Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/1940NOVEMBER 27, 1940 THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY PLANNING COr4MISSION met in adjourned regular session Wednesday, November 27, 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: Allen, Findlay, Hopkins, Nelson, Patterson, Seager, Johnson. Commissioners absent: Estus, Williams. City Attorney Thompson attended. CONTINUED SECOND :FARING - ON PROPOSED NEW ZONING ORDINANCE - Chairman called for the reading of communications received in connection with the new zoning ordinance since the last meeting. Secretary read the following communintions: 1 - Letter from the Irvine Co. protesting change in zone on property lying adjacent to Bayside Drive. 2 - Letter from W. S. Hunsaker requesting that the district from the present business district in Newport Beach to 30th St. be zoned R -3 instead of R -2. 3 - Letter from C. H. Reed, owner of Newport Ice and Cold Storage Co. suggesting that the area bounded by Central Ave, the Rhine and Newport Bay between 19th St. and 31st St. be zoned M -1 and requesting particularly that his property (Lots 17 to 24 and Lot 1, Blk 230, Lancaster's Addition) be zoned M -1. 4 - Letter from Lew H. Wallace requesting that his property and property of the Minnie Cornelius Estate in Blk 230, Lancaster's Addition be zoned M -1; also urging the commission's consideration on zoning the entire area from West Central Ave. to the Rhine and Newport Bay between 19th St. and 31st St. to M -1. 5 - Letter from Frank Mareno to the City Council applying for a license to allow the preparation of foods for sale to merchants upon the corner of Adams St. and Ocean Front which was referred to the Planning, Commission by the City Council. Com. Patterson moved that this request be con- sidered along with other matters before the commis- sion at the close of the hearing. Seconded by Com. Allen. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. 5 - Letter from Gregory Gorley of the California Marine Curing and Packing Co. 7 Letter from L. F. Bradbury of the Italian Food Products Co., Inc. 8 - Letter from N. M. Langmoor of the Western Canneries, Inc. These three letters from the cannery companies r-ouested adoption of `?e following substitute para- graph in Section 12, page 31, lines 17 to 28: "If of any time any building in Districts R -1, R -2, 11-3, C -1 and Cpl, which does not conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy, to the extent of more than the assessed value thereof, according to the assessment t?,ereof by the Assessor of the City of Newport Beach, for the fisc <!l year during which destruction occurs, then and without further action by the City Council, the said building and the land on which said building was located or maintained, shall from and after the date of such destruction, be subject to all regulations specified by this ordinance for the district in which such land and building are located. If at any time any building in District M -1, . which does not conform to the regulations for that district, shall be destroyed by fire, ex- plosion, act of God or act of the public enemy, to the extent of more than 75% of its replace- ment value, then and without further action by the City Council, the said building and the land on which said building was located or main- tained, shall. from and after the date of such destruction be subject to all the regulations specified by this ordinance for the district in which such land and buildings are located. If the question shall arise as to whether or not said building has been destroyed to the ex- tent of more than 75% of its replacement value, then the matter shall be left to the City Council for determination and the judgement and determina tion of the City Council shall be final thereon. "" COm. Patterson moved that all communications be filed for further consideration after the public hearing is closed. Seconded. by Com. Hopkins. A Motion carried. Chairman Johnson declared the hearing open for discussion and invited comment and discussion from' the floor on the proposed new zoning ordinance. _7 ?:2r. Wm. A. Kirk, owner of the laundry building on 29th St. east of Central Ave. requested that his property be classified as 11-1. Mr. Lew Wallace said that he owned 5 lots in Elk 230 which are zoned R -3. There are only 9 lots In the block and the R -3 classification of these lots materially depreciates their value since they are valueless as residential property. He urged the commission to re- classify this area as industrial property as it is the logical place for this type of use. He felt that some area should be set aside for industrial use thereby encouraging industries to come in. Regarding the cannery situation, the Western Cannery building was built 25 years ago at a cost of $"25,000. In 25 years the assessed valuation has been reduced to $6,000. It was his opinion that 2/3 > of the residents of Newport 3each were in favor of re- taining the canneries and that some provision should be made to allow them to continue and to rebuild in case of destruction. Mr. Hyer said he was interested in the effect the proposed amendment submitted by the cannery, companies would have on other non - conforming uses. It was his opinion that the problem is being ap- proached fn the wrong way. If the commission wants the canneries, a special zone sh-?uld be created for them, if not, they should remain non - conforming uses with the present restrictions. Yr. Bradbury said the cannery companies are not asking; for anything other than what they have at the present time. Their intention is not to invite ot'.