Laserfiche WebLink
Further discus=.i on :gas t-:eid a~:.th Mr. Tn~-es about the open spaces <br />and size of Tots. <br />Palpi-r Porriero, ~81~~ Foothill goadz stated he ? ive~ across frocri <br />the proposed project. He agreed with h1r. lanes` statements. He <br />favored bigger .lots Y~ith less open space and pares. <br />Cheri rman !`~~. chel otti stressed that lot size mast be i rr &,eepi ng <br />_~i ti'r the Spec-i f i c Pl err: and that this wi 1 1 be addressed at the <br />~'~~~ stage. <br />Cctrrr-stissioner ~serger asked for Mr. Romero': co::rments ~xbout <br />Foothi 1 1 i-ioad. h'ir . f';orrrero felt that staff would handle that <br />appropr-i ate: ;~ . He ti-:ought traffic does need to be slowed down <br />ar;d CGmmer3ted that orr Fri days i n parti cs.ai err his entryway i s <br />b ~. oc F=:ed . He f e3 t the use e# stop signs :soul d help . <br />marry i°iessa„ ~46Y Fccthi.ll F;oadt supported realignment; he said <br />~~tost accidents happen nea= the ~?dr=rise. He was not tt-~at concerned <br />about ti're size G# the lots. <br />t"ir. Silo{a returned to the podium. He ind:.cated all testir~nr,ny~ <br />wo~,.;ld be taken into consideration. He said they are trying to <br />create a t-;pe cf community that the City can be proud of and <br />::Quid do their best. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />the Commission discussed with Mr. L.ee the pros and cons of <br />real i grament of Foot~ii l l ~:oad. <br />Coil~rT:i .:Si ones Hcyt stated he #el t ti-re old or pr went <br />corr# i gurati orr of Foothill Road was best and i n keeping with ti're <br />rural look. He fa:•ored it:stalling mean~Eering paths. Fie did <br />not li~~e sated entries or the feeling of them. In regard tc <br />i_arad ~init H, he did not ?iE::e the ideer of 4,Gc?C~ :;care #oot <br />homes. He would lik:e to see a :~niG~"e type of a mu3.tiple #am;ly <br />setup r3iti-r open spaces. He had no problem with emer-genc;, <br />access to Foothill h:ncl ? s and ~1oul d 1 i i•:e to see i t being a verb. <br />i nvi ti rrg passthrough - He i..oul d 1 i ke to include ti're adequacy of <br />school capacity as noted in lteirr af,. <br />CGrTrmi ssi oner E~erger supported the ofd alignment of Foothi l ? goad <br />i n keeping with the rural ? ook which :,-oul d provide a parkl i re <br />of#ect to those ho:rres facing it. She suppc+rted the separation <br />of bi €;e and pedestrian paths through the pari•::~ay as r7tuch as <br />possible. She would also support the concept of the stogy: =igr; <br />if that is #cand necessar}• to slo:~i tra##ic. She would encourage <br />the la~'GUt of larger lets, ie, ~C~~~i{.1Cr square foot lots around <br />the perimeter facing the e.iisting homes on Foothill Road. She <br />e::pr essed mi:;ed feelings about gated commune ts'. She thought a t <br />might be appropriate to i-:ave larger lot sizes and eliminate some <br />of ti're open space. Si-'re supported emergency access to the <br />Foothill ;;:tolls F'ar€e and would desire pedestrian access through <br />Page :~ <br />