My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 04/26/1995
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
PC 04/26/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:56:26 PM
Creation date
3/30/2005 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/26/1995
DOCUMENT NO
PC 04/26/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />.d.. 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 />Mr. Iserson presented the staff report for the application to amend section 18.96.090 of the <br />Municipal Code to allow two off-site directional temporary subdivision signs for each <br />housing product type for advertising residential subdivisions. Staff recommends the <br />Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment to the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />This issue was continued by the Planning Commission from February 8, 1995. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson advised that staff went to Danville to view their real estate reader boards. He <br />summarized Danville's restrictions on reader boards, as listed in the staff report. Pictures <br />were distributed of the reader boards. <br /> <br />Staff believes that subdivision developments sold to more than one builder have a distinct <br />advantage over one builder constructing two distinct product types. Staff also prefers that <br />the reader boards be placed on private property. The reader boards are to be removed 30 <br />days after selling the last unit. <br /> <br />The Commissioners asked that the reader boards be definitive as to the product type. Mr. <br />Iserson stated the proposed Code amendment does include specific product type language. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed this amendment at length. Commissioner Hovingh would like <br />Section 6 to include the applicant provides a written consent of the property owner at the <br />time of the application (repeating the language in Section 4c(i)). He would also like the sign <br />to be only as tall as a legal front-yard fence. <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker feels there may be a problem with developers creating an <br />overabundance of product type definitions. She feels staff should have very specific <br />definitions. Mr. Beougher feels this issue can be taken care of when the developer comes in <br />for building applications. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz proposed the signs be conditioned as part of the PUD process. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED <br /> <br />There were no comments. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />April 26, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.