PC 062701 - Laserfiche WebLink

development is consistent with the other developments in the Foothill Road area and they are ,r- requesting the Planning Commission deny the appeal. Sean Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, noted the Lemoine family has kept Ms. Sorensen "in-the- loop" since the beginning of the project planning process. He noted that her only concern has been her access. He reported that Ms. Sorensen and her attorney asked for $500,000 to move the agreement forward in order to meet the deadline related to the CAPP Initiative. He advised that he thinks Ms. Sorensen may be holding up the project in attempt to ask for more money. He stated that Ms. Sorensen wants the road left in a rural state, but she wants to install a monstrous gate. Phil Rowe, represented Mardel LLC. He noted that their preference would be to try to get along with everybody and try to find solutions to fit everybody's' needs. He commented on his recollection with regard to the street naming process, noting that during this process the Lemoines contacted Mardel LLC and requested that the entry signs have their name on them if they couldn't get the streets named after them. Mr. Rowe reported that Mardel LLC did not feel this was inconsistent with the agreement, and the agreement was about the street names, so they agreed with the Lemoines to endeavor to do so. He advised that his preference would be to find a common ground where everyone could be happy. r- In response to an inquiry about the possibility of moving the signs back to where the houses start, Mr. Rowe stated that they have an agreement with the Lemoines to install the signs, and that he feels that the issue regarding the location of the signs needs to be addressed between the Lemoines and Ms. Sorensen. Mr. Rowe reported that subsequent to the agreement, Mardel LLC agreed with the Lemoines to name the subdivision "Lemoine Ranch Estates." Ms. Johnson advised that there has never been any attempt to obtain additional funds of any type. She commented that the issue of the name was the single most difficult item to negotiate and she is surprised that having dealt with this issue it could be determined that by putting the name on the monument sign would be better than putting it on the street sign. Ann Sorensen, 4432 Foothill Road, commented that she is disappointed in what this matter has created between her neighbors and herself. She noted that the agreement specifically stated that no personal names would be used on the access route to the Sorensen property. She advised that she would like to see, at the least, the signs moved back. She noted that the location of the signs was not on the tentative map. She stated that she never asked for the kind of money stated by the earlier speaker. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Ms. Seto commented on California Law as it relates to contracts, and cautioned the Planning Commission regarding interpreting the language of the agreement. Vice Chairperson Mass stated that the Planning Commission is basically here to decide if the sign is appropriate as to the size, design, and location, and not to interpret the language of the contract. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2001 Page 5