Thursday’s land use appeal at City Council

In yesterday’s Oregonian, Erin Hoover Barnett covered that land use review appeal from this past Thursday’s City Council Agenda. Y’know, the one I said in last week’s Next Up at City Council I’d get back to investigating if I had time, and then review of a streetcar or two meant that I didn’t. I may try to catch the rebroadcast of the appeal on Channel 30. It sounds interesting.

According to Erin’s article, the case involves a vacant lot in the Foster-Powell neighborhood of Southeast Portland, on which a developer applied to build 19 rowhouses. The Hearings Officer denied the application because the site plan didn’t include a turnaround at the end of the dead-end street, limiting access by fire engines and garbage trucks. In other words, the design doesn’t meet the standards in the code. The applicant appealed to City Council, arguing first that the street would eventually become a through-street rather than a dead end, and second that a revised site plan was provided at Council adding a small turnaround.

There are a couple of particularly encouraging messages in Erin’s report. It’s good to see the Hearings Officer taking the stand that rules in the code are there for important reasons, and that if the site design didn’t include the required fire-service turnaround, it must be denied. And it’s heartening to see a member of City Council learning on the job, and coming to understand that infill stuffed in without regard for the adjacent neighborhood is likely to reduce support for holding the Urban Growth Boundary. Erin writes:

“Commissioner Randy Leonard said he would make a motion that, while he didn’t say it outright, would uphold the hearings officer’s denial and force the developer into an expensive appeals process. But he’d hold off if the developer would meet again with neighbors. Both sides agreed and will return to the City Council on Sept. 13.

Neighbor Joe Shapiro said the hearing showed that livability — not just whether a project meets the zoning code — is the issue. “I thought it was very positive,” he said.

Leonard said he learned early in his tenure how much Portlanders hate infill. So he tries to encourage communication and creativity between neighbors and developers.

“I try to walk that fine line between preserving density and doing it in a way that people are OK with,” he said.”

Infill doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. When done in a manner compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, meeting all code standards and reflecting community values, infill construction can be positive for the developer, neighbors, and new residents. I’m happy to see increasing recognition of that fact.