As the evening went on, I think the same question must have occurred to each of the seven people who sit on the Planning Commission itself, but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point. However, bear with me here, because what you are about to see is shear incompetence on the part of city staff, yet again, in allowing a project to go forward without proper vetting by the City Attorney and despite serious concerns from neighbors.
The applicant in this case proposed constructing a 1,469 square-foot, two-story rear addition to an existing one-story residence in the Old East Davis Neighborhood. The proposed addition would be substantial and more than double the size of the residence. The addition would result in a floor area ratio of 43.4%.
One of the key factors here was a large 32” diameter Chinese hackberry that is located in the rear yard. The tree constrains development. To minimize potential impacts to the tree, the addition is pushed back 12 feet from the tree and results in a proposal to reduce the north side yard setback to 1’-8” for both stories. A new front porch would also replace the existing porch and new landscaping installed. A small second-story deck would be located on the south side elevation.
In other words, the applicant claimed that in order not to kill the tree, the addition had to be a certain distance away, this forced it to almost abut the south side of the property line. Only 20 inches would separate the northern edge of the home from a fence. Now think about 20 inches for a second and how narrow that is. City ordinance requires a five foot setback for the first floor and 10 feet for the second floor. The applicant in this case is asking for 20 inches on both floors and what is essentially for all intents and purposes a 20 foot high wall to be only 20 inches from the property line.
The staff report suggests as follows:
“Staff recognizes that the addition is sizeable and that the 1’-8” side setback is a substantial reduction in the setback requirements. Although it reduces the sense of openness on the north side, it preserves other useable areas in the yard and does not significantly impact the adjacent parking area. The Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the discretion to reduce the side setback in the R-2 CD district in order to protect significant landscaping. The Planning Commission has discretionary approval over the project and may deny the project or request changes that it deems appropriate.”
The staff report acknowledged that concerns were raised, and I focus on two of these concerns.
First:
“Concerns were raised that the reduced side setback would have visual impacts; that it would not be consistent with side yard setback generally found in the neighborhood; and that it could set a precedent for future projects. Additionally, concerns for maintenance, drainage, and fire issues in the side yard were mentioned. It was noted that other buildings in neighborhood had zero setbacks though they were generally accessory structures and/or single-story. The question was asked whether the addition could be placed further to the rear instead of the side.”
This is a key point because the answer we are given is that the reason that it cannot be moved closer to the rear of the lot rather than the side is the tree and concerns that it will encroach on the tree.
“The R-2 CD zoning provides flexibility allowing the Planning Commission to reduce the side setback to protect historic landscaping.”
The staff is claiming that the tree, a mature Chinese hackberry, represents historic landscaping and that building near the back could endanger the tree. The owner had an arborist testify to this effect, although it was unclear from that testimony how close they could actually get to the tree, the arborist appeared to suggest that it would be considerably closer than the current design.
The other complaint that was registered had to do with the size of the addition. For me, the tree issue was only part of the concern here, the other was, why they had to build such a large addition to begin with.
“There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.
The proposed addition is substantial and results in a FAR of 43.4% that exceeds the allowable FAR of 40% by approximately 200 square feet. The zoning allows an increase in the FAR with Design Review.”
In the end, despite strong objections from neighbors, the staff recommended approval for this project:
“Staff believes the project is consistent with the DDTRN Design Guidelines and that the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding structures and would not adversely impact the integrity of the adjacent historic resource. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project based on the findings and conditions of approval.”
Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of two town homes and two single family detached homes that are at this point unsold. The real estate company, Coldwell Banker and Doug Arnold, claim that this project would devalue adjacent property.
“As currently proposed, the set back for the addition at 425 J Street is only 18 inches for both the first and second story. This will create a 20-foot vertical wall that will radically change the appearance and character of the backyard area and will devalue the four properties affected.
In particular, 437 J Street will immediately lose both light and openness due to the blockage of the sky and sun. The massive and imposing new addition closing off the sky and sun will dramatically alter both the appearance and usage of the side yard and patio and will seriously devalue this property.”
Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission. He presented key testimony arguing that the city had three criteria with which to grant an exception to the zoning ordinance that requires a five foot setback. The only one of these three criteria that was applicable without either a zoning change or a general Variance, was if the tree was part of an historic landscape. Mr. Kopper then went on to argue that this did not fall within the normal definition for historic landscape of which there are very few such designations in the city. Mr. Kopper successfully argued that a mature tree is not necessarily historic, nor could a tree in and of itself, be part of an historic landscape without some accompanying structure.
At this point, Mike Levy, one of the planning commissioners, asked City Planning Staffer Mike Webb point blank whether Mr. Kopper’s interpretation was correct that this needed to be designated an historic landscape. Mr. Webb acknowledged that Mr. Kopper was correct. And when pressed, Mr. Webb acknowledged that unless it was deemed an historic landscape, they would have to rely on Variance procedures in order to grant such a setback.
Here is where this gets interesting. Mike Webb and Eric Lee, the planning staff, argued for approval of this project. They did so without getting a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether this could even be designated an historic landscape. This fact was brought up by Mr. Levy at this time and several other members of the commission wondered out loud how the planning staff would go forward with such a recommendation and more importantly how this process got this far.
Amazingly, for the next two hours, the meeting would continue with a variety of members of the public coming forward. One of the neighbors openly acknowledged that the reason for the addition was retribution for Mr. Skover building the “condos” that overlooked her property–from roughly 50 feet away.
In the end, staff worked very diligently in order to rescue this project giving the planning commissioners a number of different avenues short of outright denial. Even without the issue of the historic status of the tree which was by this point in severe doubt, the planning commission in general felt that this project was too large and the lack of setback very intrusive.
You see a very rare thing occur, by a unanimous 7-0, the Planning Commission voted down the proposal but instructed the city attorney to weigh in on this issue about the determination of the historic status, as much for future interest as for determining this project.
The question on many people’s mind after the decision was finally reached late into the evening, is why the city’s planning staff not only pushed for approval of this project but when it became clear that the Commission was opposed to it, continued to try to wear down the Commission into making a weaker ruling, a tactic that was actually partially successful and would have been more successful were it not for the resolve of several of the commissioners including Mr. Levy who caught on immediately that there was a legal problem and that Mr. Kopper’s opinion had serous merit.
For the staff to knowingly recommend approval of this project, knowing the ordinance rules as Mr. Webb appeared to acknowledge, without seeking the opinion of the City Attorney is blatant incompetence. At the very least he wasted the time of the commissioners by failing to even check to see if this could be done in the first place and in fact if he had his druthers, the planning commission would have sent it back to the City Attorney and then possibly revisit this issue in the near future. Staff should never have come up with such a recommendation without checking on its legality and whether this tree fit the definition of an historic landscape.
In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree. The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine–a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.
For those wondering in the end, why this issue comes before us, it is because this is yet another example of the sheer incompetence of city staff. I have never seen a proposal that staff itself recommends be voted down unanimously but that is what happened here. You have staff failing to check to see if their recommendation was legal. You have staff pushing and carrying the water for a proposal despite strong and legitimate objections from neighbors. It was not even known whether the Planning Commission had the ability to weigh in on the judgment of the historic nature of the tree and the landscape.
In the end, the question from all involved is how this got to this point. It was a question openly asked by those on the Planning Commission. It was a question wondered through out the proceedings. While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project. And you have once again, city staff, failing to do their job in a thorough and proper manner, which ended up wasting the time of the Planning Commission and those who came before the commission. Something needs to be done about this issue in the future or the city will end up setting itself up for a very serious and expensive law suit.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I happened to catch part of the meeting last night. It was very telling that the staff recommended this and then Mike Webb was forced to admit that the only way the Planning Commission could approve it was if they found that the tree has historical significance. But Mike failed to inform the commission of this until Bill Kopper brought it up. He also failed to consult the city attorney on it. DPD is absolutely right, this was very shoddy work on the part of city staff.
I happened to catch part of the meeting last night. It was very telling that the staff recommended this and then Mike Webb was forced to admit that the only way the Planning Commission could approve it was if they found that the tree has historical significance. But Mike failed to inform the commission of this until Bill Kopper brought it up. He also failed to consult the city attorney on it. DPD is absolutely right, this was very shoddy work on the part of city staff.
