Laserfiche WebLink
Wood: <br /> <br />Hedding: <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />Wood: <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />responsible for all of the perimeter <br />fences? <br /> <br />Yes, they will. <br /> <br />If these are substandard, or of some <br />problem, and the people that are <br />concerned about how these fences <br />look and at what they were promised, <br />there is a circumstance here that, <br />if they do inherit something that <br />looks nice, but it is not <br />structurally sound, they are going <br />to pay for this sooner or later. <br /> <br />That's correct. That was the <br />primary focus on why the homeowners <br />and the developer .... why this came <br />to us was the concern about the <br />cost. <br /> <br />Does staff believe that there is <br />significant increased degradation <br />possibilities in the fence as <br />constructed, as opposed to what the <br />PUD had? <br /> <br />We have not received any negative or <br />any conflict with either fence type, <br />along with the concrete masonry. <br /> <br />Are we looking at an aesthetic <br />problem or a future cost problem? <br /> <br />I believe it's a future cost <br />problem. <br /> <br />Paul (Wood), did you approve, or did <br />anyone from the City of Louisville <br />approve the deviation in the fence <br />from what was originally on the PUD <br />to what appears today? <br /> <br />The fence was permitted under this <br />permit. It was our intent to <br />clarify that there should be <br />compliance with the PUD. <br /> <br />As we sit here today, without this <br />amendment, there's has not been <br />compliance with the PUD? <br /> <br /> <br />