SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Janice Cain, 2033 Palmer Drive, noted that she was one of the original owners on Palmer Drive and added that her home elevations allowed them full view of the field from the kitchen window. She noted that view would disappear with the development. She wished to correct her statement on Exhibit D; she did not say the homes were "appealing," but rather that they were "appalling." She believed they were too large and opulent for the neighborhood. She took issue with the statement on page 4 stating that the last 30 minutes were spent giving kudos to Ponderosa Homes; she remembered some speakers stating that the representatives were very good to work with, and she agreed. But she did not believe that went on for 30 minutes. She noted that with respect to the Cameron A venue traffic issue, she saw many parents who were not from Palmer Drive driving their children to school using the Cameron Avenue access. She noted that the Mohr School traffic was horrendous. She did not want Mr. Ketell's home to be negatively impacted by a sidewalk, but would like some kind of safe passage in that area. She complimented the Ponderosa representatives on being easy to work with and added that they had been very accommodating to her and her neighbors. Mark Tucker, 1844 Martin A venue, wished to compliment Ponderosa on its outreach to the neighbors and added that its representatives did not pit the neighbors against one another. He believed the project had a logical layout and that the homes were fine. He believed the sidewalk was a valid concern and added that the speed of traffic in the neighborhood was a major concern. He did not want to lose the rural appeal ofthe neighborhood, especially with traffic-calming devices. Kelly Cousins, Cameron Avenue, distributed handouts to the Commissioners describing several traffic options that she had developed. She believed that Cameron Avenue received the bulk of the traffic disruption and believed that Cameron A venue should have limited parking. Nancy Krakauer, 1969 Palmer Drive, believed a sidewalk along Cameron A venue would promote greater safety and did have sympathy for the neighbors who would be affected. Jed Sussman, Cameron Avenue, was not in attendance to speak. Terry & Debbie Leuthauser, 3623 Cameron Avenue, noted that their property was located directly east of the proposed development. Mr. Leuthauser agreed with Mr. Ketell's comments and the research he did. He noted they had moved from a rural area of Saratoga and hoped to maintain that character at this home. He did not want a sidewalk on his property or in the neighborhood. Ms. Leuthauser agreed with most ofthe neighbors' concerns, especially with respect to traffic, noise, rodent control, dust and dirt. Their main concern was the sidewalk and that the opening of Mohr School had greatly increased the traffic in the neighborhood. Hans Wiest, 3744 Trenery Drive, noted that Ponderosa had been an excellent company to deal with and had been very responsive to the neighbors' concerns. He noted that Trenery Drive was a private road and that the City had turned down taking it as a public road years ago. He believed the current plan made the most sense, even though all the neighbors could not be pleased. He did not believe the width of the sidewalk was as much of an issue as the fact that it was there in the first place. He suggested that a sidewalk sufficient for safety use be built without being imposing. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, March 29, 2006 Page 3 of6