LU 07-166143

PC #07-122610

Hearing - December 19, 2007

Comments of Dean Gisvold,

Co-Chair of Irvington Land Use Committee

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

I am Dean Gisvold, resident of the Irvington neighborhood and co-chair of the Irvington Neighborhood Land Use Committee (Committee).  I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Irvington Community Association (ICA).

 

 

POSITION

 

At its regularly scheduled meeting on November 29, 2007, the Committee reviewed the recently received Notice of Public Hearing on LU 07‑166143 and the staff report, and heard comments from residents of Sullivan's Gulch.  The Committee voted to oppose in all respects this land use proposal (Proposal). 

 

The Committee opposes the Proposal because:

 

1.         The site does not qualify for maximum density treatment.

 

2.         The site does not qualify for FAR transfer.

 

3.         Applicant has not shown that the adjustment approval criteria have been met.

 

The details of this opposition are described below.

 

Although the Committee is authorized to take positions as a committee, it typically would have taken its position to the Board of Directors of ICA and asked the Board to review and approve the position taken by the Committee.  The December meeting of the Board was its holiday party and no business was conducted.  The January meeting of the Board is scheduled for January 10, 2008.  Therefore, the Committee would ask the hearings officer to keep the record open until January 14, 2008.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

The mass, height, and density of the Proposal are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will have significant negative impact on the neighborhood. 

 

Property owners gathered in good faith in 1996 and collectively decided to change the configuration of Block 177 by dividing it into 12 townhouses, an alley, and one multi-family lot, Lot 8, with an 8,000 square foot footprint and a multi family structure of 60 feet and 20 units.  Applicant now seeks to change some, but not all, of the decisions made in 1996.  In our view, Applicant cannot pick and choose which of the 1996 decisions it wants to change.  Applicant seeks to take advantage of some of the decisions and change those that Applicant views as restrictive. 

 

The hearings officer should (1) deny the application in its entirety and confirm the validity of the 1996 decision and (2) instruct Applicant to proceed (if it wishes to do so) on the basis of the 1996 decision.

 

The Committee also notes that Applicant has been developing its Holiday Park complex in bits and pieces over a number of years and still owns nearby property that is undeveloped.  The Committee believes strongly that Applicant should sit down with the Neighborhood Association and adjoining neighbors and develop a master plan for its existing developments, Lot 8, and for those properties yet to be developed.  This bit by bit development will lead to further acrimony, disputes, and bad development.

 

 

DETAILED OPPOSITION

 

Density Standards

 

Under the density heading, staff indicates that buildings on sites receiving FAR transfer density must meet the development standards of the base zone, namely the development standards of the RH zone.  Staff finds that since no adjustments were requested for lot size or depth, the section is met.  The Code does not say development standards of the base zone as modified or reduced in prior land use decisions.  It states in absolute terms that if you are going to transfer density, the receiving site must comply with the development standards.  Period.  The receiving site, Lot 8, does not so comply.  It does not have a minimum lot size of 10,000 feet and it does not have the depth.

 

The policy behind maximum density is explained in Portland Code Section 33.120.205 B, which provides:

 

"All new housing built, or converted from other uses, must be on sites large enough to comply with the density standards.  The number of units allowed on a site is based on the presumption that all site development standards will be met.  The allowed density is not a special right that justifies adjusting other development standards."  (Emphasis added.)

 

Under the subtitle of Lot Dimensions, the staff notes that the RH base zone requires a 10,000 square feet minimum lot, 70‑foot minimum lot width, 100‑foot minimum lot depth, and a 70‑foot front lot line.  Staff points out that Lot 8 was granted adjustments from minimum lot size and lot dimensional standards as part of the 1996 process.  Staff apparently believes that it is OK to leave the reductions, but increase density, mass, and height, because Applicant did not request a change.  This reasoning does not comply with the Code.

 

FAR Transfer

 

Regarding the transfer of FAR, the staff notes that the Code requires transfers to be between "lots within a block" or "between lots that would be abutting except for a right-of-way."  Staff analysis of transfer rights appears to include three lots, the original Block 178, and 2 lots in Block 179. Only Block 178 would be abutting if the right-of-way was taken away.  After NE Wasco was vacated, it appears that staff is trying to bootstrap available density from the two lots originally in Block 179.  These two lots are not abutting and cannot and should not be used in any density transfer calculations.  Even the staff analysis considers the three lots as separate lots and labels them as (B), (C), and (D).  I suspect the County tax maps indicates that there are three separate tax parcels or tax lots in Blocks 178 and 179.  If Applicant cannot obtain the necessary transfer from Site B, or Block 178 (assuming that such block is one lot) the transfer fails.

 

Approval Criteria for Adjustment

 

Staff then proceeds to review whether the adjustments which are requested meet approval criteria A‑F.

 

The first criteria requires Applicant to prove that granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be modified.  The fact that the building height is increased by 15 feet is dismissed by staff as insignificant.  The staff discussion is superficial at best; nothing but conclusions without supporting evidence.  Staff's statement that a 60‑foot building or a 75‑foot building still are taller than the townhouses to the northeast and west does not offer any rationale why there is no significant negative impact.  There is no discussion of how many hours of the day the townhouses and apartments to the northeast and west will have additional shade.  Staff apparently believes that 75 feet is the same as 60 feet.  It is not.  There is no justification in the staff report that would allow a hearings officer to conclude that the adjustment equally or better meets the purpose.  The same is true with the number of units. 

 

Staff indicates that the elimination of direct access to four dwelling units from 16th is, arguably, inferior design and can be mitigated by security screens and entry lobby glass treatment.  If Applicant is relying on the staff report for justification, it has not met its burden.

 

The second criteria, that the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area, is not met. The staff finds that the proposed building will meet all of the applicable RH zone district standards. Indeed, the proposed building site (Lot 8) does not meet all RH zone standards.  It does not meet the minimum lot size or the minimum depth, as admitted by staff.  The staff again says that a 10-15 foot increase will not have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Another conclusion without any discussion or justification.

 

The third criteria is accumulative effect of the adjustments is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone.  The staff finds that Lot 8 is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum and 15 feet less than the required 100‑foot minimum lot depth.  Staff notes that these adjustments were approved in 1996, but they were approved in conjunction with a 20 unit, 60‑foot building, not with the changes sought here.  Then staff says that because Applicant did not request any adjustments to lot size or minimum lot depth, the criteria is not applicable.  This is wrong and does not meet Code.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

This Proposal and the staff report is a series of unsupported bootstrap arguments.  It is also a classic example of cherry picking by the Applicant.  From 1996, I'll take the lot size of 8,000, I'll take the reduced lot depth, but I want to increase the number of units, height, mass, and density.  This is not allowed by the Code.

 

The hearings officer should deny this application in its entirety and should confirm the validity of the1996 plan as the blueprint for further development by the Applicant.

 

The hearings officer should advise Applicant to work with the neighbors and neighborhood association in a master plan development for all of its interests in that neighborhood rather than this piecemeal planning and development approach to date.