Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/1937MEMBERS NEWPORT BEACH • CITY PLANNING C01= 3SION C. Harold Hopkins, Chairman 1707 E. Bay Front Newport Beach Dr. Howard W. $eager, Secretary Balboa Island, Mrs. Della Williams 1310 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar Gordon B. Findlay 512 Ocean Dr. Newport Heights Fred W. Briggs Lido Isle • J. J. Schnitker 2005 W. Central Newport Beach R. L. Patterson , Ex- Officio City Hall, Newport Beach Roland Thompson, Ex- Officio 1011 I.Y. Central Newport Beach Elmer B. Whitson , Ex- Officio 1517 E. Central Ave. Newport Beach L. Deming Tilton, Consultant 115 E. Pedregosa St. Santa Barbara, Cal. THE .°POTIT BE_'_CH CITY P14-1,111' ;ING 001 riISSION met in regular session Yednesday August 25,- 1937, at 7:30 o'clock MI. in the Nev:port Beach City Council Chambers, Chairman Hopkins presiding. • Meeting called to order b.,, the Chairman. 20LL CALL - Commissioners present: Hopkins, Seager, Briggs, Schnitker, Findlay, City Engineer Patterson, City Attorney Thompson, Consultant Tilton; Asst.. Secy. Hanson." Commissioners absent: I,rs. Williams, E. B. Ytlhitson, Bldg. Insp. Nelson. LINUTES It was moved by the Seoretary that the reading of Iainutes of last regular meeting and of special' meeting of 7/30/37 be dispensed with as all members had been supplied with copies thereof and if there were no ommissions or errors they be approved as written. Seconded by Findlay. Chairman asked if anyone from the floor wished the Minutes read. No response. i'otion carried. ORDER OF BUSINESS - Chairman Hopkins offered the following order of business to be followed by this Commission, to -wit: Roll call Liinut e s Special Business, communications petitions, hearings. Unfinished business New business Good of City Patterson moved that the above procedure be adopted, Seconded by Sehnitker, Lotion carried. , HEARINGS: APPLICATION of Verna T. Decker, owner of Lot 404, Tract 907, Lido Isle for a 5Qjo variance on side yard. Chairman instructed the Secretary to read the Notice of Hearing as published in the Newport News. Stated if there were no objections from the floor, no protests nor communications, the hearing would be closed. Secretary read a letter from a Mr. John' A. Harvey of Santa Ana, inquiring as to the exact location of property in question, and advised he had . informed applicant thereof. Commissioner Briggs moved that the Commission recommend the granting of the variance requested. Seconded by Findlay. Motion carried. APPLICATION of Bay. District lumber Company, Mr. Spicer owner. Chairman instructed the Secretary to read the Notice of this Hearing as published in the Newport News. The Chairman then asked for any objections or protests and as there were none, stated the Commission was ready for the discussion. Commissioner Patterson asked regarding the height of the proposed structure and then moved that the application of the Bay District Lur_iber Company for variance in installing a blower system and incin- erator be recommended for approval. Seconded by Findlay. Notion carried. Mr. Spicer asked if permission could be given by the City Engineer to install said incinerator to the 'Nest side of present sand bunker and upon motion by Patterson, seconded by Findlay this request was recommended. Motion carried. PETITION: Secretary read a petition of a Mr. J. C. Axelson, owner of property in Block 7, Section 1, Balboa Island, requesting the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 7, Sec. 1, Balboa Island, from a C -1 District to an R -3 District in keeping with other lots on Pearl St. This petition was signed • by eleven property owners in vicinity, represent- ing some 35 lots, 13 of which were in the immediate vicinity. The Secretary also read letters regarding this petition, namely: from I. C. Gardiner, owner of lots 1 and 2, protesting such petition. " 0. W. Englehart, owner of lot 3 protest- ing inclusion of his lot. from Frederick J. Fuller, owner of Lot 31, Block 7, approving petition. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to .make a statement from the floor. .Mr. Axelson asked to say a few words in support of his petition. Stated the reason he had not appear- ed to protest the zoning of this property to a 0-1 District at an earlier date, was due to the fact he had unfortunately not received notice of hearing when such action was taken. Lived in L: A. and thought maybe mail was addressed to his Balboa home. Has a home adjoining Lots 1 and 2 for past 12 yrs. • and wanted it as a place he could come to get awry from the city and all business. Cited Marine Ave as having enough business for the whole .island and did not want to see additional business en- croaching in his neighborhood and spoilbng his neighborhood for residential purposes. lie wanted to be as fair as possible to the present owner of lots 1 and 2 and would be willing to make a break- ing point between business and residence by having these lots reclassified as R -3. Upon