I happened to catch part of the meeting last night. It was very telling that the staff recommended this and then Mike Webb was forced to admit that the only way the Planning Commission could approve it was if they found that the tree has historical significance. But Mike failed to inform the commission of this until Bill Kopper brought it up. He also failed to consult the city attorney on it. DPD is absolutely right, this was very shoddy work on the part of city staff.
I happened to catch part of the meeting last night. It was very telling that the staff recommended this and then Mike Webb was forced to admit that the only way the Planning Commission could approve it was if they found that the tree has historical significance. But Mike failed to inform the commission of this until Bill Kopper brought it up. He also failed to consult the city attorney on it. DPD is absolutely right, this was very shoddy work on the part of city staff.
Good article. The city’s on its own mission to build build build. Too bad the Planning Staff are the same folks working on the proposed 12 acre Chiles Ranch development. Project proposed (by CIty paid designers) was 168 units. This is for an partially residential/partially agricultural area that’s zoned for 68 units. It’s easy to point the finger at the developers for proposing a classic grid layout (car based) high density project. Unfortunately, it’s the City that’s the driving force behind the design.
Watch out! The City of Davis “Planning” squadron may be in your neighborhood next!
Westcoast
Good article. The city’s on its own mission to build build build. Too bad the Planning Staff are the same folks working on the proposed 12 acre Chiles Ranch development. Project proposed (by CIty paid designers) was 168 units. This is for an partially residential/partially agricultural area that’s zoned for 68 units. It’s easy to point the finger at the developers for proposing a classic grid layout (car based) high density project. Unfortunately, it’s the City that’s the driving force behind the design.
Watch out! The City of Davis “Planning” squadron may be in your neighborhood next!
Westcoast
Good article. The city’s on its own mission to build build build. Too bad the Planning Staff are the same folks working on the proposed 12 acre Chiles Ranch development. Project proposed (by CIty paid designers) was 168 units. This is for an partially residential/partially agricultural area that’s zoned for 68 units. It’s easy to point the finger at the developers for proposing a classic grid layout (car based) high density project. Unfortunately, it’s the City that’s the driving force behind the design.
Watch out! The City of Davis “Planning” squadron may be in your neighborhood next!
Westcoast
Good article. The city’s on its own mission to build build build. Too bad the Planning Staff are the same folks working on the proposed 12 acre Chiles Ranch development. Project proposed (by CIty paid designers) was 168 units. This is for an partially residential/partially agricultural area that’s zoned for 68 units. It’s easy to point the finger at the developers for proposing a classic grid layout (car based) high density project. Unfortunately, it’s the City that’s the driving force behind the design.
Watch out! The City of Davis “Planning” squadron may be in your neighborhood next!
Westcoast
This will continue to be a triangulated power match between building interests, city staff and the citizens of Davis, all claiming to have the future of Davis at heart. It’s a classic political battle and we need to make sure that we have STRONG Council members(and their Planning Commission appointees) who represent OUR interests.
This will continue to be a triangulated power match between building interests, city staff and the citizens of Davis, all claiming to have the future of Davis at heart. It’s a classic political battle and we need to make sure that we have STRONG Council members(and their Planning Commission appointees) who represent OUR interests.
This will continue to be a triangulated power match between building interests, city staff and the citizens of Davis, all claiming to have the future of Davis at heart. It’s a classic political battle and we need to make sure that we have STRONG Council members(and their Planning Commission appointees) who represent OUR interests.
This will continue to be a triangulated power match between building interests, city staff and the citizens of Davis, all claiming to have the future of Davis at heart. It’s a classic political battle and we need to make sure that we have STRONG Council members(and their Planning Commission appointees) who represent OUR interests.
Yes…shoddy work on the part of the city staff.. but one does wonder how the discussion and 7-0 decision would have played out if the parties had been reversed and the project under consideration had been Caldwell Banker’s rather than they claiming that the project would reduce the value of their condominiums.
Yes…shoddy work on the part of the city staff.. but one does wonder how the discussion and 7-0 decision would have played out if the parties had been reversed and the project under consideration had been Caldwell Banker’s rather than they claiming that the project would reduce the value of their condominiums.
Yes…shoddy work on the part of the city staff.. but one does wonder how the discussion and 7-0 decision would have played out if the parties had been reversed and the project under consideration had been Caldwell Banker’s rather than they claiming that the project would reduce the value of their condominiums.
Yes…shoddy work on the part of the city staff.. but one does wonder how the discussion and 7-0 decision would have played out if the parties had been reversed and the project under consideration had been Caldwell Banker’s rather than they claiming that the project would reduce the value of their condominiums.
Watching it unfold it is difficult for me to believe that the Coldwell Banker connection meant a thing and here’s why.
First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.
Second and this is really the key, the discussion did not turn on that point, it turned on Bill Kopper’s letter and his testimony and Mike Levy (of all people) zooming in on the key point that the only way they could grant this would be for the tree to be declared historic. Once Levy brought up that point, the entire course of the discussion changed and it was never going to be approved. Once Levy heard the answer from staff, he declared that they could not go forward. So I don’t think that point made any difference whatsoever.
Watching it unfold it is difficult for me to believe that the Coldwell Banker connection meant a thing and here’s why.
First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.
Second and this is really the key, the discussion did not turn on that point, it turned on Bill Kopper’s letter and his testimony and Mike Levy (of all people) zooming in on the key point that the only way they could grant this would be for the tree to be declared historic. Once Levy brought up that point, the entire course of the discussion changed and it was never going to be approved. Once Levy heard the answer from staff, he declared that they could not go forward. So I don’t think that point made any difference whatsoever.
Watching it unfold it is difficult for me to believe that the Coldwell Banker connection meant a thing and here’s why.
First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.
Second and this is really the key, the discussion did not turn on that point, it turned on Bill Kopper’s letter and his testimony and Mike Levy (of all people) zooming in on the key point that the only way they could grant this would be for the tree to be declared historic. Once Levy brought up that point, the entire course of the discussion changed and it was never going to be approved. Once Levy heard the answer from staff, he declared that they could not go forward. So I don’t think that point made any difference whatsoever.
Watching it unfold it is difficult for me to believe that the Coldwell Banker connection meant a thing and here’s why.
First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.
Second and this is really the key, the discussion did not turn on that point, it turned on Bill Kopper’s letter and his testimony and Mike Levy (of all people) zooming in on the key point that the only way they could grant this would be for the tree to be declared historic. Once Levy brought up that point, the entire course of the discussion changed and it was never going to be approved. Once Levy heard the answer from staff, he declared that they could not go forward. So I don’t think that point made any difference whatsoever.
“… but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point.”
Believe it or not, this issue of 425 J Street came TWICE before the Historic Resources Mgt. Commission. And the Old East Neighborhood Association had, I believe, 2 meetings, at least one with city staff present, to try to hammer out the problems before it came to the HRMC.
“There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.”
The Tufts House, 434 J Street, built in 1890, is a designated Landmark Resource by the City of Davis. It is also listed on the National Register and the California Register.
In our last meeting, the HRMC unanimously voted that the Bissell proposal at 425 J “would not negatively impact the status of the Tufts House.”
“Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of condominiums that are at this point unsold.”
The Skover project, north of 425 J is not just a “complex of condominiums.” There are two condos and two single family houses. The worst aspect of this project is that it has no back yard. It is entirely paved over in concrete for parking. The houses look okay. But the yard looks terrible.
“Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission.”
Bill Kopper? Was that not Bill Ritter? You referred to him 8 times as Bill Kopper, but I’m pretty sure you are wrong about that. (Incidentally, someone told me that Bill Ritter is also running your wife’s campaign for city council.)
Bill Kopper, interestingly, is involved in a minor way. There has been an ongoing feud between Ms. Bissell and the owner of 421 J Street (Valerie Jones), who also happens to own and live in the Tufts House. Bill Kopper is the lawyer for Ms. Jones in that dispute.
“In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree.”
Whether or not the tree qualifies as “historic landscaping,” the entire neighborhood would suffer a loss if cutting down large, backyard trees became the norm whenever a homeowner wanted to build an addition. That is exactly what happened on the property just to the west of the Bissel’s on I Street, where a new addition replaced all the old trees. That is precisely what is going to happen on the 3rd & B Street projects, when all the new condos are going to replace the old canopy. I don’t think it is in our interest as a city to encourage the tearing down of old mature trees.
My feeling is that the best aspect of the Bissell proposal is that it would save the large hackberry, which is a beautiful tree visible to the entire neighborhood. It is much taller than the proposed addition.
“While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project.”
