 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Meals on Wheels | Letters | Home |
LINDA CARGILL
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
While many east Portlanders were eating a leisurely lunch on March 4, members of the Glenfair Neighborhood Association were locked in a stomach-churning battle with developer Dan Grunewald. They tried hard to digest his claims that building seven houses in their neighborhood and creating a new street would not upset their neighborhood's tranquil equilibrium.
Nevertheless, in the end, they could not swallow his assurances. They voted 5 to 0, with one abstention, to appeal to the city's hearing officer to stop the development along Northeast 154th Avenue and Couch Street. Grunewald owns 7/10 of an acre of land-30,492 square feet-that abuts East Burnside Street. As a condition of the development, the city is requiring him to construct a new street that will attach to Northeast Couch Street, winding through the edge of Glenfair Park and then connecting with Northeast Couch Court.
Neighbors are basing their appeal on the fact that Grunewald is seeking to build on narrower lots-around 32 feet wide-instead of the city's standard of 36 feet. They are also claiming the construction and excavation will endanger the root system of several giant fir trees growing near homes. In addition, they're challenging the city's claim it can require removal of a fence that encloses a previously city-permitted shop that juts into the right of way where construction will take place. Neighbors also object to the construction of a new street, claiming it will attract nearby drug users who will drive through the park, endangering children playing and walking to nearby Glenfair School. Moreover, the development's increased residents, many with cars, will create parking congestion in the area.
The neighborhood association mailed its letter to the city on March 6. A city hearings officer heard the appeal on March 31.
The decision about whether to approve the neighbors' appeal is expected sometime in April.
Neighbors object to the narrow lot sizes because they create density in their area. They would prefer he build three larger houses rather than seven smaller ones. They assert that the houses are incompatible with the other larger homes in the neighborhood.
“When you put that many together you're going to have more people, and it absolutely does not match when you look at all the properties around, which are very large, very open properties,” said neighborhood association member Laurie Redman. “Anything this dense is really not compatible because you're cramming people one on top of another. It also devalues all the properties around it to have one next to it that's that condensed.”
James Stormo, a civil engineer with Pinnacle Engineering, hired by Grunewald, admitted the houses might not be compatible but advised the neighbors that nothing would stop them-or future buyers-from redeveloping their lots to match the smaller homes.
Grunewald defended his development by pointing out that “this parcel will be developed, regardless of whether I do it or somebody else does.” He added, “At least I'm building seven nice single family houses. If you guys appeal it and it goes south, I'll have to sell it and you don't know what you're going to get.”
Moreover, Grunewald said, the zoning allows him to build houses on up to 10 lots.
Some neighbors objected to the construction of any new street running past their houses and then through the small park, which is next to Glenfair School. They maintain that the street would give easy access to drug traffickers, who, they claim, congregate near the MAX lines along Burnside and would make the area less safe for children playing in the park and walking to school.
Neighborhood association member Donna-Lynn Kublick warned the developer that constructing such a road was a bad idea because “all the time I've lived in that area, everybody has said-and the police have said-don't have a road going through that area. All the drug problems they're having a few blocks out are going to come right through there. And this is where the children walk, up through the park to go to school. Keep the park apart.”
She added that is why the neighborhood had adopted that park: “To protect it and to protect the lives of children.”
Still speaking of the road, which will run east and west through the park, she asked, “Why wasn't it being dumped onto Burnside?”
Referring to the original plan for a road to run north and south, connecting with Burnside, Grunewald replied, “The economy tanked. Financially, it doesn't make sense to put that road in now.”
Neighbor association member Kelley Hubbard said that originally, the city had planned to construct such a street a few years ago, but neighbors objected, resulting in the city's agreeing to construct a walking path through the park instead.
“So now it's different, the city's saying, no, a path isn't good enough?” she asked.
“No, they want a street,” Grunewald replied. “The city created that right of way for future development and they've been adamant since day one with us that they want that street connection to 154th.”
Grunewald defended himself by placing blame for the new street on the city, saying he would prefer not to build it.
“The street's actually more money for me to put in,” Grunewald said. “They're going to make me put in a street.”
Someone suggested it would be good to have a representative from the city to answer some of their concerns. The city was informed of the neighborhood meeting, so neighbors were puzzled why no one from the city showed up.
“This seems like it's almost more an issue with the city than with you folks,” Kublick said to the developer and engineer. “The city has approved things that they should have been talking with the people who live there. This whole area is the only green space that we have. Now all of sudden they want to put a road which they say will eventually go all the way through.”
Grunewald countered that the area will be even safer since he is putting in two streetlights, as well as new-lighted houses with families in them, instead of leaving an empty, darkened swath of land.
Several neighbors worried the new subdivision will attract more cars to their quiet street.
Stormo explained that the city requires no parking on the new street between 154th Avenue and the existing Couch Court.
Dave Hubbard voiced the concern of many neighbors when he said, “There'll be parking in front of my house.”
The development team tried to pacify neighbors' ire by noting that they will provide a garage and two parking spots for each home built. However, neighbors felt with several people in each home, plus visitors, that cars would spill over.
Another property owner, Kurt Christensen, claimed the heavy machinery plowing up his land would endanger the root system of two giant fir trees that grow behind his house, creating a hazard for his family, if a storm blew them into his house. He said he consulted with a city arborist who told him the trees easily could fall on his house, endangering his family during a windstorm.
“We have all these huge fir trees where the roots grow out; they don't grow down,” he said. “Out where we live, we've got those east winds that just blow. Sometimes I've taken away 800 pounds of yard debris. Those trees are just huge. These trees would not fall on my house; they'd crash right through it. I want the city and the developer to be on notice about my concerns about the safety of my family.”
Stormo replied that during the construction phase the city would have their inspectors and arborist on site to witness the excavation for the foundation.
“We won't be cutting the roots,” Grunewald said.
Stormo added that the city has techniques to preserve roots, such as bridging foundations.
Christensen was not convinced; still worrying roots could be compressed by the heavy work around them.
“When an arborist tells me he wouldn't live in that house with those trees there-he acted like the trees should be removed,” he said.
Then Christensen requested the developer to remove the trees. At first, Grunewald said he might do that; then Stormo cautioned that the city would not allow any trees to be removed unless they were diseased or dying or presented an imminent threat to health and safety. “You can't just go in there and whack a tree down just because you want to whack a tree down,” Stormo said.
Christensen's other concern was the shop enclosed by a fence he had built next to his house. When he bought the property, the fence had stood for 30 years. He said the city is requiring the fence's removal since it sits seven feet into the right-of-way for the road that will run next to his property, “I don't want a road coming through the land I purchased and maintained,” Christensen said. Grunewald replied, “Technically though, it's not your property. It's the city's property.”
Later in the conversation, Grunewald offered to pay to dismantle the fence and to construct a new fence. However, when he found out the neighbors might appeal his development, he changed his mind. “I was gonna put a fence,” Grunewald said. “But now that I'm getting appealed and I'm having to spend more money on attorneys and spend more money on [Stormo]; now I'm not so happy to put up your fence.”
At that point, Redman expressed concern about the half dozen or so trees growing on her lot, just to the north of the development site. They reach heights between 50 and 100 feet and a couple up to 200 feet, she said. The roots of her trees grow into the area where construction workers will be excavating for the street.
Stormo replied they only would be excavating down 11 inches on the north side.
She claimed her property is three feet higher than Couch Street is, “so if you're matching that street level you're going to have to be digging down through those trees roots to do that,” she said.
“Did you even look at the trees on my property? When you dig down 11 inches, you're going to be digging into their main root system.”
“So what are you are asking for? Are you asking not to have a street there?” Stormo asked.
“Preferably not,” she said. “Whatever you do, it better not kill my trees.”
Graham Wright, secretary of the neighborhood association, was the one abstention. After the meeting, Wright said he abstained because “I didn't have a strong enough objection. It mostly affected the people right nearby the place. I thought [that] maybe the developer had a point. Because of how it is zoned there could have been even more units put in. If he abandons the project and sells it to someone else, something even more objectionable might happen. It could be even higher density.”
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home