Stayton planning commission continues hearing on proposed three‑lot partition at 313 N. Evergreen

The Stayton Planning Commission continued the public hearing on a preliminary partition application for 313 North Evergreen Avenue after the applicant and commissioners agreed additional coordination with Public Works and staff was necessary.

Planning staff presented the proposal as a division of a 1.24‑acre parcel into three lots: Lot 1 (11,230 square feet, Evergreen frontage), Lot 2 (about 11,146 square feet, Ida frontage and currently vacant) and Lot 3 (31,629 square feet, High Street frontage). Staff recommended right‑of‑way dedications (5 feet along Ida, 10 feet along Evergreen, 5 feet along High Street), sidewalk upgrades (staff asked for 6 foot sidewalks on Ida and Evergreen) and a non‑remonstrance (remonstrance) agreement for Lot 3 that would obligate future owners to pay their share of half‑street improvements if the city ever upgrades High Street.

Applicant Ross Boxler (listed in the record with a Stayton address) objected to several staff conditions and proposed alternatives. He noted the current curb lines would not change with the dedications and argued the city would be taking private land "for nothing in return." He proposed two alternatives: (1) record a deed instrument that would allow the city to take right‑of‑way only if and when the city widens the street or (2) reclassify Evergreen as a narrower street under public works standards so the 10‑foot dedication would not be necessary. Boxler also asked that an existing above‑ADA sidewalk section be preserved, that Ida sidewalk be allowed at 5 feet (citing a 2019 variance at 485 W. Ida) and that the commission set a cost ceiling or consider cost‑sharing for half‑street improvements. He provided engineering estimates: about $94,000 for the sidewalk work and roughly $200,000 for half‑street improvements for High Street; he estimated the value of the land dedications at about $30,000.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions: Boxler said he had no detailed plan for Lot 3 but expected duplexes rather than an apartment structure. Staff explained a remonstrance agreement would bind owners to pay their share of needed street work if the city later upgrades the road. Because the applicant requested revisions and some technical questions remained (especially around Public Works' role and standards), the commission voted to continue the hearing to the next meeting so staff and the applicant can produce a more developed package.

The commission left the hearing open (not closed) and stopped further action at the July 29 meeting to allow additional discussion with Public Works and updated staff report material to be prepared for the continued hearing.