Issues of staff competence aside, the primary dispute here is a monetary one. Frank Skover does not live in the neighborhood. He is simply an investor interested in protecting his investment. The proposed project has the potential of making the neighboring homes, which are on the market, worth less money. The real question is how much less money?
A few months ago, when the HRMC first took up this question, I told the city planners (in an email) that this is what needs to be done: bring in an independent certified appraiser, and have him determine exactly how much the Skover units are worth now, and how much less they would be worth if the Bissell project were built. If Ms. Bissell wanted to construct her addition, she would have to compensate Mr. Skover for all of his loss.
That would satisfy both of the primary parties in this dispute.
The larger neighborhood is concerned, rightly, with precedent. And I think this would be a good precedent: if an applicant wanted a variation and that variation caused a negative impact on the neighbors, the neighbors would have to be fully compensated before the project moved forward.
“… but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point.”
Believe it or not, this issue of 425 J Street came TWICE before the Historic Resources Mgt. Commission. And the Old East Neighborhood Association had, I believe, 2 meetings, at least one with city staff present, to try to hammer out the problems before it came to the HRMC.
“There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.”
The Tufts House, 434 J Street, built in 1890, is a designated Landmark Resource by the City of Davis. It is also listed on the National Register and the California Register.
In our last meeting, the HRMC unanimously voted that the Bissell proposal at 425 J “would not negatively impact the status of the Tufts House.”
“Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of condominiums that are at this point unsold.”
The Skover project, north of 425 J is not just a “complex of condominiums.” There are two condos and two single family houses. The worst aspect of this project is that it has no back yard. It is entirely paved over in concrete for parking. The houses look okay. But the yard looks terrible.
“Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission.”
Bill Kopper? Was that not Bill Ritter? You referred to him 8 times as Bill Kopper, but I’m pretty sure you are wrong about that. (Incidentally, someone told me that Bill Ritter is also running your wife’s campaign for city council.)
Bill Kopper, interestingly, is involved in a minor way. There has been an ongoing feud between Ms. Bissell and the owner of 421 J Street (Valerie Jones), who also happens to own and live in the Tufts House. Bill Kopper is the lawyer for Ms. Jones in that dispute.
“In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree.”
Whether or not the tree qualifies as “historic landscaping,” the entire neighborhood would suffer a loss if cutting down large, backyard trees became the norm whenever a homeowner wanted to build an addition. That is exactly what happened on the property just to the west of the Bissel’s on I Street, where a new addition replaced all the old trees. That is precisely what is going to happen on the 3rd & B Street projects, when all the new condos are going to replace the old canopy. I don’t think it is in our interest as a city to encourage the tearing down of old mature trees.
My feeling is that the best aspect of the Bissell proposal is that it would save the large hackberry, which is a beautiful tree visible to the entire neighborhood. It is much taller than the proposed addition.
“While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project.”
Issues of staff competence aside, the primary dispute here is a monetary one. Frank Skover does not live in the neighborhood. He is simply an investor interested in protecting his investment. The proposed project has the potential of making the neighboring homes, which are on the market, worth less money. The real question is how much less money?
A few months ago, when the HRMC first took up this question, I told the city planners (in an email) that this is what needs to be done: bring in an independent certified appraiser, and have him determine exactly how much the Skover units are worth now, and how much less they would be worth if the Bissell project were built. If Ms. Bissell wanted to construct her addition, she would have to compensate Mr. Skover for all of his loss.
That would satisfy both of the primary parties in this dispute.
The larger neighborhood is concerned, rightly, with precedent. And I think this would be a good precedent: if an applicant wanted a variation and that variation caused a negative impact on the neighbors, the neighbors would have to be fully compensated before the project moved forward.
“… but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point.”
Believe it or not, this issue of 425 J Street came TWICE before the Historic Resources Mgt. Commission. And the Old East Neighborhood Association had, I believe, 2 meetings, at least one with city staff present, to try to hammer out the problems before it came to the HRMC.
“There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.”
The Tufts House, 434 J Street, built in 1890, is a designated Landmark Resource by the City of Davis. It is also listed on the National Register and the California Register.
In our last meeting, the HRMC unanimously voted that the Bissell proposal at 425 J “would not negatively impact the status of the Tufts House.”
“Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of condominiums that are at this point unsold.”
The Skover project, north of 425 J is not just a “complex of condominiums.” There are two condos and two single family houses. The worst aspect of this project is that it has no back yard. It is entirely paved over in concrete for parking. The houses look okay. But the yard looks terrible.
“Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission.”
Bill Kopper? Was that not Bill Ritter? You referred to him 8 times as Bill Kopper, but I’m pretty sure you are wrong about that. (Incidentally, someone told me that Bill Ritter is also running your wife’s campaign for city council.)
Bill Kopper, interestingly, is involved in a minor way. There has been an ongoing feud between Ms. Bissell and the owner of 421 J Street (Valerie Jones), who also happens to own and live in the Tufts House. Bill Kopper is the lawyer for Ms. Jones in that dispute.
“In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree.”
Whether or not the tree qualifies as “historic landscaping,” the entire neighborhood would suffer a loss if cutting down large, backyard trees became the norm whenever a homeowner wanted to build an addition. That is exactly what happened on the property just to the west of the Bissel’s on I Street, where a new addition replaced all the old trees. That is precisely what is going to happen on the 3rd & B Street projects, when all the new condos are going to replace the old canopy. I don’t think it is in our interest as a city to encourage the tearing down of old mature trees.
My feeling is that the best aspect of the Bissell proposal is that it would save the large hackberry, which is a beautiful tree visible to the entire neighborhood. It is much taller than the proposed addition.
“While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project.”
Issues of staff competence aside, the primary dispute here is a monetary one. Frank Skover does not live in the neighborhood. He is simply an investor interested in protecting his investment. The proposed project has the potential of making the neighboring homes, which are on the market, worth less money. The real question is how much less money?
A few months ago, when the HRMC first took up this question, I told the city planners (in an email) that this is what needs to be done: bring in an independent certified appraiser, and have him determine exactly how much the Skover units are worth now, and how much less they would be worth if the Bissell project were built. If Ms. Bissell wanted to construct her addition, she would have to compensate Mr. Skover for all of his loss.
That would satisfy both of the primary parties in this dispute.
The larger neighborhood is concerned, rightly, with precedent. And I think this would be a good precedent: if an applicant wanted a variation and that variation caused a negative impact on the neighbors, the neighbors would have to be fully compensated before the project moved forward.
“… but it would have taken the form of, how exactly did this project come forward to this point.”
Believe it or not, this issue of 425 J Street came TWICE before the Historic Resources Mgt. Commission. And the Old East Neighborhood Association had, I believe, 2 meetings, at least one with city staff present, to try to hammer out the problems before it came to the HRMC.
“There was concern that the addition was too large and that the mass and scale of the new structure would be out of proportion for the lot and the neighborhood and would have insufficient open space. Particularly, there was concern that it would overwhelm the nearby historic Tufts House.”
The Tufts House, 434 J Street, built in 1890, is a designated Landmark Resource by the City of Davis. It is also listed on the National Register and the California Register.
In our last meeting, the HRMC unanimously voted that the Bissell proposal at 425 J “would not negatively impact the status of the Tufts House.”
“Immediately to the north is a newly built complex of condominiums that are at this point unsold.”
The Skover project, north of 425 J is not just a “complex of condominiums.” There are two condos and two single family houses. The worst aspect of this project is that it has no back yard. It is entirely paved over in concrete for parking. The houses look okay. But the yard looks terrible.
“Bill Kopper, represented the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Frank Skover before the Planning Commission.”
Bill Kopper? Was that not Bill Ritter? You referred to him 8 times as Bill Kopper, but I’m pretty sure you are wrong about that. (Incidentally, someone told me that Bill Ritter is also running your wife’s campaign for city council.)
Bill Kopper, interestingly, is involved in a minor way. There has been an ongoing feud between Ms. Bissell and the owner of 421 J Street (Valerie Jones), who also happens to own and live in the Tufts House. Bill Kopper is the lawyer for Ms. Jones in that dispute.
“In fact the suggestion at one point was that the owner could simply cut down the tree.”
Whether or not the tree qualifies as “historic landscaping,” the entire neighborhood would suffer a loss if cutting down large, backyard trees became the norm whenever a homeowner wanted to build an addition. That is exactly what happened on the property just to the west of the Bissel’s on I Street, where a new addition replaced all the old trees. That is precisely what is going to happen on the 3rd & B Street projects, when all the new condos are going to replace the old canopy. I don’t think it is in our interest as a city to encourage the tearing down of old mature trees.
