Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROT.T. CAT.T. VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Hovingh, Lutz, McGuirk, and Chairman Wright <br />Commissioner Barker <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-95-12 was entered adopting Case PUD-93-02-1M, as motioned. <br /> <br />i:. RZ-94-06. Silmature Pronerties <br />Application to amend section 18.96.090 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code (Temporary <br />Subdivision Signs) to create provisions to allow more than two off-site directional signs <br />and more than one on-site temporary subdivision sign for advertising residential <br />subdivisions. <br /> <br />Kerri Watt presented the staff report for Ruby Hill Development Joint Venture's application <br />to amend section 18.96.090 of the Municipal Code to allow more than two off-site <br />directional signs and more than one on-site temporary subdivision signs. When staff advised <br />Ruby Hill that they were allowed only two off-site signs, they applied for a text amendment. <br />After staff reviewed the Code and the alternatives provided by Signature, staff feels it is <br />acceptable to have two off-site signs per product type (two for the custom lots and two for <br />the production homes) and one on-site sign per product type. <br /> <br />Commission Barker inquired of the number of signs allowed for Kottinger Ranch. Ms. Watt <br />advised that the townhomes were built by a different builder, so they were allowed two signs <br />for the townhomes and two signs for the rest of the development. Commissioner Barker then <br />inquired about the policy covering traffic signs that carry the logo of a company. Mr. Swift <br />advised that issue is still under review. Discussion ensued regarding the use of the logo on a <br />traffic directional sign. <br /> <br />Ms. Watt advised Commissioner Barker that there is one Ruby Hill sign on County property <br />on Bernal at Vine. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Hovingh, Ms. Watt noted that the City sign Code does not <br />control signage on County land. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk inquired if two different product type signs could be side-by-side. <br />He is concerned about multiplying the number of signs dotting our major streets. Ms. Watt <br />advised nothing has been put in the Code indicating a distance between signs. She will look <br />at putting in a distance requirement in the Code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz inquired what distinguished different product types. Ms. Watt gave <br />examples of small lot production homes vs. large lot custom homes; single family homes vs. <br />townhouses. <br /> <br />PJanning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />February 8, 1995 <br />