Laserfiche WebLink
The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> It was then moved by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by Mr. Butler, <br />to adopt Resolution No. 91-176, denying the appeal and upholding <br />the decision of the Design Review Board to deny the two additional <br />tenant names on the existing Rose Pavillion freeway pylon sign. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, and Scribner <br />NOES: Councilmember Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 6c <br />PUD-85-15-2M, Golden Eaqle Farm Joint Venture, application for a <br />ma~or modification to the approved Planned Unit Development, <br />located on the west side of Foothill Road approximately 3100 feet <br />south of the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Foothill Road, to <br />modify the condition of approval which requires that Lots 22 and <br />23, 26, 52-60, and 63-70 be the last lots in the project subdivided <br />and offered for sale. Zoninq for the property is PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) - Low Density Residential District. (SR 91:440) <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing open on the <br />application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Harry McHugh, Project Manager for Golden Eagle Farms, <br />stated that the Planning Commission considered the revisions for <br />the change to the PUD. The staff report is very fair. He would <br />like to see this modification approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Leo Chan, 2363 Heritage Court, San Jose, owner of Lot #20, <br />wished to make two points regarding the reforestation issue. The <br />owners of the lots are the victims, because at present there are no <br />utilities, water or sewer, and the owners have to pay some of the <br />expenses for the reforestation which the developer was supposed to <br />do under the original PUD. In regards to his own lot which was <br />purchased last year, Mr. Chan objects to having this lot placed in <br />the high visibility lots. The precise reason that they bought the <br />lot was because of its invisibility so he is requesting that staff <br />make another determination of the status of his property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift responded that lot 20 is identified in the design <br />guidelines as high visibility. Mr. Chan is correct that if a house <br />was put in just the right spot on that lot behind the trees, it <br />would be less visible than some of the others. The lot cannot be <br />seen from Foothill Road, however it can be seen from 1-680 or from <br />the San Francisco Water Department property. Visibility from <br />Foothill Road was not the criteria. <br /> <br />10-15-91 14 <br /> <br /> <br />