Laserfiche WebLink
Wood: <br /> <br />That wasn't addressed in 1990, as an <br />anticipated need. It was forwarded <br />by the applicant in anticipation of <br />comments received by Public Service <br />having hardship in gaining access to <br />the rear yards and requesting common <br />access gates. The Planning <br />Commission felt that it was not <br />demonstrated that the access would <br />be improved substantially by the <br />provision of gates. That has <br />subsequently been withdrawn as a <br />part of the request before you <br />tonight. The applicant has <br />withdrawn the rear entry access <br />gates from the request. <br /> <br />Lathrop: <br /> <br />What fencing does exist along the <br />Golf Course? <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />There is a 6 ft. stucco with 17 in. <br />of wrought iron fence. Essentially, <br />what was built on there is very <br />similar to the site design, it was <br />fence Type B, which was a 4 ft. <br />stucco with a 17 in. wrought iron on <br />top of that. That is not on a <br />footing. It's a wood substructure. <br /> <br />Hornbostel: <br /> <br />Whose responsibility are all <br />these fences? <br /> <br />of <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />It was my understanding that the <br />perimeter fencing would be the <br />responsibility of the developer, <br />Club Homes'Development Corporation. <br />The interior side yards are <br />installed by the homeowners. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Do the existing fences meet the PUD <br />requirements already existing? <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />No, they don't. With regard to the <br />design they do, but not with regard <br />to the construction method being on <br />a concrete masonry substructure with <br />a footing. <br /> <br />Hedding: <br /> <br />When the developer is finished with <br />this project and he turns it over, I <br />assume there's a homeowner's <br />association, won't they indeed be <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />