ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY HALL

APRIL 22, 2004

 

1.         CALL TO ORDER

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm

 

2.         ROLL CALL

 

Present:  Cm. McGregor, Cm. Sager, Cm. Copeland, Cm. Hartwig, Cm. Crosby, Chrm. Cameron.

 

3.            APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2004 MEETING

 

Cm. Sager moved to approve the February 26, 2004 minutes.  Cm. McGregor seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

4.            PUBLIC HEARING

 

A.     Variance application #2004-2.  The applicant, Olga Dongvillo, is requesting a variance from the off-street parking standards in Section 16.76(Q) of the Estacada Zoning Code.  The property is developed with a medical office building, which requires 5 off-street parking spaces.  The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the off-street parking to one space.  The property is zoned C-2 (Commercial/Residential) and is subject to section 16.32, 16.76 and Section 16.100 of the Estacada Municipal Code.  The property is located at 165 E First Avenue (34E, 20DD, tax lot 5200).

 

Chrm. Cameron opened the public hearing and asked for abstentions or ex-parte contact.  Cm. McGregor and Cm. Hartwig visited the site.  The applicant began to talk to Cm. Cameron in his shop, but he told her that he could not talk to her about the application.

 

CP McCallister reviewed the staff report, which recommends approving the variance for 1 parking space, not the requested 5 spaces.  CP and PWF Randall believe that there is enough room on the property for 4 off street angled parking spaces. 

 

Cm. Cameron asked why this issue was not addressed before the building permit was issued.  PWF Randall stated that the building permit states that they must meet off street parking requirements. 

 

Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.

 

Olga Dongvillo, applicant, 165 E 1st Avenue, has been at this location for almost 9 years.  Last year she decided to remodel.  She signed building permit application under duress because she was not aware that she would have to do off street parking requirements.  PWS and CM met the applicant at her site when she applied for the permit and she explained that she did not have room to meet the requirements.  It was discussed at this meeting that the City would be happy with her providing 1 off street space and 4 diagonal spaces on Main Street when Main Street was repaved.  She later met with staff and applied for the underground utility variance, and was granted it by City Council.  She applied for her plans, completed her project and never heard another word about the off street parking requirements.  Now a year later she got a letter that stated she must provide 5 off street spaces.  If she had known this was the case, she would not have proceeded with the project.  It will be detrimental for her business, and could force her out of business because she would have to move.  She stated that the nature of her business if for customers to come there and relax.  If there has 4 diagonal spaces on site they would be within 1 foot of her building and would not provide a very relaxing atmosphere.  She proposes that there is enough room on Main Street for 4 on street diagonal parking spaces without removing any trees, and then she would have room for 1 on site space.  These spaces are already utilized in this manner along Main Street.  She designed her remodel to keep the nature of the building so that it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood.

 

PWF Randall stated that the 4 diagonal spaces that have been discussed is a part of the CDBG paving project of Main Street that is scheduled this summer. 

 

CP entered the building permit and the signed copy of the permit as exhibit #5. 

 

Patrick Dongvillo, husband of applicant, appreciates CP’s position.  He feels that diagonal parking on site could be a liability issue because the vehicles could easily drive right over the parking bump and right into the building.  Also he stated that backing out of the existing on site space, which is under a carport, is very dangerous backing out onto 1st Avenue.  He feels that adding more spaces that will back out onto 1st Avenue would just be a nightmare.  It would be even worse if there were someone parked parallel along 1st Avenue close to its intersection with Main Street. 

 

Tammy Long, 762 SE Forest Glen Road, patient of the applicant.  She has never had a hard time finding parking for any of her appointments.  She said it would be very unnerving as a patient to be lying in the treatment room with needles in you and have a vehicle start up right outside the building.  She feels the on street parking at Dr. Rambousek’s office a lot more dangerous right across the street from 2 schools.  She wants to see the Commission bend the City Code and approve this application instead of running a successful business out of town.