question if there was anyoneelse present who wished to voice their opinion, the following parties gave their objections to business being allowed on said lots. Mrs. Collins owner of property across the street rom lots in question, stated Pearl St. should be a breaking point, although this would not be much as it is a narrow street. Urr_s_. A_05M owner of lot on Pearl St. just in back o p� roperty in question, stated she was for re- stricting business at that point. Mrs. F. S. Allen.stated she vas for the petition and was sure `w -en Mr. Gardiner bought the lots they were for residential purposes. Mr. Patterson stated this territory was zoned for residence originally. Mrs. E. K. Duncan owns property- on pearl St., 3rd. of up from a ey, was for petition. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to make a statement. Secretary Seager stated he was • familiar with the location and with petition pres- ented and it seemed to him to be a very just re- quest. There are residences in back and across the street and the property you have requested to be zoned R -3 is within reason and a considerate re- quest.Sueh zoning would act as a buffer Between business and redidence and would also be, as an example, a screen between the vista of present residence and what may be objectionable to owners of Bay front property. I happen to be aware of the fact that there was due cause for alarm and.object- tion to business on these lots becuase of fact a marine service station and pier has been erected between the lots and the pier. The pier is per- fectly legal, but from viewpoint of residents not desirable- it is not a pleasant thing to look at . and others could be erected and would place a very objectionable view in front of their property. The residences have been there quite a long while. City Attorney Thompson asked could other people petition for reclassification on another man's property. Chairman called attorney's attention to Ordinance 440 on petition for reclassification. Thompson stated it directs that Planning Commission may initiate such change, but you can not ask that another mans property be reclassified. Chairman asked Consultant Tilton for his opinion on this matter. Mr. Tilton stated the thought runs through his mind that this change was made not very long ago in response to a petition from owner of oroperty in location to change from an .1 -2 or 3 to C -1. Hearings were held and no one appeared to object, so change was made to C -1 - Now, someone else wants to change back to way it was originally zoned. Mrs. Allen interrupted to state the reason noone appeared at hearings was that they had never received notice of same. Secretary remarked that then this was rezoned it was not this property in question, it was on the other end of other block, East of ferry rather than the west oP ferry - there was no request made for the lots now,in question- Mr. Tilton stated he didn't like to see the Planning Commission made ridiculous in eyes of property owners by changing back and forth. There was a general feeling on the part of the Commission for a temporary ordinance or emergency ordinance to hold conditions at the time of adoption until a more comprehensive zoning scheme was put in effect. • A temporary zoning soheme. was passed and Yr. Patt- erson drew up a map and these lots in this part- icular block were zoned as business and same thing was done on other side of block: In the final scheme.:there was noone protesting and therefore it went thru as C -1. It seems that several_monthe thereafter a man came in and made a vigorous protest.that he was no longer business and he didn't want to be something.else and he kept com- ing up here to get it changed and finally brought in a petition and the Planning Commission held hearings and changed it back to 0-1. Let me go back to the original scheme of zoning inthe interim ordinance, making all lots business up to Pearl. St., the same on each side. idotices were published and as there were no protests it seems this has been taken care of in a regular manner. Chairman asked about question Mr. Thompson raised as to the proprietary of these petitioners. Is it possible for other property owners to petition against property which they do not own? • Tilton: Planning Commission also considers if there is a change in property others can be heard. Thompson: There are two lots involved in which they have no interest. As there was no property in their block having same classification they might take in considerable territory_in their classific- ation. This happens to be another block and I doubt very much if this can be done. The Planning Commission can go on their own initiative and hold hearings concerning the whole island. I think if a -person or persons came in and asked for a change of their own property it could be considered, but for one party to ask for a changeofanother mans property I doubt if it can be done. Chairman: Do you thinkm Mr. Thompson, in receiving this petition