Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1940DECEMBER 18, 1940 THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION met in regular session Wednesday, December 18, 1940, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall; Chairman Johnson presiding. Meeting called to order by the Chairman. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Estus, Hopkins, Nelson, Patterson, Sea.ger, Williams, Johnson. Commissioners absent: Allen, Findlay. City Attorney Thompson attended. MINUTES Chairman called for consideration of the min - utes of meetings held November 20, November 27, and December 4, 1940. Com. Patterson moved that the minutes of the meeting held Nov. 20th be approved as written. Seconded by Com. Estus. Motion carried. Com. Williams moved that the minutes of the meeting held Nov. 27th be approved as written. Seconded by Com. Nelson. notion carried. Com. Hopkins moved that the minutes of the meeting held Dec. 4th be approved as written. Seconded by Con. Nelson. Motion carried. CO MUNICATIONS Secretary read the following communications: -1- Letters of protest to reduction of the 10 ft. setback on the south side of Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar as requested by Properties, Inc. from the following: Hamasi Corp; Henry G. & Elizabeth H. Bieler; 0. A. Smith; Ruby Stenvenson; Virginia Reibold; S. A. Stowell; Herbert F. Brown; Mrs. W. A. Johnstone; Mrs. Helen Weber. Also a petition of protest signed by H. F. Allen, D. H. Harrison; Myrta E. Cook; Pars. Fred L. Somers and Tars. Susan Rutherford. -2- Letter from Mr. G. C. Bailey owner of NWcorner of State Highway and San Bernardino requesting that this property known as Lot F, Tract 919 be zoned so as to allow a wholesale vegetable business. Com. Patterson moved that these letters be laid on the table for later consideration. • Seconded by Com. Estus. Motion carried. HEARING ON REQUEST OF PROPERTIES. INC. for elimina- tion of 10 ft. setback on south side of Ocean Ave. Corona del Mar: • Since there were a number of persons present who wished to be heard on this matter, Chairman Johnson declared the meeting open for discussion at this time. Mr. Andrews, representing Properties, Inc., remarked that no lawful reasons were given in the letters of protest for objecting to the 10 ft. setback. Since their property line is below the bluff, if they are compelled to set back 10 ft. the bluff lots will have no value whatever. This amounts to confisication of the property. It was his opinion that eliminating the 10 ft. setback will not obstruct the view of the lots on the north side of the Blvd. As a large property owner and tax payer he felt the commission should carefu consider the request of Properties, Inc. Mr. Fraik Andrews of the Hamasi Corp. expressed their objection to eliminating the 10 ft. setback. They are also large tax payers and he urged the commission to protect the value of this property by retaining the setback. Mr. Harris said that if they are required to maintain a 10 ft. setback it will necessitate putting in ramps to each lot which they will do. If a lot is taxable it should be useable. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison, owners ofthe corner or Narcissus and Ocean Blvd. expressed the hope that the commission would retain the 10 ft. set- back. They built there with the assurance, after careful investigation, that their view would not be obstructed. Mr. Fletcher, owner on Orchid Ave. sugested that the Properties, Inc. knew the lay of this land when they bought the property. He urged that the provisions of the old ordinance be kept in force. Com. Patterson stated that this property was reverted to acreage in 1938 and resubdivided. At . • that time the Company stated the zones in which they wished the property placed. Com. Hopkins said he did not see how they arrive at the conclusion that the property is being confisiea.ted, since the new ordinance is same as the old one as regards the situation. Com. Patterson explained that the setback as shown on the district maps is 10 ft. The new ordinance provides that an accessory building may be 2 stories in height and that a garage may be built to the property line but that a main building must set back 10 ft. Attny. Thompson suggested that, if the terms of the old ordinance are retained in this proposed ordinance there will be no complaints on either side. They are objecting to changing the terms of the old ordinance. These people purchased their property under the old ordinance and the pro- tection of substantial property rights is important. There was general discussion on which street would be considered the front of these lots, since it depends entirely on which street is considered the front what can be done on these lots. Com. Hopkins moved that the hearing on this matter be concluded. Seconded by Com. Seager. Motion carried. REQUEST OF M RGUERITE MACCULLOCH for rezoning of Lot 15, Blk 26, Balboa Eastside Addition to R -2. In connection with this matter, Com. Hopkins wished to make a statement and said: The Commission will recall that recently Miss MaeCulloch applied in regular form for a rezoning of Lot 15, Blk 26, Ea.stside Addition to the Balboa Tract, from its present classification of R -1 to the R -2 classification. It will also be recalled that the routine legal procedure was followed throw the first hearing before the commission and up to the time of the second and final hearing. When the second hearing was called, the Secretary of the commission announced that the applicant had notified him orally, before witnesses, that It was her desire to withdraw her application. The Commission granted her request and second hearing was not completed. Mr. Norman Nourse, who owns Lot 14-which is • adjacent to Lot 15 on the north side, was present at the second hearineg and was prepared to present the neighborhood's objections to the rezoning, but was unable to do so because the second hearing was discontinued. It would seem to me that if the commission should now acceed to the request of Miss MacCulloch that it would be proceeding to accomplish a re- • zoning in an informal manner and contrary to the intent of the existing ordinance which requires that the surrounding neighborhood be notified by advertisement and postings clearly and fully stat- ing just what is to be considered so that if the property owners wish to make objections that they can do so with full and complete knowledge of the movement on foot. This particular rezoning move has not been legally published and the public is not advised. Because I am a commissioner, I had knowledge as an individual of the proceedings and took it upon myself to look up Mr. Nourse to see if he could come a second time and present the views of the neighborhood of which the commission has had as yet no information. I have to report that Pr. Nourse is on his way home from the east and is not available. Had he been here, he would have exhibited before the commission a petition which I have in my hand and which states in part - (reading from petition) "The reasons for our protest against such re- zoning are as follows: • (1) The granting of such application will con- stitute "spot zoning ". That "spot zoning" is actually the granting of special privileges and rights to one person to the detriment of persons owning property adjacent to the spot zone, and is not in conformity with good city planning. (2) That there are no special circumstances or conditions applicable to said Lot 15 which would warrant or reouire any such spot zone. (3) That said spot zone or change of zone is not necessary to the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights; that if it is claimed by the applicant that certain buildings upon said property are not suitable for use in R -1 district, then it is called to the attention of the 'Council and the Planning Commission that such buildings have been constructed contrary to law and against the provisions of this ordinance, all of which was well known to the applicant prior to and at the time of construction of said buildings, but said applicant notwithstanding such notice, persisted in violation of law, and without lawful permission so to do to construct said buildings. (4) That the granting of such application w111- materially affect the public welfare and be detri- mental and injurious to property and improvements PP belonging to the undersigned, and to the value thereof, in that said neighborhood is now sub- stantially improved with fine single - family • residences, constructed in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 440." 7 This states briefly the objections and opposi- tion of the neighborhood to the rezoning of Lot 15, from R -1 to R -2. This opposition constitutes 80% of the affected neighborhood which the existing ordinance recognizes as all that property within 300 ft. every way from the petitioning property. This petition is acknow- ledged and is regular, having been drawn, signed and acknowledged as the ordinance requires. Be- cause it was prepared to be presented at the dis- continued hearing to which I have referred, it is not now offered to the commission for filing, but only as evidence as to what the neighborhood has previously (and that recently) thought of the re- zoning of this lot 15 from R -1 to R -2 and this petition should have sufficient weight before the commission to support me in my suggestion that, if the commission wishes to seriously consider the rezoning, that it proceed formally so that the present wishes of the neighborhood may be ascertain ed through hearings called for that specific purpose I therefore, as representative of the affected neighborhood, request that the commission deny the request of Miss MacCulloch and advise her that if she wishes to have the commission consider her desires further that she should proceed before the commission following the