Wednesday, November 28, 2001
The Hood River City Council unanimously shot down "massive" development plans on Nov. 26 in a Sherman Avenue neighborhood.
At issue was the Nov. 1 approval by the city planning commission to allow a 43-foot high condominium complex to be built in front of single-family residences. The project was proposed by owner/developers Jeff Dulcich and Alan Blanchard, both of Portland, on 2.5 acres of commercial property above the Cascade Commons shopping center.
That approval was challenged by four families, who had paid the $750 appeal fee to safeguard their privacy and hillside view of Mt. Adams and the Columbia River.
"This neighborhood is going to be significantly impacted financially and I think a homeowner has a right to have their investment protected," said Councilor Linda Rouches, who was joined in that argument by Councilor Andrea Klaas.
"The homes along Sherman Avenue are definitely some of the most desirable properties in Hood River right now and it would have a significant financial impact to have their view blocked," said Klaas.
During the appeal hearing a question was also raised about the methodology for the planning commission vote. When the six-member quasi-judicial body voted 3-3 on the development, city attorney Alexandra Sosnkowski advised chairman Tim Mixon that, according to Roberts Rules of Order, his affirmative vote then broke the tie in favor of the project.
However, Councilor Chuck Haynie disagreed with that interpretation, arguing that it was a violation of parliamentary procedure to allow the chairman to essentially vote twice.
"If the chair has already voted, he cannot do so again so it makes this decision moot," said Haynie.
"I think you can read it both ways," said Sosnkowski.
The appellants had asked for a review of the vote which they said was crucial since Paul Randall, an alternate planning commissioner, had voted in favor of the condominiums even though he was only present for the November continued hearing, which centered mainly on developer rebuttal, and had not heard opponents lay out their arguments at the Sept. 5 forum.
However, Steve Morasch, the developers' attorney, countered that argument by saying that the records from the first hearing was available for review by all the commission members and all parties were given the opportunity to present evidence and testimony in November.
He also told city officials that the property's current commercial zoning already allowed buildings of equal or greater size than the 14-unit condominium complex. Morasch said while the appellants had demonstrated they would prefer a "low density, sprawling form of development," new urban growth rules promoted multi-family dwellings within cities to preserve outlying resource lands.
But several Sherman Avenue property owners who testified during Monday's hearing said they had always expected some type of development on the empty lot -- but not of such bulk, height and scale that it would block their view and strip away their privacy.
"It's hurtful to us as a community to see this happen in our neighborhood, please think what it would be like if it was in your backyard," said resident Leda Prinzing.
Rouches said she had walked the site and could understand the liveability arguments.
"It's not really so much that the view would be cut off, it's that now they will be looking at walls," she said.
Dulcich and Blanchard said they have not yet decided whether to challenge the city's denial of their project before the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
More like this story
- Police Log, Jan. 5 to 15
- Sheriff Log, Jan. 8 to 14
- Gorge Owned, contractors team up for incentives
- Ninth ‘Death Café‘ scheduled for Jan. 25
- ‘Death: An Oral History’ comes to library Jan. 28
- ‘Bowl for Kids’ Sake’ March 11
- Letters to the editor for Jan. 21
- Red Cross: Winter weather causes harmful shortage of needed blood supply
- Free Conversation Project discussions start Feb. 11
- Editor’s Notebook: Let’s hold a confab to sorta break the ice
Parkdale third graders sing "12 Disaster Days of Christmas"
Welcome to your sing-able Christmas gift list. What follows is an emergency rendition of “12 Days of Christmas” – for outfitting your home or car in case of snow storm, earthquake, flood or other emergency. Read it as a simple list, or sing it to the tune of “12 Days” – you know, as in “ … and a partridge in a pear tree…” Not to make light of it, but the song is a familiar framework for a set of gift ideas that you could consider gathering together, even if the recipient already owns items such as a bunch of coats, tire chains and flashlights. Stores throughout the Gorge are stocked up on all these items. Buying all 12 days might be prohibitive, but here are three ideas for checking any of the dozen off your list (notations follow, 1-12.) The gift items needed to stay warm, dry and safe are also coded to suggest items in your abode (A) in your car (C) or both (B). 12 Gallons of Water (A) 11 Family meals (B) 10 Cans of propane (A) 9 Hygiene bags (B) 8 Packs of batteries (A) 7 Spare coats (B) 6 Bright red flares (C) 5 Cozy blankets (B) 4 Tire chains (C) 3 Flashlights (B) 2 cell phone chargers (B) 1 And a crush-proof first aid kit (B) Price ranges? Here’s a few quotes for days Three, Two, Four and Nine: n A family gift of flashlights (three will run $15-30, Hood River Supply, Tum-A-Lum) n Cell phone chargers (two will run $30-60) n Tire chains (basic set, $30, Les Schwab, returnable if unused for the winter) n Family meals ($100 or so should cover the basics for three or four reasonably well-fed days) n The home kit should be kept in a handy place near an exit, and remember that water needs to be replenished every few months. If you have a solid first aid kit already, switch out the gift idea with “and-a-sto-o-u-t- tub-for it-all …” Otherwise, it’s a case of assembling your home or car kits and making sure all members of the family know what the resources are and how to use them (ie flares and propane). Emergency situations are at worst life-threatening, at best deeply uncomfortable if you and your family are left without power for an extended period, or traveling and find yourself in a situation where you need to wait out a storm, lengthy traffic delay, or other crisis. Notes on the 12 gift ideas: 12 – Gallons of water: that’s one per person in a four-member family to last for three days, the recommended minimum to be prepared for utility outages. 11 – Easy-open packaged goods, energy bars, dried food and nuts are good things to include for nutrition. Think of what your family of four needs for three days to stay fortified and hydrated (see number 12). Can-opener also recommended 10 – If you have a propane camping stove, keep extra fuel handy. 9 – Hygiene bags: put packaged moistened towelettes, toilet paper, and plastic ties in large garbage bags (for personal sanitation) Resource list courtesy of Hood River County Emergency Management, Barbara Ayers, manager/ 541-386-1213. The county also reminds residents to Get a Kit, Make A Plan to connect your family if separated, and Stay Informed. See www.co.hood-river.or.us to opt-in for citizen alerts. Enlarge