My feeling is that the best aspect of the Bissell proposal is that it would save the large hackberry, which is a beautiful tree visible to the entire neighborhood. It is much taller than the proposed addition.
“While for most this is a small issue, this was extremely costly to the owner of the adjacent property who had representatives there to protect his investment in his project.”
Issues of staff competence aside, the primary dispute here is a monetary one. Frank Skover does not live in the neighborhood. He is simply an investor interested in protecting his investment. The proposed project has the potential of making the neighboring homes, which are on the market, worth less money. The real question is how much less money?
A few months ago, when the HRMC first took up this question, I told the city planners (in an email) that this is what needs to be done: bring in an independent certified appraiser, and have him determine exactly how much the Skover units are worth now, and how much less they would be worth if the Bissell project were built. If Ms. Bissell wanted to construct her addition, she would have to compensate Mr. Skover for all of his loss.
That would satisfy both of the primary parties in this dispute.
The larger neighborhood is concerned, rightly, with precedent. And I think this would be a good precedent: if an applicant wanted a variation and that variation caused a negative impact on the neighbors, the neighbors would have to be fully compensated before the project moved forward.
DPD: If Steiner’s legal opinion had been available which reasonably could have been that the issue was open to interpretation,lawyer Levy
would not have been able to jump on this staff oversight and give those who usually back developer interests a “clean” reason for denial. As you note, others on the Commission were ready to kill the project for other reasons as well, i.e “too large and lack of setback too intrusive”. When you get a 7-0 decision on the Asmundson,Souza,Saylor majority- appointed Planning Commission, you usually can find an unusual confluence of citizen and developer interests.
DPD: If Steiner’s legal opinion had been available which reasonably could have been that the issue was open to interpretation,lawyer Levy
would not have been able to jump on this staff oversight and give those who usually back developer interests a “clean” reason for denial. As you note, others on the Commission were ready to kill the project for other reasons as well, i.e “too large and lack of setback too intrusive”. When you get a 7-0 decision on the Asmundson,Souza,Saylor majority- appointed Planning Commission, you usually can find an unusual confluence of citizen and developer interests.
DPD: If Steiner’s legal opinion had been available which reasonably could have been that the issue was open to interpretation,lawyer Levy
would not have been able to jump on this staff oversight and give those who usually back developer interests a “clean” reason for denial. As you note, others on the Commission were ready to kill the project for other reasons as well, i.e “too large and lack of setback too intrusive”. When you get a 7-0 decision on the Asmundson,Souza,Saylor majority- appointed Planning Commission, you usually can find an unusual confluence of citizen and developer interests.
DPD: If Steiner’s legal opinion had been available which reasonably could have been that the issue was open to interpretation,lawyer Levy
would not have been able to jump on this staff oversight and give those who usually back developer interests a “clean” reason for denial. As you note, others on the Commission were ready to kill the project for other reasons as well, i.e “too large and lack of setback too intrusive”. When you get a 7-0 decision on the Asmundson,Souza,Saylor majority- appointed Planning Commission, you usually can find an unusual confluence of citizen and developer interests.
Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.
Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.
Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.
Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.
For clarification Bill Ritter spoke briefly last night on behalf of Mr. Skover.
Mr. Kopper spoke at length as Mr. Skover’s attorney. And delivered the key letter that I believe caused the Planning Commission to reject the proposal.
My concern here is less about the project–I needed to discuss it at some length in order to discuss what I considered to be the crux of the issue–the poor work of city staff and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.
For clarification Bill Ritter spoke briefly last night on behalf of Mr. Skover.
Mr. Kopper spoke at length as Mr. Skover’s attorney. And delivered the key letter that I believe caused the Planning Commission to reject the proposal.
My concern here is less about the project–I needed to discuss it at some length in order to discuss what I considered to be the crux of the issue–the poor work of city staff and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.
For clarification Bill Ritter spoke briefly last night on behalf of Mr. Skover.
Mr. Kopper spoke at length as Mr. Skover’s attorney. And delivered the key letter that I believe caused the Planning Commission to reject the proposal.
My concern here is less about the project–I needed to discuss it at some length in order to discuss what I considered to be the crux of the issue–the poor work of city staff and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.
For clarification Bill Ritter spoke briefly last night on behalf of Mr. Skover.
Mr. Kopper spoke at length as Mr. Skover’s attorney. And delivered the key letter that I believe caused the Planning Commission to reject the proposal.
My concern here is less about the project–I needed to discuss it at some length in order to discuss what I considered to be the crux of the issue–the poor work of city staff and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.
“…and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.”
It IS just possible that city staff was trying to follow the directions of Council,albeit not with great skill,to pursue infill more aggressively.
“…and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.”
It IS just possible that city staff was trying to follow the directions of Council,albeit not with great skill,to pursue infill more aggressively.
“…and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.”
It IS just possible that city staff was trying to follow the directions of Council,albeit not with great skill,to pursue infill more aggressively.
“…and the baffling reason why they seemed to try to carry water here.”
It IS just possible that city staff was trying to follow the directions of Council,albeit not with great skill,to pursue infill more aggressively.
I think this has less to do with the council and more to do with some of the bosses in the planning department.
I think this has less to do with the council and more to do with some of the bosses in the planning department.
I think this has less to do with the council and more to do with some of the bosses in the planning department.
I think this has less to do with the council and more to do with some of the bosses in the planning department.
“Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.”
I never mentioned anyone suing anyone else. Your saying that I did is more than inappropriate; it is a lie. I have no idea if there was a lawsuit.
Further, when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties. If you don’t understand that, then maybe you shouldn’t be attacking me for something I did not do.
“Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.”
I never mentioned anyone suing anyone else. Your saying that I did is more than inappropriate; it is a lie. I have no idea if there was a lawsuit.
Further, when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties. If you don’t understand that, then maybe you shouldn’t be attacking me for something I did not do.
“Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.”
I never mentioned anyone suing anyone else. Your saying that I did is more than inappropriate; it is a lie. I have no idea if there was a lawsuit.
Further, when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties. If you don’t understand that, then maybe you shouldn’t be attacking me for something I did not do.
“Rich Rifkin: Your local gossip(who is suing who)on this thread is inappropriate.”
I never mentioned anyone suing anyone else. Your saying that I did is more than inappropriate; it is a lie. I have no idea if there was a lawsuit.
Further, when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties. If you don’t understand that, then maybe you shouldn’t be attacking me for something I did not do.
“First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.”
Clumpner was only the Planning Commissioner who really got to the heart of the matter and had a solution which made sense for all involved.
All of the business about whether the tree was “historic landscaping” was a sideshow. If you want to use that to attack staff, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
No one wanted to cut down the tree. If you don’t cut down the tree, then the addition had to move to the north side of that property. But that affects the value of the next door houses and condos. So you have to ask how much that would reduce the vaule of that property.
Like Mr. Rifkin said, a certified appraiser could make the determination and one party could pay the other.
This is not that complicated.
“First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.”
Clumpner was only the Planning Commissioner who really got to the heart of the matter and had a solution which made sense for all involved.
All of the business about whether the tree was “historic landscaping” was a sideshow. If you want to use that to attack staff, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
No one wanted to cut down the tree. If you don’t cut down the tree, then the addition had to move to the north side of that property. But that affects the value of the next door houses and condos. So you have to ask how much that would reduce the vaule of that property.
Like Mr. Rifkin said, a certified appraiser could make the determination and one party could pay the other.
This is not that complicated.
“First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.”
Clumpner was only the Planning Commissioner who really got to the heart of the matter and had a solution which made sense for all involved.
All of the business about whether the tree was “historic landscaping” was a sideshow. If you want to use that to attack staff, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
No one wanted to cut down the tree. If you don’t cut down the tree, then the addition had to move to the north side of that property. But that affects the value of the next door houses and condos. So you have to ask how much that would reduce the vaule of that property.
Like Mr. Rifkin said, a certified appraiser could make the determination and one party could pay the other.
This is not that complicated.
“First of all the Chair Greg Clumpner even asked for an independent assessment of the property value impact of the project–he wanted to hear it from someone who was not an interested party.”
Clumpner was only the Planning Commissioner who really got to the heart of the matter and had a solution which made sense for all involved.
