 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Meals on Wheels | Letters | Home |
LINDA CARGILL
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
About half a dozen neighbors from the Glenfair Neighborhood Association in outer Northeast Portland showed up downtown for an appeals hearing March 31 to stop developer Dan Grunewald from building seven houses in their neighborhood.
In the end, the city hearings officer sided with the developer. Hearings Officer Ken Helm, who issued his final report on April 28, cited several reasons he denied neighbors' attempts to stop the development along Northeast 154th Avenue and Couch Street. Helm agreed with the staff findings presented at the March 31 hearings by Land Use Services Planner Sean Williams.
On March 4, in a 5-to-0 vote, neighbors of the development decided to appeal the developer's plan citing these concerns: Grunewald was building lots narrower than the city's standard of 36 feet; giant Douglas Fir trees would be damaged during construction; adding more homes and extending Couch Court would increase parking in the area endangering children and increasing crime.
Williams, in his report to the hearings officer, countered these claims. He said trees located within the development were exempt because they are a nuisance variety, and the trees located off the site-including a giant Douglas fir located close to a neighbors' house-are not regulated by land division rules. Instead, they fall under the regulations of the Urban Forestry Department and require a permit for removal.
Williams added that Urban Forestry had recommended a protection plan be produced so that trees on nearby property and in the right-of-way are not harmed during construction.
This meant the hearings officer could not consider the impact on trees because they are not regulated by standards for land divisions.
Having thrown out the trees as part of the hearings criteria, Williams explained the size of houses could not be considered because there are specific density requirements for a Residential (R2.5) zone. Five of the seven lots Grunewald is building will be less than the standard 36 feet. Four of the lots will be 32 feet wide and the fifth will be 33 feet. The lots meet the standard because they do not fall beneath the minimum width for the R2.5 zone.
Williams pointed out that each lot meets the code because it can “… accommodate a reasonably sized house and garage, will have access for proposed water and sanitary sewer services, are not landlocked, and do not narrow to a width too close to the street.”
In addition, they are similar in size to lots near Northeast 147th Avenue and Northeast Couch Street and at Northeast 148th Avenue and Flanders Street.
Williams emphasized the development would have “only minor impacts” on street capacity and levels of service.
At the hearing, Bruce Vincent, a consultant hired by Grunewald, told the hearings officer his client agreed with staff findings. He claimed his client is in code compliance, noting two on-site parking places are designed for each lot. Referring to a fence surrounding a shop on Northeast 154th one neighbor thought he should not have to remove, Vincent said, “It's clear, according to the surveyor, and that structure is in the right-of-way.”
When Grunewald testified, he claimed his development met all the code requirements, saying he had met with the neighborhood association and thought they had resolved their sticking points.
“I was trying to work with the neighborhood association to get by these issues,” he said. “I felt we had a good meeting. In fact, I'm surprised that they appealed this.”
He explained he is building near a historic tree in McMinnville and is using a grade beam that sits on top of the ground, protecting the roots. “I told these folks that's what we'd do if we did run into the root system,” he said.
He said the right-of-way issue involving relocating a fence is between the city and the homeowner.
Debby Christensen, one of the neighbors adjacent to the development, told the hearings officer she and her husband had contacted two arborists who cautioned them that the proposed development would damage the roots of the large Douglas Fir tree next to their house, which would likely cause it to fall onto the dwelling during high winds. “Our main issue is the safety of our home and our family,” she said. “And I want that noted because with the east winds out there, if they destroy those trees and they become unstable they will not just fall over and kind of hurt our house. They're large trees. They will go through our house.”
If his development is approved, Christensen asked that the developer remove the tree. If that removal is not approved, she requested a certified arborist be on hand during the entire construction process and that an arborist check the trees each year “to certify that those trees are safe.” She demanded the trees' removal if they are deemed unsafe.
Her husband, Kurt Christensen, requested that the developer pay to relocate his fence out of the right-of-way area.
Helms interjected to explain that the issue of trees did not relate to any city code.
Another neighbor, Laurie Redman, maintained the proposed lot sizes were not consistent with the neighborhood area. She claimed the city staff had compared “common wall” homes-which are typically narrower-with the detached single-family homes that Grunewald is building.
“When you look at the Glenfair area, there are not any lots next to a park, in the area of construction, that are that narrow for single family detached homes,” Redman said.
Redman also charged that the planned development, as well as the road construction, would damage the roots of her Douglas fir and Blue Spruce trees, killing them. She also charged that the increased density would cause the narrow streets to be too congested and would hinder emergency vehicles.
David Hammond, who lives on Couch Court, said he is concerned about the negative impact on parking. “The closest parking for those subdivisions for overflow parking will be on 154th and Couch Court,” he said. He believed that most of the parking would be next to the park. With seven new houses, he anticipated there would be around 14 to 21 cars, all overflowing because “nobody uses their garages for parking. They'll use their driveways.”
At the end of the hearing, Grunewald challenged Hammond's assertion that residents would not use their garages. He also requested the hearings officer deny neighbors' request for an extension to leave the public record open for additional written testimony.
Helm said in his final report that some of the opponents' arguments were not relevant to the appeal.
Helm wrote that the developer had submitted a surveyor's report showing that part of neighbors Kurt and Debby Christensen's fence and garage were located in the right-of-way for Northeast Couch Court-though the couple had claimed the boundary, originally set by the city, was inaccurate. Helm said he sympathizes but lacks authority . . . to remedy this problem.
Helm also noted that the Christensens' fear that Douglas fir trees might fall on their house was outside his authority because none of the applicable criteria address off-site tree preservation.
As for other neighbors' concern about on-site Spruce and other trees possibly damaged during construction, Helm agreed with the staff findings that these were “nuisance species” and therefore were not applicable to the appeal.
Referring applicable issues, Helm wrote he was approving proposed lot sizes because, although they are less than the standard 36 feet, they would not be less than 25 feet wide-the minimum width allowed by the zoning code for detached houses. He also agreed with the staff that lot sizes “are compatible with existing lots in the vicinity,” such as those a few blocks away on Northeast 147 and 148th Avenues.
Citing an analysis by the Portland Bureau of Transportation showing that the existing and proposed streets can safely serve the proposed development without having any significant impact on the level of service for pedestrian and other modes of travel, Helm concluded transportation criteria were satisfied. The PBOT report also maintained the development would have only minor impacts on area street capacity.
Helm recommended that the developer produce a protection plan, citing the Urban Forestry department recommendation, so trees on adjacent property and the right-of-way are not harmed during construction on the land division site.
The Hearings Officer's decision may not be appealed to the City Council but may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals within 21 days after the final decision was issued.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home