PC 062701 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion ensued regarding the location of subdivision monument signs and the usual /'"' expectations for the placement ofthose signs. With regard to the agreement, Ms. Seto advised that the City only needed proof from the developer that Ms. Sorensen had consented to the PUD application submittal, because her easement is a right in that property. Ms. Seto advised that the agreement provided that proof, but the City does not go forward and enforce all of the terms of that agreement. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Harvey regarding the possibility of Ms. Sorensen developing her property, Mr. Pavan advised that Ms. Sorensen's property is totally surrounded by East Bay Regional Park District property and he believes the Park District may have first right to purchase it. He noted that the City's General Plan shows her property designated as health and public safety. Commissioner Harvey inquired as to whether there is potential for any additional development in this area that would create a desire for additional signs in this same location. Mr. Pavan advised that the potential for development is very low. He advised that with regard to installing additional signs, staff would look to see if there is a means of incorporating the two signs, or would say that these signs were there first and that no additional signs could be located there. r-- Commissioner Roberts commented that Ms. Sorensen's property has been land-locked for 30 years. She further commented that she understands that Ms. Sorensen does not want to have an address with the Lemoine name, but she doesn't see how the signs would be inviting the public to Ms. Sorensen's house, as Ms. Sorensen stated in her letter. Commissioner Roberts noted that the gate will separate Ms. Sorensen's private drive from the Lemoine's private drive. She noted that the precedent for subdivision signs has been set along Foothill Road, and she feels the design of the proposed signs is fine. She advised that she feels the name "Lemoine Ranch Estates" is a contradiction, and it should either be "Lemoine Estates" or "Lemoine Ranch." She noted that she feels moving the signs back to where the houses start will not resolve the problem. Commissioner Harvey advised that if he goes by the private agreement, there are no signs in his mind; if he goes by what the City's legal counsel is saying, there are signs. He noted that the precedent has been set all over the City. He advised that he feels the proposed signs are very appropriate, and that they will be very helpful in locating the homes of people who reside there. Commissioner Arkin asked if staff tries to incorporate provisions of an agreement in the conditions of approval for a PUD. He asked why this issue wasn't addressed at the time the PUD was proposed. Ms. Seto advised that the part of the agreement that was required by the City prior to processing the PUD application was an agreement that all of the property owners consented to an application. Ms. Seto advised that issues such as street names, the relocation of Ms. Sorensen's mailbox, etc. are not included in the PUD conditions of approval, because a lot of those details have to do with the private financial transactions between the parties. Ms. Seto noted that a lot of the accommodations requested by Ms. Sorensen, over which the City has some control, have been included in the PUD conditions. ~ June 27, 2001 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES