|
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
<br />
<br /> COUNCI LME N
<br />
<br /> ' ' Ma~ 5, 1981 WARDS ',m',Z',3',~',5',~',~',
<br />
<br />~Fai~ounc Avenue would not have a siSnificanc adverse enviro~encal effect, Case
<br />:EPC-33-801. ~e Co~ission findinE was upheld by the City Council.
<br />
<br />{~SE ~C-34-801 - PROPOS~ WID~ING OF ~E~ STMET
<br />~A co~unicaCion was presented fr~ the ~viro~encal Protection C~isslon advisins
<br />~chac, on April 15, 1981, the C~ission, by a vote of 8 ayes co 0 noes, deCemined
<br />~chaC the proposed widening of Myers Street between Prmrose Drive and ~8nolia Avenue
<br />:would noC have a siSnificanc adverse enviro~encal effect, Case ~C-34-801.
<br />~Co~ission findinE was upheld by the City Council.
<br />
<br />~CASE EPC-3~801 - PROPOSED ST~ET L~ROV~S ~ONG PRI~OSE DRIVE
<br />~A co~unicaCion was presented fr~ the Enviro~cal Protection Co~ission advisins
<br />~chac, on April 15, 1981, the Co~ission, by a vote of 8 ayes co 0 noes, dece~ined
<br />~cha: the proposed street improveenOs alons Primrose Drive between Myers and ~arrison
<br />~ C e~s not a
<br /> S re would have siEnifican~ adverse enviro~ental effect, Case EPC-35-801.
<br />,~e Co~ission findinE was upheld by ~he City Council·
<br />
<br />:CASE EPC-36-801 - PROPOS~ CONS~UCTION OF STO~ D~IN ~ONG P~ AVE~E
<br />[A co~ication was prMented fr~ ~he ~viro~ental Pro~ection C~ission advisin~
<br />~ha~, on April 15, 1981, ~he C~ission, by a vo~e of 8 ayes to 0 noes, dete~lned
<br />~tha~ ~he proposed cons~ruc~ion of an l~inch s~o~ drain aloha Park Avenue between
<br />iFour:een~h and Pleasan~ S~ree~s would no~ have a si~nificant adverse enviro~en~al
<br />*effect, Case EPC-36-801. ~e C~ission findins was upheld by the City Council.
<br />
<br />,CASE EPC-37-801 - PROPOSED STREET IMPROVRMENTS ALONG SEDGWICK AVE~E
<br />,A communication was presented from the Environmental Protection Commission advising
<br />that, on April 15, 1981, the Commission, by a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes, determined
<br />that the proposed street improvements along Sed~wick Avenue between Fourteenth Street
<br />and University Avenue would not have a significant adverse environmental effect, Case
<br />EPC-37-801. The Commission finding was upheld by the City Council.
<br />
<br />CASE EPC-42-801 - PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR TRACT 15909/PRD-1-789 - EL CERRITO AND
<br />CENTRAL
<br />A communication was presented from the Environmental Protection Commission advising
<br />that, on April 15, 1981, the Commission, by a vote of 7 ayes to 0 noes and 1 abstention,,
<br />determined that the proposed grading plan for Tract 15909/PRD-1-789. the proposal
<br />Co develop approximately 12 acres of land located on the northwesterly corner of E1
<br />Cerrito Drive and Central Avenue with 178 multiple-family dwelling units would not
<br />have a significant adverse environmental effect providing certain mitigating measures
<br />are met, Case EPC-42-801. The Commission finding was upheld by the City Council.
<br />
<br />BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
<br />
<br /> ZONING CASE V-112-790 (REVISED) - W. W. SMITH, ET AL. - 3203 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
<br />;A communication was presented from the Board of Zoning A~Justment advising that, on
<br />;April 20, 1981, the Board, by a vote of 8 ayes to 0 noes, approved subject to condi-
<br />,tions the request of W. W. Smith, et el., Zoning Case V-112-790 (Revised), for a minor
<br />,variance to construct a two-story single-family dwelling approximately 22~ feet in
<br />iheight where a maximum of 20 feet and one story is permitted and which encroaches up
<br />,to approximateiv 15 feet into the required 25-foot side yard setback at 3203 Gibraltar
<br />,
<br />,Drive, situated at the northeasterly terminus of Gibraltar Drive easterly of Pachappa
<br />Drive, in Zone RC. It was determined that the matter would not be set for public
<br />,hearing by the City Council.
<br />
<br />ZONING CASE V-156-801 - J. BAUMAN - 1953 AND 1967 SPRUCE STREET
<br />A communication was presented from the Board of Zoning Adjustment advising ~hat, on
<br />April 6, 1981, the Board, by a vote of 7 ayes to 0 noes, approved subject to condi-
<br />tions the request of J. Bauman, Zoning Case V-156-801, for a variance (1) to locate an
<br />automobile impound yard within approximately 200 feet of a residential!y-zoned property
<br />where a separation of 300 fee~ is required; (2) to provide a 6-foot-high chain link
<br />~fence with opaque screening to enclose an automobile impound yard where a 6-foot-high
<br />chain link fence wi~h redwood or simulated redwood slats and landscaped screening is
<br />~required; (3) to provide a portion of the site with an unimproved and untreated surface
<br />[area where slate, slag or alternate dust, weed and mud retardant material is required;
<br />
<br />66-474
<br />
<br />
<br />
|