ESTACADA SCHOOL
DISTRICT CENTRAL OFFICE
255 NE SIXTH STREET,
ESTACADA, OREGON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23,
2001 – 5:30 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER
BY PRESIDING OFFICER
The meeting was called to order at
5:30 pm. Mayor Austin led in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present: Cr.
Akins, Cr. Troeh, Cr. Butcher, Cr. Gavic, Cr. Hartwig, Cr. Atkinson, Mayor
Austin, CA Cole, CM Ealy, CR Carey.
B. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT #2000-2 & ZONE CHANGE
APPLICATION #2000-2.
Bernard Atkinson, applicant, is requesting a
comprehensive plan amendment from light industrial to commercial, and
corresponding zone change from M-1 to C-1 for property described as 34E20, tax
lots 1700 & 1800.
Mayor Austin
opened the public hearing and asked the council to declare any ex parte contact
or conflict of interest.
Cr. Hartwig met
with the applicants this morning but did not receive any new information.
Cr. Gavic stated
he submitted an exhibit at the planning commission level regarding this
application.
Cr. Atkinson
declared a conflict of interest and he will be abstaining from the discussion
and vote.
Mayor Austin
stated he has followed the application through the planning commission meetings
and had discussions with ODOT and OEDD but has received no new information that
has not been included in the packet.
CA Cole gave a
statement regarding evidence and the right to appeal any decision of this body.
CP McCallister
entered a letter dated May 21, 2001 from ODOT as exhibit 27, a letter from
Bernard Atkinson dated May 10, 2001 asking for a change to the application as
exhibit 28 and a letter from Rick Henrickson dated May 23, 2001 as exhibit 29.
CM Ealy made a
statement to the council regarding this application and all the people,
agencies and tools involved in making a decision on this application. He stated that the action of the council
would be defendable at LUBA if this application were approved.
CP reviewed his staff report. He stated that the applicant submitted a
letter amending the application to only include lots 1, 2 & 3 on the
platted subdivision – approximately 9.6 acres.
The first part of the staff report deals with the statewide planning
goals. Staff has identified goals 9 and
11 as applicable to this application and this development meets both of those
goals. The second part of the report
deals with Estacada’s planning goals and policies. Based on these goals and policies staff
determined that the industrial designation is the best for the property. The Council’s decision needs to be based on
the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan that they have, whether it is
outdated or not. The third part of the
staff report is regarding the zone change.
If the Council finds that the comprehensive plan should be amended to
commercial, the C-1 zone is appropriate.
The other criterion for the zone change is the public infrastructure
available and if the capacity is there to support commercial. PWS Strawn has determined that there is
sufficient capacity for water, sewer and storm drain. The fourth part of the staff report deals
with the transportation planning rule.
The transportation traffic study supplied by the applicant calls for a
traffic light. The only way to meet the
transportation planning rule is to require the applicant to install a traffic
light at the intersection as a condition of approval.
CP stated that
the planning commission did not send a recommendation, the fire district is
recommending approval, OEDD and ODOT are opposed to the application. CP stated that the council has alternatives
in looking at the application. They can
approve the application for rezone of 9.6 acres, approve the application in
part, approve the whole 20 acres, or deny the application. Some of the options the council has with the
public hearing is to continue the public hearing or leave the record open for
written testimony for 7 days but close the public hearing. The applicant would have an additional 7 days
if requested to respond to any new written testimony.
Bernard
Atkinson, applicant – Mr. Atkinson stated that the real issue before us is the
city of Estacada and where is it going.
Mr. Atkinson purchased Estacada Ford eight years ago. He stated at this time 35% of people living
in Estacada went out of town to work and now 70% commute out of town. He stated that there are approximately 13
empty buildings around town that represent people leaving town. He stated that everyone needs to work
together to do what’s best for Estacada and to address the issues before the
city of Estacada and the future of Estacada.
He stated that people go out of town to shop because they can’t get what
they need here.