we should go on holding hearing we would be technically wrong? I do. How can this be conducted in order that they may be heard? Thompson: I think that this commission should hold hearings on their own initiative. Treat this peti- tion as a request and file it. I feel that this petition is net proper in that they are asking reclassification of two lots they are not interest- ed in. 11r. Axelson was asked by the Chairman if he wished to say anything further. Stated he was sorry he had not received notice at time of last change. Could not understant why mail had not reached him. Asked if he received his mail in L.A. • or Balboa. Stated L.A. asked where he received his Tax Notices and admitted he had always received them. Thompson explained by interest he meant financial interest. Secretary Seager read an article from "The Laws of Zoning" citing a Supreme Court of California decision relative to police power. Attorney Thompson explained how our Zoning Ordinance is based on police power also. Chairman: In order that this ,petition may be heard you advise that this commission should take upon itself to initiate the change. Patterson: Moved this petition should be filed and no further hearings held, seconded by Schnitker. Patterson withdrew his motion. Secretary read the Notice as published. This was on the paid application of the applicant and we are therefore acting solely on it. Thompson strongly advised against change on lots 1 and 2 by petition of some other party. It is a matter the city as a Whole should be interested in. • Chairman asked Mr. Axelson if he wanted to press the matter. Mr. Axelson stated he was only tryinP to protect his property and did not have any selfish interests. Does not want business and has only tried to keep. district residential, and would -like to see pro- perty in that vicinity kept as such. ' ,-:ill abide by the dicision of the Commission. Chairman asked regarding what type of business would be obnoxtious and asked if it was their objection to the use of the water front. Answered, it was due to the type of business that might go in there that they are trying to get away from. Chairman asked if there was any way inwhich the water front could be protected. Patterson advised it was necessary to apply for permit to the City Council. Mr. Axelson stated he would withdraw request if it was out of order. It was suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that any further applications for piers in this block be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Mrs. Hogan said she.still objects and doesn't think it fair that there should be business property on a residential island. Her property.is just west of lots in question, just up the street and objects .to unsightly business. Mr. Axelson'stated he-wishes to have the hearing • continued. Chairman asked for motion. Patterson moved the proposition in question with Mr. Axelson's petition be abandoned. Seconded by Briggs. Motion carried. Briggs moved that this commission on its own initia- tive hold public hearings on the reclassification of Lots 1 and 2 Block 7, Balboa Island from C -1 to R -3, as required by Ord. 440. Seconded by Seager. Motion carried. Hearing - Briggs moved the hearing be held at next regular meeting night of the Commission. Seconded by Schnitker. Lotion carried. Mrs. Allen asked that the hearing be held at an earlier date as most of the people would be leaving soon to return to their regular homes on account of the opening of schools. She was adivaed her protest did not have to be verbal, a post card or letter would serve the same purpose. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE: Secretary read a letter dated August 11, 1937 from Dr. Howard. N. Seeger, requesting variance . for a setback upon lot 7, Block 1, section 1, 2esubdivision of Balboa Island, for the purpose' ` of erecting a single family dwelling. Public Hearing Notice had been published August 12,1937 in the Newport Hews; setting this date (August 25, 1937) as date of hearing. Dr. Seeger submitted plot plan and personal check of 41o.00 as required by Ord. 440. ift Chairman announced the hearing open for discussion. Dr. Seeger explained how a 50'o variance would not be sufficient to allow for an overhang on the 2nd story. Explained how lot was 35' wide in front, 26.9 wide in rear and had a depth of 85 ft. To the East of the proposed dwelling is a private garage. The house complies with the ordinance except variance in front. Asked for side yard and front yard variance. It was explained a variance greater than 5Qjo could be allowed due to the fact that the property bordered on a way of minor importance, quoted Sec. 11 Sub sec.3 of Ord. 440 (Ways less than thirty (30j feet in width, eto.) Chairman stated he believed this was a reasonable request and that the. Commission is going to take up as a matter to be settled at an early date the same problem on other lots on Balboa Island with water frontage. Dr. Seager stated he had studied