All of the business about whether the tree was “historic landscaping” was a sideshow. If you want to use that to attack staff, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
No one wanted to cut down the tree. If you don’t cut down the tree, then the addition had to move to the north side of that property. But that affects the value of the next door houses and condos. So you have to ask how much that would reduce the vaule of that property.
Like Mr. Rifkin said, a certified appraiser could make the determination and one party could pay the other.
This is not that complicated.
The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger and there either are many many of them or high turnover, which is it? It seems as though there is a natural tension here; planning staff needs development to be kept busy; job security….so there needs to be a yang to the yin in terms of restraint.
Mike Webb is usually articulate but he also is young. When Bill Emelen was head of the dept he was always at the PC meetings. Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?
and if anyone was watching the night before, the Finance Dept presented the Council with the budget forcasts and options for tax increases til late into the night….and very little about let’s change HOW we do things to be more efficient, it is always ‘need more, more more’…..
The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger and there either are many many of them or high turnover, which is it? It seems as though there is a natural tension here; planning staff needs development to be kept busy; job security….so there needs to be a yang to the yin in terms of restraint.
Mike Webb is usually articulate but he also is young. When Bill Emelen was head of the dept he was always at the PC meetings. Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?
and if anyone was watching the night before, the Finance Dept presented the Council with the budget forcasts and options for tax increases til late into the night….and very little about let’s change HOW we do things to be more efficient, it is always ‘need more, more more’…..
The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger and there either are many many of them or high turnover, which is it? It seems as though there is a natural tension here; planning staff needs development to be kept busy; job security….so there needs to be a yang to the yin in terms of restraint.
Mike Webb is usually articulate but he also is young. When Bill Emelen was head of the dept he was always at the PC meetings. Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?
and if anyone was watching the night before, the Finance Dept presented the Council with the budget forcasts and options for tax increases til late into the night….and very little about let’s change HOW we do things to be more efficient, it is always ‘need more, more more’…..
The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger and there either are many many of them or high turnover, which is it? It seems as though there is a natural tension here; planning staff needs development to be kept busy; job security….so there needs to be a yang to the yin in terms of restraint.
Mike Webb is usually articulate but he also is young. When Bill Emelen was head of the dept he was always at the PC meetings. Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?
and if anyone was watching the night before, the Finance Dept presented the Council with the budget forcasts and options for tax increases til late into the night….and very little about let’s change HOW we do things to be more efficient, it is always ‘need more, more more’…..
Davis Real Estate Broker:
I disagree with you. The historical landscaping was not a side show. The reason is that in the ordinance there are only three exemptions to the set-back requirement. The only applicable one in this case was the historical landscaping.
Mr. Rifkin offers an interesting solution that is not available at present under the given law and therefore while an intriguing idea, is of no merit for this discussion.
Davis Real Estate Broker:
I disagree with you. The historical landscaping was not a side show. The reason is that in the ordinance there are only three exemptions to the set-back requirement. The only applicable one in this case was the historical landscaping.
Mr. Rifkin offers an interesting solution that is not available at present under the given law and therefore while an intriguing idea, is of no merit for this discussion.
Davis Real Estate Broker:
I disagree with you. The historical landscaping was not a side show. The reason is that in the ordinance there are only three exemptions to the set-back requirement. The only applicable one in this case was the historical landscaping.
Mr. Rifkin offers an interesting solution that is not available at present under the given law and therefore while an intriguing idea, is of no merit for this discussion.
Davis Real Estate Broker:
I disagree with you. The historical landscaping was not a side show. The reason is that in the ordinance there are only three exemptions to the set-back requirement. The only applicable one in this case was the historical landscaping.
Mr. Rifkin offers an interesting solution that is not available at present under the given law and therefore while an intriguing idea, is of no merit for this discussion.
What is a “historical landscape”?
What is a “historical landscape”?
What is a “historical landscape”?
What is a “historical landscape”?
City of Davis with a website for this project:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/J_Street_Addition/
City of Davis with a website for this project:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/J_Street_Addition/
City of Davis with a website for this project:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/J_Street_Addition/
City of Davis with a website for this project:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/cdd/projects/J_Street_Addition/
I could be wrong, but I think that unless it is a Landmark Tree or a Tree of Significance, what happens to the hackberry isn’t relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think that unless it is a Landmark Tree or a Tree of Significance, what happens to the hackberry isn’t relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think that unless it is a Landmark Tree or a Tree of Significance, what happens to the hackberry isn’t relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think that unless it is a Landmark Tree or a Tree of Significance, what happens to the hackberry isn’t relevant.
That’s my suspicion as well. I think staff tried to sneak that through and they would have had Mr. Skover not hired Bill Kopper as his attorney.
That’s my suspicion as well. I think staff tried to sneak that through and they would have had Mr. Skover not hired Bill Kopper as his attorney.
That’s my suspicion as well. I think staff tried to sneak that through and they would have had Mr. Skover not hired Bill Kopper as his attorney.
That’s my suspicion as well. I think staff tried to sneak that through and they would have had Mr. Skover not hired Bill Kopper as his attorney.
“Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?”
She was at the HRMC meeting on this topic. It’s possible she is on vacation or ill. I don’t know. But ordinarily Ketherine is at these meetings.
“Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?”
She was at the HRMC meeting on this topic. It’s possible she is on vacation or ill. I don’t know. But ordinarily Ketherine is at these meetings.
“Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?”
She was at the HRMC meeting on this topic. It’s possible she is on vacation or ill. I don’t know. But ordinarily Ketherine is at these meetings.
“Why isn’t Katherine Hess there to supervise?”
She was at the HRMC meeting on this topic. It’s possible she is on vacation or ill. I don’t know. But ordinarily Ketherine is at these meetings.
Happy Birthday David!!! You deserve it!
Happy Birthday David!!! You deserve it!
Happy Birthday David!!! You deserve it!
Happy Birthday David!!! You deserve it!
“when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties.”
…even more to the point, if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute .
“when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties.”
…even more to the point, if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute .
“when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties.”
…even more to the point, if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute .
“when civil lawsuits are filed, they are matters of public record, even if both are private parties.”
…even more to the point, if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute .
After reading DPD’s article on this, the immediate thought that came to my mind is what friend on city staff was doing a favor for the homeowner? City staff was not going this far out on a limb for nothing. The whole thing smacks of underhanded favoritism, in which city staff is being used to put forward some friend of their’s position.
After reading DPD’s article on this, the immediate thought that came to my mind is what friend on city staff was doing a favor for the homeowner? City staff was not going this far out on a limb for nothing. The whole thing smacks of underhanded favoritism, in which city staff is being used to put forward some friend of their’s position.
After reading DPD’s article on this, the immediate thought that came to my mind is what friend on city staff was doing a favor for the homeowner? City staff was not going this far out on a limb for nothing. The whole thing smacks of underhanded favoritism, in which city staff is being used to put forward some friend of their’s position.
After reading DPD’s article on this, the immediate thought that came to my mind is what friend on city staff was doing a favor for the homeowner? City staff was not going this far out on a limb for nothing. The whole thing smacks of underhanded favoritism, in which city staff is being used to put forward some friend of their’s position.
“if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute.”
I note that you make these attacks on me personally, but you don’t have the courage to use your real name. Sad.
Nevertheless, none of what I mentioned here was outside of the public record. If you call the public record “gossip”, then your determination to slur me is really over the top.
The only reason I mentioned the dispute between the owners of 425 and 421 Street is because I think it sheds light on some of the antagonism expressed before the Planning Commission and the HRMC.
“if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute.”
I note that you make these attacks on me personally, but you don’t have the courage to use your real name. Sad.
Nevertheless, none of what I mentioned here was outside of the public record. If you call the public record “gossip”, then your determination to slur me is really over the top.
The only reason I mentioned the dispute between the owners of 425 and 421 Street is because I think it sheds light on some of the antagonism expressed before the Planning Commission and the HRMC.
“if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute.”
I note that you make these attacks on me personally, but you don’t have the courage to use your real name. Sad.
Nevertheless, none of what I mentioned here was outside of the public record. If you call the public record “gossip”, then your determination to slur me is really over the top.
The only reason I mentioned the dispute between the owners of 425 and 421 Street is because I think it sheds light on some of the antagonism expressed before the Planning Commission and the HRMC.
“if not a lawsuit that is part of the public record, then you are gossiping about two neighbors having a PRIVATE dispute.”