^_er canneries to come in, they are only trying to protect the investment they now have. Cora. Allen moved that the second hearing on the proposed new zoning ordinance be closed. Seconded by Com. Hopkins. T.?otion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. Chairman Johnson announced that the commission was now ready to consider amendments to the pro- posed new zoning ordinance as suggested in the many communications received in connection therewith. ' 'Com. Allen moved that the matter of the change In Section 12 as suggested by the cannery companies be considered first. Seconded by Com. Patterson. ".. ".otion carried. Attorney Thompson advised all the amendments should be hearing held on the ordinance the commission' that prepared and a final as amended. Attorney Thompson explained the proposed amend- ment to Section 12. Considerable discussion followed on the meaning of the terms "replacement valuel,'assessed value', and appraised value'. It was finally determined that the term 'appraised, value' would best serve the purpose of this ordinance. Mr. Gorby of the California Uarine Curing and Packing Co. stated that it is not so much a question of whether they could rebuild; if the plants are wanted here every courtesy should be extended to them to continue operating. They are only asking that in case the building, is damased to 75% they will have the privilege of replacing the roof and walls to house their equipment up to the present size. Com. Hopkins was of the opinion that using the phrase 'replacement value' in this amendment would set aside all non- conforming uses. The purpose of designating non - conforming uses is that at some time they will be terminated. I:ost ordinances provide a certain time that they shall terminate. Whatever term is used is only a yardstick, by which to measure the amount of damage incurred in case of partial destruction. The representatives of the cannery companies, Mr. Gorby, Mr. Largmoor and jar. Bradbury agreed that they did not care what method of determining the extent of loss was used as long, as they would be allowed to rebuild to their present capacity in case of less than 75% destruction. Com. Hopkins moved that the suggested paragraph as submitted by the cannery companies be accepted and incorporated in the ordinance provided the method of determining the extenl'of destruction can be so worded that it will be 75% of the appraised value of the entire structure at the time of destruction. Seconded by Com. Allen. There was some discussion as to determining the appraised value and it was the opinion of the com- mission that this also should be incorporated in the ordinance. Com. Hopkins withdrew his motion with the consent of the second. At the suggestion of Attny. Thompson, the paragraph was worded as follows: "If at any time any building in District M -1, which does not conform to the regulations for that dis' trict, shall be destroyed by fire, explosion, act of God or act of the public enemy, to the extent of more than 750 of its then appraised value as fixed by the General Appraisal Co. of Los Angeles, California, or other equally responsible concern, then and without further action by the City Council, the said building and the land on which said building was located or maintained, shall from and after the date of such destruction be subject to all the regulations specif- ied by this ordinance for the district in which such land and buildings are located. If the question shall arise as to whethei/or not said building has been destroyed to the extent of more than 75% of its then appraised value, then the matter shall be left to the City Council for determination and the judgment and determination of the City Council shall be final thereon." Com. Hopkins moved that this wording be incor- porated in the ordinance. Seconded by Com. Seager. Com. Seager, speaking on the motion, said that • the canneries will not be limited as to the amount they can put into the building in case of destruction up to 750• This paragraph is much more favorable to the canneries than the old ordinance. this com- mission by adopting this paragraph will forever put at rest the feeling that we do not want the canneries; however, planning is not of today, but of the future. This community will develop as a pleasure harbor and residential community and will progress along artistic rather than commercial lines. In answer to the question whether the suggested wording of the paragraph on non - conforming uses in M -1 would inva:lid.ate non - conforming uses in other zones, Attny. Thompson replied, that, in his opinion, It would not. Question called for. Roll call: Ayes: Allen, Findlay, Hopkins, Nelson, Patterson, Seager, Johnson. Noes: None. Motion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. The commission then proceeded to take up other matters of amendment to the proposed new zoning ordinance asreouested in communications received. The requests of Lew H. Cdallace and C. H. Reed for rezoning to E1 -1 of property in Block 230, Lan - caster's Addition were considered. Com. Patterson pointed out that he had so marked the property shown on Sheet No. 8 of the District Maps except the property along Central Ave., which he had left C -2 and C -1. It was the opinion of the Commission that the property facing on Central Ave. should remain C -2 and C -1. Com. Hopkins moved that the zoning suSEested by City Engineer Patterson on Sheet No. 8 of the D stric :;laps as colored in red between 29th St. and the first alley north of 30th St. east of Central Ave, be In- corporated in the ordinance. Seconded by Com.Nelson. =lotion carried and so ordered by the Chairman., Com. Patterson explained that because of the shallow depth of the lots in the district shown on Sheet No. l he had changed the setback of the front` yard to 5 ft. Therefore Com. Patterson moved that the front yard setbacks as shown in red on Sheet No. 1 of the district maps be changed from 10 ft. to 5 ft. Seconded by Com. Findlay. Am "otion carried and so ordered by the Chairman. ADJOURN=NT Com. Patterson moved that the meeting adjourn to Wednesday, December 4, 1940, 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, CitZ Hall. Seconded by Com. Findlay. ;lotion carried, and so ordered by the Chairman. Respectfully submitted, W.SEAGER, Secretary.