ESTACADA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
ESTACADA COMMUNITY CENTER
200 SW CLUBHOUSE DRIVE, ESTACADA, OREGON
MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2005 - 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER BY PRESIDING
OFFICER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm. Mayor Austin led in the pledge of allegiance.
Present: Cr. Marli Stauffacher, Cr. Michele Conditt,
Cr. Kay Nelson, Cr. Becky Arnold, Cr. Richard Hartwig, Cr. Ben Erickson (left
at 8:30 pm), Mayor Bob Austin, CM Randy Ealy, CR Denise Carey, CP Mike
McCallister.
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP
COMMENTS
Lt. Chuck Slaney, Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department, reviewed the March and April activity reports.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approve June 1,
2005 Council minutes
Intergovernmental
Agreement – Clackamas River Basin Water Providers
Parks &
Recreation Commission Appointment – Michael Uhlig
Fire Department
conveyance of banner poles on Hwy 224
Cr.
Nelson moved to approve the consent agenda with a correction to the June 1,
2005 minutes - in the consent agenda, Cr. Nelson had amended the April 25, 2005
minutes stating she had voted no on the subdivision but after review of the
tape she had voted yes to the minutes were correct and should not have been
amended. Cr. Hartwig seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Transportation SDC Update - Mayor Austin opened the public hearing for the
Transportation SDC Update.
Curt McLeod reviewed the updates to the
Transportation SDC.
There were no public comments so Mayor Austin closed the public hearing. (See approval of the corresponding resolution below)
Subdivision application 2005-2 – Joel Klementis – Mayor Austin opened the public hearing regarding
subdivision application 2005-2 and asked the council if there was any ex-parte
contact to declare. There was none.
Mike McCallister reviewed the application and the
Planning Commission findings and recommendations to approve the subdivision
application with conditions. CP
McCallister stated that the access road does not meet the requirement of being
at least 300’ from the closest access road but both staff and the Planning
Commission have determined that the 240’ distance is adequate and the access
road is located in the best place possible.
Mayor Austin read the statement regarding evidence
and the right to appeal.
Ken Diener, architect representing the applicant,
stated that the conditions are all acceptable to the applicant. Cr. Conditt asked what the build out time is
for this project. Mr. Diener stated that
the road and utilities will be put in right away and lots should be available
by this fall. Cr. Hartwig asked if the
applicant had contacted Mr. Mullins regarding the access road. Mr. Diener stated that the applicant had met
on site with the Mullins’ but the decision at that time was to not decide.
John Mullins, 701 SE 4th – Mr. Mullins
reviewed his proposal for the road layout (exhibit 7) and how he would like to
see the access moved. He stated that
both subdivisions proposed tonight have the same engineer and developer and
can’t understand why they did not work together with him to come up with a suitable
plan for access roads. Mr. Mullins
stated that the landowner never talked to him or his wife. He stated that the road does not line up with
the subdivision to the north and will absolutely not work with the development
of his property.
Ken Diener stated that the subdivision to the north
is completely different and not associated in any way with this
application. Mr. Diener stated that they
are in no way changing the use of the 20’ right of way that Mr. Mullins
currently has to access his property and it would be able to be used in conjunction
with a neighbor at a later time for access.
Mr. Diener stated the water would come from Regan Hill Road as discussed
with the city.
Mayor Austin asked that maybe the applicant could
take some time to talk to Mr. Mullins and try to work something out. CP McCallister stated that both parties need
to agree to talk.
CP McCallister stated that his concerns are that the
road grades would be exceeded if the 20’ existing easement were used. If you ask the applicant to move the road as
Mr. Mullins suggested, the grade will be too steep. CP McCallister stated that the road being
proposed is the probably sited in the best location for the lot.
Cr. Hartwig moved to continue the public hearing to
Monday, June 20, 2005 at 7:00 pm. Cr.
Conditt seconded the motion. The motion
passed with five yes and two no (Stauffacher, Conditt).
Mayor Austin continued the public hearing to June
20, 2005 at 7:00 pm.
Subdivision application 2005-3 – Steve Fehlman – Mayor Austin opened the public hearing for subdivision
application 2005-3 and asked for the council to declare any ex-parte
contact. There was none.
Mike McCallister reviewed the application and the
Planning Commission findings and recommendations to approve the subdivision
application with conditions. CP
McCallister recommended changing condition 6 to allow for SDC credit for the
improvement of Carol Street.
Mayor Austin read the statement regarding evidence
and the right to appeal.
Alex Hurley, the engineer representing the applicant,
stated that the applicant has no problem with any of the conditions required by
the Planning Commission findings. He
also stated that Mr. Mullins’ proposal to move an access to the west side of
his property cannot be done because the code prohibits double fronted lots and
this would create that. He would only
ask that Oak View Subdivision pay their $15,000 toward Carol Street
improvements before they contribute their portion of the project.
