PC 042606 - Laserfiche WebLink

of that stretch. He believed the speeds should be addressed and brought into line with the surrounding streets at a maximum of 35-40 mph. He was concerned about the noise that could be generated by the traffic. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Grubstick noted that he would share his notes with the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Director. The Traffic Committee meets on the first Thursday of the month, and it was aware of the difficulties of Foothill Road. Chairperson Arkin addressed the discussion points: Does the Planning Commission conceptually support changing the Austin property's land use designation? The Commissioners concurred that they did. Commissioner Fox agreed with the speakers who wanted it to be dedicated with the condition of open space, not to do overflow pazking for the pazk or to have structures and picnic tables. She also wanted grazing activities to be allowed. Commissioner Roberts agreed that the open space should be preserved in perpetuity with a trust. 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the overall site plan? The Commissioners concurred that they were comfortable with the site plan. Commissioner Peazce inquired why the other berm was eliminated. Mr. Hirst replied that as they worked with the second berm, they did not believe it was a good idea after all and that the home neaz it did not want to be shielded and lose the view. Does the Planning Commission preliminarily support the proposed project's conformance to the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlap District? The Commission concurred in its support. 4. What information will the Planning Commission wish to see to assist its decision on the question? This question was not addressed. 5. The Planning Commission may wish to comment on possible viewpoints for the analysis. Commissioner Peazce would like to see views from Foothill Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Apri126, 2006 Page 19 of 22