Laserfiche WebLink
26O <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked if this condition applied to the common <br /> area in front of the homes and if there would still be a need for <br /> this condition if the lot lines went all the way to the <br /> street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the condition would apply even if the <br /> property lines went all the way down to the street. He explained <br /> that the condition ensures that all the property owners would <br /> share jointly in the cost of repairs and that the City has the <br /> right to come in if the property is not properly maintained. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver inquired if the project conforms to the R-1-6,500 <br /> zoning setback requirements and why it is being considered as a <br /> PUD. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the project meets the R-1-6,500 <br /> minimum setback requirements. The PUD recommendation from staff <br /> originally came to try and overcome some of the subdivision <br /> ordinance standards relating to how wide a lot should be versus <br /> its depth. A PUD also provides an opportunity for better input <br /> from the neighbors and covers all issues relating to project <br /> development, including a review of each individual house. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Toman, 4222 Bevilacqua Court, owner of the house on <br /> top of the hill, stated that the geological studies and slope <br /> stability analyses that have been done are inadequate because they __ <br /> did not address future slope stability. He mentioned that there <br /> was a severe slope failure in his backyard in 1967 and inquired <br /> who would be liable if a similar slope failure occurred in the <br /> future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer directed the question to staff. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that as a general rule, the upslope <br /> property has the right to expect the downslope property to support <br /> it, and if the downslope has been altered, the downslope area has <br /> the responsibility for its maintenance and upkeep. If there is <br /> evidence that the alteration to the downslope area caused the <br /> upper property area to fail, the downslope property owner would be <br /> liable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if Condition No. 24 addresses that <br /> situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that Condition No. 24 does not address <br /> the responsibility between the upslope and downslope property <br /> owners. It attempts to keep the City out of the litigation <br /> picture by requiring the homeowners or the homeowners association <br /> to indemnify the City in the event that that kind of action <br /> happens. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked what the City has done in other hillside <br /> projects to indemnify either the upslope or the downslope property <br /> owners. <br /> <br /> - 6 - <br /> 6-5-90 <br /> <br /> <br />