The City Council approved 4-1 Linn County Affordable Housing’s proposed Brookside planned unit development.
The development is proposed for the south end of Sunset Lane with 23 low-income units, including 10 duplex units for seniors and disabled persons, six “starter” homes for young families and seven larger single-family units also for families.
After reviewing findings of fact based on testimony and other evidence in several months of public hearings and meetings, the council approved Brookside Development.
Mayor Tim McQueary excused himself from voting because he had not been present during public hearings. Councilman Jim Gourley also excused himself because he had missed one night of public hearings. Councilman Robert G. Danielson voted against the PUD. Voting for the PUD were Bob McIntire, Craig Fentiman, Jim Bean and Dick Hill.
The development drew heavy opposition from neighbors when the public process started during the summer before the Sweet Home Planning Commission. During that time, the neighbors, who had organized into a group called Neighbors for Sensible Development, appealed a pre-hearing meeting between Linn County Affordable Housing (LCAH) and the Planning Commission.
Opponents testified that the infrastructure in the area could not handle 23 additional units, citing drainage, sewer and water problems. They also were concerned about wetlands located on the property and the layout of the development.
They said the length of Sunset Lane, which would end in a hammerhead, would violate city ordinance and would not offer enough space for emergency vehicles to turn around. Building 23 units on the property.
The opposition also testified that there was no need for low-income housing in Sweet Home, that there was already plenty sitting vacant.
LCAH testified that drainage would be detained on the development site to prevent any more flow than normal from the property and that sewer system was adequate based on engineering reports. LCAH also testified that the water system would improve water pressure in the area.
The City Council set conditioned that Sunset Lane from Brookside Development to Nandina Street be widened to address traffic concerns, although a traffic count on behalf of LCAH indicated that the streets were adequate to handle the traffic. Specific exceptions to ordinance requirements were granted through the application of the planned unit development (PUD) overlay.
The council denied an appeal of Sweet Home Planning Commission’s decision on the related subdivision 6-1. Danielson voted against the denial. Voting in favor of it were McIntire, Fentiman, Gourley, Mayor McQueary, Bean and Hill.
“We’re obviously please that the council was able to approve the findings,” LCAH Executive Director Dianna Cvitanovich said. Despite the opposition, the councilmen should be commended for the hours of volunteer service in hearing the issue and developing its findings. “I’d like to thank the Council for taking all the time.”
The PUD underwent 10 public hearings and meetings, Cvitanovich said. For anyone to say they pushed this through is insane.”
The Council worked through the opposition’s material and LCAH’s, Cvitanovich said, thanking everyone involved, including the opposition, for their participation. That makes for a better product in the end.
“The public process is important,” Cvitanovich said. At this point, LCAH is planning to begin pulling its funding sources, both public and private, together to begin work. Prior to that, LCAH will need to work with the Corps of Engineers and the Division of State Lands on a wetland.
“Because we’re phasing this project,” Cvitanovich said. “I think people will be really surprised how little impact the project will have on the neighborhood.”
“It’s been a difficult process,” Cvitanovich said. “You’ve got to ask yourself with such a difficult process why anyone would choose to do a planned unit development.”
It allows more public input into the final project, Cvitanovich said. “It makes it a better project. That’s why the comprehensive plan encourages them.…
“It will serve the needs of Sweet Home. Some things are worth working for. I hope the community will be genuinely pleased when this is complete.”
“We feel the criteria were not met and that our facts that we brought in were dismissed,” neighbor and opponent Arlene Rose said. “We feel like the decision was made long before.”
Opponents are identifying what they believe are discrepancies in the findings of fact presented and adopted by the council during its Dec. 13 meeting. Rose said they plan to approach council with them after they have pored through all of the paperwork related to the PUD.
“I guess I expected it,” neighbor and opponent Doug Graham said. “I still disagree, but I expected it. My thoughts from the start were that it was going to get passed. I was always under the impression that some city officials that it was kind of a pet project of theirs.”
Graham referred to comments given by Planning Commission Chairman Dick Meyers during the initial hearings before the Commission.
“I thought we raised some valid issues,” Graham said. “It seems like they make whatever rules work for the points they want to make.”
Graham had believed that there were plenty of regulations in the city’s ordinance and comprehensive plan to prevent the development, and still, the sewer remains a major issue. Graham referred to the city’s deteriorating sewer system and inflow and infiltration problems that fill pipes with storm water.
There has been talk of repairs in the Sunset Lane area in the next two or three years, Graham said, but those repairs likely will require the sewer line to be moved from private properties into the street itself, which LCAH will be widening as part of the project.
Graham also believes that LCAH has been granted preferential treatment by the City of Sweet Home. He points to $32,000 in unpaid system development charges for Ames Creek Court, completed in 1998. He also points to improvements required by Public Works during the Cascadia Village remodel that, he said, remain incomplete, something that Public Works had allowed LCAH to put on hold until it was convenient to make the improvements.
LCAH should be treated as any other developer, Graham said.
“I and we, as a group, still don’t feel the people were listened to,” Graham said. Points raised by his group could likely be counted on one in mention by the city council and findings of fact, which was frustrating.
At this point, Graham said he is unsure where the opposition is headed.
At some point, the cost of fighting a development becomes more expensive than the depreciation of property values from a neighboring property, Graham said. This fight has become too expensive, but the opposition is looking toward outside help from organizations like 1,000 Friends of Oregon.
Enthusiasm for the opposition has waned as well.
“Talking to people, ‘Well, I knew it was going to go through,’” Graham said. “It’s kind of like kicking a dead horse.”
Still, Graham does not want to give up the fight, he said. LCAH still has a number of hurtles ahead of it, including the wetlands process. The group still has an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals on the initial meeting between the Planning Commission and LCAH.
“It still isn’t over with yet,” Graham said. “Nothing’s built yet.”