I note that you make these attacks on me personally, but you don’t have the courage to use your real name. Sad.
Nevertheless, none of what I mentioned here was outside of the public record. If you call the public record “gossip”, then your determination to slur me is really over the top.
The only reason I mentioned the dispute between the owners of 425 and 421 Street is because I think it sheds light on some of the antagonism expressed before the Planning Commission and the HRMC.
“The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger”
What does age have to do with this? I agree that the matter was handled poorly by staff, but “incompetence” is unfair and needlessly mean spirited.
Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.
Everybody makes mistakes, and if we just attack everyone trying to do good, then we shouldn’t wonder why the good planners leave.
“The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger”
What does age have to do with this? I agree that the matter was handled poorly by staff, but “incompetence” is unfair and needlessly mean spirited.
Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.
Everybody makes mistakes, and if we just attack everyone trying to do good, then we shouldn’t wonder why the good planners leave.
“The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger”
What does age have to do with this? I agree that the matter was handled poorly by staff, but “incompetence” is unfair and needlessly mean spirited.
Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.
Everybody makes mistakes, and if we just attack everyone trying to do good, then we shouldn’t wonder why the good planners leave.
“The city planning staff that are assigned to these proposals and present the staff reports seem to get younger and younger”
What does age have to do with this? I agree that the matter was handled poorly by staff, but “incompetence” is unfair and needlessly mean spirited.
Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.
Everybody makes mistakes, and if we just attack everyone trying to do good, then we shouldn’t wonder why the good planners leave.
For “young,” read inexperienced.
Which, on the part of city staff, is all too obvious from DPD’s report. Sometimes folks commenting see “attacks” where there’s just disagreement. Unless they have an axe to grind.
Speaking of ancient hackberry trees, haha.
For “young,” read inexperienced.
Which, on the part of city staff, is all too obvious from DPD’s report. Sometimes folks commenting see “attacks” where there’s just disagreement. Unless they have an axe to grind.
Speaking of ancient hackberry trees, haha.
For “young,” read inexperienced.
Which, on the part of city staff, is all too obvious from DPD’s report. Sometimes folks commenting see “attacks” where there’s just disagreement. Unless they have an axe to grind.
Speaking of ancient hackberry trees, haha.
For “young,” read inexperienced.
Which, on the part of city staff, is all too obvious from DPD’s report. Sometimes folks commenting see “attacks” where there’s just disagreement. Unless they have an axe to grind.
Speaking of ancient hackberry trees, haha.
The statement that this was “shear [sic] incompetence” is an attack, not a disagreement.
DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.
The statement that this was “shear [sic] incompetence” is an attack, not a disagreement.
DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.
The statement that this was “shear [sic] incompetence” is an attack, not a disagreement.
DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.
The statement that this was “shear [sic] incompetence” is an attack, not a disagreement.
DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.
Anonymous 7:48:
I don’t know what he was trying to do, but he did not do “good” in this case. He handled it poorly and he could have left the city open for a lawsuit by his failure to understand a key city ordinance. I don’t know if he is incompetent or not. The handling of this was incompetence by a well-paid city staffer. If you are concerned about good planners leaving that is fine, but do not try to defend poor staff work.
Anonymous 7:48:
I don’t know what he was trying to do, but he did not do “good” in this case. He handled it poorly and he could have left the city open for a lawsuit by his failure to understand a key city ordinance. I don’t know if he is incompetent or not. The handling of this was incompetence by a well-paid city staffer. If you are concerned about good planners leaving that is fine, but do not try to defend poor staff work.
Anonymous 7:48:
I don’t know what he was trying to do, but he did not do “good” in this case. He handled it poorly and he could have left the city open for a lawsuit by his failure to understand a key city ordinance. I don’t know if he is incompetent or not. The handling of this was incompetence by a well-paid city staffer. If you are concerned about good planners leaving that is fine, but do not try to defend poor staff work.
Anonymous 7:48:
I don’t know what he was trying to do, but he did not do “good” in this case. He handled it poorly and he could have left the city open for a lawsuit by his failure to understand a key city ordinance. I don’t know if he is incompetent or not. The handling of this was incompetence by a well-paid city staffer. If you are concerned about good planners leaving that is fine, but do not try to defend poor staff work.
“DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.”
I’m interested in the story because it illustrates and highlights a perpetual problem I have with city staffers and their failure to do their job properly.
“DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.”
I’m interested in the story because it illustrates and highlights a perpetual problem I have with city staffers and their failure to do their job properly.
“DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.”
I’m interested in the story because it illustrates and highlights a perpetual problem I have with city staffers and their failure to do their job properly.
“DPD is interested in this story not really because of the tree or the setback, but because it gives him ammunition against the city planning department. That sounds like an ax grinding to me.”
I’m interested in the story because it illustrates and highlights a perpetual problem I have with city staffers and their failure to do their job properly.
“Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.”
My experience with Eric Lee, as a member of the HRMC, is that he is a true professional. Everything I’ve seen him do has been superior quality work. When he makes presentations before our commission, they are always thorough and complete. His printed reports are always very well done. Of all the city staff I’ve seen make presentations or publish reports, none is better than Eric Lee. I don’t believe any of my fellow HRMC commissioners would disagree with that conclusion.
Other than being a pro, I don’t believe Eric has any kind of an agenda. He just does his job very well.
“Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.”
My experience with Eric Lee, as a member of the HRMC, is that he is a true professional. Everything I’ve seen him do has been superior quality work. When he makes presentations before our commission, they are always thorough and complete. His printed reports are always very well done. Of all the city staff I’ve seen make presentations or publish reports, none is better than Eric Lee. I don’t believe any of my fellow HRMC commissioners would disagree with that conclusion.
Other than being a pro, I don’t believe Eric has any kind of an agenda. He just does his job very well.
“Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.”
My experience with Eric Lee, as a member of the HRMC, is that he is a true professional. Everything I’ve seen him do has been superior quality work. When he makes presentations before our commission, they are always thorough and complete. His printed reports are always very well done. Of all the city staff I’ve seen make presentations or publish reports, none is better than Eric Lee. I don’t believe any of my fellow HRMC commissioners would disagree with that conclusion.
Other than being a pro, I don’t believe Eric has any kind of an agenda. He just does his job very well.
“Eric is a very competent planner with more experience than you think. His intentions are honorable and he is doing his job to make Davis better.”
My experience with Eric Lee, as a member of the HRMC, is that he is a true professional. Everything I’ve seen him do has been superior quality work. When he makes presentations before our commission, they are always thorough and complete. His printed reports are always very well done. Of all the city staff I’ve seen make presentations or publish reports, none is better than Eric Lee. I don’t believe any of my fellow HRMC commissioners would disagree with that conclusion.
Other than being a pro, I don’t believe Eric has any kind of an agenda. He just does his job very well.
If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.
If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.
If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.
If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.
“The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine–a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.”
It is possible that the value of the tree, as assessed by an arborist, would be around $40,000. That is not the replacement cost, nor would anyone be ‘fined’ that amount for removing it. Arborists use a formula for evaluating trees. For someone to tell the property owner that the tree is worth $40,000 would not necessarily be unreasonable.
I don’t think you’re likely to straighten out what he actually said, what the applicant believes he said, etc. I would call this one a major misunderstanding, and kind of a side issue in this whole topic.
Eric may be reading this blog, but it seems very unlikely that he would post to set the record straight. City staff wouldn’t be foolish enough to do that and subject themselves to the kind of things people here say.
“The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine–a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.”
It is possible that the value of the tree, as assessed by an arborist, would be around $40,000. That is not the replacement cost, nor would anyone be ‘fined’ that amount for removing it. Arborists use a formula for evaluating trees. For someone to tell the property owner that the tree is worth $40,000 would not necessarily be unreasonable.
I don’t think you’re likely to straighten out what he actually said, what the applicant believes he said, etc. I would call this one a major misunderstanding, and kind of a side issue in this whole topic.
Eric may be reading this blog, but it seems very unlikely that he would post to set the record straight. City staff wouldn’t be foolish enough to do that and subject themselves to the kind of things people here say.
“The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine–a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.”
It is possible that the value of the tree, as assessed by an arborist, would be around $40,000. That is not the replacement cost, nor would anyone be ‘fined’ that amount for removing it. Arborists use a formula for evaluating trees. For someone to tell the property owner that the tree is worth $40,000 would not necessarily be unreasonable.
