Sisters faces tension between density and affordability

While some locals argue for more smaller lot sizes to make housing more affordable in Sisters, others turned out at City Hall on Thursday, March 25, to voice their desire to keep Sisters a beautiful retirement community, with large lots and low density.

The visitors implored the Sisters City Council to modify a proposed amendment to the Sisters Development Code (Ordinance 348). The proposed amendment would require developers building new residential subdivisions to develop four to eight houses per gross acre.

But residents and planning commissioners told the councilors they should know by now that the community wants a density of two to seven houses per gross acre. That density, they said, would preserve the quality of life they currently enjoy, with open spaces averaging three houses per gross acre, according to a citizen's report.

The councilors decided to delay action on the amendment, which also would require a density of nine to 20 units for multi-family housing.

The Sisters Development Code was originally approved on June 28, 2001, with a required density of six to seven units per gross acre for residential housing and 10 to 24 units for multi-family housing.

The proposed four to eight houses per gross acre is intended to accommodate the rapid population growth and allow for more affordable housing, said Neil Thompson, city planner.

"This is a neighborhood quality ordinance, which will help preserve the character of neighborhoods, while still allowing for more housing types," Thompson told the councilors.

Although the amendment would allow for fewer houses per acre than the 2001 code, residents told the council it is a far cry from the two to seven units per gross acre that concerned residents, members of an ad hoc citizens committee, and planning commissioners want.

"I don't know why we're not approving the two to seven," said Ted Johnson, planning commissioner and member of the citizens committee. "That's the game we've been in for 10 months now. Four to eight is new to me."

Curt Kallberg, a member of the citizens group, distributed a packet of information that he compiled for the city council. The packet surveys the number of lots per gross acre in 10 subdivisions in Sisters. It shows density ranging from 1.6 lots per gross acre in Rolling Horse to five to six lots per gross acre in The Pines. The average is three houses per gross acre.

"After a public hearing and community meetings and workshops, we decided four to eight units is too dense," Kallberg said. "We want the two to seven that we recommended. The livability, and character and saving trees will all be gone with density. That's not the reason we came to Sisters. I lived in a high-density place before -- I lived in Gresham."

Bob Temple, planning commissioner, told The Nugget that an area with eight lots per acre would require lots to be two feet narrower than some of the city's old lots, which average 40 feet by 114 feet. Hence, the average lot would be 4,356 square feet, when figuring 20 percent for sidewalks and streets, Temple said. The lots at The Pines fit 78 units on 15 acres (five units per acre with roads included) and average lot sizes of 4,000-plus square feet, according to the packet.

"I can assure you we have discussed and cussed this issue," Temple said to the councilors. "If you reject the two to seven and go back to four to eight, it will be entirely too dense. Eight houses per acre will not preserve it. We'll destroy it."

Temple said he personally contacted 33 home owners to ask them if they favored a high- or low-density Sisters, and how many houses per acre they would prefer.

He told The Nugget the people were randomly selected among his neighbors and people in various subdivisions, including The Pines, Coyote Springs, and Tamarack Street He said the residents included some very comfortable retired folks, but he also surveyed a cross-section of income categories.

He said 31 favored low density. He said some gave their preferred units per acre and some pointed out subdivisions they liked.

"The way I felt when I was talking to the council is that we've worked on this for 10 months vigorously," Temple told The Nugget. "How dare you come back and reject it. I am also sharing the voice of 31 people sharing this point of view. They should be taken into account also."