PC 02/08/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Hovingh commented that there should be more on-site signs to direct a person to the different product types. Ms. Watt noted that it is staff's experience that developers have all interested persons coming to an information center (model area). Commissioner Lutz commented that pursuing this logic, the retail sector may want to have more signs in relation to their sales volume. Ms. Watt advised that this Code amendment applies only to residential subdivisions. Mr. Beougher advised that the difference is that these signs are only temporary signs that last as long as construction. Commission Lutz then inquired if the ordinance could be written addressing what other signs may be erected in close proximity in the County. Mr. Beougher advised this is usually covered in the PUD where there is potential to have signs on County property. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Jim McKeehan, Vice President of Signature Properties, 6612 Owen Drive, advised the Commission that their intent is not to litter the City with signs, they just want some equity and need to attract people to the subdivision to be successful. Viewing themselves as similar to Laguna Oaks who has two developers and entitled to four off-site signs, Signature Properties did not want to rely on this technicality and suggested a Code amendment whereby they could have the same equity in the number of signs available to them. Mr. McKeehan talked about the "ladder" directional signs used in Danville, which are dispersed throughout the City where subdivision signs are placed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner McGuirk understands the developers need for signage, but is concerned with the congestion of signs in the City. He proposed to send this application back to staff for further review, such as identifying areas in the City where the signs will have the most impact and setting distance guidelines between signs on County and City property. He cannot support the application the way it is presented. Commissioner Hovingh concurred with Commissioner McGuirk. Chairman Wright does not want this to become a protracted issue and hold up applicants. Commissioner Barker clarified that Signature Properties is currently in violation of the Code. Mr. McKeehan advised that as a point of law, he feels they are within the Code because they have two developers and two product types (just as Laguna Oaks). He wants to clarify this issue so it will no longer be a point of contention. A motion was made by Commissioner McGuirk, seconded by Commissioner Lutz, recommending RZ-94-06, Ruby Hill Development Joint Venture, be continued for further staff review, per noted suggestions. P1annina Commission Minutes Page 13 February 8, 1995