|
0
<br />LO
<br />0
<br />00
<br />Q
<br />mental to his plans, and the area. Mr. Aguilera said the Conutission subsequent)
<br />denied the project, on a 3-2 vote, as outlined in Planning Ccmission Resolution 3 5
<br />No. 2065.
<br />Mr. Aguilera concluded, in accordance with the report, Council may adopt a resolution
<br />denying or approving the Appeal of Ludwig Engineering.
<br />Mayor Huntoon asked if anyone in the audience desired to speak on this
<br />matter.
<br />Mr. Edward Hill, stated they have owned this property since 1965 and he
<br />has been a local resident for many years. Mr. Hill advised in 1979
<br />they had received approval of a mobile home park, however, at that time
<br />the project did not move forward. Mr. Hill said the topography of this
<br />site is very good for a mobile home park, he felt there is an overbuild
<br />ing in the apartment industry, and a mobile home park is the highest
<br />and best use for the property.
<br />Mr. Philip F. Bettencourt, Vice President of Gfeller Development Com-
<br />pany, 242 West Main Street, Tustin, spoke in favor of the project, say-
<br />ing as long as the City requires the same standards of this project as
<br />they.require of their projects, he has no objections, and he felt there
<br />would be no diminishing of property values.
<br />Mr. Wilford Sklar, Attorney, 5904 Copperfield Avenue, Riverside, said
<br />he owns property on the southeast corner of Pepper and San Bernardino
<br />Avenues, and he feels this development would be detrimental to any
<br />future proposal he may have for his site. Mr. Sklar stated he is aware,
<br />from the Planning Commission hearing, that Gfeller Development Company
<br />is in favor of this project as they will be sharing a retention basin
<br />with the applicants. Mr. Sklar stated this retention basin will be
<br />adjacent to his property, it will create a hazard for small children,
<br />and attract mosquitos from the standing water. Mr. Sklar said he was
<br />opposed to the proposed development and felt the City Council should
<br />take a good, close look at the project.
<br />Also speaking in favor of the proposed development were:
<br />Mr. Steve Ludwig, Ludwig Engineering, San Bernardino.
<br />Mr. Allen B. Gresham, Attorney, San Bernardino.
<br />Councilwoman Garcia asked would the density effect the surrounding
<br />properties.
<br />Mr. Aguilera answered no, it would not.
<br />Councilwoman Garcia asked if any drainage problem would be properly
<br />handled.
<br />Mr. Aguilera answered yes, this was designated in the conditions as
<br />outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2065.
<br />Councilman Rios asked if the property in question lends itself to
<br />mobile home park development.
<br />Mr. Aguilera answered in Staff's opinion it does. Mr. Aguiler stated
<br />there is no physical reason why the development should not be apart-
<br />ments or a mobile home park, and, after reviewing the matter, Staff
<br />recommended approval with the requirement of several conditions. Mr.
<br />Aguilera said Staff agrees with a mobile home park use of this prop-
<br />ell-ty. .
<br />After additional discussion, moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded
<br />by Councilman Rios, the public hearing was terminated. Unanimous vote.
<br />City Attorney Edwards explained that Resolution No. 4698 had attachment
<br />as "Alternative A", denying the appeal, and "Alternative B", approving
<br />the appeal.
<br />Moved by Councilman Rios, seconded by Councilwoman Garcia, approving
<br />Resolution No. 4698, and Alternative B, granting the Appeal and approv-
<br />ing the Conditional Use Permit application, C-9-85. Upon Roll Call,
<br />the Vote was:
<br />"y .. .. -! •' :1, '. .�"�i ._r+•......I r , . � C f . n1 Yli .L [ ♦ ,. C ' ,y .... ' � _ at � � °{ � a{f•r. .m.
<br />JAN 7 1986
<br />
|