HomeMy WebLinkAboutMt. Pines - Hopkins Email
I Fran berteau - Reply to Staff Report of 2-1-LUUO on Mt. Pines
t-'age 1 .
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
tribune <tribune@mind.net>
Maria harris <maria@ashland.or.us>
1/27/2005 6:00:34 PM
Reply to Staff Report of 2-1-2005 on Mt. Pines
Attached is my reply to the Staff Report that I received this
afternoon. I asl< that this reply be included in the record and the City
Council packet that will be sent to the Council prior to next week's
hearing and/or that the Council be notified that it is available.
Thanks
REPLY TO STAFF REPORT OF FEB. 1, 2005
Opponent to PA 2004-105 files this Reply to Staff Report ("SRI!) dated
February 1, 2005.
1. Street and Greenway Dedications
The SH claims that Sec. 18.82, Street and Greenway Dedications, does
not apply to "improving undeveloped existing public streets."
That claim is disproved by Sec. 18.82.020E, which says the City may
"require additional right-of-way on streets which do not meet the
Street Standards of Chapter 18.88." Undeveloped, existing public
streets are thus a direct target of the Street Dedication section of
the City Code.
2. The Performance Standards Option
The SF says that subdivisions performed under the Performance
Standards Option are not required to deduct street improvements from
project density.
But this is not a subdivision performed under the Performance
Standards Option. Those have a whole different set of procedures
(18.88.030) and issues, such as density calculations, that have never
once been put on the table for review and consideration.
Moreover, the present project could not satisfy the purpose of the
Performance Standards Option, which allow a 'more flexible design'
where it would provide:
'a quality of life equal to greater than that
provided in developments built under standard
zonin~l codes.'
For all the reasons given in Opponent's brief in opposition,
developing Mt Pines under standard zoning requirements would provide a
much better, safer and higher quality of life (for development
residents and neighbors alike) than the current 'shoehorn' proposal.
3. Sec. 18.76.190
I Fran berteau - Reply to Staff Report of 2-1-2005 on Mt. Pines
tJage 2 I
The SR says that the PC can waive minimum lot size requirements for
dedication of property for public use as street ROW for land partitions
performed under 18.76.
Even ignoring the fact that this is not a land partition under 18.76
(with its own procedures and issues), 18.76.190 says nothing about
minimum lot sizes or waivers thereof. It merely provides that the
requirement for fulfilling minor partitioning procedures may be waived
in instances of partitioning for ROW dedications. This makes it
proceedurally easier to dedicate ROW. And the issue of minor land
partition is irrelevant here anyway since a minor partition is defined
as one that does not necessitate the creation of a road. 18.08.560.
Here, the applicant wants to create a road.
4. Providing an incentive to provide sidewalks
The SR states that not deducting ROW dedications from lot area is
needed "to provide an incentive to install sidewalks with development
proposals."
The is no need for such an incentive. We already have plenty of lawful
standards REQUIRING the developer to provide sidewalks with his
development proposal. Even the SR says that the standard for a
Neighborhood SteeL.requires a five foot sidewalk." Why subsidize the
developer at the great expense of the existing and future residents for
doing that which the developer could be required to do anyway?
5. Earlier Staff Report dated 2-25-2003
The latest SR notes that its earlier SR dated 2-25-03 (which
acknowledged that the Planning Commission "...could make the
interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual physical location
where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot") is not
in the record.
Opponent asks that the earlier SR be included in this record and
tenders same for inclusion.
Otherwise, Opponent simply redirects attention to the issues,
criterion, standards and laws discussed in the Opposition Brief, most
of which are unaddressed in the latest SR.
Randall Hopkins
cc: <Psquared444@msn.com>, Rebecca Reid <reid@sou.edu>, Kip Sigetich
<sigetich@sou.edu>, Rick Browne <rbrowne@mind.net>, <cotton@mind.net>, <justdoit@mil1d.net>,
<jlittleor@aol.com>, <ddbents@mtashland.net>, <ed.beutner@fandm.edu>, Andrew Stallman
<astallman@ashlandhome.net>