Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Michelotti suggested 1 du/ac on the larger parcel and higher density <br />on the parcel adjacent to the freeway. <br />Mr. Roiph said that some Commissia~ concerns have been anticipated. He <br />hand-delivered a communication to the Commission. <br />Ph111~tyhell, 7812 Foothills Drive, representing Foothill Knolls Homeowners <br />Associ~ton, expressed concern with noise. The lots adJacent to the freeway <br />show be larger, with larbscapMg to allow tor' noise mitigation. large houses on <br />small Mts would not en!-ance the area The widening of Foothill Road was <br />discussed. it was noted that adding 236 I~ouscs would compotxxl problems. Hit, <br />density Is a~ropriate betwee~- the an,oyo and the freeway. <br />Chsir'pw~aon Lhi~rey recommended ~ there be communication between the <br />detreloper si~- the homeowners. <br />Johr1 Mnes, also apeeicMg for frank Brander, noted that the TMi property has been <br />stuA~ed. There has been corrarwntcatton with an attorney for TMI (Sandy Sandoval). <br />The ap~reprlata Aesigr~ation is felt to be urban reserve, eventually to be zoned low <br />density and d~evtio#ted ~ i du/sc. The holding capacity would be 136 units. <br />R-i-4t) is consistent with a PUD. It is appropriate to handle this under a Specific <br />Plan. The arroyo parcel should be accessed only from an Interior bridge. There is <br />no prohlem wi~- the density transfer recommeruled by Commissioner MiCheiottl. <br />There has been Beene discussion of using the small triangular piece as a cemetery. <br />ChaM~per'son Limey strongly stated the opinion that it is disturbing that ~ <br />initiative may be prematurely started based upon rtxnor, prior even to a Specific <br />Plan Preaentation. <br />Mr. Int~es said that tl~e initl~ive was not started based on rumor but rather on <br />reconra~ardwtiens at the previous General Plan Review.. <br />Robert Fit~tr'Idc, 67 Newport Place, Newport ,Beach, president of TMI, would like <br />to correct ~ recor^d to show that TMI has no attorney as referenced by Mr. Innes. <br />The public hear~g was closed. <br />A MOTION WAS MADE BY COhMiSS10NER MICHELOTTI, SECONDED BY C01'1NISSIONER <br />TARVER, THAT Tip NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR CASE RZ-87-5 BE <br />RECOM"~NDED FOR ADOPTION INASMUCH AS PROJECT APPROVALS WOULD HAVE AN <br />INSIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIROPN"IENT. <br />Minutes 10 July 8, 1987 <br />