Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Commissioner Mahem questioned if the security gate was moved <br />what would stop the residents from taking their vehicles up the <br />responded by saying that Moller property owners have the right to <br /> <br /> <br />proposed by Dr. Glenn, <br />s road. Dr. Glenn <br />vel on that road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright inquired if the security gate was moved to B ourt access road, did <br />that mean Dr. Glenn would still keep his easement or was that in li u of keeping his <br />easement. Dr. Glenn stated that he resents "having to drive around the block" coming and <br />going to his property. Dr. Glenn would like the Commission to en urage the Moller's to <br />move the easement to the "relocated easement" location thereby e1i . ting blind spots in the <br />current easement. <br /> <br />Dr. Mannie Joel, 5470 Foothill Road, stated that he is a neighbor 0 the Moller property and <br />is not opposed to the development. However, he has expressed hi concerns via letter to the <br />Commission. He indicated that he believes having a signaled inter tion for his access <br />would be an improvement for access onto Foothill Road. Dr. Joel tated that he is <br />concerned about the existing easement because of its narrow width. There are serious blind <br />spots on this road, and there have been two accidents and many n -misses. Any increase <br />in use by the potential new residents in the development will only a d to the safety hazards <br />already existing on the access road. <br /> <br /> <br />In response to a question by Commissioner Michelotti, Dr. Joel indi <br />were caused by changes in road elevation and could be easily remov <br /> <br />Answering a question by Chairman McGuirk regarding the number f gates, Dr. Joel <br />indicated that as proposed, there would be four gates to his property <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch inquired if Dr. Joel and residents thought they ad some responsibility <br />in improving the road. Dr. Joel indicated that all the property owne s haven't been able to <br />agree on improving the road. <br /> <br />Frank Lehne, 5466 Foothill Road, commented that the road has a ge amount of traffIc, <br />and more traffic will make it even more dangerous. Mr. Lehne sta that he is in favor of <br />the project and of using the new signalized intersection, and would' the access road <br />straightened out. Mr. Lehne believes the Planning Commission sho d mandate that <br />something be done with the road. One security gate at the top woul be sufficient in his <br />opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald indicated that Dr. Glenn is correct in that only rece tly had the easement <br />been widened to 20 feet to accommodate a water line. At that time, 0 one indicated they <br />would expect the applicants to improve that road. However, Boulev d Development has <br />offered the neighbors $40,000 which they could use to improve their road. He stated that the <br />applicant feels it is unrelated to this project because it is beyond the urity gate. He noted <br />that a gate at the property line should be a second gate to keep tres sing to a minimum in <br />the conservation area. The second gate would be used to seal off th people who would be <br />using the public trails, the fIrst gate would be stopping all vehicles. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />