HomeMy WebLinkAboutMt. Pines - Appellant's Brief
APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
to
PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
(MOUNTAIN PINES PROJECT)
Randall Hopkins
735 S. Mountain Ave.
Ashland, OR 97520
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLANNING ACTION 2004-105
This planning action ("PA") seeks, among other things,
an Exception to Ashland Street Standards which would also
allow the project to avoid the City's zoning regulat.ions.
Approval would shoe-horn an overly intense developmE~nt
into steep hillside and wildfire land with associatE~d
dangerous streets that would be beyond the carrying
capacity of the area to handle it.
The Council is invited to review the presentation of
citizens opposed to thePA before the Planning Commission
(IIPC"). These begin at 1: 34 of the PC's November melating.
There were no citizens speaking in favor of the PA.
To sunnnarize, the citizens testified as follows:
1. Andy Stallman:
His wife had asked developer to meet with area
neighbors, but was turned down on grounds that
these meetings "never go well." Concerns of
neighbors were never addressed and the PA is NOT
the result of cooperative effort. The developer
has never contacted many neighbors. Fewer lots
would lessens problems with the development.
2. Dr. Phil Phillips:
Prospect Street, for which a Street Standa.rd
Exception is sought, is a dead end road that
already presents access, exiting and parking
problems, even with only parking on one side.
Adding tremendous load to this street will
degrade safety and well being of the area.
Proposed paving will narrow the driveable
road surface from that which currently exi.sts
along the eastern 2/3rds of street. The plan is a
Idisastrous recipe' according to this Emergency
Room doctor at Ashland Community Hospital.
1
(note- -when Dr. Phillips spoke the proposed plan
called for single sided parking on Prospect. The PC later
imposed double sided parking on the street, thus grElatly
expanding the many problems noted by the Doctor.)
3. Kip Sigetich:
Like Andy Stallman said, no prior discussions
with Applicant. Outlined severe parking, turning
and access problems on Prospect that will be much
worse by a development that dumps much mOrE! load
onto a Prospect that is to be handicapped hy a
Street Standard Exception. Contrasted proposed
development with Quail Haven across S. Mountain,
a quality development accomplished without
removing trees and preserving 'incredible beauty
of area.' Fewer lots will greatly relieve t.he
problems.
4. Rebecca Reid:
Developer tries to pack more homes into arl:!a than
is safe. Currently (with one sided parking on
much of Prospect), all available spaces art:!
routinely used, leaving room for no more parking.
Very limited turn around capacity now, so people
back out. Prospect is a nightmare already ,and
can 't handle more burden, especially from heavy
construction vehicles, which would increasle
access problems, as well as fire and pedestrian
safety hazards. Fewer houses in the development
would help.
S. Bob Gordon :
Lives on Wildwood way, a dead end road with four
houses that is similar to Prospect St. Whenever
someone has guests that street is blocked and
fire trucks couldn't get access. People won't
park on S. Mountain because it is too stee!p, but
pack into wildwood. In winter, snow sticks at
this higher elevation. S. Mountain is alre!ady
very, very dangerous with people speeding down
the hill, meeting vehicles driving up the hill
at a blind dogleg where Prospect meets Moumtain.
2
Gordon has seen accidents in this area alrE~ady.
Adding more load is 'asking for lots of
difficulty. '
6. Ed Beutner:
'Alice in Wonderland' interpretations are ))eing
used to create 'incredibly dangerous'
street. In winter, you can see lots of skidmarks
on Mountain. Private drive will be almost blind
when it hits Mountain and needs city services.
7. Judy Little:
Too many proposed homes for what area can :safely
support. S. Mountain is already dangerous :since
it is steep, high elevation, and ices up in
winter. Has seen vehicles sliding down out of
control, backwards. Hard to get up Mountain now
when there is parking on both sides of the road.
Has seen accidents on Mountain, including
vehicles ending up on the sidewalk at the :bottom
where Prospect meets Mountain. There is now a
home at the other side of this sidewalk. P'eople
really speed down Mountain. Lots of pedestrian
traffic, walkers and kids on this street. This is
a wildfire zone. Need safer proposal that is more
in keeping with the neighborhood.
8. Chris Cotton:
Family has lived in area for 56 years and was
greatly involved in building our community. Sees
fire safety problems. Shoving more parking onto
S. Mountain is unsafe, as he has seen a ca,r
'totaled' there even on a clear, sunny day'. OVer
the years, has seen people going over the
sidewalk at the base of Mountain (near Pro'spect)
into land that now has a home on it. A recent
accident in area hospitalized a bicyclist. His
family developed Quail Haven right across the
street without removing a single tree and
allowing quality open space. Need to build
fewer homes in the new project, instead of:
shoehorning too many into available space.
3
9. Jeanne Stallman:
It is clearly shown that Prospect affords no
extra parking and is incapable of handling Lots
2 and 3. Developer willfully shoehorning pJ:"oject
to avoid zoning rules. Private drive is designed
at maximum grade, with sharp curve going up a
hill ,with an 11 foot retaining wall atth'3base
in area that ices up. Need fewer homes.
Perhaps the most telling comment of allwasprClvided
by Chris Cotton, a citizen who speaks with knowledgle of
how Ashland has been developed with quality and
livability# but who feared that "what would be sad .to see
is this (commitment to quality and livability) not
continue."
Fortunately, in this case, quality and livability can
be enhanced and preserved by the simple expedient of
enforcing the rules that are available. As noted, it is
this project that seeks to avoid the City Street Standards
and zoning rules.
(NOTE -theCity's Street Standard Handbook
("Handbook") defines the term 'street' to refer to Imore
than the paved, curb-to...,.curb roadway,' and to include Ithe
sidewalk, parkrow,...on-street parking lanes and motor
vehicle travel lanes. I This brief uses that definit.ionin
referring to the t~r.m Istreet.')
(NOTE - Also, there are separate problems alon9the
eastern 2/3s to 3/4ths of Prospect vs. those at the!
narrower, dead end western portion where Rebecca Re!id and
Kip Sigetich live. The Eastern section will be addressed
first. Discussion of the western stub appears at pcLge 16
below. )
1. Enforcement of the Street Standards minimizes the
problems of Prospect Street (eastern 2/3rds).
Table 1 of the City of Ashland Street Design Standards
states that the standard street right-of-way (ROW) where
parking is provided on both sides of a neighborhood street
(Prospect) is 50 to 57 feet. See Handbook, p. 20.
4
The current Prospect Street ROW varies between 43.85
feet and 28.745 feet per page 18 of Applicant's Pl~~ning
Application. Approximately 15' of the ROW on the nourished
is, by agreement of Staff and Applicant, unusable a:s it is
too steep.
The council is empowered by anyone of several
sections of the Code to require the applicant to dedicate
added ROW from its property. The Subdivision Design
Standards (Sec. 18.80.020B5) provide that:
5. Existing streets. Whenever existing streets
adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequatE! width,
additional right-of-way SHALL be provided at the time
of subdivision..
Sec. 18.82.020, titled STREET DEDICATION REQUIlmD,
also provides that U(l)and will be dedicated by a property
owner for the construction of a street when...(E) The City
may require additional right-of-way on streets which do
not meet the Street Standards of Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options, or for necessary
realignments of intersections or street sections. These do
not have to be shown on the official map."
Under 18.82.060, such U(d)edication of the future
right-of-way for a street or greenway is required prior to
final action on a partitioning, Subdivision, or
development requiring a planning action.
The only exception to this dedication scheme is
provided in 18.82.040 (titled STREET DEDICATION WAIVED)
which provides that: II (t ) he property owner is not required
to dedicate land for the construction of a City street or
greenway when it has been proven, to the satisfacti.on of
the Planning Commission, that the planned use will not
increase IN ANY WAY. the automobile. pedestrian or bicycle
traffic generated in the area."
Obviously, Applicant's development will increase the
traffic on Prospect since:
(a) lot 1 will directly access off the street,
5
(b) Prospect will, according to the PC's Findinqs
(par. 2.7), be relied upon the provide Ifire
apparatus access, on-street parking and
pedestrian access' for Lots 2 and 3, and
(c) construction vehicles will find Prospect a haven,
since it is the only flat portion of land i.n the
vicinity.
Clearly, the one exception to the rule requiring
Applicant to dedicate ROW does not apply.
If the City does no more than require a dedication up
to the lower 50' ROW standard for double sided parking,
then there is enough room to create an improved Prospect
that greatly relieves these problems. This is so eVE~n
though all parties agree that the northern ROW (appJ:'ox. 15
feet) is unusable. Such improvement, described from south
to north, could include:
1. A 5' sidewalk adj acent to Applicants' Prospe:ct
lots, as presently intended and required by the St~ldards,
2. A 7' parking bay. This section could be segregated
by bumpouts to differentiate the parking area from .the
rest of Prospect. This would help satisfy the request
listed in the Staff's October 12, 2004 Report, which asked
that Prospect be reconfigured to provide more on-street
parking for the existing and new residences. The parking
bay would also serve to segregate pedestrians using the
sidewalk from vehicular use of the street, as a planting
strip would do.
3. A paved road way surface of approximately 23 feet.
If added dedication brought the ROW to 52 to 54 feet, then
the traveled portion of Prospect could be paved to its
current width, with no reduction in the currently traveled
portion of the road. Parking can be retained on the south
side, as presently provided.
In other words, instead of eliminating the plaJlting
strip, as Applicant seeks to do by Exception, we should
keep the 7' planting strip width, but substitute a parking
bay instead.
6
This approach more fairly divides burdens among the
parties. Applicants' approach requires current homeowners
along Prospect not only to sacrifice part of its current
width, but to accept the substantial new parking on a
street which strains under the burden of single sidE~d
parking. The approach suggested above would shift the
added parking brought to the area by the subdivision into
what is now Applicant's property.
The City's Street Handbook (p. 4) says that it is not
uncommon for 25% or more of a proposed development's land
area to be set aside for required ROW. As presently
proposed, only 2.8% of Applicant's land (a 12.5' strip of
ROW along S. Mountain) is called to be dedicated.
Requiring an added dedication of 6 feet along Prosp1ect
will only increase this to 4.9%, or less than a fif.th of
what the Handbook says is commonly dedicated.
This approach to improving Prospect has never t>een
considered, apparently from a belief that the standards
prevent you from substituting a parking bay for a planting
strip. But. there is not only no such requirement in
either the Code or Handbook. Indeed, the Handbook would be
violated by accepting such a 'planting strip or nothing'
argument.
The use of planting strips (called a parkrow) between
street and sidewalk is shown on the configuration drawings
at page 34 and elsewhere in the Streets Handbook. But page
1 of the Handbook emphasizes that, with respect to these
basic street configurations,:
"Variations can be made from these basic types
to fit the particular site and situation."
The Handbook also states that "each street should be
individually designed and molded to the particular
situation at hand." p. 6.
Also, while street design must follow the standards
(which would be fulfilled here by requiring a fulle~r ROW
dedication under the Standards), they must be "flexible
enough to accommodate varying situations" and 'very
specific to the particular street at hand."
7
At page 32, the "different configurations" for a
neighborhood street (as is Prospect) are described a.s
configurations containing "on-street parking OPTIONS."
Finally, page 33 of the Handbook provides that two 7'
parking lanes are required for parking on both sides and
that such " (p)arking may be provided in 7' bays rather
than a continuous on-street parking."
Construing the Street Standards to prohibit
substituting a parking bay for a plant strip within the
required standard ROW improperly ignores all these
portions of the Handbook that urge and demand flexibility.
In sum, requiring Applicant to dedicate ROW up to
City's Standard, combined with use of a parking bay
configuration in place of a planting strip, adheres to the
Handbook's demand to:
(a) adhere to the Standards (50-57' ROW), whilE~
(b) using flexibility of design inside the ROW"
which will
(c) produce a more balanced street that affords safer
and equal access by pedestrians, bicyclists and
vehicles, all without reducing the amount of
roadway available now.
It would create a more 'livable, functional street for
a neighborhood,' exactly as demanded by the Street
Standards Handbook.
The Council should and lawfully can require added ROW
dedication along Prospect Street.
(NOTE - Applicant has only recently purchased "this
property. All ordinances and standards ci ted here E!xisted
before his purchase. Thus, Applicant has no MeaSUrE! 37
claim. )
8
2. In contrast, Applicant cannot meet the criteiria for
an Exception to the Street Standards.
Applicant must meet ALL the criteria for an Exception.
It cannot do so:
A. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
street standard due to a unique or unusual aspect OF THE
SITE.
Nothing about this site precludes an additional ROW
dedication. As shown below, the only problem for Applicant
is that the required dedication will reduce lot sizes
below the minimum lot area of the zoning laws. But 'that is
just a result of the law, not a lunique or unusual aspect'
of the site.
B. The SS Exception will not result in equal Ol~
superior transportation facilities and connectivity.
Applicants' Exception would shove the additionCiI on-
street parking, which the Planning Staff's October report
says is necessary along Prospect, out into the currently
traveled portion of the street (which, as noted, would
actually be paved to a narrower area that presently
exists). At the very moment when massive construction
vehicles will appear, to be followed by added vehicles of
the new neighbors, Prospect will be reduced below its
present dimension and clogged with double sided parking.
Presently, there is only one sided parking, except at the
western stub, where there is no parking allowed at all.
The attached photos, testimony at the PC, and
testimony to be provided for the City Council, demonstrate
just how worse off Prospect will be from the standpoint of
access and public safety, if this I improvement' unfolds.
The I turnaround' proposed opposite Dr. Phillips house,
while nice, does not alter this conclusion. It will look a
parking space and invite people to park there. Both your
Planning Staff and your Fire Department's represent~ative
have warned that Ino parking' signs will be routine!ly
ignored. See, 10-12-04 Staff Report, pp. 9-10, and M.
Hickman's testimony at 2:45 of the PC's November he!aring.
9
C. The variance is not the minimum necessary to
alleviate the difficulty.
Even ignoring the issue of ROW dedication and viewing
this as 'just' an exception to eliminate a planting strip
does not save this PA. Paragraph 2.5 of the PC's Findings
concluded "..the sidewalk will be installed at curbside
rather than with a planting strip as required by thE~
Street Standards so that the trees on the south sidE~ of
the street can be preserved."
But, there are no such trees on Lots 1 and 21 Since a
street standard exception may only be the minimum
necessary to fix the problem, the south side trees only
warrant reducing construction along lot 3. They provide no
justification for an exception adjacent to Lots 1 and 2.
D. The variance is not consistent with the stat.ed
purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
This requirement is not and cannot be fulfillecl, since
designing Prospect as Applicant desires would:
1. provide a lower quality of life compared to a
development built to standard. The current residents along
Prospect struggle with difficulty to accommodate the
demands placed on their dead end street. They would be
forced to accept the massively added demands on the
street, though it is not getting any wider and parking
would go from one side to two.
2. the Applicant's approach would in no way be_
aesthetically pleasing, since it would cram parking into a
narrower space, creating a situation like those shown on
the attached photos. It will be ugly.
3. provide for an inefficient land use, by crmmning
parking into the formerly traveled portion of a public
street, when Applicants' land is available for ROW
dedication and the shifting of the development's added
parking and traffic burden into a truly widened Prospect,
and
10
4. would increase. not decrease. the impact on the
natural environment and the neighborhood. The existing
neighbors (as well as though buying into the subdivision)
will pay the price in terms of difficulty of access and an
increasingly unsafe Prospect street.
(NOTE - In effect, Applicant is proposing to re~duce
Prospect to a single 11 foot I queuing' lane. By the City's
Handbook makes clear that the queuing lane concept is used
to Ireduce speeds.' But the problem on Prospect has not
been, nor will it be speed, it is access, a problem
worsened by the use of queuing. with full-up parking on
both sides, it will be hard even to find a place to pull
over when two vehicles meet in the middle. The queuing
option is thus singularly inappropriate for the a street
that that narrows as it dead ends.)
3. Requiring compliance with the City's full ROW
standard will also allow the City's zoning rules to do
their job.
