The Dalles planning commission affirms approval of 29‑lot subdivision after neighbors raise safety, geology and drainage concerns

The Dalles Planning Commission voted unanimously April 17 to deny an appeal of the administrative approval for Subdivision 86‑24 and to affirm the director’s approval of the 29‑lot, two‑phase residential subdivision.

The subdivision — proposed in two phases (Phase 1: 14 lots on 3.33 acres inside city limits; Phase 2: 15 lots on 3.91 acres to be annexed later) — was contested by nearby residents who argued the site’s steep slopes, soils and drainage posed risks to existing homes and to emergency access. After public testimony and staff presentation, the commission adopted Resolution PC627A‑25 to deny Appeal 38‑25 and affirm the administrative approval, adding a condition that adequate storm drainage for the southern access easement be designed by the developer and approved by the city engineer.

Joshua Chandler, community development staff, summarized the proposal and staff findings and recommended the commission “move to adopt resolution number PC627A‑25, which is a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the director’s approval of Subdivision Number 86‑24,” citing the findings in the staff report and the city’s land‑division standards.

The nut of the hearing was whether the city’s review under its municipal code had reasonably addressed neighbors’ concerns about geologic hazards, emergency access and drainage. Appellant Pam Danzer, who said she spoke for the neighborhood, argued the project relied on later, post‑approval engineering reviews and asked that site‑specific geotechnical study and additional design work be required earlier in the process. “My name is Pam Danzer. I live at 3100 Claudia Lane, and I am spokesperson, basically, for the neighborhood,” Danzer told the commission during her allotted testimony.

Developer Jason Alford and his engineer, Darren Ackman of AKS Engineering, said the application followed city procedures and that engineering controls and permits would be required before construction. Applicant Jason Alford said he was carrying on a family plan for the property: “I’ve taken it on and, just trying to kinda follow everything and make it happen,” he told the commission. Ackman said the project team supported the staff report and noted the lots were arranged to fit the site topography rather than to be “cookie cutter” parcels.

Key factual findings in staff testimony and the record included: - The subdivision layout proposes 29 lots in two phases: Phase 1 (14 lots, 3.33 acres) inside city limits and Phase 2 (15 lots, 3.91 acres) in the urban growth boundary to be annexed before utility connection. - The project is not mapped inside the city’s identified geologic hazard zones and under Dallas Municipal Code chapter 10.8 a formal geologic impact study is not required; however, a physical constraints permit and engineered civil plans will be required for cuts/fills and other site work. - One lot (Lot 11) currently measures 46 feet of frontage and must be widened to meet the 50‑foot frontage standard for the RL zone as a condition of approval. - A traffic impact study prepared for the application projects about 302 daily trips and concludes studied intersections will meet city level‑of‑service standards through the 2030 build‑out date; the study does not meet the threshold requiring a left‑turn lane at Dry Hollow Road and Nineteenth Street. - City staff reported static water pressure at a nearby hydrant meets the described thresholds (about 30 PSI under normal conditions and 20 PSI during fire flow) and that water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage will be extended to serve each proposed lot at the applicant’s expense. - Because the primary access road to the site exceeds 10% grade, fire code triggers residential sprinkler requirements for homes; the applicant will be required to ensure emergency access for apparatus up to 85,000 pounds either through temporary turnarounds during phasing or by extending roads through Phase 2.

Neighbors focused their testimony on three main concerns: slope stability and the character of soils on parts of the site; drainage and potential channeling of runoff onto downslope properties; and safety for emergency response on steep, narrow approaches. Pam Danzer and other residents presented photographs of recent local slope movement and argued that relying on subsequent physical‑constraints permitting and per‑lot engineering would leave critical, site‑wide risk decisions until after the final plat.

Staff and the applicant responded that the city’s adopted 2010 geologic hazard study and the municipal code determine when a formal geologic impact statement is required, and that the engineering and permit checks required prior to any earthwork or building (including a physical constraints permit and a DEQ 1200‑C erosion‑control permit if over one acre is disturbed) would address soils, cuts/fills and drainage at the detailed design stage.

After deliberation the commission affirmed the director’s approval but added a condition addressing a drainage concern raised by commissioners and neighbors: the applicant must provide adequate storm drainage facilities for the private southern access easement; the drainage design shall be produced by the developer and must be reviewed and approved by the city engineer before construction on those elements proceeds. During deliberation the applicant’s engineer indicated the applicant was willing to design a valley‑style centerline with a catch basin and pipe to the city storm system if the city engineer accepted that approach.

The commission’s formal action was recorded as the adoption of Resolution PC627A‑25 denying the appeal and affirming the director’s approval of Subdivision 86‑24. The vote was unanimous among commissioners present.

What happens next: Conditions of approval specified in the staff report — including requiring engineered civil plans, a physical constraints permit for cuts/fills over the code thresholds, final utility and drainage plans, and the annexation of Phase 2 before connection to city utilities — remain in force and will be checked by staff before final plat approval or building permits are issued. Residents and parties opposed to the application may review future engineering submittals, and the city’s inspection and permitting process will require geotechnical, grading and stormwater approvals before most site work begins.

Why it matters: The decision permits construction to move forward on a 29‑lot subdivision that staff says will increase housing supply in The Dalles while attaching conditions intended to address specific neighborhood drainage concerns. Neighbors say the project raises questions about how and when site‑level geotechnical, drainage and safety concerns should be resolved in the planning process.

Speakers quoted in this article are from the planning commission hearing record and include: Joshua Chandler (community development staff), applicant Jason Alford, engineer Darren Ackman (AKS Engineering), appellant Pam Danzer and several neighborhood residents who testified during the quasi‑judicial hearing. The commission’s decision is documented in the meeting record and in Resolution PC627A‑25.