I don’t think you’re likely to straighten out what he actually said, what the applicant believes he said, etc. I would call this one a major misunderstanding, and kind of a side issue in this whole topic.
Eric may be reading this blog, but it seems very unlikely that he would post to set the record straight. City staff wouldn’t be foolish enough to do that and subject themselves to the kind of things people here say.
“The applicant claimed that city planner Eric Lee had told her that if she did, she could face a $40,000 fine–a preposterous claim that in fact, Mr. Lee though he hedged, never disputed.”
It is possible that the value of the tree, as assessed by an arborist, would be around $40,000. That is not the replacement cost, nor would anyone be ‘fined’ that amount for removing it. Arborists use a formula for evaluating trees. For someone to tell the property owner that the tree is worth $40,000 would not necessarily be unreasonable.
I don’t think you’re likely to straighten out what he actually said, what the applicant believes he said, etc. I would call this one a major misunderstanding, and kind of a side issue in this whole topic.
Eric may be reading this blog, but it seems very unlikely that he would post to set the record straight. City staff wouldn’t be foolish enough to do that and subject themselves to the kind of things people here say.
“If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.”
David,
I think Ms. Bissell (not “Mrs. Brissel”) misunderstood what he told her. He probably did not want to publicly embarrass her by pointing this out. To definitively conclude, based on this misunderstanding, that Eric Lee is not good at his job is wrong.
“If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.”
David,
I think Ms. Bissell (not “Mrs. Brissel”) misunderstood what he told her. He probably did not want to publicly embarrass her by pointing this out. To definitively conclude, based on this misunderstanding, that Eric Lee is not good at his job is wrong.
“If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.”
David,
I think Ms. Bissell (not “Mrs. Brissel”) misunderstood what he told her. He probably did not want to publicly embarrass her by pointing this out. To definitively conclude, based on this misunderstanding, that Eric Lee is not good at his job is wrong.
“If he’s a true professional, why did he tell Mrs. Brissel that she could be fined $40,000 for cutting down her tree. When Mrs. Brissel brought this up last night, he did not deny it.”
David,
I think Ms. Bissell (not “Mrs. Brissel”) misunderstood what he told her. He probably did not want to publicly embarrass her by pointing this out. To definitively conclude, based on this misunderstanding, that Eric Lee is not good at his job is wrong.
Did you watch that portion of the meeting?
Did you watch that portion of the meeting?
Did you watch that portion of the meeting?
Did you watch that portion of the meeting?
Apoligists for city staff? Egads! Don’t tell me: its not what you heard, its what I tell you you must have heard!
Whenever apologists can’t fight their way out of an argument, they insist you must not have heard right!
Many on city staff are either 1) incompetent; 2) inconsistent because they are serving interests antithetical to what is appropriate.
If Eric Lee failed to deny he threatened the lady with a $40K fine…In the law, that sort of omission is considered an admission he made the $40k statement. Get it?!?
Apoligists for city staff? Egads! Don’t tell me: its not what you heard, its what I tell you you must have heard!
Whenever apologists can’t fight their way out of an argument, they insist you must not have heard right!
Many on city staff are either 1) incompetent; 2) inconsistent because they are serving interests antithetical to what is appropriate.
If Eric Lee failed to deny he threatened the lady with a $40K fine…In the law, that sort of omission is considered an admission he made the $40k statement. Get it?!?
Apoligists for city staff? Egads! Don’t tell me: its not what you heard, its what I tell you you must have heard!
Whenever apologists can’t fight their way out of an argument, they insist you must not have heard right!
Many on city staff are either 1) incompetent; 2) inconsistent because they are serving interests antithetical to what is appropriate.
If Eric Lee failed to deny he threatened the lady with a $40K fine…In the law, that sort of omission is considered an admission he made the $40k statement. Get it?!?
Apoligists for city staff? Egads! Don’t tell me: its not what you heard, its what I tell you you must have heard!
Whenever apologists can’t fight their way out of an argument, they insist you must not have heard right!
Many on city staff are either 1) incompetent; 2) inconsistent because they are serving interests antithetical to what is appropriate.
If Eric Lee failed to deny he threatened the lady with a $40K fine…In the law, that sort of omission is considered an admission he made the $40k statement. Get it?!?
“Did you watch that portion of the meeting?”
I heard Pat Bissell say something to the effect that she was under the impression from what Eric told her that if she cut down the tree without a permit, she would be subject to a big fine. At that point, someone said that was not the case. Eric was asked about this, and I thought he said something like, “that isn’t quite what I said.” But he did not elaborate or explain exactly what he said. I believe he was reticent at that point, out of politeness, to publicly refute what Ms. Bissell believed.
Any conclusions that Eric Lee is not a very good employee of the City of Davis, based on that misunderstanding, is daft.
“Did you watch that portion of the meeting?”
I heard Pat Bissell say something to the effect that she was under the impression from what Eric told her that if she cut down the tree without a permit, she would be subject to a big fine. At that point, someone said that was not the case. Eric was asked about this, and I thought he said something like, “that isn’t quite what I said.” But he did not elaborate or explain exactly what he said. I believe he was reticent at that point, out of politeness, to publicly refute what Ms. Bissell believed.
Any conclusions that Eric Lee is not a very good employee of the City of Davis, based on that misunderstanding, is daft.
“Did you watch that portion of the meeting?”
I heard Pat Bissell say something to the effect that she was under the impression from what Eric told her that if she cut down the tree without a permit, she would be subject to a big fine. At that point, someone said that was not the case. Eric was asked about this, and I thought he said something like, “that isn’t quite what I said.” But he did not elaborate or explain exactly what he said. I believe he was reticent at that point, out of politeness, to publicly refute what Ms. Bissell believed.
Any conclusions that Eric Lee is not a very good employee of the City of Davis, based on that misunderstanding, is daft.
“Did you watch that portion of the meeting?”
I heard Pat Bissell say something to the effect that she was under the impression from what Eric told her that if she cut down the tree without a permit, she would be subject to a big fine. At that point, someone said that was not the case. Eric was asked about this, and I thought he said something like, “that isn’t quite what I said.” But he did not elaborate or explain exactly what he said. I believe he was reticent at that point, out of politeness, to publicly refute what Ms. Bissell believed.
Any conclusions that Eric Lee is not a very good employee of the City of Davis, based on that misunderstanding, is daft.
If it was based on that piece of evidence, I would agree with you and btw, I have no idea what kind of employee he is or is not. He did a poor job on this, that was merely one example and I think your recollection of the discussion is a bit hazy because after he said that is not exactly what he said, he hedged and hawed about value of trees or something but never gave a definitive answer on that point.
The bigger point in question is that his staff report was fatally flawed, it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks. Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged. How they would fail to take this to the city attorney is beyond me. I’d like to hear your apology for that oversight.
If it was based on that piece of evidence, I would agree with you and btw, I have no idea what kind of employee he is or is not. He did a poor job on this, that was merely one example and I think your recollection of the discussion is a bit hazy because after he said that is not exactly what he said, he hedged and hawed about value of trees or something but never gave a definitive answer on that point.
The bigger point in question is that his staff report was fatally flawed, it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks. Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged. How they would fail to take this to the city attorney is beyond me. I’d like to hear your apology for that oversight.
If it was based on that piece of evidence, I would agree with you and btw, I have no idea what kind of employee he is or is not. He did a poor job on this, that was merely one example and I think your recollection of the discussion is a bit hazy because after he said that is not exactly what he said, he hedged and hawed about value of trees or something but never gave a definitive answer on that point.
The bigger point in question is that his staff report was fatally flawed, it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks. Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged. How they would fail to take this to the city attorney is beyond me. I’d like to hear your apology for that oversight.
If it was based on that piece of evidence, I would agree with you and btw, I have no idea what kind of employee he is or is not. He did a poor job on this, that was merely one example and I think your recollection of the discussion is a bit hazy because after he said that is not exactly what he said, he hedged and hawed about value of trees or something but never gave a definitive answer on that point.
The bigger point in question is that his staff report was fatally flawed, it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks. Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged. How they would fail to take this to the city attorney is beyond me. I’d like to hear your apology for that oversight.
“it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
I plead ignorance here. Please explain (as precisely as you can) what Davis Municipal Law says “in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
It was my understanding that the code is 5′ setbacks for first floors and 10′ setbacks for second stories on sideyards. And whenever a property owner wants to build significantly closer than those setbacks, he must get a variance approved by the planning commission.
