Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 5 <br />PUD-60, Christopher Andrews/Darrell Scherbarth <br />Application for Planned Unit Development to demolish an existing 2,125-square-foot home <br />and to subdivide the parcel into three lots to construct three custom homes. The property <br />is located at 2500 Vineyard Avenue, within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan <br />Area, and is zoned PUD-LDR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Low llensity Residential/ <br />Open Space) llistrict. <br />Commissioner O'Connor disclosed that Darrell Scherbarth was his neighbor and that he was <br />acquainted with him. <br />Commissioner Blank wished to bring attention to Condition No. 27, which addressed disclosures <br />and deed restrictions, and noted that this was discussed in detail at the workshop. Staff had been <br />working towards providing accountability with traffic engineering studies and other work <br />product from the joint group. rIe noted that several speakers at the workshop stated that some <br />items were not disclosed to them by the developer. He read the following language: "Disclosure <br />statement shall be provided to prospective purchasers and tenants by lot owners, developers, and <br />future successors in the interest of providing full disclosure of potential for future mining <br />operations...." He noted that it was common for developers to develop a piece of property ender <br />a shell company which would do the development, then would go bankrupt, after which another <br />company held by the same group would continue the next phase of the development. Ile <br />inquired who would be responsible if a future developer did not make the possible restrictions. <br />Ms. Harryman noted that if a document has been recorded, the developer would be on notice. <br />She noted that sellers and their real estate agents should disclose any items that would be <br />disturbing to the purchaser. Commissioner Blank noted that he would be more comfortable with <br />lv~guage reading, "A clause which states ...shall be provided." He noted that a disclosure <br />statement was separate from a clause as part of the recordation and deed, which would be very <br />difficult for someone not to provide. <br />Ms. Harryman noted that Condition No. 27 read: "Prior to recordation of the parcel map, a deed <br />restriction shall be recorded on all lots covered by this approval and shall include the <br />following:...." She noted that the "buyer beware" language would follow, inchiding future <br />mining operations within the Specific Plan area, noise, odor, etc. She understood this condition <br />to mean that the developer at the time, prior to recordation of the parcel map, must record <br />something against the property that identified the disclosures. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether with this condition, staff held that it would be impossible <br />for someone to buy the land or the house without having signed that they have seen the deed <br />restriction. Ms. Harryman concurred with that statement. <br />Ms. Decker noted that the deed restriction must include all the items in the. recorded document so <br />that any buyer of the lots would be informed. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired whether a condition could be added stating that the developer <br />shall provide proof of the same to the Planning Director. Ms. Harryman stated that the City <br />received the recorded copies. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEE"PING MINUTES, February 14, 2007 Page I of 2 <br />