Attorney Thompson, Consultant
Tilton and Inspector Nelson.
Absent - Palmer, Patterson.
MINUTES: The minutes of the meeting of May 19,1937 were
approved as read.
AL ANDERSON APPLICATION: This request for amendment of the
Ordinance to allow Shooting Galleries in Cr2 Districts
was originally presented at the previous meeting and laid
on the table for the benefit of the Consultant's advice
on account of the large number of C -2 districts in the
city and the considerable amount of surrounding residen-
tial areas affected.
'. ".r. Anderson stated he realized the position of.the Com-
mission but would like, some way or other, to get permis-
sion as the season would soon be in full swing. He farther
stated he would be willing to restrict his enterprise to
what is Down as a Short Range Rifl R� anar. which is not
• so noisy as the regulation Gallery. or Gun Club.)
Mr. Tilton stated this was a prohibited use even though
described by another name, and the only way it could be
permitted would be by formal an of the Ordinance,
which would req,zire about 2i months time.
Suggestions by commissioners that a committee be appointed
to study the matter and bring in possible changes in the
definition of Shooting Galleries of less objectionable
types were not acted upon, as Yr. Anderson arl 'dr. Borter
withdrew their request on account of the time required for
amendments and the lateness of the season. Checks returned.
to applir.ants.
NOTE: (This matter will probably recur and study might be
given it during the winter)
SUCCULLOCH Application for a "permit authorizing the com-
pletion of construction and remodeling of the said non-
conforming building,according to the plans above mention-
ed, for the reasons he—,in before set forth, and in ac-
cordance with the terms and conditions of said zoning
ordinance" having been laid on the table at the previous
meeting for the benefit of the Consultant's advice, was
lifted and reviewed by counsel.
RITCHIE, "For purpose of clarity ", termed the West end of
lot the nonconforming end and the East end the conforming
end of lot. Stated at time of passage of Ordinance 440
buildings existed on the West portion used for cafe and
hot dog stand purposes, and the East portion was vacant.
/1
N
At that time the Nest portion came within the definition
of nonconforming use and his view is that it therefore
is not subject to restrictions as contained in the Ord.
Also, that business license had been kept alive. Some time
in the early part of this year Miss MacCulloch was des-
irous of altering and changing the Nest ten feet of the
nonconforming building. Displayed a building permit dated
February 25,1937, to replace portion of the lunchroom torn
down. She tore down this portion but in no way extended
the use. During the final stages of this construction she
was notified to cease work as the construction was prohib-
ited by ordinance of the City. Cn the East portion of the
lot a permit was applied for and issued to construct a
conforming building which is practically complete.
Stated in his opinion Miss MacCulloch should have some
relief under the circumstances. She had no intention of
violating the City ordinance. After learning the proposed
lessee (of the Doll House in Palm Springs) had applied for
the transfer to this location of a liquor license, she im-
mediately took steps to correct that, advising the lessee
she could not give a lease permitting the sale of liquor
from the premises. In his view the Nest portion of the lot
is nonconforming under the ordinance and the East portion
residence area under the terms of the ordinance. The Nest.
• portion may be continued in such use and the East portion
used only for residential purposes. Denied she had waived
her nonconforming use rights by building a dwelling on
the East portion.
Stated he though the building inspector came close to being
in the right when he issued the first permit.
TILTON: There is no authority in the zoning ordinance for the
building inspector to issue a permit involving reconstruc-
tion of a nonconforming use, prior to the recommendation
of the planning commission, after application and hearing
as required by the ordinance.
TF.OITSON. The permit in question is for dwelling purposes
only.
BLODGETT: "The residents in the n6ighborhood whom I represent
feel that in framing the ordinance the City of Newport
Beach did not desire to benefit some one person or to in-
convenience some one person: but rather to serve the com-
munity as a whole, and I ask that the Commission keep this
thoaght in mind. Referring to the permit issued for con-
struction on the Test portion of the lot in question, the
amount stated is $300.00 and nothing more. Ref:Sec.14 of
Ordinance regarding issuance of Building Permits. Cited
• definitions in the ordinance of building site, lot; and
area exceptions as treated on page five.
