Kelly Kenoyer
Sweet Home City Council members spent an hour on Tuesday, Aug. 11, listening to public testimony and addressing questions from concerned neighbors about a zoning change application for a property overlooking Mountain View Road.
The proposed zoning change to the 0.61 acre lot, near the corner of 23rd Avenue and Ironwood, drew around a dozen people to the public hearing, though it would not end how they hoped.
As Community and Economic Development Director Blair Larsen explained, “the application is limited to the zone change; there’s not a permitting for a building on the property.”
That meant there was little recourse for the council to reject the application, because the proposed rezoning would bring the lot into alignment with the city’s comprehensive plan, he said.
Councilors Diane Gerson, Greg Mahler, Susan Coleman, Lisa Gourley, Dave Trask, and Cortney Nash were in attendance at the meeting, with Councilor James Goble absent. Councilors had deadlocked on the request 3-3 on July 28, with Gerson, Goble and Nash opposing the change.
Coleman, who was absent when the issue first came up before the council at its last meeting, asked Larsen several questions about how the comprehensive plan impacted this property, starting with where the plan came from.
Larsen said “the first comprehensive plan was from 1982,” and the most recent major changes were in 2005 with a review in 2010. “The zoning map isn’t updated every time the comprehensive plan is updated. When someone wants to change their property, that’s when the property is brought into compliance,” Larsen explained, adding that was why the property in question is still zoned for low-density residential instead of medium density, as the comprehensive map dictates.
Coleman then asked whether there are ramifications for denying the application, as nearly occurred at the last meeting. Larsen said a denial would be “grounds for an appeal at the state Land Use Board of Appeals.”
He said the city would likely lose the appeal because of the existing documentation, and a loss would mean “the legal costs go to us.”
The city would only be able to win a case with LUBA if there was a clear reason to deny the application that came to light since 2005 or 2010, he said.
“The problem is, that we need housing even more now. If we had a shrinking town and people leaving, then we could say to LUBA that we don’t need that zoning, but that’s not the case now. We would need to find some reason why that would be ignored.”
Neighbors who attended the meeting then voiced their opposition to the zone change and asked questions about the circumstances of the comprehensive plan and vote.
Vince Adams asked if it was possible to change the comprehensive plan to prevent this zone change, and Larsen replied that those issues should have been addressed in 2005 or 2010.
City Attorney Robert Snyder added that even if the comprehensive plan were to be changed at this point, it wouldn’t affect this ruling.
“When you put in your application, they get the law that stands at that time. Changing it later isn’t going to affect that particular issue,” he said.
Jack Hankins told the council that the area has significant drainage problems.
“They’re always working on our sewer down there; if there are nine more families there how will that impact our sewage?” he asked.
Larsen responded that the Public Works hasn’t brought up any issues in the area to date, and if there are needed changes, it will be “the owner that has to pay for it,” not the city.
Marla Blanchard also voiced opposition, citing safety concerns due to traffic and the large number of children who pass through that property to get to school.
“We have three schools in this particular zone where this intersection is, where children will be crossing. And they actually use that property they’re talking about to walk through,” she said. “I am not opposed to building more, we need more here in Sweet Home. This just is one of the most terrible places I could think for safety reasons.”
The property owner, Jim Bradford, told The New Era he thinks the development would actually help with drainage problems and limited lighting in that undeveloped area. The area children walk through is full of trash, he said, and “there’s a lot of riff-raff.”
Bradford said the development will be engineered to deal with storm water, and the potentially dangerous area that kids walk through “will be cut off; there will be no access, and there will be lighting.”
At the meeting, Bradford’s brother, Reuben Rincon, voiced his support for the development, pointing out the added tax revenue from the development, the importance of bringing in new housing that’s affordable for renters, and asked Larsen questions to bolster his arguments, such as whether the city expects runoff problems.
Larsen responded: “Every property owner is responsible for the runoff off their own property. Since this property is undeveloped, development would typically improve the runoff situation.”
Rincon added that Sweet Home has likely done a traffic review to address those concerns, and said parking problems won’t be an issue since the development will have its own parking lot, as well as “lighting and a security camera” to address crime.
“The city of Sweet Home needs more housing, needs more affordable housing,” he said.
After much discussion from the public, the council closed public testimony to discuss the matter amongst themselves.
Gerson said she’s not convinced that a large complex should go in at this location, but said issues like drainage and parking “can be addressed at the conditional use hearing at the planning commission.”
She said none of the councilors at the table had anything to do with the comprehensive plan. “Does it make me happy? No. But I recognize the law.”
Trask said parking shouldn’t be a big problem with this building.
“We do need the housing in Sweet Home; we have an awful issue with that and it needs to be addressed,” he said. “I can’t justify being on the side of not letting this go forward.”
After approximately an hour spent on the issue, council held a vote to reconsider the application, with all voting in favor except Nash. The council then voted on whether to accept the application, and all voted in favor except Nash once again.
The council will have to vote on the matter two more times before the zoning change is officially approved, and afterwards the property owner can begin the permit process to build a nine-plex, though it will require conditional use applications that have to go through the planning commission. Residents will be notified of any public hearings in the Sweet Home Planning Commission related to planned developments in their neighborhoods.
Larsen said the conditional use permit may involve requirements for lighting, a certain amount of parking, or a staircase down to Mountain View to deal with foot traffic, though none of those requirements are official at this time. The development, as planned, will likely be legally allowed, he said.
“You can’t change these rules in the middle of the game.”
This level of opposition is not uncommon for “infill” projects in areas that are already developed, Larsen said.
“People have an expectation that things are going to stay the same if they buy a property.”
“I’m not sure whether the opposition will dry up or get stronger,” he added, noting that education about the parameters of a project can often assuage concerns. “What’s not going to work is if people are just opposed to the land being developed.”
Bradford, for his part, said he is somewhat disheartened by all the opposition to the project he wants to implement. His goal with the nine-plex is to bring in new, more affordable housing for renters in Sweet Home, he said.
“I really believe in the project,” he said. “It will help clean up the city.”
He emphasized plans to deal with any drainage problems and to create “nice, landscaped apartments” that will be “good for even the neighbors.”
Bradford is especially passionate about providing ground-level units accessible to people with disabilities, he said.
“They should have the right to live in any town they want.”
Bradford, who lives in Lebanon, said Sweet Home has a special place in his heart because his family spends a lot of time here. He said this development was meant to help with the severe housing crunch Sweet Home is facing, but he’s disappointed by the opposition.
“We’re not here to try to fight everybody. We’re trying to do it right, and if they don’t want us to do it right, fine, we’ll put up townhomes or something,” he said.