CCMIN010687 - Laserfiche WebLink

363 to benefit the lower seems redundent because this was one project as a whole, it was asked that these things be done in order for the project to be proved. It was one solid unit in order for it to co-function before those could be developable lots below. Mr. Ken Bussy, who lives in the lower section, stated he read the report: He asked if Boatright and Goodrich brought their applications to the City, and did the City approve it based on some recommendations as far as their own of- fice. Mr. MacDonald stated there is nothing in the staff report referring to physical work that did not get done. Mr. Bussy stated that in the report it says something about the City noted that one of the primary considerations to the development of the hillside is to control service and subservice drainage; he assumed that was one of the conditions for approval to build houses on it. Mr. MacDonald stated they submitted plans showing drainage including the V- ditch and some of the things that were done. Mr. Bussy asked if all the im- provements were done. Mr. MacDonald stated that to his knowledge most of the improvements were done. Mr. Bussy stated he sounds to him like it wasn't all done; when he read the report all the recommendations have the upper and lower people plotted against each other. He asked where the developer holds respon- sibility? Mr. MacDonald advised that the developer has an obligation relative to the people who purchased from him, but the City should not get into the consumer relations. Mr. Bussy asked if the City had a commitment to the resi- dents or to the developer. Mayor Mercer advised it has a commitment to both; all pay taxes and that is who the City has a commitment to. He stated that the staff report states that under the PUD there should have been a homeowners association for all 28 lots; somehow someone did not inform Mr. Bussy that you should have been part of that homeowners association. The City's respon- sibility in that is to provide the public documents if anyone asks the City for that information. Mayor Mercer stated that if Mr. Bussy did not ask the City, the City has no knowledge of who is going to buy that lot so has no way to tell the buyer these are the his responsibilities under the PUD. Mayor Mercer stated he did not know whose responsibility it is to advise the proper- ty buyer of this information. He stated Council is trying to determine what is the fairest and most equitable way to solve this situation from the City's point of view, trying to represent the residents and the developer at the same time. Mr. Tom Blynn, Gloria Court, recommended that the ordinance to protect the lower homeowners from the runoff and that the private utility be enforced and that Alternative 2 be approved by the Council. Councilmember Brandes stated there have been several comments as to the V- ditches and other engineering requirements that are allegedly attached to the PUD. He asked exactly what the requirements of the PUD were as they related to the drainage set forth in the soils report, and if they are all in place. Mr. Pasquat stated that most of the requirements were met. Mr. MacDonald stated that as a point of clarification all the detailed drainage requirements go on at the time of subdivision, not the PUD. The PUD says you will comply with the soils engineers requirements. Mr. Pasqual pointed out on a display map where the drainage improvements were. He advised the only improvement not completed was a ditch in upper Twelve oaks, and the soils engineer did not make a comment on this. Councilmember Brandes asked if this was a condition of the upper Twelve Oaks subdivision. Mr. Pasqual stated that it is. Mayor Mercer asked if there were conditions on the lower portion. Mr. Pasqual stated the same conditions apply to the lower portion. 14 - 1-6-87