Sean C. Morgan
Of The New Era
After a majority of the Planning Commission may have been leaning toward approving a variance, the group voted 4-3 to deny a request for a partition and variance that would have created three lots at 2463 Harding St.
Commissioners recognized that a different configuration, a second driveway, would allow the creation of three lots without requiring a variance or any Planning Commission action at all.
The Sweet Home Planning Commission held a public hearing on Sept. 3 to decide whether to allow applicant James Metzger, representing Automated Tek Systems LLC, to divide the lot and approve a variance from the city’s street frontage requirement.
The property, currently 41,575 square feet, would have been divided into two 10,890-square-foot lots and one 16,256-square-foot lot. The minimum requirement for the zone, low-density residential, is 8,000 square feet. Two lots would have frontage along the public street. The first had direct frontage, which must be at least 80 feet. The second had frontage through the “flag pole,” a way to give landlocked lots frontage. The rear lot, the largest, would have access to the street via the same “flag pole.”
Dana Nichols, a planner with the Cascades Council of Governments, which is providing planning services to the City of Sweet Home, recommended denial of the variance because it does not meet the city code’s criteria for approval.
A variance is allowed when special circumstances apply to a property that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, including lot size or shape, topography and other circumstances over which the owner has no control.
The property can be developed by partitioning it into two lots, Nichols told the Planning Commission. It does not have a special feature or circumstance that prohibits development of the property.
Referring to additional criteria for variances, because it could be partitioned into two lots, it is not necessary to preserve a property right, Nichols said; and the request has no minimum variance to alleviate the special circumstances or to make reasonable use of the property because it can be developed into two parcels without a variance.
Staff also did not identify any physical circumstances or conditions that make the property difficult to develop, Nichols said.
The applicant proposed an efficient use of the property with lots exceeding minimum square footage requirements, Nichols said. The application failed to meet the criteria for a variance, but staff does not believe the development is “necessarily bad or inappropriate for the property.”
Nichols said the commission might consider a change to the development code that would allow for the development of the property in a different way, by reducing the minimum frontage requirement or another scenario.
The lot could have four lots if it used a cul de sac, Nichols said, but the cul de sac would increase the cost of the development.
Metzger said he initially proposed dividing the property into four lots and then changed the proposal to three lots with a “flag pole.”
He is trying to develop the property into something he can use to make money, he said.
He turned in the current application in January, but he said he has been trying to develop the property for two years.
It’s a process that would have been quicker in other cities, Metzger said, and upcoming ordinance revisions will change the frontage requirements anyway.
Commissioner Greg Korn said the lot sizes are good, although he didn’t like the easement on the flag pole. Another drawing gave two lots 72 feet of frontage and the “flag pole” to the rear property, something he thought was “so dang close” to the requirement.
“If the criteria’s not met, I don’t see how we can fudge around,” said Commissioner Eva Jurney. That creates a slippery slope when other applicants ask the commission to fudge on the requirements. The applicant has several options available.
“I disagree,” said Commissioner Greg Stephens. “If everything is cast in stone, then you don’t even need a Planning Commission.”
Applicants come to the commission “to tell a story,” Stephens said, and the commission “decides whether it’s a reasonable story. I think Mr. Metzger should be able to build some houses somehow. Our job is to figure out how.”
Commission Chairman Lance Gatchell said he wasn’t in favor of allowing people to break the code without extenuating circumstances.
Commissioner Henry Wolthuis said “we should pass something tonight that would allow him to build on these lots. These lots are plenty large enough to be three lots.”
The driveway concept seems to work, Wolthuis said.
“There’s plenty of room there,” said Commissioner Thomas Herb. “That’s all there is to it.”
It’s off a couple of feet, Herb said, and with three lots using a common driveway, “this is a good plan.”
The lot sizes are great, said Commissioner Jeff Parker, but the application didn’t indicate it must have a variance to be developed.
It would look fantastic as two lots as well as three, Parker said.
“I think this is a situation where everybody would like to see this property developed,” said Community and Economic Development Department Director Blair Larsen, adding it has enough land for three houses.
The people in the room have a desire to change the codes, he said, but the codes aren’t there yet.
The code still allows a couple of other ways to make three lots, Larsen said, like a second “flag pole” driveway. In that case, the city couldn’t deny the application, and it wouldn’t even appear before the Planning Commission.
After calculating square footage based on Larsen’s idea, Associate Planner Angela Clegg said it would meet city requirements.
“I don’t think it’s anybody’s favorite configuration, but it is one our code would be fine with,” Larsen said. He noted that in his last job, as city manager in Stanfield, the city manager could approve 10-percent variances to “get that couple of feet,” and this application would have fallen into that category.
Wolthuis asked Metzger whether he would build the property that way if the Planning Commission denied his application.
“Yes, sure,” Metzger replied.
It’s not the most desirable way to do it, Wolthuis replied, but added he could live with it.
Voting to deny the variance were Jurney, Gatchell, Parker and Korn. Voting against the denial were Herb, Wolthuis and Stephens.
In other business, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of several code amendments to the City Council.
While city staff members are working on comprehensive code updates, Larsen said, several updates are needed now to facilitate administration of the planning program. Among them are ordinances covering appeals, procedures, public hearings on amendments, notice of land use decisions, definitions, access and driveways, criteria and the addition of a provision to allow the city manager to appeal a land use decision.
While anyone in Oregon has standing to appeal a land use decision, City Manager Ray Towry said, the proposed amendment clarifies the city manager’s existing authority and outlines the procedure for the city manager to use that authority.
It is his duty, according to the city charter, Towry said, “to see that all ordinances are enforced.”
The ordinance proposals now move to City Council, which must hold three readings prior to approval.