ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION MINUTES
CITY HALL
DECEMBER 4, 2003 - 6:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Cm. Cameron, Cm. McGregor, Cm. Copeland, Cm. Sager, CP McCallister, DCR Hovda.
Absent: Cm. Crosby, Cm. Phillips, Cm. Hartwig.
3. PLANNING COMMISISON TRAINING
Cm. McGregor led the discussion as he reviewed his notes from the training material that was submitted. CP gave a brief overview of some of the important sections and stated that this material is for the commission to reference when reviewing a land use application.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm.
ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY HALL
DECEMBER 4, 2003 - 7:00
PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Cm. Cameron, Cm. McGregor, Cm. Copeland, Cm. Sager, CP McCallister, DCR Hovda.
Absent: Cm. Crosby, Cm. Phillips, Cm. Hartwig.
3. APPROVE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 MEETING
Cm. Sager moved to approve the September 25, 2003 minutes. Cm. Copeland seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
Chrm. Cameron opened the public hearing and opened the public hearing. He asked for abstentions or exparte contact – there was none.
CP reviewed the staff report, which recommends approval with conditions.
Cm. Cameron stated he is concerned with the lack of parking on Broadway. He would rather see three parking spaces behind the building instead of two spaces and landscaping.
Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.
John Kolb, applicant stated he wouldn’t meet the parking restrictions downtown and that nobody in this area could. He feels this building will be a nice addition and complete the downtown area.
CP McCallister stated that the applicant is required to have 5% of the property in landscaping, which equals 125 square feet. The applicant could probably meet the landscaping requirement easily.
Mr. Kolb stated that there is 2.5 feet on each side of the building that will just be covered with bark dust or grass. CP stated this would more than meet the landscaping requirement.
Chrm. Cameron closed the public hearing.
Cm. McGregor feels a yard on the side of the building is a bad idea and will just collect debris.
Cm. Copeland moved to approve Variance Application #2003-1 with the conditions in the staff report, plus the condition that he installs three parking spaces in the rear of the building and landscape the sides of the building to meet the landscaping requirement. Cm. Sager seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. PROPOSED CITY CODE CHANGES – CP reviewed the proposed changes.
Cm. Cameron stated he likes private roads. He feels there are small pieces of property in Estacada that may develop, but if they were required to develop a 50 or 60-foot road then it would be too cost restrictive. He stated when someone lives on a private road they know that they must maintain it themselves.
Cm. Sager stated he doesn’t like narrow roads because people park on both sides of the road and then it becomes a one-lane road.
Alan Hull, Estacada Fire Dept., stated they have reviewed the proposed street widths as long as parking is restricted to parallel on one side of the street and it is enforced. He stated they are within the guidelines of the Uniform Fire Code. He stated that their vehicles are wider than they used to be.
DJ Bleu, stated private roads need turnouts and turn a rounds.
Leonard Smith, Pac West Engineering, stated he had made a presentation to the City Council asking for the City to address the issues that are before the Commission tonight. He stated he represents a property that would like to proceed with a development, but feels they should wait until these changes are decided upon.
Cm. McGregor feels narrow roads are the way to let the developer make more money and that’s what the Commission is there for.
The Commission discussed the issue of nobody enforcing the restrictive parking on skinny streets.
The Commission reviewed and discussed each proposed ordinance. Consensus was to recommend approval of each ordinance, but to add language to the non-conforming use in annexations ordinance that allows the City to address the non-conforming uses on an individual application basis.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.