HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967-04-27�1�
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
Conference Room, Civic Center
Huntington Beach, California
Thursday, April 27, 1967
SPECIAL MEETING:
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: John Mandrell, Richard
Harlow, Sam Ferguson.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
PLOT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 67-2
Applicant: Armour Development Co.
To permit a plot plan amend-
ment for the purpose of amending "The Criteria
as Guidelines for Approval of a -Precise Plan"
for Area Variance No. 67-8, which prohibits
architectural features from projecting beyond
the property line; to permit eaves to encroach
one (1) foot over the adjoining lot. Located
on the northeast corner of Magnolia Street and
Atlanta Avenue. Legally described as Tentative
Tract No. 6283.
The hearing was opened to the
audience.
Larry Armour and Paul Bruns
explained the request to the Board.
It was the consensus of the
Board that a request of this nature could set
a precedent, therefore it should be referred to
the Planning Commission for hearing and decision.
Board discussion followed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HARLOW
AND SECONDED BY MANDRELL TO CONTINUE THE HEARING
FOR FURTHER HEARING AND DECISION BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AT THEIR MAY 2, 1967 MEETING IN THE
COUNCIL;: CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, AT 6:15 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER
AS POSSIBLE.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
AYES: Mandrell,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Harlow, Ferguson.
It was also recommended by the
Board that the Planning Commission approve the
request for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office
that the encroachment will not cause any legal
problems which would involve the City.
2. The Building Department has no objection to
the encroachment provided the proper legal
provisions are made.
4/27/67.
Page No. 2
Minutes: Board of Zoning Adjustments
Thursday, April 27, 1967.
3. The eaves will add to the aesthetics of the
project.
4. This same situation could be created by pro-
viding standard five (5) ft. side yards and
granting,,by legal areement, exclusive use of
the adjoining property owner's side yard.
(In this case it is by legal terminology only that
a situation similar to the above request can be
created). It should be noted that this type of
arrangement does,not provide the city the
opportunity to review wall materials and design.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Board that
the "0" side yard setback approach is preferrable.
Richard A. Harlow
Secretary
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
.,
Sam Ferguson
Chairman
-2- 4/27/67.