The Sweet Home City Council plans to reach a decision on a controversial proposal for a planned unit development (PUD) at the south end of Sunset Lane either Nov. 28 or Dec. 12 after city staff draft findings of fact for the development.
The development, proposed by Linn County Affordable Housing, is targeted at low-income families with 13 single family homes for sale and low-income seniors and disabled persons with 10 duplex units.
Opponents, primarily area property owners have testified that the infrastructure in the area cannot support the addition of 23 units. They point to a deteriorating sewer system, inadequate water service and drainage problems. Opponents also say that the streets cannot handle the traffic that would be generated by the development.
Proponents have shown the city council they say will adequately handle the new development. The planning commission in the first phase of the process recommended that Sunset Lane be widened from the development to its intersection with Nandina to handle additional traffic.
Linn County Affordable Housing presented the City Council with a study from a traffic engineer showing that the existing streets are adequate, but the councilmen have related similar concerns about the narrow streets in the area and have suggested widening Sunset Lane past Nandina Street.
The city council completed deliberations and reached a consensus to approve the PUD last month and opened a hearing on an appeal of the subdivision, which is a component of the PUD decided by the planning commission. A neighbor of the proposed project appealed the commission’s decision to the city council.
Robert G. Danielson favored denying the PUD. Mayor Tim McQueary and Councilman Jim Gourley have withdrawn from the decision making because they had not attended all of the meetings on the PUD. Favoring approval of the PUD were Bob McIntyre, Craig Fentiman, Dick Hill and Jim Bean.
On Nov. 14, during its regular meeting, the council completed its deliberations on the related subdivision raising concerns from Danielson about the process, something that also has been raised repeatedly by opponents of the development.
“You see, we have the cart before the horse but we say, ‘That’s okay because later on we’ll have them change the plans,’” Danielson said. “I said a long time ago, ‘How can we consider a PUD sitting on a subdivision plan that hasn’t been approved?’ We just blindly ignore that.”
Danielson was critical of the way the rest of the council approached the subdivision’s requirements. The council, in deliberating on the subdivision, said that the criteria that would normally apply would be met by the approval of the PUD on the project.
Councilmen agreed that the appealed subdivision would meet the criteria of Sweet Home’s ordinances provided the PUD were approved. A PUD allows flexibility in the design of a subdivision to provide more open spaces and other amenities through new techniques and technology for superior living or development. It allows such requirements as lot sizes to differ from the underlying zone, in this case, low-density residential (R-1) and it allows densities to be increased by up to 25 percent. A PUD goes through a public hearing process that also includes a concurrent subdivision application. Both must be approved.
In addition to the council’s decisions on the PUD and the subdivision, the Neighbors for Sensible Development, a group of opponents, have filed an appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals on earlier planning commission activity, claiming that the planning commission’s “preliminary review” of the proposal constituted a decision. The commission reviewed the plan with the applicants in June. At the time, there was no public hearing nor had an application been completed. City officials maintain there was no decision reached at the meeting, and with no application, there was no need for a public hearing.
The council directed City Planner Carol Lewis to draft findings of fact for the PUD and subdivision and planned to make a formal decision after those were completed. That decision may be on Nov. 28 or Dec. 12 depending on how much time is needed to draft the findings.