A prime purpose of zoning rules is to make surE~ that
new development fits in with the carrying capacity of land
to be developed and the surrounding neighborhood.
The Applicant's proposed subdivision is zoned ]~-1-10,
which requires 10,000 SF lots.
The Subdivision Design Standards (18.80.02001)
provides that subdivision lots SHALL meet the requi.rements
of the zone in which the subdivision is located. This
Standard provides only three exceptions, none of which are
applicable here.
Requiring dedication of the standard ROW from
Applicant's property (clearly within the City's po~~r and
contemplated by the Standards), will reduce the
Applicant's Prospect side lots below the 10,000 SF
minimum.
For example, dedicating an added 6.15 feet, which
would increase the east portion of Prospect to a 501 ROW,
would reduce Lot 1 from its current claimed 10,074 SF to
9,275 SF (10,074 SF - 130' frontage x 6.15'). This
11
original 10,074 SF number includes the required ROW
dedication along S. Mountain (12.5'). If the S. Mountain
ROW dedication is also excluded, then Lot 1 is even
further removed from compliance.
Lot 2 would be 9,575 SF (10,000 SF - 69' frontage x
6.15'). Lot 3, presently exactly 10,000 SF would fall
below the minimum area as well.
(NOTE - in order to save trees, Appellant does not
propose that a parking bay be included at the western end
of Prospect adjacent to Lot 3. However, in the future
those trees may perish and, given the current access
problems there, street changes may be desired. Now is the
time to make sure adequate ROW exists now and in th~3
future. )
Allowing the City's zoning regulations to fulfill
their function by deleting a Prospect side lot will
alleviate all the concerns urged by the development's
neighbors. It will ease demands placed not only on
Prospect, but on the private drive as well, reducing units
accessing that drive from the current 5 to 4 and thus
getting closer to the 13 lots per private drive' Standard.
This will, in turn, minimizing the Exception needed to
accommodate the private drive.
There will be fewer vehicles accessing S. Mount.ain,
which, as the testimony shows, is itself a problematic and
dangerous street. The whole project will better fit into
the existing neighborhood and the limitations that the
area imposes. In short, the zoning rules will be doing
their intended job and assuring a quality development.
Applicant claimed at the Planning Commission that any
added ROW dedication would not reduce available lot sizes,
but that is not what the City Code says.
Section 18.20.040 establishes the 1 (m)inimum lot area"
for R-1-10 areas as 10,000 square feet.
Section 18.08.360 defines Ulot area" to be uexclusive
of street right-of-way."
12
There is no exception to this within the Code that is
applicable to a neighborhood street like Prospect. l~or can
such an exception be imposed now consistent with thE3
Street Standards Handbook, which makes clear that there is
a trade off between ROW dedications and land available for
development. Page 4 of the handbook explains that:
II Currently , it is not uncommon for 25 percent or more
of a proposed development's land area to be set aside
for required rights-of-way. Using narrower streets
can reduce this percentage and free up land for open
space, OR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.'
Thus, there is a clear trade off contemplated in the
Handbook between ROW Dedication and development intlensi ty .
If Applicant's suggestion that ROW dedication is
irrelevant to lot size, there could be no tradeoff. But
there IS a tradeoff and here it favors less intensity.
Nor can the Applicant avoid this result by cast.ing the
ROW dedication as an easement. Under the Subdivision
Design Standards (18.82.020C), easements are designated
for utility lines and water watercourses, or for private
ways. with respect to satisfying shortcomings of a public
street, however, the Code uses ROW dedication. See,
18.80.20B5 (Uadditional ROW SHALL be provided).
Moreover, Applicant's behavior during the course of
the planning actions on this subdivision belies its claim
that ROW dedication does not deduct from lot area
calculation. At every stage, Applicant has taken CSLre to
avoid any required dedication along Prospect (or S.
Mountain for that matter, as its latest Application sought
to use an easement). Applicant originally argued that the
required planting strip be sited within the current:ly
traveled part of Prospect, which would have reduced the
unfortunate inhabitants along Prospect to an even narrower
street running down to 18 feet wide.
Even now, Applicant casts its requested Exception in
terms of innocuously dropping a planting strip inst:ead of
what is really needed - an exception to ROW standards.