Ron Cauble, 589 NE Westview Lane, would like to see
the subdivision approval deferred until access is provided from one of the
other subdivisions. He does not want the
pedestrian trail to go through to Oak View Lane because it is already too
narrow.
John Mullins, 701 SE 4th, asked where the
west side of Emerald Ave. would go and what would it connect to? He would like the Council to stipulate that
the properties cannot use the 20’ driveway for ingress or egress to 4th
Street. CP McCallister stated that this
could be added as a condition.
Alex Hurley stated that they have permission from
the landowner from the north that they can construct the access if the other
subdivision does not get it done. He
also stated that they are neither in favor of or opposed to the pedestrian
walkway. He also stated that a reserve
strip is already a condition of approval to prevent traffic from using the 20’
right of way on the Mullins property.
Mr. Mullins noticed that the Emerald Ave. right of
way is only 25’ and he wants to know if the right of way will only be 50’ or if
the other property owners need to make up 35’.
CP McCallister stated that the plan is for a 50’ right of way.
Cr. Arnold moved to approve Subdivision application
2005 – 3 with condition #6 being changed to allow SDC credits. Cr. Stauffacher seconded the motion. The motion passed with 4 yes and 2 no
(Conditt, Nelson – Cr. Erickson left the meeting at 8:30pm).
Comprehensive Plan Review and Update – Mayor Austin opened the public hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan Review and Update. CM
Ealy reviewed the information in the packet.
John Morgan, engineer, reviewed the major amendments
to the plan. He stated that the traffic
study did not come back favorably with the direction of the citizens committee
and Planning Commission and is supported with letters from DLCD and ODOT. He would like the council to hear testimony
and then let staff meet with the agencies concerned to try to work out a
solution to the issue.
Andrew Johnson, ODOT representative, stated that the
levels of increased traffic with the proposed zone change were surprisingly
high. This concern is mostly with area
1. Mr. Johnson explained ODOT’s position
on this. ODOT’s mission is to protect
the efficiency of the roadways and this proposal would jeopardize that in this
area. Turn lanes and signaling would not
eliminate the problems even if they were to be installed. ODOT is willing to sit down and work
something out that everyone is all equally dissatisfied with. This is a timing issue – if there were plans
or ideas in the TSP that addressed these concerns, ODOT’s concerns would be
very different.
Cr. Arnold asked for help reading the traffic study
and help where area 1 is located. John
Morgan stated it is north of River Mill Road and south of Heiple Road.
Rory Renfro, Parametrix, distributed a complete
packet regarding the TIS and explained the results. He explained some of the tables and answered
questions from the council.
Stacey Hopkins, DLCD, briefly summarized DLCD’s
comments and concerns. The TIS report
backs up their concern of transportation issues. She stated that the statewide planning goal 9
requirements have not been completely addressed. She also stated that the method being provided
to bring in Zone 1 does not meet the requirements for bringing in new land to a
UGB. DLCD is also questioning the population forecast. She stated that since major new evidence has
been submitted, this is a good time to reiterate these concerns. She wrapped up that DLCD has four issues that
need to be addressed – transportation, population forecast, enhancing economic
development, methodology for justifying the UGB expansion.
Renate Mengelberg, Clackamas County Business &
Economic Development Team, spoke in support of the addition of into the
UGB. This move will provide opportunities
for higher wage jobs in the community.
Victor Vese, 30572 SE Heiple Road, owns a 22-acre
parcel on Heiple that has been for sale.
He stated that he had a buyer that wanted to have a nursery on the
property but withdrew his offer when a soil test came back that the soil was
not suitable for farming. He stated that
his father-in-law also has 55 acres leased out to nursery stock and the leasee
broke the contract after the 2nd year of a 5-year lease because
nothing would grow. This area is not good
farmland.
Al Rademacher, River Mill Road, is concerned with
area 4 and would like to see his land changed from M1 to C2. HE stated that his property did not benefit
from the financial assistance Mr. Park received for building the entrance at Park
Ave.
CB Stauffacher, asked why we are constantly called
upon to spend our time and money to plan our future when the feds, state and
county tell us what to do anyway.
Cr. Conditt moved to continue the public hearing to
July 25, 2005 at 7:00 pm. to allow staff time to meet with the various agencies
to come up with some type of agreement that can be supported. Cr. Stauffacher seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Resolution 2005 – 005 – A resolution adopting a revised CIP list and SDC charge for the transportation system. – Cr. Conditt moved to adopt Resolution 2005 –005 - A resolution adopting a revised CIP list and SDC charge for the transportation system. Cr. Nelson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Water
Rates Discussion – Draft Resolution
– postponed to the June 27th meeting.
Letter
to Sheriff/Public Safety Task Force Discussion – postponed to the June 27th meeting.
Events
Etcetera Contract Agreement – Cr. Conditt
moved to pay the deposit for the mayor’s ball.
Cr. Arnold seconded the motion.
Council discussion. The motion
passed with 5 yes and 1 no (Nelson).
CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP
COMMENTS
COUNCIL REPORTS &
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 pm.