Stated on February 10th, without asking for a permit of
any sort, the owner started tearing down the most westerly
of the two buildings which had been joined together and
formerly devoted to nonconforming uses; that it was an-
3
tirely torn down, including the side wall of the other
building; that only three walls and a roof remained of
the adjoining building. After this first building had
been completely demolished a permit was acquired, #2428,
to replace a portion of the lunchroom torn down. On March
5th, a business license was issued to bliss MacCulloch,
expiring on July l8t,1937.
On "larch 8,1937, Miss MacCulloch applied for a permit
to construct a garage house on the said lot to cost
$2000.00. It is our contention that only one use can he
made of a single lot, either a nonconforming business or
a conforming single family residential use in this case.
The last application for a permit filed by the owner was
for a conforming use. Further, on May 1st the owner appli-
ed for a yard variance for this conforming use, which
has since been granted. The ordinance does not contem-
plate the voluntary destruction of a nonconforming bldg.,
and its subsequent reconstruction as such, without follow-
ing the required procedure. An entirely new building was
constructed.
Of the original nonconforming buildings, 30% was complete-
ly torn down and removed, including plumbing and electric
work. This portion was entirely replaced. 75% of the roof
area of the entire building was torn off and replaced. The
- -` west wall of the remaining building was entirely reconstr*-
ted and the door to the new room refrained, although the
reconstruction of the old part is still incomplete. All
this work was done contrary to required procedure. This
is not a simple matter of coming before the planning com-
mission with a request for reconstruction of an existing
nonconforming use, as such use has been done away with.
The old building nolonger exists. An entirely new bldg
has been constructed, NOT reconstructed.
When the applicant made application for a conforming use,
which was granted, she automatically discontinued the non-
conforming use (Sec.12,page 7 of Ord. after such noncon-
forming use is discontinued, etc. etc.,) Two different
types of uses are not allowable on one lot in the same zone.
°laving elected, by construction of a new building without
having maintained the nonconforming feature by following
required procedure, to use the lot in a conforming manner,
she cannot lawfully use it for other than conforming use.
(See page 7 of Ord. on structural alterations).
The protest was started more or less by the application
to sell liquor. Protests by residents in the neighborhood
to the State Board of Equalization stopped the granting
of this application, a group of such residents having
appeared before the said Board. The application was then
withdrawn. If a business license for a cafe is granted by
this city the issuance of a liquor license cannot be
stopped except upon proof of operation in a manner con-
stituting a menace to public health and safety.
The issue, therefore, is squarely before you on a question
of a cafe license. we believe the application before this
Commission at this time is out of order for the reason
• that the nonconforming use has been abandoned.(The original
letter of application by Ritchie was read).
RITCHIE: Commented on questions of fact in Blodgett's re-
marks. States his client had no intention of working a
hardship on any one, or any official. Cited Jones vs.
California - 211 Cal. Stated rights of property owners
must absolutely be protected. That only 50% of bldg
was torn down and 30o altered. (Did not comment on the
new flat roof although permit called for a pitched roof.)
Denied liquor license application was withdrawn on acct.
of neighborhood _petition. Stated his client world not
give a lease if liquor was to be sold.
TILTON: Any nonconforming use presents a problem. Zoning
Ordinances provide that when a building housing a non-
conforming use is destroyed the use becomes aconforming.
(See Sec.11, page 6, third column, referred: to.)
