Laserfiche WebLink
They didn't want fences installed next to a split rail. <br />Generally they felt that the project turned out to be real nice <br />and at that time the selling market was difficult. They felt <br />they had to work with the buyers to sell the houses. He <br />reiterated that many times people removed the split rail fencing <br />themselves. At the time they amended the CC&Rs they got the <br />signature of every homeowner. He told the Commission that they <br />did not just ignore the rules; it just kind of happened over a <br />period of time. <br />Mr. Lawrence stated that perhaps there was a misunderstanding <br />with some of the people who moved in during the last part of the <br />development of the last phase because the fences were already up. <br />The open space was originally hydroseeded and they didn't <br />anticipate it would be irrigated. They set up CC&Rs for the <br />overall project and there is a section requiring the area to be <br />maintained in a "weed free" manner. There is an assessment fee <br />of $70 per year from each of the homeowners to clean up the area. <br />These CC&Rs were submitted to the City. <br />Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Lawrence if he was fully satisfied <br />that the purchasers were fully aware of the conditions governing <br />this project at the time they purchased their lots. Mr. Lawrence <br />stated that they made a reasonable effort and included them in a <br />flier which was distributed. Commissioner Lindsey stated again <br />that he didn't understand why the developer didn't come back to <br />the City to get the conditions of approval changed. Mr. Lawrence <br />stated that the changes didn't occur under lots 62 and 63 started <br />to be developed. He did not think at that time they would change <br />the easement area. It occurred to him later that there might be <br />a problem with a fence in one place and an easement at another. <br />Changing the easements didn't appear to require City approval <br />because the property was private. They didn't try to deceive <br />anyone. <br />Commissioner Wilson asked if the public report mentioned the <br />easement. Mr. Lawrence said there is no public report per se for <br />the project because there is no common area. Mr. Lawrence stated <br />that the buyers received a preliminary title report and not a <br />public report so they published and distributed a bulletin. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if lots 62, 67 and 68 had been sold in <br />November 1983 when the CC&R's were changed. Mr. Lawrence said <br />all of the lots were sold at the time the document recorded. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if anyone indicated to Mr. Lawrence they <br />would buy a lot when the open space area was removed. Mr. <br />Lawrence indicated that the buyer of lot 62 wanted the fence <br />removed. <br />Mr. Warnick reviewed the City's final tract map for this <br />subdivision and stated that it clearly shows a private open space <br />area and public service easement. Therefore, this should have <br />shown on the title report. <br />Michael Goldsworthy, 633 Abbie St., (Lot 68) spoke in favor of <br />the reduction of the green belt. They they bought their property <br />- 6 - <br />