Is that wrong?
The staff report said: “Although the 1’-8” setback would reduce the openness between the two properties, it would be located adjacent to the open parking area rather than a structure it maintains a general sense of openness. It preserves the mature tree and a sense of privacy on the subject property.”
It was on that basis, I thought, that the staff recommended approval of the variance.
As I noted above, I don’t think that is a good policy. My belief is that any time a development impacts the neighboring property negatively, the neighbor must be fully compensated for his loss. (I felt this way about Target, too.)
Notably, Ms. Bissell and her son explained at the HRMC meeting that they believed that the Skover project reduced the value of their property (largely because of the parking lot and the view from the condos into their backyard). I am not sure if that is true. But if we had a policy like the one I suggest, then Skover would have had to compensate Ms. Bissell for her loss, as determined by an independent appraiser. He may have then had an incentive to better screen his parking lot from her yard.
“Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.”
We will have to agree to disagree, here. I don’t think the historical argument was “the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.” I think the crucial point was that Ms. Bissell wanted a major variance on the side setback; that this would negatively impact Mr. Skover; that Mr. Skover objected; that this would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood; and that staff was ultimately deemed wrong in concluding that this major variance should be granted.
Your conclusions seem to rest on the (incorrect idea) that Ms. Bissell designed her project the way she did because staff told her that she did not have the option of cutting down the large hackberry. That is just wrong.
Ms. Bissell explained to the HRMC that she wanted to keep her hackberry tree. She never said that she would have been equally happy to cut down the tree and redesign the project so that it was setback five feet. It was my understanding from her comments and her son’s comments — over two HRMC meetings — that one of their primary objectives was to build up a windowless wall as close to the Skover project as possible, so that 1) the Skover condo residents could not look into their yard at all and 2) so that they would retain as much of their backyard open space as possible. Cutting down the tree would not serve their objectives.
“it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
I plead ignorance here. Please explain (as precisely as you can) what Davis Municipal Law says “in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
It was my understanding that the code is 5′ setbacks for first floors and 10′ setbacks for second stories on sideyards. And whenever a property owner wants to build significantly closer than those setbacks, he must get a variance approved by the planning commission.
Is that wrong?
The staff report said: “Although the 1’-8” setback would reduce the openness between the two properties, it would be located adjacent to the open parking area rather than a structure it maintains a general sense of openness. It preserves the mature tree and a sense of privacy on the subject property.”
It was on that basis, I thought, that the staff recommended approval of the variance.
As I noted above, I don’t think that is a good policy. My belief is that any time a development impacts the neighboring property negatively, the neighbor must be fully compensated for his loss. (I felt this way about Target, too.)
Notably, Ms. Bissell and her son explained at the HRMC meeting that they believed that the Skover project reduced the value of their property (largely because of the parking lot and the view from the condos into their backyard). I am not sure if that is true. But if we had a policy like the one I suggest, then Skover would have had to compensate Ms. Bissell for her loss, as determined by an independent appraiser. He may have then had an incentive to better screen his parking lot from her yard.
“Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.”
We will have to agree to disagree, here. I don’t think the historical argument was “the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.” I think the crucial point was that Ms. Bissell wanted a major variance on the side setback; that this would negatively impact Mr. Skover; that Mr. Skover objected; that this would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood; and that staff was ultimately deemed wrong in concluding that this major variance should be granted.
Your conclusions seem to rest on the (incorrect idea) that Ms. Bissell designed her project the way she did because staff told her that she did not have the option of cutting down the large hackberry. That is just wrong.
Ms. Bissell explained to the HRMC that she wanted to keep her hackberry tree. She never said that she would have been equally happy to cut down the tree and redesign the project so that it was setback five feet. It was my understanding from her comments and her son’s comments — over two HRMC meetings — that one of their primary objectives was to build up a windowless wall as close to the Skover project as possible, so that 1) the Skover condo residents could not look into their yard at all and 2) so that they would retain as much of their backyard open space as possible. Cutting down the tree would not serve their objectives.
“it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
I plead ignorance here. Please explain (as precisely as you can) what Davis Municipal Law says “in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
It was my understanding that the code is 5′ setbacks for first floors and 10′ setbacks for second stories on sideyards. And whenever a property owner wants to build significantly closer than those setbacks, he must get a variance approved by the planning commission.
Is that wrong?
The staff report said: “Although the 1’-8” setback would reduce the openness between the two properties, it would be located adjacent to the open parking area rather than a structure it maintains a general sense of openness. It preserves the mature tree and a sense of privacy on the subject property.”
It was on that basis, I thought, that the staff recommended approval of the variance.
As I noted above, I don’t think that is a good policy. My belief is that any time a development impacts the neighboring property negatively, the neighbor must be fully compensated for his loss. (I felt this way about Target, too.)
Notably, Ms. Bissell and her son explained at the HRMC meeting that they believed that the Skover project reduced the value of their property (largely because of the parking lot and the view from the condos into their backyard). I am not sure if that is true. But if we had a policy like the one I suggest, then Skover would have had to compensate Ms. Bissell for her loss, as determined by an independent appraiser. He may have then had an incentive to better screen his parking lot from her yard.
“Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.”
We will have to agree to disagree, here. I don’t think the historical argument was “the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.” I think the crucial point was that Ms. Bissell wanted a major variance on the side setback; that this would negatively impact Mr. Skover; that Mr. Skover objected; that this would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood; and that staff was ultimately deemed wrong in concluding that this major variance should be granted.
Your conclusions seem to rest on the (incorrect idea) that Ms. Bissell designed her project the way she did because staff told her that she did not have the option of cutting down the large hackberry. That is just wrong.
Ms. Bissell explained to the HRMC that she wanted to keep her hackberry tree. She never said that she would have been equally happy to cut down the tree and redesign the project so that it was setback five feet. It was my understanding from her comments and her son’s comments — over two HRMC meetings — that one of their primary objectives was to build up a windowless wall as close to the Skover project as possible, so that 1) the Skover condo residents could not look into their yard at all and 2) so that they would retain as much of their backyard open space as possible. Cutting down the tree would not serve their objectives.
“it failed to take into account Davis Municipal Law in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
I plead ignorance here. Please explain (as precisely as you can) what Davis Municipal Law says “in terms of what can and what cannot be granted for setbacks.”
It was my understanding that the code is 5′ setbacks for first floors and 10′ setbacks for second stories on sideyards. And whenever a property owner wants to build significantly closer than those setbacks, he must get a variance approved by the planning commission.
Is that wrong?
The staff report said: “Although the 1’-8” setback would reduce the openness between the two properties, it would be located adjacent to the open parking area rather than a structure it maintains a general sense of openness. It preserves the mature tree and a sense of privacy on the subject property.”
It was on that basis, I thought, that the staff recommended approval of the variance.
As I noted above, I don’t think that is a good policy. My belief is that any time a development impacts the neighboring property negatively, the neighbor must be fully compensated for his loss. (I felt this way about Target, too.)
Notably, Ms. Bissell and her son explained at the HRMC meeting that they believed that the Skover project reduced the value of their property (largely because of the parking lot and the view from the condos into their backyard). I am not sure if that is true. But if we had a policy like the one I suggest, then Skover would have had to compensate Ms. Bissell for her loss, as determined by an independent appraiser. He may have then had an incentive to better screen his parking lot from her yard.
“Neither he nor Mike Webb properly vetted the historical argument nor did they seem to realize that that was the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.”
We will have to agree to disagree, here. I don’t think the historical argument was “the crucial point on which this entire thing hinged.” I think the crucial point was that Ms. Bissell wanted a major variance on the side setback; that this would negatively impact Mr. Skover; that Mr. Skover objected; that this would set a bad precedent for the neighborhood; and that staff was ultimately deemed wrong in concluding that this major variance should be granted.
Your conclusions seem to rest on the (incorrect idea) that Ms. Bissell designed her project the way she did because staff told her that she did not have the option of cutting down the large hackberry. That is just wrong.
Ms. Bissell explained to the HRMC that she wanted to keep her hackberry tree. She never said that she would have been equally happy to cut down the tree and redesign the project so that it was setback five feet. It was my understanding from her comments and her son’s comments — over two HRMC meetings — that one of their primary objectives was to build up a windowless wall as close to the Skover project as possible, so that 1) the Skover condo residents could not look into their yard at all and 2) so that they would retain as much of their backyard open space as possible. Cutting down the tree would not serve their objectives.