At the latest Lebanon Planning Commission meeting, held Oct. 16, a proposal to partition and develop a property at 1681 Franklin St. was approved, despite concerns from local residents. The commission also approved multiple annexations as part of the city’s urban growth planning.
Franklin Street Development Proposal
The primary focus of the meeting was the development plan for 1681 Franklin St., a low density residential zone. The proposal involves partitioning the land into three parcels: two flag lots and one existing lot that will retain the original 1950 single family home. The plan is for two single story duplex units, bringing the total among the three parcels to five dwelling units. The development meets all required setbacks, and each building will have two parking spaces.
While the development complies with city planning codes, several written public comments raised concerns about traffic congestion and the safety of adding multiple units in the neighborhood. Some residents argued that the duplexes and row houses would detract from the character of the neighborhood, potentially lowering property values and increasing noise. One comment claimed the project does not align with the original intent of the zoning code.
Under House Bill 2001, which allows for duplexes in low density zones, the city is legally required to treat duplexes the same as single family homes. City staff clarified that the four proposed units would have a minimal traffic impact and did not require a formal traffic study.
Public Testimony: Support and Opposition
During the public hearing, Laura LaRoque, representing the developer, defended the proposal. She noted that the development meets all city codes and that the two flag lots and slightly widened driveway would not significantly alter the neighborhood’s look. LaRoque emphasized that the proposal complies with zoning laws and that the duplexes will be one story high.
Opposition to the project was voiced by two residents. Todd Oeder, who lives across the street from the proposed development, argued that the project is not in keeping with the neighborhood, describing it as “something from California.” He expressed frustration that four units were being added to a lot half the size of his own, claiming it would negatively affect the neighborhood’s character.
Anna Lee, another resident, shared Oeder’s concerns, particularly about the historical preservation of the area.
“Zero lot line housing is ruining the historical character of our neighborhoods,” Lee said, urging the commission to prioritize the preservation of older homes and the unique beauty of the area. She argued that most of the neighborhood opposed this type of development, and the community should have more say in how their area evolves.
Planning Commission Response
The commission acknowledged the concerns, but emphasized that their hands were tied by state law. The commission’s chair reminded the public that zoning codes and regulations are set by the state and must be followed if all development criteria are met. The planning commission cannot deny applications that comply with these laws, though there is an opportunity to review codes every eight years. Residents were encouraged to continue engaging with their local government, even if the outcome wasn’t what they hoped for in this case.
LaRoque reiterated that the proposal met all the necessary criteria. She emphasized that preserving the original home and the height of the duplex units were part of the effort to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood.
With all criteria met, the commission voted unanimously to approve the proposal.
Annexation Proposals
The commission also heard four separate annexation requests for properties within the urban growth boundary, all of which were approved without opposition:
- 1021 NW Airport Road: A property in a residential mixed-density zone. Staff reported that utilities were available, and the commission unanimously recommended the annexation to the City Council.
- 2187 Mill St.: This property also lies within the urban growth boundary and meets the necessary criteria for annexation. One written public comment criticized the city’s practice of “forcing” annexations, but the city clarified that it owned the property and had jurisdiction over Mill Street. The commission approved the annexation unanimously.
- 140 Russell Drive: Another residential mixed-density property on the south side of Russell Drive. Staff recommended annexation, and with no public testimony for or against, the commission approved the motion unanimously.
Public Concerns on Traffic
During the public comment period, Lebanon resident Jason Fair raised concerns about Lebanon’s road infrastructure, citing increased traffic congestion and incidents of road rage. He specifically mentioned the area near the high school at 5th Street and Airport Road as a potential candidate for a traffic signal. With two teenage drivers in his household, Fair expressed concerns about safety.
City Manager Ron Whitlatch acknowledged the issue, explaining that while the city conducts traffic impact analyses for new developments, Lebanon has limited funding for road maintenance and expansion. A new traffic light is planned for Airport and Stoltz Hill roads, but other improvements depend on available funding. Discussions ensued about potential for a bypass around Lebanon, with Whitlatch saying that a project of that size would be projected at a $100 million cost and there is very little funding for current road expansion.
In a notable moment at the meeting, David McClain stepped down from the Lebanon Planning Commission. This was McClain’s final meeting, and he was awarded a plaque in recognition of his contributions to the commission.