Mr. Atkinson
stated that when he bought the property it was rural residential and was told
that the only way he could move the auto dealership to the property was to have
it rezoned commercial. Mr. Atkinson also
commented on OEDD’s position. He stated
that four property owners are responsible for all the money OEDD loaned to the
city to build the infrastructure to the industrial property. There was no grant money involved. Mr. Atkinson stated that the staff report
does allow the city council to approve the application with conditions. He also commented that the planning
commission could not come to a decision and that they had not denied the
application.
Mayor Austin
asked how much property is needed for the automobile dealership. Mr. Atkinson stated it would take about 4
acres.
Cr. Hartwig
asked if Mr. Atkinson needed the C-1 zoning to build the car lot. He stated he did along with other
ventures. He is looking to finance his
development by developing other commercial ventures.
Cr. Troeh asked
if the documents Mr. Atkinson referred to in his presentation are entered as
exhibits. An article from The Oregonian
was entered as exhibit 30 and a letter from Frank Walker & Associates to
David and Bernie Atkinson dated May 3, 1997 was entered as exhibit 31.
In favor of:
Karl Davis, Gresham,
Oregon – Mr. Davis would like to see Family Ford grow and to see supporting
businesses build around Family Ford to increase their business.
Dean Hansell,
30257 SE Judd Road – Mr. Hansell is a small business owner that does a lot of
work in the community and makes most of his supply purchases within the city
and would like to see more offered in Estacada.
He stated that Estacada needs to grow and that the council cannot be
afraid of growth. He wants to support
this town and he buys locally first.
David Atkinson,
29998 SE Currin Road – Mr. Atkinson is the applicant’s son and
businessman. He has always been excited
with what Estacada has to offer and has supported the town. He stated there is no where for new
businesses to go – we need growth and space.
He needs his business to grow so he can stay in business. We need space for people to grow and this is an opportunity to grow.
Tamara Long, 762
SE Forest Glen Road – Ms. Long stated that her husband works for Family
Ford. She stated that Estacada needs to
keep the jobs they have already. There
are 13 employees at Family Ford that will lose their jobs if the company
decides to leave. The people who work
for Family Ford are very active in the community. The issue is about people’s lives and the
survival of these families. Commercial
growth is needed to bring in tax dollars to keep the city alive. She stated that the downtown area should be
developed for the tourist industry such as Joseph and Gresham.
Alan Rademacher,
30735 SE River Mill Road – Mr. Rademacher lives directly across from the
Atkinson’s property. He feels the
commercial property was placed on the wrong side of the highway when the comp
plan was developed. He stated that there
is no large parcels of commercial property available. He also said that business follows the
traffic flow and it makes good sense to make this property commercial.
Mark Johnson,
127 SW Cherry Park Road, Troutdale – Mr. Johnson works for Family Ford
where they put aspirations first and not
only think of themselves but the people that surround them. He sees the Atkinson’s as wanting to inject
money into the community because they like where they live. The move to the highway will be a benefit to
everyone that lives here or wants to move here.
There will be expansion regardless and the council needs to allow this
change to help with this expansion.
Dean Breazile,
32878 SE Divers Road – Mr. Breazile feels the downtown area is not flourishing
reflected by there being a lot of empty buildings. He would like to see the city grow along the
highway. He does not feel this will
jeopardize the small town feel but it will draw in businesses that will benefit
each and every one of us. There needs to
be new jobs to support the people that live in Estacada and to keep them close
to home and to buy at home. There are
many benefits with not many downfalls to approve this request.
Jack Lyon, 4107
NE Hazel Fern Place, Portland – Mr. Lyon stated it is clear that something
economically has to change in Estacada.
The Atkinson’s need the council to pitch in and do their part in making
this development work. He stated there
are only 4 acres of non-used commercial land in the city and most of this is
owned by ODOT. The Atkinson’s plan on
using 4 acres of the requested property for their dealership which leaves
approximately 6 acres of commercial for development. He stated that Estacada needs a spark and
this is it.
Mike Park, 30725
SE Hwy 224 – Mr. Park stated that he developed the Industrial Campus and currently
Seubert Machining has produced 26 jobs in the community. He stated that this community needs money
flowing into it. Growth has been slow
and this decision should be fairly easy.
