05-28-1991 CC MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CITY OF RIVERSIDE COUNCI LMEMBERS ,-- Time of .esting:P'"' , .............................................. Roll Call: Present }XlX~XlX}XsX~X~ CLOSED SESSIONS The M~yor announced that the City Council ~ould recess to closed sessions Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) in that there fs a significant exposure to litiga- tion, and pursuant to Goverr~ent Code Section 54956.9(c) wherein the City Council has de- cided or is decidin~ whether to initiate litigation. The Mayor and Members of the City Council recessed to the Conference Room adjoining the Council Chamber. RECESS At 2:40 p.m., following completion of the closed sessions, the City Council recessed and reconvened at 3 p.m. with all Members present. PUBLIC HEARING BEPORE THE CITY COUNCIL AT 3 P.M. FURTHER HEARING - ZONING CASE V-143-901 - 2424 KNOB HILL - APPEAL DENIED 3 P.M.--Further hearin~ was called on the appeal of David Macher, Zoning Case V-143-901, relative to the decision of the Board of Administrative Appeals and Zonin~ Adjustment re- gardin~ his request for the follovir~ variances to construct a single-family residence at 2424 Knob Hill Drive, situated on the northerly side of Knob Hill Drive easterly of Sunrise Place, in Zone R-1-125: (A) to encroach up to 15 feet into the required rear yard setback; (B) to encroach up to 12 feet into the required 15-foot side yard set- back; (C) to cover approximately 37 percent of the lot area where a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent is permitted; and (D) to permit a three-story, 35-foot-hfgh residence where a two-story, maximum 35-foot-high structure is permitted, havin~ been continued from May 14, 1991, to allow Councilman Buster tim to view the property. A Supplemental Report dated May 28, 1991, was presented from the Planning Department advising that since the initial City Council review of this project, the applicant has met with staff -J~to clarify issues that arose during the public hearing process as weI1 as to discuss pos- e sible revisions to the plan. Subsequently, a revised plan has been submitted, as at- s tached to the Report, which would require the following variances: (A) to allow the pro- posed dwellings to encroach up to 15 feet into the required 30-foot rear yard setback; s s (B) to allow the proposed dwelling to encroach up to seven feet into the required 15- foot side yard setback; (C) to alloy an approximately 33.5 percent lot coverage where a maximtun of 30 percent is permitted; and (D) to allow a portion of the dwelling to contain three stories where a maximum of two stories with a maximum overall height of 35 feet is permitted. The Report further stated that the Planning Department believes that findings can be made to support Variances (A) and (D); however, staff feels that the dwelling can be easily modified to maintain the required side yard setback and lot coverage require- ment, which would lessen the perceived mass of the dwelling and help achieve a more open appearance that is characteristic of this neighborhood. Therefore, the Planning Depart- ment recommends that Variances (A) and (D) be approved and that Variances (B) and (C) be denied, as recommended by the Board of Administrative Appeals and Zoning Adjustment, sub- Ject to the Board's approved conditions. The Planning Director answered questions from the City Council. Mr. Tom La Cave spoke regarding the appeal. Mr. John Paullin, adja- cent property owner, spoke in opposition to the variances. One written communication was presented and considered. Following discussion, the hearing was officially closed. The appeal was denied, and the City Council upheld the action of the Board of Adminis- trative Appeals and Zoning Adjustment in denying Variances (B) and (C) and approving Variances (A) and (D) subject to the approved conditions; determined that approval of Variances (A) and (D) would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and adopted the staff report as findings. Further, the City Council added the following two conditions: (1) The soils report shall identify the program needed to mitigate ero- sion and/or grading problems to adjoining properties if not already included by this re- Motion :X: port; and (2) The hours of operation when using the high ram technique of excavating Second shall be limited to normal business hours. All Ayes CASE EPC-66-901 - PROPOSED GRADING PLAN - KNOB HILL 14ESTERLY OF CENTRAL Further consideration wns given the communication from the Environmental Protection Com- mission advising that, on April 10, 1991, the Commission, by a vote of 6 ayes to 0 noes s and 1 abstention, determined that, although the proposed grading plan for a single-family Aresidence on an approximately 9,100-sqoare-foot lot, generally situated on the north side f Knob Hill Drive westerly of Central Avenue, in Zone R-1-125, could have a significant affect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case if certain i s mitigating measures are agreed to by the applicant and are required as part of the condi- s tions of approval of the project; and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted, 76-445