Laserfiche WebLink
434 <br /> <br /> Ms. Stillian clarified that the fence would not be built on <br /> top of the retaining wall but that the original fence would be <br /> raised six feet above the grade. She added that Mr. Pederson would <br /> have to go to Council for any above-ground structures he would <br /> build which she did not agree with. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked the City Attorney who would pay for the fence <br /> and what would happen after the neighbors are notified in the event <br /> that the property owner wanted to construct any above-ground <br /> structures on the regraded portion in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that any above-ground structure would have <br /> to be submitted to the Planning Department, which would notify the <br /> adjacent property owners concerning the structure. The structure <br /> can be approved administratively if the neighbors have no <br /> objection; otherwise, it would go to Council for resolution. With <br /> respect to raising the height of the fence, there is a condition <br /> that states that no permit would be issued and no re-grading would <br /> commence until the City has reached an agreement with Amador Valley <br /> Savings and Loan and other interested parties, including the <br /> applicant and the City, with regard to the cost of the proposed <br /> landscape planting plan, the installation of additional sprinklers <br /> and the height extension of the Stillians' fence. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta added that it could not be determined who would pay <br /> for the fence until the matter is negotiated, which would depend on <br /> what Council decided regarding the item. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rich Parejo, 609 Blossom Court, commented that Mr. <br /> Pederson should both pay for the fence and that he was opposed to <br /> changing the CC&Rs and the restrictions on a legal deed. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes recommended that all reference to a maximum height <br /> for the fence be deleted from Condition No. 7. In connection with <br /> Condition No. 8, he stated that he would like to resolve at this <br /> time who would pay for the improvements so the work could be <br /> started and completed. He indicated that neither the Pedersons nor <br /> the Stillians should pay for the fence. He asked staff if there <br /> were any figures available regarding the cost of the improvements. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that the landscape plan for the <br /> neighborhood in general has been developed and that the cost is <br /> being calculated. No final figures are available for the trees, <br /> the fence and the installation of sprinklers. She added that it <br /> was not the City's intention to have the neighbors pay for the <br /> fence. <br /> <br /> 8-21-90 <br /> - 10 - <br /> <br /> <br />