If he was making the decision, he would approve all 20 acres.
Marsha Kelly,
32701 Moss Hill Road – Ms. Kelly does not understand why this is such a big
issue. She feels this town is dying
because there is nothing here and this would bring in business. She feels the whole 20 acres should be
approved.
Connie
Schroeder, 23832 S. Bard Road – Ms. Schroeder has lived here over 50 years and
her children have moved away because there are no jobs. She feels this request for zone change is a
very positive thing.
In opposition
of:
Peter O’Neal,
Thriftway – Mr. O’Neal opposes the comprehensive plan amendment and zone
change. He does not oppose the
Atkinson’s relocation to the highway property but questions why their expansion
and growth has to be to the detriment of everyone else. Family Ford can get a conditional use with
the current zone in place. Other
businesses have invested a lot of dollars into their businesses in downtown
Estacada, such as Hi-School Pharmacy and Thriftway. He is paying bank rates for the loan on his
improvements and was not able to get an LID for improvements. Light Industrial land provides better jobs
per acre at a higher rate of pay than commercial land. Mr. O’Neal stated that a Clackamas County
report stated that industrial income rates are much higher than
commercial. People leave Estacada to
work because of the lack of family wage jobs available to them here. Mr. O’Neal read some information from
previous exhibits (letter from Pat Allen) and from exhibit #23. He stated that DLCD (exhibit 3) is not in
favor of the change. Without their support,
Estacada would not get any money for revitalization. Mr. O’Neal would like to see a site
development plan before the zone change was approved. There is a vast shortage of prime industrial
land in Clackamas County and this means that business may come looking in
Estacada. He also stated that
fragmentation and spot zoning are concerns of LUBA.
Mr. O’Neal
stated that Estacada is a small community not located on a high traffic
corridor. We are a destination location
and commercial development has been slow.
There is a vast amount of competition citing that within a 30 minute
drive of Estacada you can shop at Clackamas Town Center, Costco, etc. and within 15 minutes you can shop at two
Safeways, a Bi-Mart, etc. The vast
majority of people that work outside the city will shop where they work. We need more family wage jobs to keep the
people home to work and then to shop at home.
His goal is to see the entire downtown revitalized. Almost every government agency has
recommended denying the application, the staff report recommends denying the
application, the Estacada Planning Commission voted not to approve the
application and he is asking that the city council endorse the recommendations
they are getting for denial. Approval of
the zoning change could jeopardize growth in Estacada. A conditional use to allow the dealership
would allow the Family Ford to relocate to the highway. The Comp Plan has been reviewed various times
since it was developed including in 1998 when this same property was annexed
according to the comp plan. He requested
that the council put his handout into the record as an exhibit. It was entered as exhibit 32.
CM Ealy
clarified that there was a $75,000 grant from MHEA specifically for pump
stations and equipment.
Mr. O’Neal
stated that when the Atkinson’s subdivided their property, there was discussion
regarding sidewalks and that they were not needed in industrial subdivisions.
CP McCallister
stated that in Mr. O’Neal’s attorney letter, she asked that the record be left
open for 7 days and he asked Mr. O’Neal if he is requesting this at this
time. Mr. O’Neal is not requesting that
the record be left open for 7 days at this time. CP McCallister does not feel this is a
substantially new application and the planning commission did not deny the
application.
Nina Hamilton,
27724 S. Hwy 211 – Ms. Hamilton is a small business owner in downtown Estacada
and it is her opinion that this change would be detrimental to businesses
downtown and kill what is left of downtown Estacada much like Molalla, Canby,
Gresham and Oregon City. This change
will let big businesses come in and take over and kill the small
businesses. The downtown core is not doing
well because there are not many family wage jobs here. She would like to see these jobs come to
Estacada to increase the spending in Estacada.
The reason the businesses in downtown Estacada are failing is because
they are not making any money. There are
no customers coming in the door. There
are empty buildings and plenty of commercial sites available but there are no
customers. She wants to see growth, but
she wants to see proper growth. She
asked that if the Council changes the zone, to do it for Atkinson’s only – she
does not mind if they move out there.
