Lebanon commission backs development-code changes to implement cityhousing production strategy

The Lebanon Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt development code amendment DCA-25-01, a package of changes the city says implement its 2023 Housing Production Strategy and update the Lebanon Development Code for state law consistency.

The amendments matter because they are intended to expand housing choices and remove regulatory barriers identified in the Housing Production Strategy (HPS), update manufactured-dwelling-park standards to match recent state law, allow certain small-unit housing types in specified contexts and establish standards for affordable-housing bonuses; the package also advances the city's compliance with state planning goals and statutes.

Planning staff told commissioners the code update work began in March 2024 and was funded by a technical-assistance grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff said the project included a code audit, multiple drafting rounds and review by a broadly representative project advisory committee (PAC), planning commission and city-council work sessions. Brandon, a planner with MIG, and Darcy, a MIG consultant, presented a summary of the final recommended edits and answered commissioner questions.

Brandon of MIG summarized the project's purpose: "This project is primarily intended to implement the code-related items from the HPS," and walked commissioners through the timeline of audits, drafts and advisory-committee review. High-priority changes described in the staff packet included single-unit allowances (HPS action 1.1), revised cottage-cluster standards (HPS action 1.2), removal of the city's separate infill standards, and updates to manufactured-dwelling-park rules to reflect clearer, objective standards and recent legislation.

The draft also addressed lower-priority HPS actions and related items: allowing tiny homes as part of cottage clusters and in manufactured-dwelling parks and as accessory dwelling units (HPS action 1.6), updates to affordable-housing bonus provisions (HPS action 2.4), consistency updates to state terminology and definitions, and code cleanup items the city had identified in prior years.

Staff said the amendments were reviewed under statewide planning goals, specifically Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) and Goal 10 (Housing). Commissioners were shown the public-engagement record: PAC meetings, multiple work sessions, regular public notice and one written public comment consisting of a 13-page suggested redline. Staff recommended not incorporating the redline at this late stage because PAC review had not included those suggested changes; staff said the city could revisit language in the future.

During the hearing commissioners asked detailed questions about specific code language. One technical question concerned a cottage-cluster provision that would allow reduced front, rear and street-side setbacks down to 10 feet in certain circumstances; staff clarified the reduced setbacks apply to private property-lines (not the public right-of-way). Commissioners also discussed word choice in the draft (for example, "shall" versus "must"); staff and consultants explained legal drafting conventions and that the PAC had reviewed the language.

At one point staff discussed a draft section implementing Senate Bill 8 provisions for affordable housing on nonresidential public lands, explaining the section's applicability and that only qualifying ownership types would be eligible to use that pathway; staff said nonqualifying owners would need to comply with applicable zoning standards.

A commissioner moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of DCA-25-01 to the City Council "based on the written findings in the staff report and direct staff to draft an order of recommendation incorporating the findings and conditions of approval." A second followed and the motion carried unanimously. Staff noted a City Council adoption hearing is scheduled for June 11.

The recommendations forwarded to council package included proposed code language, a summary of how the changes implement HPS actions, PAC meeting notes and the one written public comment appended to the planning packet.