The owner of a nonconforming use may elect to follow this
course, or, if it seems advisable to them to reconstruct,
a provision is introduced in the ordinance covering the
method by which permission for such reconstruction may be
• applied for. Asked Ritchie which course the owner elects
to follow. (No reply) Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter
of whether the building looks better or worse; does it
conform with the ordinance? The law assumes that prop-
erty owners are bound by the regulations imposed by the
ordinances. when an owner elects to proceed contrary to
the provisions of the ordinance and then comes in and
wants to be heard, it seems just a little bit irregular.
To maintain bath a conforming and nonconforming use on
this lot is unlawful. I maintain the ordinance must be
followed.
THOTIPSON: I placed the stop order on the work on my own
responsibility and will likewise instruct the building
inspector to allow tA^ contractor to proceed with the
new residence building, but will not lift the stop order
on the other building. That will have to be taken up with
the council. I cannot see, personally, how this lot can
be used for both business and residence purposes.
RITCHIE: I am not saying we are trying to get out of com-
plying with the ordinance.
TILTON: The commission has the right to make a recommendatin
. to the Council.
CHAIWAN: Mr. Ritchie do -ou know whether this first permit
called for a flat roof or a pitched roof? (No answer.)
L.w.ARIMS: I have been accused of prejudice in this matter.
This is not true. I took photographs, which are on file;
the day Mr. Humphreys was tearing down the west building
and at that time warned him that if they tore it down
without having first properly applied for a permit for
reconstruction, they would lose their nonconforming use
'arivilege. He left the work stating he would tell his em-
plore„ this. Later I saw him proceeding with
the tearing down of the building and he then told me his
employer told him to.go ahead, "it was all fixed ". Re-
peated efforts have been made to inform these people of
the regni.rements and procedure demanded by the Ordinance.
Letters to them are on file setting it forth indetail, .
and conies of the ordinance were in their possession. They
deliberately ignored these efforts to warn them.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tilton, after hearing both sides do you feel
we can allow a public hearing on this matter?
TILTON: No, the matter has proceeded beyond that point. This,/
is my advice.
MOTION: Moved by Com. F.W.Briggs that the application of
"Kiss MacCulloch be denied for the reason that the construc-
tion referred to in said application is largely complete
and the application consequently is out of order and not
in conformity with the procedure established by Ord.440.
Seconded by Com Whitson and carried.
PUBLIC BEARING - WHITTE?, "=ORE- McNeely application for a 50%
variance of the front yard requirement on Lot 13,Tr.742.
Hearing declared open. No comments or letters.
Hearing closed.
MOTION: On motion by Com.L.W.Brigge, seconded by Com.
Whitson and carried, the variance was recommended.
(What was the finding in regard to which is the rear yard;
Whitson made the motion)
A.J.PRICE application again discussed. Not -.ing could be done
without revised plans as previously advised.
DAWSON- A Public Hearing was ordered on application of Geo.
Dawson for front yard variance on Lot 1, Block 4, Sec.2 of
Balboa Island., from 10 feet to 6 feet 2 inches, on June
9th,1937-
TENTATIVE MAP: Townsend owner; Woolley, engineer.
After discussion a motion was offered by Co,-L.W.Briggs,
seconded by Com.Whitson and carried, to give this map
tentative approval subject to cutting the depth of the
lots fronting on the State Highway numbered four to seven-
teen, inclusive, to 125 feet and the dedication of a 20t
alley at the rear of said lots.
NOTE:(An approximation of these requirements would be better
than the sale by metes and bounds of lots that might then
be too deep and constitute double frontage lots.)
CHAIRMAN PARKS — advised his term expires this month, that
he world be absent from the city all summer and did not
wish for reappointment.
• Thanked the Commission for work done.
!"R.DICKENS inquired about permission to install an Ice
Cream Cabinet in the front yard at the Peninsula Cafe,
which is a nonconforming use. Informed it is prohibited
by the ordinance.
On motion the secretary was instructed to file the budget
report as exhibited.
On motion the meeting adjourned to June 9th,1937.
?noBEACH CI LAdNIMG ?L�RISSION
•