The Planning Commission held two public hearings regarding a proposed subdivision west of Foothills Drive on Aug. 8. and ultimately approved motions for continuances on the matter to be addressed again at the next meeting on Sept. 5.
A tentative 29-lot subdivision plat would span 6.49 acres in a Residential Low Density Zone, located south of Harding Street and extending Foothills Drive westward to connect at 23rd Avenue. Lot sizes would be between 7,206 and 8,626 square feet, and would be eligible for development of single family dwellings and/or duplexes.
The biggest issue at hand centered around the applicant’s request for a variance regarding the number of flag lots. After more than two hours into the meeting, the commission opted to continue the hearing to its Sept. 5 meeting in order to give the applicant time to come up with other design options that might be more acceptable to the commission.
When commissioners began inquiring about the number of parking spots that would be available in the subdivision, Brian Vandetta, of Udell Eng. & Land Surveying, LLC, said the developer plans to build homes with a double car garage, plus two additional parking spaces and an RV pad.
The staff report indicates the fire district expressed some concerns about the narrow roads to and in the proposed subdivision, but expected resolutions could be found.
One public hearing concerned the application for the subdivision itself, while the other hearing concerned the request for a variance allowing the lot width to be measured from property lines as opposed to an easement boundary for nine of 29 proposed lot developments, and allowing 31% as opposed to 10% of lots within the proposed subdivision to be accessed by private access easement (or flags/flag lots).
The applicant’s representative, Laura LaRoque, of Udell Engineering, explained that the city’s standard states a lot width must be a certain distance from an easement. While the lots meet the minimum width standard, some of the lots would have easement access that cross property lines and, thus, decrease the overall lot size. However, many are still more than 50 feet wide.
LaRoque went on to address the request regarding the number of flag lots on the proposed subdivision, which in this case exceed what is allowed according to the city’s development code. She said this type of standard did not exist prior to the city’s most recent code amendment, which now includes a code that allows only 10% of lots in a subdivision to be accessed by a flag.
She explained that lots 12-20 – which are situated at the southernmost point of the development and abut vacant foothills – were designed as flag lots because a public road is not planned to the south due to sloping topography. The code would only allow for three lots to be accessed via a flag, but since a road is not planned for the southern sloping territory, they would need nine flag lots.
Gail Heine spoke in opposition to the request, giving testimony about the state of flooding in the area during the winter months and expressing concern about how development of that area will further exacerbate it. Ron Walker also opposed the variance, stating that the applicant’s 30% ask is a 200% increase from three homes to nine. Gary Jarvis opposed the development plan, citing fire response access concerns and noting that to approve the 30% variance would set a precedent for future developers.
The development includes one tract of land for use as a storm detention area. Vandetta explained the topography sheds water from south to north. The design plans are created such that any excess water beyond pre-development flows will be stored in the detention pond and released over time. In other words, the rate of water being released into the drainage system will be the same as current rates are today.
Commissioner Jamie Melcher asked if the design could relieve current property owner concerns about flooding.
“No,” Vandetta said. “But I also expect it not to exacerbate or improve them.”
During discussion, Commissioner Laura Wood noted that the recent code update was done “with purpose and intention to make sure that we were building for the future of Sweet Home…. We chose that number (10%) specifically to protect our residents from being stuck in flag lots or from being in situations where they didn’t have as much access as they needed or there wasn’t enough street parking.”
Earlier Wood had also mentioned that the need for a variance cannot be self-imposed and, in this case, she believed it was. As for the easement variance, however, she believed the variance request was more necessary because it was property-imposed.
Planning & Building Manager Angela Clegg responded that “they cannot design a road that goes in the back,” and that this same design was approved at an earlier date (prior to the code changes) except now there is one additional flag lot.
Commissioner Eva Jurney added that they have been trying to rule against flag lots because “we see them as problematic for a future homeowner.”
“I understand that the nature of this property with the elevation on the south side causes difficulty for the property owner, and of course they want to develop that to the maximum,” she continued. “So herein lies the conflict of allowing them to use it to the best of their ability, yet within what our code says.”
Vandetta said he believes the 10% rule is an arbitrary number that is not founded on any science or studies, and this proposed design is the most efficient one when considering other options. Commissioner Melcher responded that they made the code change based on community input.
In other business, the commission:
- Elected Laura Wood as chair and Jamie Melcher and vice chair;
- Learned there are yet no applicants for the vacant seat on the Planning Commission.