13
(NOTE - It is very likely that the zoning land area
minimums along Prospect are ALREADY violated, as it
appears the currently proposed sidewalk extends 1-2 feet
into the subdivision. This needs to be professionally
confirmed, as this alone would defeat the lots, which are
already at the breaking point. Moreover, the turnaround on
Lot 3, which would approximate a full ROW dedication at
that limited area, also drops that lot below 10,000 SF.)
In short, this Council could enforce the Codes and
Standards. That, not Applicant's attempt to end run the
zoning rules, will help produce the best quality
development and neighborhood.
4. Lot 7 also violates zoning rules.
Applicant proposes to carve up the existing lot at 769
S. Mountain to provide land for part of the private drive
for Lots 4-6. The remainder lot would be Lot 7. When
purchased, this lot was well over 10,000 SF. Applicant's
proposed adjustments, however, would reduce Lot 7 below
the minimum area.
The Applicant's Tentative Lot Layout Notes of 1-9-2004
states that the lot is 10,091 SF, which includes a 12.51
ROW dedication along S. Mountain. Again, the Code defines
Ilot area' as lexclusive of street right-of-way.' without
this ROW dedication, Lot 7 is listed at only 9,026 SF.
The dimensions of the Lot 7 shown on the TTL Notes of
1-9-2004 remain the same to date. Thus, Lot 7, as proposed
now, would violate the zoning rules, whatever the Council
chooses to do on any other issue.
Curiously, the Applicant's latest Site Plan makes no
mention of the area of Lot 7, either with or without the
ROW dedication.
5. Applicant's other lots also violate zoning :~ules.
Lots 4, 5 and 6 are flag lots. Under City Standards,
the flag portion of those lots may not be included in lot
size calculation (although Applicant's most recent Site
Plan, filed 10-29-04, includes the flag portion when
listing the area for at least Lot 5).
14
On Feb. 25, 2003, in response to Applicant's original
PA, the City's Staff acknowledge that:
u...the Planning Commission could make the
interpretation that the flag drive area is the
actual physical location where the drive is pro-
posed and deduct this area from the lot."
Obviously, if the Planning Commission can make such an
interpretation, so can the City Council.
This interpretation available to this Council makes
sense. The flag pole exclusion seeks to exclude land used
for access. Why not use the actual dimensions of the paved
access drive for a clearer, more precise measurement?
This interpretation, applied to the lots as presently
configured, would mean that, at a minimum, the current
lots 4 and 6 would be far less than the 10,000 SF minimum.
Applicant's Tentative Lot Layout filed 1-9-2004
contained Notes that showed Lot 6 is only 8,988 SF if you
exclude the flag portion and the paved drive. Since there
is only a tiny portion of the flag portion that is not
within the paved drive (approx. 50 sq. feet), deducting
just the paved drive alone still puts Lot 6 far below
10,000 SF.
Applicant's Tentative Lot Layout states that Lot 4 is
only 8,857 SF, again excluding the flag and the paved
drive. Again, the portion of the flag outside the paved
drive is small, meaning that deducting the paved drive
alone creates a lot smaller than 10,000 SF.
The Tentative Lot Layout states that Lot 5 is 9,638 SF
without the flag and paved drive. Since there is more
substantial area of the flag outside the paved drive on
Lot 5, professional measurement would be required to
conclude that Lot 5 fails if only the paved drive is
excluded. But if both the flag pole and the paved drive
are excluded, then Lot 5 fails as well.
15
(NOTE - The Tentative Lot Layout Notes discussed here
were filed as part of Applicant's second PA, this being
the third. However, the dimensions of Lots 4, 5 and 6,
including the flag poles and paved drive, remain the same
in the current version. Also, the lot sizes listed in the
TLL Notes did not exclude any parking pads and driveways
for Lots 4-6. The zoning rule is thus violated even if
parking pads and driveways are properly included in lot
area calculations.)
