PC 062701 - Laserfiche WebLink

to the aesthetics and placement of the signs, and can make modifications to the approved r proposal if it desires. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Pavan advised that the Moller and Presley developments may have other properties that have access through the development, but are not a part of the subdivision. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT -- Leslie A. Johnson, 1331 N. California 5th Floor, Walnut Creek, CA 94563, advised that she is the attorney representing Ann Sorensen. She reported that the personal agreement was a condition to the submission of the development plan application and it was necessary to submit the signed agreement to meet a submittal deadline. She advised that the terms of the agreement were negotiated very heavily because Ms. Sorensen's relinquishment of her private access was critical to the development. She noted that the City requested this consent in writing prior to submittal of the application. She advised that Ms. Sorensen included all of the issues in the agreement that she felt were important to maintaining the rural atmosphere that she enjoyed. Ms. Johnson referenced language included in the agreement. She noted that the agreement requires that the existing entrance to the Private Drive be left in as natural a state as possible, and, therefore, at the very least it would be appropriate to move the sign back so that it is not at the location where Ms. Sorensen accesses the property. She further noted that this would be possible, but that they do not believe that it is the appropriate decision. Ms. Johnson advised that the issue of the use of personal names in the naming scheme was negotiated extremely hard and Ms. Sorensen was adamant that she would never consent to personal names being used, and therefore, they feel the sign and the sign location is contrary to this agreement. Ms. Johnson stated that they feel this agreement is not a private agreement, in that it was given to the City and the City had full knowledge that Ms. Sorensen had no desire to have this development and felt she was protecting herself by imposing the requirements contained in the agreement. Mr. Lemoine, 4456 Foothill Road, noted that the only deadline related to the agreement related to the project being placed on the City Council agenda before the CAPP Initiative passed. He noted the Lemoine family supports Mardel LLC and the project signs. He advised that they feel the signs are tastefully designed and are somewhat rural in appearance. He reported that the only discussion with Ms. Sullivan regarding the use of personal names was related to the naming of the private road. He noted that in a private meeting with Ms. Sorensen, he told her that the developer was intending to name the project "Lemoine Ranch Estates," and there was no discussion on this issue at that time. Mr. Lemoine commented that with regard to the issue of keeping the area as rural as possible, he feels the gate that Ms. Sorensen is going to install on the East Bay Regional Park property, right beyond the Lemoine property, is at least twice the size of the proposed signs, and, therefore, they do not feel the size of the signs is out of line. Mr. Lemoine reported that Ms. Sorensen's property does not start at Foothill Road, and that she has to travel over the Mardel property, the Lemoine property, and EBRPD property for approximately one mile to get to her property. He stated that they believe that the Mardel .'-- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2001 Page 4