 

Marleena Coffman, PO Box 281, Eagle Creek, patient for 4-5 years.  Supports the residential appearance that would be destroyed if commercial parking spaces were forced.  She feels 2 on street spaces would be eliminated if the 4 on site spaces were required.  She stated there are not usually more than 2 or 3 patients there at one time so there are not a lot of people coming in and out daily.

 

Jerry Polzin, 450 NE Carol, commutes past the health clinic every day and has never seen overcrowding on the street.  He respectfully disagrees with CP; he feels the application meets all four criteria discussed in the staff report.  He feels it’s better for the long term of the property and the integrity of the neighborhood to grant this application.  The future use of the property will be limited if there are 4 on site parking spaces.

 

Nancy Harrington, 1125 Lake Shore, moved back to Estacada for the quality of life here and feels cutting down two trees would be a waste.  She would rather walk to her appointment that have that happen. 

 

Nancy Coyote, 27187 S Benjamin Road, Estacada, is concerned about public safety.  She feels that children, wheelchair pedestrians, etc., would be in danger if cars are backing out over the sidewalk onto the street. 

 

Susan Jones, 210 NW 3rd Avenue, owns a business out of her home and feels this variance should be considered because it is an established business and should not be run off.  The people and business owners in this community should be recognized.


Gary Warkentin, 32795 SE Coupland Road, feels the efficient way people visit the clinic really helps alleviate the parking demands.  He also feels the mature trees need to be saved.  He feels the businesses that have the required off street parking spaces are usually vacant, most people park on street because it’s more convenient.

 

Katkina Bryk, 421 Hawthorn, patient, has never seen a parking problem there and feels that adding off street parking would eliminate on street spaces.  She feels the athetics of the neighborhood would be destroyed by a massive piece of concrete in front of it.

 

Greer Cundill, rented space in the clinic and never recalls a time when there was not adequate parking for both his clients and Ms. Dongvillo’s. 

 

Trudy Huffman, 4th Avenue, feels the brand new building in downtown Estacada does not meet the off street parking requirements so does not know why this one should have to.

 

Diane McClain, SE MyWay Court, Milwaukie, stated that she visits several other businesses in Estacada while she is here for her appointments. 

 

Kay Hunselman, 25666 SE Eagle Fern Road, Eagle Creek, has seen cars miss the brake and hit the gas petal and run over the concrete stop and run into the building at the Eagle Creek Post Office.  She doesn’t feel the proposal by CP is very safe.

 

CP feels exhibit #4 that was handed out by the applicant, is relevant in the fact that when Main Street is improved and there are parking spaces provided, it would be beneficial for this business.  However, the Commission must decide if they are approving the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. 

 

Cm. McGregor asked if the purpose of off street parking is to increase parking.  CP stated the purpose is to provide off street parking for your customers without burdening neighbors by using on street parking.  This puts the burden on the property owner by providing and maintaining the spaces that their customers will use. 

 

Chrm. Cameron feels there are other uses in this zone that have greater traffic and do not meet the requirements. 

 

Cm. Crosby stated that if Dr. Rambousek were to remodel he would have to provide the same spaces.  If she had not remodeled she would not have to bring her business up to the current codes.

 

Chrm. Cameron closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting.

 

Cm. McGregor moved to allow 1 off-street parking space and the remainder to be in the street because the applicant did not create this problem, it’s a hardship for her and because it was handled poorly.  CP stated the building code requires 1 ADA space if you are going to have any off street parking spaces, therefore the one off street space must be designated ADA.  Cm. Copeland seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. Hartwig – yes, Cm. Sager – yes, Cm. Copeland – yes, Cm. Crosby – no, Cm. McGregor – yes, Chrm. Cameron – yes.  Motion passed 5-1. 

 

B.     Subdivision application #2004-1.  The applicant, John Whitesell, is requesting a 143 lot residential subdivision for property described as 34E, 21CD, tax lots 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300 & 8900; 34E, 21C, tax lot 1000, which is zoned R-2 (medium density residential).  The application is subject to the criteria in Section 16.20, 16.104-108 and 16.116 of the Estacada City Code.  Upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, a final public hearing will be held by the City Council on Monday, May 10, 2004, at 7:00 pm in the Estacada City Council chambers.  The property is located on the north side of Regan Hill Road near its intersection with Mountain View Lane. 