(NOTE - Whenever anyone criticizes the upper private
drive on which Applicant also seeks a Street Exception so
that it can access five units (vs. the three allowed by
Standard), the reply is always to threaten to dump direct
access of Lots 2 and 3 back onto Prospect, which can't
handle it. However, the zoning problems here are unrelated
to the issue of lots 2 and 3. This problem relates to the
fact that Lots 4-6 are flag lots and that can't be :fixed
by the usual Uwhy, we'll just put Lots 2 and 3 back on
Prospect" argument.)
6. West End of Prospect Street Considerations.
The western end of Prospect presents its own
complications because of additional reduced ROW, an even
narrower roadway, and the presence of many large trees in
the grove at the northwest corner of Applicant's property.
The proposal presented to the PC attempted to resolve
competing interests in the this area. Unfortunately, the
PC discarded the most important of these proposals. Issues
include:
a. location of sidewalk/saving trees - The proposal at
the PC called for locating a sidewalk on the south side of
Prospect within the roadbed. This was thrown out by the
PC, who wanted the sidewalk to instead be located in the
five feet immediately south of the roadway. This will
jeopardize at least three large trees which all parties,
including the Tree Commission, thought should be saved.
The homeowners directly served by this sidewalk, Kip
Sigetich and Rebecca Reid, are willing to to have the
sidewalk placed inside the roadway in order to save the
trees. PC John Fields had a good suggestion of slightly
16
ralslng this area to delineate a walking surface without
disrupting auto travel. This worthy compromise should be
reinstated.
How can you justify a street exception based on saving
trees, only to kill them with a sidewalk?
b. location of utility pole and support wire - A major
problem with the west end is adequate space for fire truck
access into the Sigetich/Reid house. Part of this problem
arises from location of a utility pole and support cable
at the NW corner of Applicant's property. Removal of this
pole would allow for greater access. Since Applicant wants
to bury utilities in the subdivision, why can't this pole
be removed as well? After all, why should Applicant's
Iview lots' have a primary view of a utility pole and
transformer?
c. parking in the western stub - this is currently a
no parking zone, but people park there anyway, creating
severe access problems for homeowners there. While the
Street Standards call for one-side parking on a 22' street
(the dimension to which this section is supposedly going
to be paved), those standards are also contemplate a
Inetwork of interconnected city streets,' where Itravelers
can choose from many available routes.' Handbook, p. 4.
Those Standards do not contemplate dead ends as found
here. (Handbook, pp. 7, 41)
The proposal presented to the PC included a Staff
Condition that called for the Fire Department to conduct a
test for access once the road was complete, before
determining whether west end parking would be allowed.
This was thrown out by the PC, even though NO ONE OPPOSED
IT. At a minimum, the test should be reinstated.
7. A security bond should be required in order to
enforce this development's tree protection plans.
Applicant's Landscape Architect John Galbraith has
submitted a very worthy and tree protection plan. ~'he
problem is that it is so extensive and expensive that it
will encourage non-enforcement. And non-enforcement of
tree protection plans is at epidemic levels in the City of
17
Ashland. will the Applicant call Mr. Galbraith when it is
time for him to do his work?
This Applicant has a suspect history regarding tree
protection. At the Beach Street Condos (in the 400 block
of Beach St.), Applicant made the entire large excavation
on that property, not only without tree protection fences,
but without having filed a tree protection plan, as
required by law. A beautiful evergreen street tree was
pruned by backhoe. This occurred after opponents of the
Mt. pines project made known to Applicant their fear that
the tree protection plans would not be enforced.
So, it's not just that Applicant failed to prot.ect
trees on Beach Street, but that it did so AFTER it should
have known it was a big issue in this PA...not to mention
required by the rules.
The Planning Staff, however, cut off any discussion of
this history before the Tree Commission, alleging it dealt
with a prior PA. But the prior PA (Beach St. Condos) was
long closed (indeed, construction was already underway),
so that such PA could in no way be unfairly impacted by a
discussion.
And what can be more relevant to the issue of whether
a security bond is required than an Applicant's own track
record?
A security bond should be imposed to make sure that
Mr. Galbraith's worthy plan in enforced and doesn't become
just another scrap of paper in the City's files. Such a
bond is authorized by 18.61.250.
8. The planning procedure below was replete with ex
parte communications, undisclosed potential conflicts of
interest and disregard of the rules of procedure.