steps required by the existing ordinance so that all parties may be treated fairly, that all may be put on notice legally and that all may have time in which to prepare and marshall their opinions., In closing I wish to state that I shall not vote upon the resolution which may be placed before the com- mission. Com. Patterson. moved that the reattest of Marguerite MacCulloch for rezoning of Lot 15, Blk 26, Balboa Eastside Addition from R -1 to R -2 be denied. Seconded by Com. "Williams. is Com. carried. Com. Hopkins did not vote. LETTER OF FRANK MARANO requesting license to prepare cooked foods for sale, referred to this Body by the City Council. F""-- V After some discussion of the zoning in this district it was not deemed advisable to extend the business zone in this area. Com. Estus moved that this letter be referred back to the City Council with a communication stating that the Planning Commission has no juris- diction over this matter. Seconded by Com. Patterson. Motion carried. REQUEST OF G. C. BAILEY for rezoning of Lot F, Tract 919. Com. Hopkins was of the opinion that the zones should be graduated in this area from R -1 on the Heights to C -2 on the Highway. The section in - question would be ideal for small business that would serve the motor courts in this vicinity and this would be good planning. Com. Estus moved that the area west of San Bernardino and 260 ft. north - easterly of the State Highway be zoned 0-2 and that the Id -1 district located east of Newport Blvd. and northerly of the State Highway be extended 250 ft. to the east. Seconded by Com. Patterson. Motion carried. OTHER CHANGES IN PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE Com. Hopkins moved that paragraph 8 (b)' page 25 be amended to read "a private garage not more than one story in height above the street grade may be built to the street and side lines ". Seconded by Com. Patterson. Motion carried. Com. Patterson read a letter he had received from tr. L. Deming Tilton in regard to the proposed new ordinance suggesting certain minor changes in wording as follows: -1- Page 1, Section 2. Have the first sentence read asfollows: "For the purpose of this ordinance certain words are defined as follows:" This change is desirable because it is already stated in Sectim 22, page 39 that this ordinance shall be known as the Zoning Ordinance of 1940. Com. Patterson moved that the wording be so changed. Seconded by Com. Seager. Motion carried. f -2 Page 14, line 4, Substitute the word "record" for the word "shown". Com. Estus moved • changed. Seconded by Com. Motion carried. t! that the wording be so Patterson. -3 Page 29, subhead "(a) ". Change the subhead to read "(a) That there are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the property referred to in the application which do not apply to pro- perty in the neiyhborhood." Com. Patterson moved that these words be added.' Seconded by Com. Estus. ?Motion carried. -4- Change the subhead "(b)" adding the words underscored so that it would read as follows: "(b) That strict enforcement of the regulation or Practical difficulties the granting, etc. Com. Hopkins moved that this change be made. Seconded by Com. Williams. Motion carried. -5- Page 30, line 17 or 18, change the word "objections" to "object ". Com. Patterson moved that this correction be made. Seconded by Com. Seager. Motion carried. ACTION ON REQUEST OF PROPERTIES, INC. Com. Hopkins moved that the setback on the south - easterly side of Ocean Blvd. be retained as shown on the district maps # 17, 18, and 19. Seconded by Com. Williams. Com. Hopkins called for a roll call vote. Roll Call: Ayes: Estus, Hopkins, Nelson, Patterson, Seager, Williams, Johnson. Noes: None. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. There was some discussion as to whether a final hearing should be held on the proposed ordinance' as amended before sending it to the City Council for action. I0 1-0 I Attorney Thompson advised the commission that the City Council will hold a public hearing on the final draft of the ordinance and therefore it would not be necessary for the Planning Commis- sion to hold another hearing. Com. Estus moved the adoption of Resolution No. 180 referring the proposed zoning ordinance to replace Ordinance 440 to the City Council with the recommendation that same be approved and enacted. Seconded by Com. Hopkins. Roll Call Ayes: Estus, Hopkins, Nelson, Patterson, Seager, Williams, Johnson. Noes: None. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. Com. Hopkins moved that the Chairman take up with the City Council the matter of an informal joint meeting with the Planning Commission at a time that will suit members of both Bodies to discuss the proposed new zoning ordinance. Seconded by Com. Estus. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Com. `fi.11iams, seconded by Com. Nelson and carried the meeting adjourned. Re ectfully submitted, HOWARD W. SEA y Secre Y. I