the problem in numerous ways and had tried not to make this request Had considered buying lot next to )xim, but the price • was exhorbitant. Stated his next door neighbor's house extended out 42" from line and therefore he has no objection to proposed house extending as shown on plan. There is 30 ft between houses. He had the written approval of neighbor on the other side. Patterson commented on it in view of setting a precedent. Dr. 3eager stated that inasmuch as he was a member of the Planning Commission, he hesitated in present- ing his own problem to the Commission. Chairman said in his opinion it was oer.fectly legal and advised the Doctor to handle his request person- ally. Patterson was of the opinion that as the property was on a curve and not on a straight line street, it would no doubt be easier to recommend the grant- ing of the request. Findlay moved the Planning Commission recommend the granting of the variances requested. Seconded by Schnitker. Motion carried. Consultant Tilton stated he thought there was no need of arguing about front yard setbacks around the Bay Front. Planning Commission can effect service by covering condittions. In case of side yards, it is very important that dwellings be 0 0 • kept back reasonable distance from side line. Side yard varinaces must be kept. Should act on all matters and let, in so far as it is possible to let, the property owners do what he wanted with his land - draw a line between sound and fair. practice. Thompson: Is it your construction that we may vary more than 50;'o in ways that are of minor importance? Ans. Yes. As it was necessary for early, Secretary Seager he wished to read before Consultant Tilton to leave stated he had a Resolution Jrr. Tilton left. RESOLUTION: Regarding the levying of tax as provid- ed by law (A.B.No.722, Chap.665, Statutes of 1937, Sec.3) - not to exceed in any fiscal year the sum of two mills on the dollar of assessed valuation, for the purpose of defraying the lawful expenses incurred by the Planning Cormission in carrying out the purpose of this act) - this resulution to be :presented to the City Council for recommendation Consultant Tilton pointed out this would pro- vide for an amount far in excess of requirements and recommedded continuing to work under the present and past methods of receiving appropreations as budgeted eadh year. Stated further the levy of additional tax at this time might cause unfavorable comment and feeling toward the Planning Commission. Attorney Thompson concurred with Consultant's views. Patterson suggested before presenting such a resolu- tion to the City Council, the matter be discussed with them and try to find out their views on it. Chairman thought this would be the best way to handle this proposal. The Commission as a body concurred with Mr. Patterson's suggestion. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ARCHITECTURAL COL11ITTEE Secretary Seager read letters from a Mr. Donald Kirby and a Mr. Ainsworth, stating their qualifications as Architects. This was in response to inquiries made when these men had been suggested as being eligible to serve. Patterson moved'that these two men be named on the unofficial architectural advisory committee as provided in Sec.17 of Ord. 440 and that the Chairman be appointed as Chairman of the committee Of three. Motion seconded by Briggs. Carried. Secretary explained how a certified copy of letter from 11r. A. M. Strom had been.presented to the, City Councib. • Further stated he had written to Pair. Tilton ask- ing for a list of books or publications dealing with Zoning. No reply to date.' NEW BUSIr1233: Secretary brought up the matter of securing typist services at City Hall, due to numerous letters and notices needing attention between meetings. Patterson moved the Secretary and Chair- man confer with the City Council to arrange for such services from office staff at City Hall. Seconded by Briggs. Motion carried. TENTATIVE ," "SAP TRACT NO. 1.006. Patterson presented Tract Hap 1006, being a reversion to acreage. Explained this was a subdiv- ision East of E. Tetty down below the Bluffs. After study of map and explanation thereof by Patterson, Briggs moved that the Commission recommend its approval and that the Secretary be authorized to sign same on behalf of the Planning Commission. . Seconded by 2indlay. Motion carried. Ruling ON E%OFFICIO Chairman brought up the question, what was meant by ex- officio, stating he would like to know for his own information, iust what was their status and whgt was the meanin. of the term. Patterson :coved that Attorney Thompson make a report on this matter at the next meeting. Seconded by Schnitker. Motion carried. Thomason stated that the ex- officio members were entitled to vote in meeting. ADJOU UTI,ENT: The next regular meeting date was set for '.'ednesday, September 29, 1937 upon.motion of Patterson, duly seconded and carried. . Re ectfully submitted Howard W. Seage Secretary NEWPORT CITY PLANNING C0I=33I0N