Staff memo re pad elevations MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Witt, City Manager
FROM:~ Gary L. Sieb, Director
SUBJECT: Asbury Manor Residential Pad Elevations
DATE: October 24, 1997
City Attorney Bob Hager had asked me to draft a memo to follow up on Mrs. Basco's complaint
that the Asbury Manor subdivision finished-pad elevations were higher than those approved by
Council. Apparently this request was at Mayor Sheehan's suggestion. I address it to you with
a copy to Bob.
In several conversations with Mrs. Basco, as well as at least three trips to the development site,
the City takes the position that the development is proceeding as approved. Mrs. Basco contends
that a comment made by the applicant in the zoning case (a Mr. Tommy Kline who has
subsequently sold the property to Ryland Homes), regarding a I 1/2 to 2 1/2 foot difference in
pad elevations between Asbury Manor and Cottonwood Six (Mrs. Basco's subdivision) has not
been honored. In reviewing the tapes of the meeting in which the alleged comment was made,
we find that Mr. Kline did state that certain lots would be higher than Cottonwood Six, that
certain lots in Cottonwood Six would be higher than the Asbury Manor development. In all
candor, it is impossible to state categorically which lots Mr. Kline was referring to although
Mrs. Basco alleges that the lot immediately behind her home was one that would not contain a
finished pad more than 2 1/2 feet higher than her pad.
Now let's flash forward to the new owner of the subdivision, Ryland Homes. I have had several
conversations with a Mr. Fred Phillips, the superintendent for this project, and conveyed Mrs.
Basco's concerns. Late yesterday afternoon Fred informed me that he had talked with Mrs.
Basco and advised her:
-a suggestion to lower the fini.~hed pads was impractical and costly
-a possibility exists that single-story homes might be built behind Mrs. Basco's house,
although no promises were made--the market will decide
-an approximate 2 to 3 foot retaining wall with a six foot fence on the lots across the
alley from the Basco home was under serious consideration by Ryland
Fred concluded by stating that Mrs. Basco was not happy, she felt the City had not been
rigorous enough with the pad site issue, should have made specific pad elevations a condition
of the PD (parenthetically, I can't remember the last time we required such a condition), and
was generally dissatisfied with our efforts to explain the situation. Fred closed by stating that
he wants to be a good neighbor to Cottonwood Six, will do what he can to address reasonable
concerns of the adjacent property owners (he'll likely build the retaining wall and fence), but
his first obligation was to build his development as approved.
Thus, we are left with a developer who is building a subdivision as approved, a homeowner who
feels a major issue (pad elevation) was ignored, and a staff position that the project is proceeding
as stated in the granting ordinance.
I am left with several observations regarding this complaint:
-when the elevation issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs.
Basco was not in attendance and neither staff nor Commission considered Mr. Kline
elevation comments as requiring a separate PD condition
-as I recall, the issue didn't even come up at the Council hearing
-when the Basco's purchased their home, there was a hill across the alley considerably
higher than the f'mished grades existing today
-Mrs. Basco has a two-story house immediately to her north, thus the "privacy" issue
brought about by this complaint appears to be somewhat moot
I believe the City has acted in good faith regarding this subdivision complaint. I have personally
spent a great deal of time explaining to Mrs. Basco, her husband, and neighbors the development
process, the specific conditions of the PD, addressed the airport noise issue/flight pattern over
the subdivision, urged Mr. Phillips to talk with Mrs. Basco (I also suggested to him the
possibility of regrading, the single-story house, and retaining wall addition) to see if some
agreeable compromise might be met, and have generally tried to act as negotiator between the
two sides. At this point it appears that the developer will do something to address Mrs. Basco's
concern (the retaining wall/fence), but it also appears that she will not be satisfied.
cc: Bob Hager, City Attorney
file