Dianna Turk,
30095 SE Cemetery Road – Ms. Turk is very interested in what happens to
Estacada and has tried to be very positive in the development of Estacada. Her question is will this zone change
revitalize downtown or will it draw people out of the downtown? Will this zone change fill the 13 empty
businesses? There is a lot of interest
in revitalizing downtown but what will you revitalize if all the business moves
out to the highway. When the strategic
plan was put together one of the arguments at that time was the importance of
family wage jobs. Light industrial
property has the potential to bring in family wage jobs and there should be a
commitment to this. She would not be
against a conditional use to allow Atkinson’s the ability to move to the
highway.
Cynthia Everett,
20820 S Reynolds Road, Colton – Ms. Everett works in the downtown core of
Estacada and she feels by allowing stores on the highway, her job is
jeopardized.
Neutral:
Pamela Zengel,
44740 SE George Road – Ms. Zengel operates and owns Cada Corner. She feels tourism is growing in this area and
she is counting on this growth of tourism to continue while the larger cities
get larger. She also feels you need a
balance of commercial and industrial property.
She did ask about the signal light needed and the fact that the
comprehensive plan might be changed to include this light. She feels the questions of the discrepancy of
grant/loan dollars for the infrastructure project needs to be addressed. She also wants to know if the city will be in
violation of the loan from OEDD if this is approved. She would also like to know what has been
done to bring in the light industrial growth to the city.
Susan Webster,
Sandy, Oregon – Ms. Webster is employed by Family Ford and it is her opinion
that the people that have been here for a long time like Estacada the way it is
but new people want growth and change.
She urged the council to consider this application very carefully.
Tamara Jones,
36250 SE Divers – Ms. Jones is all for revitalizing downtown Estacada but also
realizes that Estacada has got to grow and the highway is about the only place
to go. Estacada has to change.
Jean Atkinson,
408 NE Shafford – Ms. Atkinson does a lot of her shopping in Estacada but there
are a lot of things that you cannot buy in Estacada and you need to go out of
town to get. She feels that this
proposed development may bring businesses to town that would offer things you
cannot get now. She will still use the
businesses she does now but feels this proposed development will enhance the
businesses in the downtown core.
Henny
Rademacher, Foothills Drive – Ms. Rademacher stated that when the agreement was
made with OEDD to build the infrastructure, there was some talk about some
commercial property being allowed.
Rebuttal:
Bernie Atkinson
– Mr. Atkinson thanked everyone that spoke but especially the people that spoke
in opposition. They have some of the
same feelings that he has and their opinions are well-founded and they are
entitled to them. He did state that Mr.
O’Neal sited a situation about a comment from him stating that sidewalks were
not needed in an industrial park. He
stated that the blueprints of the subdivision originally had sidewalks all
through the subdivision and it was the city that asked for the sidewalks to be
removed and additional street added in it’s place.
Mr. O’Neal
requested that the hearing be left open for him to be able to produce the
documentation regarding the sidewalk issue.
CP McCallister stated
that legally the record must be left open for 7 days. He asked Mr. Atkinson if he wanted any
additional time to review the new information.
Mr. Atkinson does not want to have any additional time and would like
the record closed after the 7 days.
CP McCallister
stated that the written record would remain open until 5:00 pm, May 30,
2001. Any written testimony must be
delivered to City Hall by this time.
The Council
discussed when to hold the next meeting to deliberate this application. This will be placed on the June 7th
agenda.
CP McCallister
stated that the Council can close the public hearing for oral testimony and at
their next meeting begin deliberating the application. Any written testimony submitted by next
Wednesday will be added into the record.
Cr. Butcher
moved to close the public hearing. Cr.
Troeh seconded the motion. The motion
passed with 5 yes, 1 no (Hartwig) and 1 abstention (Atkinson).
C. ADJOURNMENT
OF MEETING
The meeting
was adjourned at 9:15 pm.