ESTACADA CITY HALL,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
475 SE MAIN STREET,
ESTACADA, OREGON
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002
- 7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER
BY PRESIDING OFFICER
The meeting was
called to order at 7:00 pm. Mayor Austin
led in the pledge of allegiance.
Present: Cr. Hartwig, Cr. Butcher, Cr. Akins, Cr.
Atkinson, Cr. Gavic, Cr. Troeh, Mayor Austin, CM Ealy, CR Carey, CA Cole.
B. CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP COMMENTS
Mayor Austin awarded the January Citizen of the
Month Award to Keith McCarty for his commitment to the youth as a volunteer
coach for soccer, basketball, softball and baseball over the last eight
years. Mayor Austin also announced the
January Golden Rake award to Robert Saunders at 108 NE Pierce Street.
C. CONSENT
AGENDA
1. Approve
January 14, 2002 Council minutes
2. Accounts
payable
3. Approve
2002 Council Goals
4. Low
Income Senior Citizen application (revised income figures)
5.
Estacada Area Arts Commission Appointment –
Karen Veselik
6.
Estacada Budget Committee Appointment – David
Keebler
The Council removed the approval of the 2002
Council Goals and would like it added to the next meeting agenda.
Cr. Troeh moved
to adopt the consent agenda. Cr. Butcher
seconded the motion. Roll call
vote: Cr. Hartwig-no, Cr. Butcher-yes,
Cr. Akins-yes, Cr. Atkinson-yes, Cr. Gavic-yes, Cr. Troeh-yes, Mayor
Austin-yes. The motion passed with 6 yes
and 1 no.
D. DEPARTMENT
& COMMITTEE REPORTS
City Recorder
– CR Carey reviewed the filing requirement of the 2002 SEI as required by
224.195.
City Manager - CM Ealy reviewed his written manager report
and updated the Council on the Arts Commission grant.
Bev Anderson gave an update on the
PGE re-licensing meeting regarding recreation in the area. There will be some community meetings planned
regarding this issue.
E. COUNCIL
BUSINESS
Estacada
Community Park – Pond Acquisition – Ms. Anderson gave a slide presentation
reviewing the issues of the pond area the city is considering for a future park
development site. She showed the
consideration of additional land that could possibly be purchased to increase
the size of the park.
The Council
discussed the options of proceeding with the project and confirmed that the
environmental testing that has been done.
CA Cole stated that the phase 1 testing is probably satisfactory. Ms. Anderson stated there was soil testing
done all around the pond and the samples came back negative for hazardous
elements. These results will be brought
back to the council at the next meeting.
It was council
consensus to continue their support of this project and support the grant
application regarding the additional property.
Park
Caretaker Services – CM stated that staff will be meeting with the
caretaker regarding their services to discuss issues related to the park
caretaker agreement. The council agreed
to have staff review the caretaker services and return with a recommendation
whether to continue or dissolve the agreement.
F. PUBLIC HEARING – Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval - request for waiver regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application #2000-2 & Zone Change Application #2000-2
Mayor Austin closed the meeting and opened the public hearing and asked for any exparte contact. Cr. Hartwig stated he had talked to Dorothy Cofield but did not learn anything other than what was in her letter. Cr. Atkinson declared potential conflict of interest.
CA Cole gave the statement regarding evidence and appeal rights.
CM Ealy stated that the staff report, Planning Commission findings and decision and Planning Commission minutes were included in the packet along with the appeal paperwork. CM stated he felt there was a change of circumstance because they came in with a specific site plan for a large shopping center. The Council is considering allowing the applicant to proceed with this application before the one-year time period has expired.
Cr. Gavic stated he has concerns because the City Planner is not here and that CM Ealy is acting as the planner. CM stated that CP McCallister has a county hearing tonight and was not able to attend. CM Ealy read an email from CP McCallister stating the it is common practice to use the same staff report when considering appeals.
CM stated that there have been five additional pieces of information or correspondence:
Mike Schuh letter – January 28, 2002
Cynthia Everett letter - January 28, 2002
Dorothy Cofield letter – January 25, 2002
Peter O’Neal letter – January 28, 2002
Chamber survey
Peter O’Neal – Applicant – Mr. O’Neal read his letter dated January 28, 2002.
Cr. Atkinson made some statements regarding Mr. O’Neal’s testimony. CA Cole stated this was a time to ask the applicant questions and not to debate the testimony.
In favor of the application:
Don Williams, 39801 SE Kitzmiller, Eagle Creek – Mr. Miller owns Eagle Creek Jackpot and has supported Estacada for 8 years in excess of $8,000 per year and feels he has a right to voice his opinion. He feels the applicant should wait the year period as per city code.
Kay Nelson, 247 NW Zobrist – Mrs. Nelson attended the Planning Commission meeting and felt the planner did not speak because the CM was his boss. She agrees with Mr. O’Neal that there were no new circumstances discussed.
Nina Hamilton, 27744 S. Hwy 211 – Ms. Hamilton is opposed to the waiver and stated that it sets a precedence that is not healthy to the city.
In opposition to:
Mark Cottle, representing Northwestern Development Group – Mr. Cottle wanted clarification on when the year period would expire. CA Cole stated it would be one year from the Council decision. Mr. Cottle stated that Mrs. Cofield’s letter misses the mark and he feels a new applicant is a change of circumstances and the property is under contract to somebody else. He said the application will serve a dual purpose – a zone change and site plan approval. New studies will be done at the time of application.
Dean Holden, 141 NE Pierce – Mr. Holden stated that the issue is allowing the time variance and was there substantial change. He feels a new applicant is a substantial change.
Dean Hansell, 30257 SE Judd Road, Eagle Creek – Mr. Hansell believes this needs to proceed and that Estacada’s future is the highway.
Brent Dixon, partner, Northwestern Development Group – Mr. Dixon wants to put a shopping center in this city. Did the planning commission err in allowing this waiver to be granted? If in the opinion of the planning commission there were substantial evidence they would approve the waiver of time.
Neutral:
Steve Stone, 25355 Frog Pond Lane – The Chamber of Commerce was asked by chamber members to do a survey of the membership regarding this issue. He believes as a chamber the town needs to move forward and make progress happen one way or the other.
Ben Erickson, 535 N. Broadway – Mr. Erickson speaking as a Planning Commissioner reiterated that the Planning Commission may permit a waiver if in their opinion there was substantial change in circumstances. The specific development plan and a shopping center site plan were the new evidences. He would ask that the Council respect the Planning Commission’s opinion.
Rebuttal:
Pete O’Neal – Mr. O’Neal stated that there are contingencies on a contract sale such as zone changes and the ownership does not change until certain things happen. The mixed comments from the Planning Commission were confusing. This decision will set a precedence in Estacada.
Cr. Butcher moved to close the public hearing. Cr. Akins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:35 pm and regular meeting was reopened.
Cr. Gavic moved to approve the appeal request submitted by Mr. O’Neal. Cr. Butcher seconded the motion. Cr. Atkinson is concerned with statements of Ms. Cofield regarding the Planning Commission decision. He feels the precedence set is to back the Planning Commission and he is going to support their decision. Cr. Gavic is trying to set aside emotion and opinion to make his decision. Cr. Troeh would like to show respect for the Planning Commission and support their action. Mayor Austin is trying to restrict his thoughts towards the time limit only and what the Planning Commission decided. He does feel there are new circumstances and supports the Planning Commission’s decision to allow the time limit waiver. Cr. Hartwig has reviewed the material and does feel the new applicant and site plans are enough to meet the criteria for the waiver. Cr. Akins will uphold the Planning Commissions decision. Cr. Butcher does not agree with the Planning Commission decision because she does not agree that there was substantial change in the application. Her position on growth is that she is all for it but her decision must be based on the code. Cr. Atkinson stated that the site plan is strictly for a shopping center and fast food restaurant, not a car lot. Roll call vote: Cr. Akins-no, Cr. Atkinson-no, Cr. Butcher-yes, Cr. Gavic-yes, Cr. Hartwig-no, Cr. Troeh-no, Mayor Austin-no. The motion failed with 2 yes and 5 no.
Mayor Austin stated that the issue was procedural therefore Cr. Atkinson was able to vote. CM Ealy stated he will be asking GSPC for comments in a letter regarding Cr. Atkinson’s ability to vote when the applicants actually apply for a zone change.
G. CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP COMMENTS
Tom Nelson,
247 NW Zobrist – Mr. Nelson commented that when you declare conflict of
interest you can still vote on the issue.
He does not like this even though it is legal.
Bev Veley,
33700 SE Duus Road – Ms. Veley agrees with Mr. Nelson and would have liked
Cr. Atkinson to have stepped back and abstain from voting.
H. COUNCIL
REPORTS & COMMENTS
Mayor Austin handed out information from the
Clackamas County Coordinating Committee and the Complete Communities Committee.
Cr. Troeh thanked
all that spoke tonight and thanked everyone for coming.
Cr. Gavic is
left with three questions regarding the procedure for this appeal, specifically
regarding the city planner issue.
Cr. Atkinson
disagrees with Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Veley that he should withdraw because of the
circumstances. He appreciates the report
put together by the chamber with the views of the business people.
Cr. Butcher
stated she was in no way undermining the Planning Commission decision and she
appreciates the time they put in making important decisions. She also does not like statements against
staff and councilors and feels Cr. Atkinson has the right to vote.
Cr. Hartwig
appreciates all the concerned citizens regarding this issue.
Mayor Austin
stated that it is healthy to agree to disagree and feels the council has done a
good job reviewing the issues before them.
I. ADJOURNMENT
OF MEETING
The meeting
was adjourned at 9:20 pm.