St. Helens council remands triplex appeal to planning commission, conditions 120‑day extension

The St. Helens City Council on Jan. 15 remanded an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a conditional use permit and multiple variances for a proposed triplex at the corner of Wyeth and North Bibb Street back to the Planning Commission, on the condition that the applicant agree in writing to extend the 120‑day decision deadline.

City planner Jacob Gration told the council the hearing was a “quasi‑judicial land use hearing” and summarized the proposal and the variances under review. The subject parcel is a narrow corner lot historically occupied by a triplex that was destroyed by fire and later demolished; Gration said the city’s rules generally remove nonconforming rights if a structure is substantially destroyed.

The applicant, Dan Hatfield of LaGrange Townhomes LLC, told the council he bought the property “as a triplex” and said he was seeking to rebuild essentially the same footprint. Hatfield said he spent roughly $20,000 to clear the burned structure and that a duplex would be a backup option if the triplex was not permitted.

Why it matters: The Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit and related variances; the council must now decide whether to uphold, reverse, or modify that denial. The decision affects neighborhood density, on‑street parking demand and how the city applies nonconforming‑use rules after a fire.

Most of the hearing focused on five variance issues Gration flagged: minimum lot area for a triplex (R‑5 zone requires 7,500 square feet), a reduced front/side setback along Wyeth (proposed about 4½ feet where 10 feet is standard for the corner), an off‑street parking reduction (the triplex plan would need six off‑street spaces under multifamily standards), building elevation/articulation exceptions for multifamily, and whether the footprint could be used for a duplex that would be treated differently under state law.

Gration told the council the subject lot is one of the classic 58‑by‑100 lots on that side of town and is “about 29% too small” for the lot‑area requirement for a triplex. He explained that state law limits how the city may treat single‑family homes and duplexes and that a duplex would be subject to different parking limits (state rules can restrict a jurisdiction from requiring more than two off‑street spaces for a duplex).

Neighbors who spoke cited long‑running problems with the burned structure and concerns about parking and neighborhood compatibility. Pat Ferry, who said she lives nearby, criticized how long the burned building stood before it was demolished: “It was burned down, looked terrible, had vagrants in it,” she said, adding the property’s condition had been a neighborhood nuisance for years. Robin Dinoski urged the council to uphold the Planning Commission: “I would advocate that you go along with the planning commission’s decision,” she said.

Hatfield told the council he would accept a duplex rather than the triplex if required and said the duplex would use substantially the same footprint as the proposed triplex. The council and staff discussed whether that change might have affected the Planning Commission's decision if the duplex option had been presented earlier.

After deliberation, the council voted to remand the matter to the Planning Commission with a direction that the remand be conditioned on written consent from all parties to extend the statutory 120‑day review period so the Planning Commission can reconsider the application in light of the applicant’s offer that the same footprint could be used for a duplex. The city planner explained the council may affirm, reverse or modify the commission’s decision, and that remand is authorized if the council finds evidence could not reasonably have been presented at the earlier hearing.

The council recorded the remand as approved (unanimous; recorded aye votes). The remand leaves several outcomes possible: the Planning Commission could revise its decision, the applicant could file a modified application, or the applicant could pursue other appeals. Gration said the remand will require the applicant’s written agreement to extend the statutory decision deadline for the local government.

What remains: Key technical questions remain unresolved in the record — notably whether the prior triplex was destroyed in 2001 or 2021 (the planning report and the applicant’s statements differ), how the city’s nonconforming‑use rules apply in the specific facts, and whether an on‑site parking solution can be engineered for a duplex. The council’s remand preserves the applicant’s options while returning the matter to the Planning Commission for further review.

The council’s motion to remand included the condition that the applicant provide written consent to extend the 120‑day statutory time limit; the council did not grant the variances on the record at that meeting.