Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF RIVERSIDE <br /> <br /> COUNCILMEMBERS <br /> <br /> Min.tes of Re lar Meeti of the city Council <br /> Date of MeeCt~: October 2, 1990 <br /> ', <br /> Place of MeeCin8: Council Cmber, City Hall <br />.................................. WARDS <br /> Roll Call: ' ' <br /> <br /> ~yor Frizzel announced C~C C~nci~n Clar~ is attendins a codefence In Houston, <br /> Tens, as a representative of c~ Riverside Transit ABency. <br /> <br /> The Invocation ~s Siren ~ the Reverend ~ Theneon, Bethel ~riscian Center. <br /> <br /> The PledBe of Alia,lance ~s Siren to the FlaS- <br /> <br /> MI~S <br /> The Minutes of the MeecinSs of Septemir 24 and 25, 1990, ~re approved as su~cted. <br /> Motion ,,X <br /> Second {X ,, <br /> All Ayes <br /> PMSE~ATION <br /> ~yor Frizzel preMnted a procitation Co ~ Bald~n, Ass{sCant Di=ecto~Operacions, <br /> of the Public Utilities Depa=~ent proclai~nS the vek of Octobe= 7-13, 1990, as Public <br /> Po~r Week in C~ Cit~ of Riverside. <br /> <br /> The C~i= recoBnized the preMnce in the audience of Lou Beerella representinS the <br /> side Cheber of Cserce, Ruth Ro~ll representin8 the Ar~Con C~ber of Cserce, <br /> Zareh Sa=rafian :epresentin8 the La Sierra C~ber of Ca=ca. J. B. Poullard represent- <br /> i~ the ~8nolia Center ~mber of Cse=ce and Ga~ Cordray representin8 the UniversitF <br /> Canyon Crest Chm~r of C~rce. <br /> <br /> CONSE~ <br /> The follodnS itMs, preMntd to the Cit~ Council on the Consent Calendar for considera- <br /> tion, we:e app=oved ~ one motion affi~ t~ actions appropriate co each its. <br /> <br />BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APFEALS AND ZONING AD3USTMENT <br /> <br />ZONING CASE V-3~-901 - BAROLD TAYLOR, JR. - 61~0 MAGNOLIA <br />A c~unlcation was presented from the Board of A~m~=tstrative Appeals and Zontn$ Adjust- <br />ment adv~sin$ that, on September 10, 1990, =he Board, by a vote of ~ ayes to 1 no, ap- <br />proved subject to conditions the request of Harold Taylor, Jr., Zonin$ Case V-3~-901, <br />for the foilowenS variances to remodel two extstinB commercial ~LldinBs havin$ a total <br />of approximately 12,~00 square feet on approximately 1.17 acres at 61~0 Ma$no]zLa Avenue, <br />situated on the southeast side of Ma$nolia Avenue southwesterly of Elizabeth Street, in <br />Zone C-3: (A) to allow parkin8 to encroach up to approximately seven feet into the re- <br />quired ten-foot landscaped setback; and (B) to delete the three-foot-hi$h buffer re- <br />quired =o screen the park~n~ area from property across HaSnolia Avenue; and deterttned <br />that the proposal would not have a si$nificant adverse effect on the envirooment. The <br />Board's approval was upheld 57 the City Council. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION <br /> <br />CASE EPC-72-890 - PROPOSED GRADING PI,~, TRACT 19176, LOT 13 - 1021 TALC~Y TERRACE <br />A c~unicacion was presented from the Enviro~mental Protection Comm/ssion advisinS <br />that, on September lZm 1990, the Commission, 57 a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes, determined <br />that~ althouah a proposed ~radlD8 plan for a single-family residence situaCed at <br />1021 Talcey Terrace Drive (Tract 19176, Lot 13), Eerierally located on ~he north side of <br />Talcey Terrace Drive easterly of Golden Star Avenue, in Zone RC, could have a signill- <br />cant effect on the enviroment~ there will not be a sian~ficant effect in tbjLs case if <br />certain mitlaatfn~ measures are required as part of the conditions of approval of the <br />project, Case ~PC-72-890. The Comm~ssion~s findinS was upheld 57 the City Council. <br /> <br />CASE EPC-23-901 - PROPOSED GRADING FLAN - 2201 ROCKWELL <br />A communication was presented from the Envtroomental Protection Coem/ssion advistnS <br />that, on September 12, 1990, the Commission, 57 a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes, determined <br />chat, althouZh a proposed Eradin8 plan for a stn8le-famtly residence situated ac <br />2201 Rockwell Road, 8erierally located easterly of the southerly terminus of Rockwell <br />Road south of Hawarden Drive, in Zone R-1-130, could have a stZmLftcant effect on the en- <br />vtroment, there w~ll not be a siantficant effect in th~s case if certa/n mltlZatln8 <br />measures are required as part of the conditions of approval of the project, Case <br />EPC-23-901. The Commission's ftndin~ was upheld by che City Council. <br /> <br />~ Motion <br />~ Second <br />;All Ayes <br /> <br />76-121 <br /> <br /> <br />