 

Chrm. Cameron asked for abstentions or exparte contact.  Cm. Copeland stated his wife is on the Parks & Recreation Commission and has visited the site.

 

CP reviewed the staff report, which recommends approval with conditions.  CP stated that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council, who will hold a final public hearing on May 10th.  The Parks & Recreation Commission has visited the proposed park area and they have recommended the City not accept the area as a park and the developer not receive SDC credits. 

 

Dianna Turk stated that the City has updated the Parks Master plan and adopted new SDC criteria and fees. 

 

Chrm. Cameron is concerned with the proposal of storm drainage into Wade Creek because that creek already overflows. 

 

Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.

 

Leonard Smith, PacWest Engineering, represents the applicant, complimented the staff – they have been very cooperative.  He mostly agrees with the staff report.  The requested 5 points of access would put an immediate responsibility upon the neighboring property owners and they do not feel that this is a fair burden to place.  He feels the one point of access is adequate.  They are not apposed to additional points of access for pedestrians or bicycles, but they are apposed to additional vehicular access.  They presented a map of potential build out of the development, which shows the development starting at 4th Street and building back from there.  They stated our Street Master Plan outlines 4th Avenue as the Street we want to build to standard and absorb the traffic for this area.  They feel the proposed access points would put all of the traffic from the entire hill area down through Carol and Oakview to the schools.  They think the neighbors that live in this area would be very unhappy with this plan. 

 

They discussed pedestrian access and they do not have a problem with them as long as they can run them along property lines and not reduce the proposed number of lots. 

 

Mr. Smith explained that sewer service to the north half of the property drain to 4th Avenue.  The rear half of the development, phases 3 and 4, will need a temporary lift station, until such a time that other properties along this area develop.  At which time they are provided access to the existing sewer system. 

 

Mr. Smith thinks there was a misunderstanding as to their proposal of area proposed as parks.  They only made the recommendation if the City was interested, they could have this area - it was not their intention to force the City to use it for a park.  The proposed area would remain open area since the Parks & Recreation Commission did not accept it.  They would like to have the pedestrian accesses removed that was leading to this area if it is not going to be developed as a park. 

 

CP asked how they propose to label the open space area if they it is not open space.  Mr. Smith stated it would be an unlabeled/undeveloped area.  They are not proposing a homeowners association. 

 

Cm. Hartwig asked if there are any storm water retention ponds proposed.  Mr. Smith stated they have not done a final design on that yet, but they expect they will be required to meet the requirements of run off water. 

 

Dianna Turk, Parks & Recreation Chairman, is concerned with the proposed treatment of runoff water that is planned on being piped down to the Clackamas River.  She would like to see a containment pond for both the north and south sides of the development.  She feels that the runoff water is detrimental to the creek and river. 

 

Jerry Polzin, 450 NE Carol, has a concern with the growth of this community and not having enough R-3 high-density residential property in the City.  He would like to see future developments provide for more multi-family development.  He also thanked Mr. Smith for his concern with access through Oakview, since he currently lives there.

 

CP stated the property is currently zoned R-2 and they have to base their decision and plan on the current code.

 

Deanne Coy, 2165 Maple Terrace, West Linn, recently purchased property adjacent to the west edge of the property.  Their property is zoned R-1 and inside the city.  They have limited access to 4th Street, but the area is very steep.  They do plan on developing their property sometime down the road and want to make sure they are not going to have access issues down the road.  She would like to see the City plan for their access at this time.  She understands the concern about having the current developer stub through a street; she will have to deal with its location when she does develop. 

 

John Mullins, 701 SE 4th Avenue, is for the application the way the CP has suggested.  He feels it is rude to plan the development and then talk to the property owners about where they should stub through streets.  He stated that they would not be using his 20-foot roadway; only 3 property owners have access rights to this property.  He feels that property owners downhill from the development will benefit greatly from this proposal because they will get increased water pressure and the sewer system will be extended.  They should have meetings with property owners to discuss what benefits they can bring and get easements at the same time.  He stated CP is looking out for what is going on in the community as a whole.  He feels if the Commission approves the recommendations of CP they will be doing a great job, if they approve the recommendations of the developer they are going to have huge problems. 