These include:
1. One of the PCer's disqualified herself on
actual conflict of interest grounds from the PA scheduled
immediately before this one at the PC's October hearing.
She then spent the time taken up by that other PA locked
18
in conversation with Applicant's representative, Mr.
Cochrane, both in a group with Applicant's engineer and
then alone with Mr. Cochrane.
2. After the end of the October hearing, one of the
PCers not only entertained, but initiated an ex parte
communication with Dr. Phillips. Immediately after
introducing himself, this PCer loudly asked what Dr.
Phillips would think about doing an LID as part of the fix
on Prospect. This was said loudly enough to be heard by
other neighbors who were still there. Since an LID imposes
costs (and other headaches) on local citizens, the mere
suggestion of an LID can discourage public participation,
contrary to public policy. It was thus an ex parte
communication on a very sensitive subject.
3. At the November hearing, this PCer failed, as
required by state and city law, to disclose this ex parte
communication at the time the Chairman called for
disclosures.
4. When the undersigned objected and asked for a
recusal (as he was probably required by state law to do in
order to preserve error), it was revealed that another
PCer also had an undisclosed ex parte communication as
well and that the head of the City's Planning Department
knew about it. Yet, neither the second PCer nor the
Planning Director spoke up when the PC Chairman called for
disclosure of ex parte communications.
5. Then, both the PC Chairman and the Planning
Director repeatedly tried to cut off what the undersigned
was saying. The Chairman, Mr. Chapman, even blurted Iwe're
not going to lawyer this up!'
The Ithis' referred to by the Chairman is a quasi-
judicial proceeding with rules that are supposed to be
followed. Indeed, it is likely that the undersigned was
required by Oregon state law to make objections or see
them waived. Further, every citizen who watched this
unfold was at risk of concluding - see how you get slapped
down if you show up at these hearings and try to make a
difference...why bother? This cannot help encourage public
participation.
19
6. At least one PCer (the one talking extensively with
Mr. Cochrane before the OCtober hearing) has a substantial
business relationship with Applicant's representative, Mr.
Stone. It is POSSIBLE that any person in that situation
COULD be effected by thinking - if I don't support Mr.
Stone here, will it have an adverse financial impact on me
in the other projects on which I'm working with him? And
Icould' influence is the test for disclosing potential
conflicts of interest under Oregon law. No disclosure was
made.
7. The PC Chairman disregarded the normal rules of
procedure by giving both the Staff and Applicant a second
bite at the apple in the November hearing. At the October
hearing, which was adjourned, both the Staff and Applicant
spoke at length. The citizen-opponents (there were no
citizens speaking for the proposal) began, but did not
finish their presentation when time ran out.
Thus, IT WAS THE OPPONENTS TURN TO TALK!
Instead, the Staff and Applicant got to start allover
again in November with full presentations and the citizens
didn't get to start having their say until 8:30. Because
so many objected, the PC didn't begin deliberation until
close to 10:00, by which time everyone was tired and the
room was hot. This resulted in a rushed consideration
which, among other things, tossed out in a heartbeat the
required Fire Department access test on Prospect. The only
PCer who mentioned ROW dedication (Olena Black) found her
suggestion very quickly disregarded.
When citizens show up to these planning hearings they
are told, in essence, that only the standards, the
criterion, and the rules count. When the same standards,
criterion and rules turn out to benefit people like those
objecting to this PA, however, a far different tale often
unfolds and the results of the PA suffer for it. Is it any
wonder that the lquality and livability' that is so
admired in an earlier age, seems so absent from our own.
20
CONCLUSION
This Council has a unique opportunity to help assure
the land at issue will be developed in a quality and
livable way, enhancing, not detracting from the
neighborhood in which it will sit. And you can do so by
simply applying the standards, criterion and rules that
are available to you. You can prove that the wonderful
residential developments like Quail Haven right across the
street are not just Ithings of the past.'
The Council should vote Ino' and send this project
back to the drawing board. Application of the zoning rules
will obviously require substantial alterations that can't
be cured by the expedient of piling on more conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Randall Hopkins
21