 

Gary Warkentin, 32795 SE Coupland Road, which is across Wade Creek.  Wants to register his anxiety about the storm drain issues into Wade Creek.  Chrm. Cameron stated that storm drainage would be addressed later when the engineers get involved.  He asked if SDC’s would be used to handle the improvements to 4th Street.  Chrm. Cameron stated they would be.

 

Dianna Turk, 30095 SE Cemetery Road, Chair of Parks & Recreation Commission, likes the proposal by CP for alternate access points to plan for future development.

 

Mike Hampton, 1282 SE Larch, Gresham, represents a couple of property owners along the north edge of this development.  They would like to see stubs out to their property, wherever they may be. 

 

Chrm. Cameron asked CP if he thinks these access points could ultimately turn into a new collector street through Oakview.  CP stated that it is possible, depending on how the other areas develop, they will have cul-de-sacs and loops, so probably will not turn into such a huge collector.

 

Cm. Hartwig asked if there was going to be limited parking along the sides of the 28’ streets.  CP stated he does not feel that it is necessary since they are short cul-de-sacs.  PWS Randall stated he has talked to the Fire Department and they were going to send over a memo stating they do want parking limited to one side on these 28’ streets, but they have not sent a memo yet.

 

Leonard Smith, clarified that they are not dictating any form of roadways for the neighboring properties.  Their build out map showed a proposal of access that would alleviate the potential impact on Oakview Road.  They would like to see the point of access along the north side of the development be a floating access, which would allow a permanent access point to materialize by the time of build out, along with the development of neighboring properties.  They are confident they can fully meet the requirements for treatment of runoff water that will satisfy the concerns of the community and staff. 

 

Cm. McGregor asked if staff could sit down and plan out the access points with the applicant and the neighboring property owners.  Chrm. Cameron stated that perhaps they could require a certain number of access points.  CP stated that it is possible, but the Commission would have to continue this hearing. 

 

Leonard Smith stated they would agree to a condition of approval in which a study be done, with staff and neighboring property owners, to develop the best access points and the final plat maps come back to the Planning Commission for final approval. 

 

John Mullins, feels they are trying to blow off the other phases and say they will deal with it later.  He feels we will get more done if they have to do it now.  By approving the access points now, they have to have talks with property owners, and the other property owners can start making plans for their development instead of waiting years down the road until this developer is ready to develop his future phases and plan access.  By putting it off you are hurting all the other property owners.

 

CP commented on the impact of other property owners, which have been provided notice, and they should be here to participate, if they are not concerned, they aren’t here.  He does not think any of the neighboring property owners have objected to the proposed access points by CP.

 

CP is leery of making a condition of approval based upon future negotiations for access points, in case they cannot agree on a location. 

 

Mr. Smith feels an approval with a fixed condition does secure future access points.  Dictating their location at this time is difficult and unfair for neighboring property owners.  He feels CP looked to give access for all neighboring properties through this development - he does not feel this is appropriate. 

 

Chrm. Cameron closed the public hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting.

 

Cm. Crosby asked if it is necessary to have all of these access points, or if one could be eliminated along the west side of the property.  CP agreed one could be eliminated. 

 

Chrm. Cameron asked what happens if the access is split along his property and the neighboring property, then the neighbor does not want to develop.  CP stated they would probably do ˝ street improvements until a later date when the other neighbor does develop.

 

Chrm. Cameron likes the proposal by CP without the public access walkways into the open space area.

 

Cm. Sager moved to recommend approval to City Council with the conditions in the staff report, with the Parks & Recreation Commission recommendation, and with eliminating the pedestrian access points to the open space area.  Cm. Crosby seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. Hartwig – yes, Cm. Sager – yes, Cm. Copeland – yes, Cm. Crosby – yes, Cm. McGregor – yes, Chrm. Cameron – yes.  Motion passed 6-0

 

5.            ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm.